Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[The Akasha Colony]

I like how Warhammer and Starcraft do power armor. Sometimes, I wonder if their armor does anything; most bullets go right through the armor.

Armor isn't designed to stop Bullet's anymore (For the most part) It';s made to catch Shrapnel. That and don't 40K Guns fire bullets made of Fuck Youem?

Space Marine armor in W40K is still designed to stop what for W40K are normal bullets. Coupled with the gene-seed augmentations, it makes them also much more resistant to damage that penetrates the armor. Difference is W40K laughs at the Hague Conventions and fills everything it can with explosives, magic scriptures, and what-not to create secondary effects.

[Yes Im Biop]

Armor isn't designed to stop Bullet's anymore (For the most part) It';s made to catch Shrapnel. That and don't 40K Guns fire bullets made of Fuck Youem?

Space Marine armor in W40K is still designed to stop what for W40K are normal bullets. Coupled with the gene-seed augmentations, it makes them also much more resistant to damage that penetrates the armor. Difference is W40K laughs at the Hague Conventions and fills everything it can with explosives, magic scriptures, and what-not to create secondary effects.

Sound's like my kind of people

[Kesshite]

The lack of absurdity in Argument FT OOC disturbs me. I demand a repeat of one of our arguments, preferably why my particular moon cannon is better then yours.

Is it a cannon on a moon, a cannon shaped like a moon, or a cannon that can blow up a moon?

[Demigueris]

The lack of absurdity in Argument FT OOC disturbs me. I demand a repeat of one of our arguments, preferably why my particular moon cannon is better then yours.

Is it a cannon on a moon, a cannon shaped like a moon, or a cannon that can blow up a moon?

Maybe it's shaped like an arse?

[Daskoxian]

Is it a cannon on a moon, a cannon shaped like a moon, or a cannon that can blow up a moon?

Maybe it's shaped like an arse?

No, it's an anti-rape mechanism placed on the arse.

[Balrogga]

Maybe it's shaped like an arse?

No, it's an anti-rape mechanism placed on the arse.

Do you mean it is a tattoo of Justin Bieber's face?

[Thrashia]

Armor isn't designed to stop Bullet's anymore (For the most part) It';s made to catch Shrapnel. That and don't 40K Guns fire bullets made of Fuck Youem?

You fucking kidding me? Of course it's meant to stop a bullet. Hence the name: "bullet-proof armor." Whether or not a certain bit of body armor lives up to that name is another argument, but yes - body armor is meant to stop a bullet. Shrapnel get's included in that equation, but is secondary to stopping an actual aimed and purposeful gun shot.

[The 44th Indp Legion]

Armor isn't designed to stop Bullet's anymore (For the most part) It';s made to catch Shrapnel. That and don't 40K Guns fire bullets made of Fuck Youem?

You fucking kidding me? Of course it's meant to stop a bullet. Hence the name: "bullet-proof armor." Whether or not a certain bit of body armor lives up to that name is another argument, but yes - body armor is meant to stop a bullet. Shrapnel get's included in that equation, but is secondary to stopping an actual aimed and purposeful gun shot.

I think the point made is that SPEAHS ARMOUR wont stop SPAEHS GUWNS to the degree that you can continue fighting, like how modern day body armour can save your life against a high-calibre rifle, but you're still probably going to get hurt - like getting a broken rib for example. Similarly, FT armour might ensure that you won't get vaporised by a close encounter of the plasma kind, but it's reasonable to expect at least second-degree burns if the tech levels are even close to sorta-maybe-kinda equal level...and capable of making infantry armour capable of warding of plasma weaponry in the first place.
EDIT: isn't it supposed to be 'bullet-resistant'? Though marketing/propaganda may have shifted that - it's not 100% failsafe.

[Yes Im Biop]

Armor isn't designed to stop Bullet's anymore (For the most part) It';s made to catch Shrapnel. That and don't 40K Guns fire bullets made of Fuck Youem?

You fucking kidding me? Of course it's meant to stop a bullet. Hence the name: "bullet-proof armor." Whether or not a certain bit of body armor lives up to that name is another argument, but yes - body armor is meant to stop a bullet. Shrapnel get's included in that equation, but is secondary to stopping an actual aimed and purposeful gun shot.

Go take the Current Military Body ARmor,
Now take 4 or 5 hit's from a 7.62 round. You will not be happy, healthy, or probably standing.
...Unless your that Marine Badass who stepped on an IED, Flew 15 feet, And was perfectly fine...

[The Akasha Colony]

You fucking kidding me? Of course it's meant to stop a bullet. Hence the name: "bullet-proof armor." Whether or not a certain bit of body armor lives up to that name is another argument, but yes - body armor is meant to stop a bullet. Shrapnel get's included in that equation, but is secondary to stopping an actual aimed and purposeful gun shot.

I think the point made is that SPEAHS ARMOUR wont stop SPAEHS GUWNS to the degree that you can continue fighting, like how modern day body armour can save your life against a high-calibre rifle, but you're still probably going to get hurt - like getting a broken rib for example. Similarly, FT armour might ensure that you won't get vaporised by a close encounter of the plasma kind, but it's reasonable to expect at least second-degree burns if the tech levels are even close to sorta-maybe-kinda equal level...and capable of making infantry armour capable of warding of plasma weaponry in the first place.
EDIT: isn't it supposed to be 'bullet-resistant'? Though marketing/propaganda may have shifted that - it's not 100% failsafe.

Bullet-resistant is the PC way of saying it's supposed to stop bullets entirely, but don't sue us if it doesn't. Just like how companies advertise products as 'water-resistant' so that people have a harder time suing them if they get splashed with water and short out.

[SquareDisc City]

The lack of absurdity in Argument FT OOC disturbs me. I demand a repeat of one of our arguments, preferably why my particular moon cannon is better then yours.

Is it a cannon on a moon, a cannon shaped like a moon, or a cannon that can blow up a moon?

The first one. Whereas mine is neither of those; it's a cannon that FIRES moons. At ultrarelativistic speeds. It also never made it off the drawing board for some strange reason.

[Rethan]

You fucking kidding me? Of course it's meant to stop a bullet. Hence the name: "bullet-proof armor." Whether or not a certain bit of body armor lives up to that name is another argument, but yes - body armor is meant to stop a bullet. Shrapnel get's included in that equation, but is secondary to stopping an actual aimed and purposeful gun shot.

Go take the Current Military Body ARmor,
Now take 4 or 5 hit's from a 7.62 round. You will not be happy, healthy, or probably standing.
...Unless your that Marine Badass who stepped on an IED, Flew 15 feet, And was perfectly fine...

Thrashia was/is in the army IIRC. I'd not be surprised if he knows full well what his armour could do. Besides, the 7.62 is a pretty big round which, from what little I know, is used in heavier non-assault rifles which are designed to beat armour. Unlike the 5.56 round.[/notasoliderIjustreadalot]

[Terraius]

Go take the Current Military Body ARmor,
Now take 4 or 5 hit's from a 7.62 round. You will not be happy, healthy, or probably standing.
...Unless your that Marine Badass who stepped on an IED, Flew 15 feet, And was perfectly fine...

Thrashia was/is in the army IIRC. I'd not be surprised if he knows full well what his armour could do. Besides, the 7.62 is a pretty big round which, from what little I know, is used in heavier non-assault rifles which are designed to beat armour. Unlike the 5.56 round.[/notasoliderIjustreadalot]

The 7.62 has been the primary round of choice of the USA's enemies for the past umpteen years, from Soviets to Afghanis, our armor should be designed with that round somewhat in mind, at least I would hope

Now, shoot a moon cannon at body armor, and one could experience a case of the deaths.

[Yes Im Biop]

Thrashia was/is in the army IIRC. I'd not be surprised if he knows full well what his armour could do. Besides, the 7.62 is a pretty big round which, from what little I know, is used in heavier non-assault rifles which are designed to beat armour. Unlike the 5.56 round.[/notasoliderIjustreadalot]

Seeing as how the 7.62 has been the primary round of choice of the USA's enemies for the past umpteen years, from Soviets to Afghanis, one would assume we've designed armor with that round somewhat in mind

Now, shoot a moon cannon at body armor, and one could experience a case of the deaths.

Isn't that moon cannon shooting Fish?

There is no such thing as Bullet Proof Armor. Bullet Resistant yes. Bullet proof No.

[The Fedral Union]

Is it a cannon on a moon, a cannon shaped like a moon, or a cannon that can blow up a moon?

The first one. Whereas mine is neither of those; it's a cannon that FIRES moons. At ultrarelativistic speeds. It also never made it off the drawing board for some strange reason.

Srs arugment:
Thats just.... Its a bad idea you don't need crap like that to planet kill or crack. A small Cfrac round going fast enough would do the same job, like wise a gamma-ray laser burst or X-ray laser burst powerful enough would wipe the planet clean.

the Idiran-Culture War was a nasty event, I wouldn't want to have to repeat it against anyone blasting moons at people olol.

Comical: if you really want to be interesting send their planet flying in to their local star, they'll be crisp before you know it! Moon canons are so last season! Get with the times, folks! Oh or just convert the atmosphere of the planet in to noxious gas, not hard to do with the right tech.. but hey if your particularly evil, and if your even more vile just slowly irradiate them until they reach terminal levels and die off slowly.


Bullet resistant armor in Modern times yes, as for FT... yeah personal shields, power armor and drones are much, MUCH harder to kill with the small caliber bullets we have today . But hell at least up the ante to a .50 cal bmg or 20 mm , I mean bullets still work they're tried and true. the best thing about bullets is you can tip them with high explosives in FT and it would be much more effective. Unless your going for pure KE Then just use a coil gun. Though my people prefer energy weapons for most everything but kinetics do quite well for some things, like missile strikes on ships, arty fire with magnetic guns and MBT's. Augment a round to have a small bomb pumped laser to burst at or over your target and its over for anyone who gets hit unless they have a cover shield over their moving force but even those can be over powered. even worse rounds with cluster bombs. KE rounds are extremely versatile missiles are as well.

Drones are the future, power armor is fun, so I keep a standing army of drones and people much more drones then persons but you get the idea.

[The Akasha Colony]

Thrashia was/is in the army IIRC. I'd not be surprised if he knows full well what his armour could do. Besides, the 7.62 is a pretty big round which, from what little I know, is used in heavier non-assault rifles which are designed to beat armour. Unlike the 5.56 round.[/notasoliderIjustreadalot]

The 7.62 has been the primary round of choice of the USA's enemies for the past umpteen years, from Soviets to Afghanis, our armor should be designed with that round somewhat in mind, at least I would hope

Now, shoot a moon cannon at body armor, and one could experience a case of the deaths.

7.62 mm is an extremely broad category. Middle Eastern insurgents (and indeed, insurgents in most part of the world) use 7.62x39 Soviet, which has only slightly more muzzle energy than 5.56 NATO, and is often less efficient at penetrating armor with the relatively low-grade rounds commonly encountered.

The two most common battle rifle 7.62 mm rounds, 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54mmR, are entirely different matters. Both have nearly double the muzzle energy of 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO, but are not as common with insurgents. Hence, it's quite possible for a vest to protect against 7.62 assault rifle ammunition but not battle rifle ammunition in the same caliber.

In any event, modern combat body armor is designed to stop both. The basic IOTV for the US Army provides protection from 9 mm rounds on its own, but with ballistic inserts can block a limited number of 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54mmR rounds to the front and rear. Additional inserts can further upgrade this protection to resist armor-piercing rounds in those calibers (rather than standard ball rounds, etc).

[Sertian]

Now, shoot a moon cannon at body armor, and one could experience a case of the deaths.

Only if they haven't come down with a terrible case of the explosions before hand.

[The 44th Indp Legion]

Now, shoot a moon cannon at body armor, and one could experience a case of the deaths.

Only if they haven't come down with a terrible case of the explosions before hand.

it's getting a bit corpsy in here.

[Kreanoltha]

Seems a bit stagnant in here. I'll throw some fuel on this. In ship-to-ship combat, what is a better missile, a unitary missile, or a MIRV-type missile? On the one hand, unitary missiles will have a high yield than a similarly sized MIRV-type, but the smaller MIRV units will be several times more numerable and harder to intercept with PD. What say you?

[The Akasha Colony]

Seems a bit stagnant in here. I'll throw some fuel on this. In ship-to-ship combat, what is a better missile, a unitary missile, or a MIRV-type missile? On the one hand, unitary missiles will have a high yield than a similarly sized MIRV-type, but the smaller MIRV units will be several times more numerable and harder to intercept with PD. What say you?

Depends on what their PDS grid is most efficiently geared for. In any event, the dichotomy between multiple-warheads and unitary warheads is not of much concern at the tactical ship-to-ship combat level, chances are you'd just want to launch more unitary missiles at the enemy to overwhelm their PDS grid that way, just like modern ships do (hence why ASMs are unitary). MIRV units also tend to have a much lower payload fraction than unitary missiles, making them less efficient in terms of cost and storage space.

As it stands, the prevalence of armored ships means that you'd be trading penetrating power for the chance of scoring at least one hit with a MIRV, which is not necessarily the best idea. If your smaller MIRV warhead cannot penetrate the enemy's armor, a dozen more shots of that same power won't help. You'd need a bigger unitary weapon instead. Same reason why naval ships have generally floated around the same number of weapons for a given category, even though the size and displacement of those ships increased considerably over time. Better to mount the same number of bigger guns with better penetration than larger numbers of light guns unless you're building an anti-air cruiser like the Atlanta-class. Also why tanks have similarly moved to bigger individual guns, rather than switching to the dual-gun concepts often seen in video games.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

If your warhead can't penetrate your armor, it probably still cleared the hull of all those vital systems that you can't really armor.

[Inutoland]

Indeed. Blind, deafen and silence the enemy, then watch them blunder into the nearest star.

[Balrogga]

Indeed. Blind, deafen and silence the enemy, then watch them blunder into the nearest star.

But they can sure play a mean pinball...

[SquareDisc City]

If your warhead can't penetrate your armor, it probably still cleared the hull of all those vital systems that you can't really armor.

On one side...

[Feazanthia]

A MIRV-style (or in this case, a MIV) will ultimately not be your best bet at getting around an enemy's point-defense. However, missile busses in space combat have a variety of uses. For instance, I use multiple launch vehicles to carry my attack missiles great distances (because of my seemingly insane love of light-second plus combat ranges). One of my capital-sized launch vehicles will carry around ten missiles (mixed between my Kuun-Lamaat attack missiles, my Osheklam-Koya EM warfare drones, and Yorlastu-Lamaat control platforms) each at a high linear acceleration. Once it's built up sufficient velocity, and once it reaches its deployment site, the launch vehicle will deploy its missiles and then go ballistic at the target. The missiles themselves are designed with a higher priority on RCS rather than linear acceleration, as they already have a ton of velocity from the launch vehicle, and are far better adapted to randomwalking and dodging incoming PDS fire until they reach their attack ranges and can start pounding lasers into the enemy or overloading his sensors.

This approach gives my weapons systems a much greater degree of flexibility and suits my style of extreme range combat much better than if I just went with large missiles.