Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[Aremnant]

So, I have a question pertaining to Loroi small-arms specifically. I know that, in the Terran Q&A thread, someone asked about their small arms and the answer was something along the lines of a improved, high quality, but essentially 21 century firearm design.

But what about the Loroi? I did look around a bit, but I couldn't find anything (though I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a discussion on this). I did spend some time looking at the Loroi weapons in the comic itself, limited as those pictures may be, they did reveal some possibilities about the inner workings, and I'll confess to having developed a few theories as to how they work. However, given the relative availability of answers directly from the author, I figured it would be smarter to just ask a question here rather than keep guessing.

[Arioch]

The Loroi in the comic are carrying blaster pistols and blaster carbines, essentially particle beam weapons. The Loroi in general would have a variety of small arms types, from slugthrowers to lasers to short range plasma "flamers."

Small arms are mentioned briefly in the ground war essay and in a few threads here (search for my posts and the term "blasters").

[Aremnant]

Ah, that makes sense. I was searching up "small arms" or "firearms," didn't even think to search up "blasters."

Though I find it curious that weapons such as carbines and full sized rifles still exist. Given the setting, where ground warfare is practically obsolete, the majority of small arms would be relegated to personal defense or boarding missions, both cases in which range and accuracy take second place to rate of fire, and by relation, accuracy through volume. I would imagine the entire infantry doctrine of most species would end up being based around relatively short range weapons like pistols, sub-machine guns, shotguns, flamethrowers, etc; all weapons that drastically lose effectiveness past ~150 meters. After all, the majority of fights would end up taking place in short ranges anyway.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I imagined the Terrans being superior to almost all other alien races in infantry roles, simply because we've spent less time away from it and still use (if slightly crude) weapons with effective ranges of up to a kilometer, compared to my previous assumption of standard alien weapon ranges. On the downside, given our comparatively weak armored and air-based divisions, any straight up fight would be suicide.

On a related topic, can you give a short description on how the weapon work themselves? Calling something a 'particle beam weapon' can mean several different things, and you've provided some wonderful physics-based explanations in the past.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I would imagine that asymmetrical mopping-up situations are still far from a cakewalk for those involved, even if the only remnants are automated booby-traps left behind when the enemy fled. I have a feeling that even the Umiak can be sore losers sometimes.

[Arioch]

Though I find it curious that weapons such as carbines and full sized rifles still exist. Given the setting, where ground warfare is practically obsolete, the majority of small arms would be relegated to personal defense or boarding missions, both cases in which range and accuracy take second place to rate of fire, and by relation, accuracy through volume. I would imagine the entire infantry doctrine of most species would end up being based around relatively short range weapons like pistols, sub-machine guns, shotguns, flamethrowers, etc; all weapons that drastically lose effectiveness past ~150 meters. After all, the majority of fights would end up taking place in short ranges anyway.

While the size of a chemical slugthrower really only affects stability and accuracy (a .50 caliber bullet will, in theory, do the same amount of damage whether fired from a cannon or a handgun), when it comes to beam weapons, size will be directly proportional to damage and power. A blaster pistol is deadly to lightly-armored targets, but sacrifices power, rate of fire and number of shots for portability. Many targets at this tech level will be armored, and some such as the Umiak cyborg troops will be quite hard targets indeed, and so for serious fighting you're going to want a SMG/carbine type weapon with higher damage and a lot more energy storage capacity for many more shots.

Also, while infantry combat is not decisive in wars in this setting, it's still a requirement for taking and holding territory, and the Loroi train for it and have their share of experience. I'd argue that infantry combat isn't really decisive today, being trumped by air power... which is to say that you can't win if your enemy has air power and you don't, but nobody can win if they don't also have boots on the ground. Infantry is still the core element of any fighting force that can't be ignored.

On a related topic, can you give a short description on how the weapon work themselves? Calling something a 'particle beam weapon' can mean several different things, and you've provided some wonderful physics-based explanations in the past.

The Loroi small-arms blaster is a charged particle beam weapon. The ammunition module contains a power cell and a small supply of gas; the gas is ionized and accelerated to a very high (near-lightspeed) velocity, probably by a powerful induction field, concentrated through a collimator and projected toward the target. The shot is fired as a "bolt" rather than a continuous beam, giving off a bright flash along the path of the beam and a loud crack. The blaster bolt does intense damage at the target site by heating similar to a laser, often creating an explosion in the target material, but the heating is through kinetic transfer of the high-velocity particles, and so is better able to penetrate the target's surface (unlike a laser which will be hindered by the cloud of material blown off the target). Also unlike a laser, the blaster will have some recoil. The bolt will also create a cone of ionizing radiation around the beam's path as it interacts with the surrounding atmosphere, as well as a small electromagnetic pulse due to the powerful electric current pulse of the beam (the latter will probably not have a great effect, as most military hardware at this tech level will have to be hardened against EMP).



Because it's a charged rather than neutral beam, there is an inherent range limitation as the like charges will cause to beam to spread. This will be mitigated a bit by the magnetic field created around the beam by its powerful electrical current, which will tend to bind the beam together. It will also be mitigated by the fact that the beam will strip electrons from the surrounding atmosphere, somewhat neutralizing the ions in the beam. But given the short ranges of infantry combat, I don't think this will be a significant problem; I expect a blaster carbine to have an effective range of at least 500m, which is in the ballpark of SMG's and carbines today, and quite sufficient for shipboard marine combat. Ground infantry might require a different mix of weapons (such as mass drivers and lasers) and/or different types of blasters to allow for longer ranges when needed. One possible range modification for the blaster is to include a laser in the weapon, which pre-ionizes the air in the beam to the target, providing an electrical path for the blaster bolt to follow.

[Aremnant]

...While the size of a chemical slugthrower really only affects stability and accuracy (a .50 caliber bullet will, in theory, do the same amount of damage whether fired from a cannon or a handgun...)

This is not entirely true- a longer barrel means that the expanding gasses in a firearm spend more time pushing the bullet, increasing the velocity, as shown in this data I just grabbed from a quick google search:
"The 13.5-inch length could propel a 168 grain Hornady TAP round at an average velocity of 2390 fps (728.472 m/s), which is hardly slow. That is only a decrease of around 315 fps (96.012m/s) from the 26 inch length..."
The round is a 168 grain .308, or .0108862169 kg. Given KE=1/2mv^2, the difference in the kinetic energy between rounds was roughly 50.17622 kJ. Admittedly, this is not much compared to the total KE of the 13.5 inch barrel (roughly 2888.5 kJ), but the change in velocity does affect the amount of lead required and any increase in power is welcome, even if it is small.


Other than that, thanks for the explanation on the particle beam weapons .

[Arioch]

Fair point, but in your example, doubling the length of the barrel results in an increase in kinetic energy of less than 2%. If that were the only benefit to a longer weapon (which, in the case of chemical slugthrowers, it isn't), I think choosing the shorter, handier one would be a no-brainer.

[Hālian]

Have loroi fingerprints?

[Arioch]

Have loroi fingerprints?

Yes.

[Zakharra]

...While the size of a chemical slugthrower really only affects stability and accuracy (a .50 caliber bullet will, in theory, do the same amount of damage whether fired from a cannon or a handgun...)

This is not entirely true- a longer barrel means that the expanding gasses in a firearm spend more time pushing the bullet, increasing the velocity, as shown in this data I just grabbed from a quick google search:
"The 13.5-inch length could propel a 168 grain Hornady TAP round at an average velocity of 2390 fps (728.472 m/s), which is hardly slow. That is only a decrease of around 315 fps (96.012m/s) from the 26 inch length..."
The round is a 168 grain .308, or .0108862169 kg. Given KE=1/2mv^2, the difference in the kinetic energy between rounds was roughly 50.17622 kJ. Admittedly, this is not much compared to the total KE of the 13.5 inch barrel (roughly 2888.5 kJ), but the change in velocity does affect the amount of lead required and any increase in power is welcome, even if it is small.


Other than that, thanks for the explanation on the particle beam weapons .

Fair point, but in your example, doubling the length of the barrel results in an increase in kinetic energy of less than 2%. If that were the only benefit to a longer weapon (which, in the case of chemical slugthrowers, it isn't), I think choosing the shorter, handier one would be a no-brainer.

A point to note is most land combat takes place at fairly close ranges, 500 meters or less. At that range a pistol is more or less useless, but you don't need a rifle with a really long barrel to be effective. Something shorter is preferred as it is lighter than a longer barreled rifle and is accurate out as far as it needs to be. There's a reason why armies went from rifles almost as tall as the soldier and large heavy bullets to rifles like the M16 and the like and smaller, lighter bullets. Rifles with barrels long enough for decent accuracy, but light enough to use easily, and carry a decent amount of ammunition. Which is another consideration. With a rapid fire weapon, on a modern battlefield a soldier needs enough ammunition for it to be useable. A rifle with a long heavy barrel is going to cut down on the ammunition a soldier can carry and still be effective in a firefight.

[nac87]

A point to note is most land combat takes place at fairly close ranges, 500 meters or less. At that range a pistol is more or less useless, but you don't need a rifle with a really long barrel to be effective. Something shorter is preferred as it is lighter than a longer barreled rifle and is accurate out as far as it needs to be. There's a reason why armies went from rifles almost as tall as the soldier and large heavy bullets to rifles like the M16 and the like and smaller, lighter bullets. Rifles with barrels long enough for decent accuracy, but light enough to use easily, and carry a decent amount of ammunition. Which is another consideration. With a rapid fire weapon, on a modern battlefield a soldier needs enough ammunition for it to be useable. A rifle with a long heavy barrel is going to cut down on the ammunition a soldier can carry and still be effective in a firefight.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't have said it better myself. When I was first in the 27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (which I will not go any deeper than that as to where I was) our Company had 5 M9 handguns (this was 2007) but by 2009 it had been determined by the Army that dispute a wider deployment of handguns among the troops in a open battlefield scenario they made little difference and were mostly useless weight and so our company lost 4 of the M9s.

However one of the best moves was the wide deployment of the M-4 rifle, it was shorter and lighter and generally a convenient weapon. There was worry about the shorter barrel leading to reduced range but the loss in range was very minor and even the M-4's max range was beyond the range where firefights typically occur. Man sometimes I do miss old E-69...

[icekatze]

hi hi

Against Umiak hardtroops, I would want to have a 50cal at least.

[Hālian]

Armor-piercing, of course. And ideally in a very high-powered rifle. You're not going to be able to kill it at point blank with a gun that can't kill a watermelon from three miles away.

[nac87]

There is unfortunately SO many issues with using .50 as your standard ammunition first of which is weight and portability of the weapon, Basically .50 BMG is WAY to heavy for a soldier to carry more than a few dozen rounds on him and the weapon would have to be large enough to fire said rounds and unfortunately the larger the rifle the less flexible it is in a battlefield scenario.

Also "AP" rounds is a bit of a media fallacy started by BATF classifications of certain heavy cored rounds and some imported assault rifle rounds (they even attributed this to the Russian 5.56X39 which isn't even a high velocity round). Generally .50 BMG is the smallest size you will find "AP" ammo in before you start hitting large crew-served items.

*Yes I am sure someone will have knowledge of some obscure round that I've never heard of before that is the AP bullet to end all AP bullets, however I am lending my practical military service knowledge here so unless the magic bullet is a standard issue with someone it means there is some reason it is not a magic bullet.*

Also just because bugs have Chitin does not necessarily mean they are armored it just to give them a bady structure with their lack of bones, If it was too hard they wouldn't be able to move even bird feathers contain chitin and they can be pretty soft.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Actually, the Umiak hardtroops are definitely armored. Hardtroops being Cyborg killing machines that are both fearsome and plentiful, though not nearly as subtle as a Loroi Teidar. (Loroi Teidar being forces of nature on the battlefield, but are very rare.)

In particular, the Umiak hardtroops will have hard armor that's three or four inches thick in some places.

First priority when I'm picking out a weapon is getting something that will actually harm my opponent. I can worry about how hard it is to carry after that. It doesn't really matter what the media says or doesn't say, they don't decide how the laws of physics work.

[discord]

nac: and i got a crazy idea of making a assault rifle sized weapon(for greater capacity and ease of 40mm integration) chambered for 5.7 FN(which is basically a smaller 5.56 NATO), it would be powerful enough for the basic infantry rifle, and light enough for sidearm and would do wonders for logistics since the troops would basically carry one type(well a few more counting 40mm) of rounds.

yes, it would lack punch to go through heavier stuff, but that is what you got the 40mm under barrel launcher for after all.

scary part, there was a rather large movement in the military to do just that when it first came out.

however for umiak hard troops, anything under 50cal is just a waste of time and likely to piss em off, to be honest i would prefer something based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000 in that case, probably adding in ETC in the mix too, for even greater velocity.
umiak hard troops, think some kind of cybernetic armored monstrosity, kinda like an IFV on legs.
and why it is not a magic bullet? size, weight, recoil is probably real bad and finally cost, plain and simple, new type of ammo, new factory, really expensive.
but it is pretty awesome.

[icekatze]

hi hi

It may be important to note that the unmodified Umiak is accustomed to a low gravity homeworld, and will have some difficulty in general on a 1G+ world. If you are fighting Umiak troops, they are almost certainly going to be genetically modified, and probably cybernetically modified too. This is a group that routinely expends hundreds if not thousands of total matter conversion reactors in combat, which requires a mind boggling industrial capacity.

If I were going into a fight with an Umiak ground force anywhere, I would expect to face hardtroops of some quantity. I would also suspect that the Loroi have had plenty of time to design weapons of sufficient power to combat such foes. Humans might need to bring their best, but we've already got some big guns, so at least we don't have to worry about lacking the capability to fight.

I suspect that a human squad trying to take down a Teidar would probably want to try their best to catch her unawares, before she has a chance to ready her telekinetic death.

[nac87]

You'll get no arguments from me on the 5.7 front, it is a excellent round and it's even better than the 5.56X45 at punching through body armor, NATO dosn't use it because Germany didn't like the treat the FN 5.7 posed to it's military arms industry as a replace to many conventional rounds.

If we are gonna talk about the umiak hard troops then we are arguing the wrong point, to fight a IFV you use another armored vehicle or gunships or both. (or at smallest a ATGM)

[icekatze]

hi hi

Well, infantry exist in the Outsider universe, and the Outsider universe is ostensibly what this thread is about, so I figure it is a point worth considering. Terrans are not going to be able to out-produce the Umiak on an industrial level. If the answer to the threat is to make more, bigger things than them, then the Terrans have already lost. (They're not trying to fight WWII again here, this is the future.)

As I said, I would want a 50 cal, at least. A portable missile launcher would make me feel a lot more comfortable about my chances of survival. If I were going up against a Teidar, I might want something that explodes and fragments at a given range, cause the first shot will likely be the only useful shot I get. (Assuming I get that far at all.)

[fredgiblet]

You are absolutely right, I couldn't have said it better myself. When I was first in the 27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (which I will not go any deeper than that as to where I was) our Company had 5 M9 handguns (this was 2007) but by 2009 it had been determined by the Army that dispute a wider deployment of handguns among the troops in a open battlefield scenario they made little difference and were mostly useless weight and so our company lost 4 of the M9s.

However one of the best moves was the wide deployment of the M-4 rifle, it was shorter and lighter and generally a convenient weapon. There was worry about the shorter barrel leading to reduced range but the loss in range was very minor and even the M-4's max range was beyond the range where firefights typically occur. Man sometimes I do miss old E-69...

Conversely, I've heard that in Afghanistan the insurgents are intentionally engaging from longer distances now because some of their old Soviet equipment is chambered in 7.62x54r, which outranges the M4 by a considerable margin. Of course shooting at that range is difficult for anyone, but if the stories are true...

*Yes I am sure someone will have knowledge of some obscure round that I've never heard of before that is the AP bullet to end all AP bullets, however I am lending my practical military service knowledge here so unless the magic bullet is a standard issue with someone it means there is some reason it is not a magic bullet.*

Feast your eyes!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saboted_li ... penetrator