Outsider Ground War

[Dragoon]

These would not prevent the enemy from using planetary bombardment from high orbit or beyond. All it would do is prevent them from using more surgical strikes, and make it difficult for them to invade.

In most cases time favors the defender. If you can slow the enemy down long enough for reinforcements or a relief fleet to make it to you then you have effectively defeated the invasion. I imagine both The Loroi and Umiak have many strong fleet formations hanging around for just such operations.

In past battles. Normandy, and Gallipoli there was a strong division in results. In Gallipoli the invasion force picked a bad location to begin with lacked proper resources, equipment,training and tactics. The second attempt to land troops behind the defenders failed due to the local commanders not moving quickly to exploit their temporary advantage and allowed the enemy to move into advantageous locations..the result was another bloodbath.

At Normandy, the invaders faced extremely well designed defenses, and fairly substantial opposition. However this time the defender hesitated due to disinformation and generally poor command structure resulting in the invaders succeeding in establishing a beach head...at high cost.

And once again at Inchon the invaders moved quickly and decisively taking advantage of several factors including the fact that all military doctrine said a landing there was too risky.

Had local defenders at Inchon and Normandy been reinforced, landing operations disrupted...As the case at Guadalcanal, the tide of battle would have quickly turned in favor of the defenders. Without ressuply, pinned down under heavy ground bombardment, and casualties rates that increase with every day your in a bad position. the invader will have to pull out and regroup.

as for orbital bombardment. It's been pretty well demonstrated that heavy bombardment alone cant break a populations will to fight. and can only disrupt not destroy a country, or planets ability to maintain it's war machine.

Air campaigns against Germany and Japan, nearly obliterated entire cities, There were more casualties in Dresden, and Tokyo Than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki . But both nations were able to fiercely resist landings up to the very end of the war.

If there was an outside force, available to assault and relieve a planet under heavy assault it's unlikely that the enemy could simply park itself in orbit and drop bombs, missiles, rocks on the planet at leisure. Sooner, more likely than later a relief force will show up and then the ships involved int he surface assault will have to pull back to avoid destruction or engage the relief forces.


So long story short.... too late

even if the defense isn't perfect, and relies on limiting and slowing down the enemy rather than defeating it completely You still have a pretty good chance of resisting an invasion.

[daelyte]

@Dragoon:
Japan surrendered pretty fast after Hiroshima, and for good reason. If the US had dropped a bomb like that every day, there would be nothing left of japan within weeks.

Without long-range defenses, a planet could be glassed in a matter of minutes.

The only thing ground-to-orbit defenses can do is make sure the planet can't easily be taken intact. If the enemy wants to destroy it, you need long-range defenses which are difficult in an atmospheric environment. A low atmosphere planet might be able to shoot at something hundreds of kilometers away, otherwise it needs to rely on warships and/or orbital defenses to intercept incoming attacks.

[Turrosh Mak]

To this day, every drop of water consumed in Hiroshima comes from other cities.

This is not true. The majority of Hiroshima's water comes from the Ota river, both before and after the atomic bomb. Here is a link to Hiroshima City's Water Suppy System webpage in English.

[daelyte]

@Turrosh Mak:
Sorry, I didn't realize that bit was from an old article. Fixed.

[fredgiblet]

In most cases time favors the defender.

I expect that we're looking more at Rabaul than Gallipoli though. Knock out any ship-building capacity and any defensive fleets and take the surrounding systems and the enemy doesn't even know that you haven't taken the planet in question. They may attempt a counter-offensive at some point, but it's highly unlikely that they would plan a "relief" mission.

At that point all you need to do is leave a small task force to wipe out any attempts to leave the planet or re-construct orbital facilities. With a full planet there's little chance of them being starved out, but they don't pose much of a threat either and you can have third-line forces take care of them on their own timetable.

There ARE situations that can come up where it's essential to take a planets surface quickly, but those will be uncommon.

[Dragoon]

@daelyte
I was working from the assumption that the long range defenses had already been reduced, and that the target was invasion not extermination.

But Your right.Quite honestly if the target is to exterminate the population. there isn't really much of a defense except keeping the enemy out of the system., or at least out of range of their heavy weapons.
Japan Surrendered, but only because of the Emperors personal intervention... A vocal portion of the population was willing to keep fighting. Then there was a coup attempt, not to overthrow the government, but to prevent the Surrender message from being broadcast.
I imagine if we are talking about the outsider universe the Loroi are not predisposed to surrender, neither are the Umiak. so sooner or later you have to land and secure the planet, or glass it and move on.



@fredgiblet

If your numerically superior to the enemy then you can afford to bypass planets, and reduce strongholds but if you are evenly matched and the enemy has a strong Fleet presence to use to reclaim a planet then it's likely that small security force would quickly find itself chased out of the system when a battle fleet popped in.
I am assuming if the enemy decides a target is worth taking or destroying then the defender is equally inclined to defend retake the system. And since we are taking about the outsider universe. I assume both sides have more than enough in reserve to mount a serious counter offensive if the target has not been reduced to a pile of smoking highly contaminated radioactive ruin.

[daelyte]

I was working from the assumption that the long range defenses had already been reduced, and that the target was invasion not extermination.

Ok. In that case ASATs can even make attempted landings quite dangerous, because you can't land without coming into range. There is very little difference between intercepting a satellite or a dropship. Potential platforms for ASATs include hardened silos (stealthy, likely to survive initial bombardment), aircraft (very mobile, can jink all day), and subs (very stealthy, and mobile).

Even if a planet's government(s) surrender, you may still be fighting "la resistance" for quite some time. If modern insurgents have RPGs, what could Outsider's insurgents have? Loroi would have an edge here, so the defenders would want to keep everyone on a need-to-know basis, because you can't mindread information out of someone who doesn't have it.

But Your right.Quite honestly if the target is to exterminate the population. there isn't really much of a defense except keeping the enemy out of the system., or at least out of range of their heavy weapons.

This is where big guns could be worthwhile. An orbital asteroid base has the size and heat dissipation to handle large weapons, can be oriented towards the enemy more easily than a planet, and would be much cheaper than an entirely artificial structure of similar mass.

Orbital defenses (or ground-based if the atmosphere is thin), can act as point defenses to destroy or deflect most missiles and kinetic weapons aimed at the planet, and can work to keep the enemy at a distance where such weapons can be more easily intercepted.

I am assuming if the enemy decides a target is worth taking or destroying then the defender is equally inclined to defend retake the system. And since we are taking about the outsider universe. I assume both sides have more than enough in reserve to mount a serious counter offensive if the target has not been reduced to a pile of smoking highly contaminated radioactive ruin.

Yes.

[Dragoon]

@daelyte

actually that was one of the ideas I had for a planet defense system. the air force has demonstrated you can knock a satellite down with an air launch kinetic kill weapon. with a little adjustment a standoff bomb could be turned into a ship killer. and anti ship missiles like the harpoon or silkworm probably don't care if their target is airborne or surface based.

a few well placed big guns, would be a good add, as long as they were well sited, and defended (just not a sure fire all case defense).

When it comes to defenses I prefer to think fluid and dynamic. adapting and orienting to a threat as needed. The fixed defenses and we'll use our big guns defense seems to remind me too much of a certain french attempt at a similar defense.

numerous mobile systems, a few fixed emplacements and a good thick layer of concealment seem to be the more effective system of defense.

I'd think a layered system would work best.

outer layer: out of system or deep system....scouts, recon craft surveillance systems and intercept forces.( a few good hunter killer type ships could seroiously derail an invasion force before it arrived if it could get into the troop transports)
Second Layer: orbital strong holds, satellite or platform based systems and a fast responding heavily armed system defense squadron

third layer: orbital minefields, orbital guns, and planet based interceptors armed with anti ship weapons

Inner layer: ground based guns, missiles, and strike craft.

final layer: anti aircraft, atmospheric fighters and strike craft. vehicle mounted heavy guns/missiles/energy weapons

Last line: ground forces. resistance cells, and civilian militias.

If all else fails scatter your forces conduct hit and run raids, and wait for your off world forces to counter assault and relieve the planet.

[daelyte]

@Dragoon:
ASAT

outer layer: out of system or deep system....scouts, recon craft surveillance systems and intercept forces.( a few good hunter killer type ships could seriously derail an invasion force before it arrived if it could get into the troop transports)

I think a serious attack fleet would require a comparable attack fleet to stop it. There is no defender's advantage here, so its just another space battle.

What do you mean by "hunter killer type ships"?

Second Layer: orbital strong holds, satellite or platform based systems and a fast responding heavily armed system defense squadron

An orbital fortress needs very little propulsion, so it can be quite massive which is a huge advantage in terms of heat dissipation and ablative armor. Even if it uses the same kind of weapons as ships do, it could have larger versions and fire them continuously without hesitation.

A mobile battle station would be a bit cheaper than a comparable ship, but could more easily move to defend other planets in the same system. It might be easier to move to other systems than a large orbital fortress as the front advances (with a temporary jump drive?), in which case it could be used in flexible picket forces?

A dedicated system defense squadron doesn't need jump drives or great endurance, since it can come back to base to resupply after the battle. Otherwise they would be very similar to regular ships.

third layer: orbital minefields, orbital guns, and planet based interceptors armed with anti ship weapons

Inner layer: ground based guns, missiles, and strike craft.

final layer: anti aircraft, atmospheric fighters and strike craft. vehicle mounted heavy guns/missiles/energy weapons

Last line: ground forces. resistance cells, and civilian militias.

If all else fails scatter your forces conduct hit and run raids, and wait for your off world forces to counter assault and relieve the planet.

What good would an orbital minefield do, other than being a risk to your own orbital forces?

Atmosphere interferes with the accuracy of orbital guns and scatters energy weapons, so these would be limited to planets with little or no atmosphere. Your best bet in atmosphere is missiles since they can course correct as they go, but the enemy has the high ground and you don't get any heat dissipation advantage.

If the enemy can even get close to the planet, they have the high ground so they can bomb any large visible ground forces easily. Any remaining defenses must rely on stealth, mobility, or large amounts of ablative armor to avoid this fate. Meanwhile, at this tech level vehicle-mounted rebel ASATs could probably continue to attack anything in orbit even long after the planet is invaded.

[Dragoon]

hunter killers would be something like the modern fast attack subs, stealthy, equipped with good long range torpedoes etc... they lurk well outside the perimeter and wit for the enemy to bring in their transports and supply ships. once the enemy brings up it's invasion transports and supply ships hey move in and launch strike and run operations.
Forcing
A) a much larger fleet to secure the transport fleet.
or
B) arming transports for self defense, which makes them more expensive and less capable as transports.

also a star faring fleet would need a huge supply force. tankers, supply ships, support craft. If you can take them out you starve the enemy fleet out of business. Or simply reduce it's effectiveness by making it conserve fuel and ordnance.

Orbital mines, are just an annoyance and stumbling block. Much like mines are for naval forces. They force the enemy to take time to clear them, or attack through cleared lanes which allows you to concentrate your defenses in those areas. add some sort of radar ( or what ever senors are in use) absorbing material and they become even more effective.
at worst it only slows the enemy, at best it slows them down enough to increase the chance a counter strike will arrive before you can secure the planet.
Since your forces know where the mines are, and you can position them outside your own orbital defense lines they are less of a risk. if you really wanted to be a pain in the butt, you could use ground launch mines after the enemy enters orbit. filling near orbit with a few hundred lumps of metal which do nothing but whiz around the planet for a week or so before falling out of orbit.

Guns ( energy or kinetic based) are best used to deny battle space to larger vessels. forcing them to conduct landing operations at a distance and move over ground into your ground perimeter.
They really wouldn't need to be able to reach high orbit, or even leave the atmosphere as long as you used them properly. the idea is area denial not actual destruction of enemy shipping.

The one big advantage guns have over missiles is that the ammo is a lot cheaper than missiles. Even if less accurate you can lob dozens of shells cheaper than firing of a single missile. As long as your guns were mobile, or heavily protected you could fire off hundreds of rounds in short order filling the approach lanes to a target with a wall of high explosives or high velocity metal.

If you wanted better accuracy at extreme ranges, self guided self propelled rounds wouldn't be out of the question. simple sensors, and flight control systems could be mounted in the nose of a round once it was fired in the right area it could guide itself to the target using active thrusters or aerodynamic controls.

[daelyte]

hunter killers would be something like the modern fast attack subs, stealthy, equipped with good long range torpedoes etc... they lurk well outside the perimeter and wit for the enemy to bring in their transports and supply ships. once the enemy brings up it's invasion transports and supply ships hey move in and launch strike and run operations.

Little problem: There Ain't No Stealth In Space.

Orbital mines, are just an annoyance and stumbling block. Much like mines are for naval forces. They force the enemy to take time to clear them, or attack through cleared lanes which allows you to concentrate your defenses in those areas. add some sort of radar ( or what ever senors are in use) absorbing material and they become even more effective.

Again, no stealth in space, so at best your orbital mines will look like debris or rocks.

Earth's surface is about 510,072,000 km2, so an orbital minefield would have to cover at least that much space. The largest Umiak warship is about 2.2km long. How dense would your minefield be, and how many mines is that? Do they have sensors, limited propulsion, and even warheads? What would that cost?

if you really wanted to be a pain in the butt, you could use ground launch mines after the enemy enters orbit. filling near orbit with a few hundred lumps of metal which do nothing but whiz around the planet for a week or so before falling out of orbit.

Putting something into orbit is more difficult than just launching it, without course adjustment it will either fall back down within its first orbit, or fly off into the night.

Also, a few hundred lumps of metal would cover very little area, so presumably you'd need more of these. At the speed Outsider's ships go, they have to be able to handle impacts with minor objects, so your lumps would have to be pretty big to do anything. Overall you'd need to put a LOT of mass up there.

Guns ( energy or kinetic based) are best used to deny battle space to larger vessels. forcing them to conduct landing operations at a distance and move over ground into your ground perimeter.

Like AA guns? That sounds like a reasonable idea, but I'm not sure about the practical details.

The one big advantage guns have over missiles is that the ammo is a lot cheaper than missiles. Even if less accurate you can lob dozens of shells cheaper than firing of a single missile. As long as your guns were mobile, or heavily protected you could fire off hundreds of rounds in short order filling the approach lanes to a target with a wall of high explosives or high velocity metal.

Keep in mind that the moment those guns start firing they can be targeted, by an enemy that can basically drop large meteors on them. How mobile or heavily protected do you think those guns could be and still be able to fire?

The setting does have antigrav, so you could just use a flying tank, but the enemy has them too.

[Trantor]

Going from past history Super Guns tend to be woefully wasteful in terms of resources and manpower. The "Schwerer Gustav" and Dora guns in WWII, as well as the aborted V-3 "London Guns" were massive sinkholes which millions of dollars, tons of resources, and literally thousands of troops were poured down.

"Schwerer Gustav" took over 250 to assemble the gun, 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack. which basically tied up an entire division to support a weapon that fired one shell every 30-45 minutes. Yes it was a very big, very powerful round but in the final analysis the guns were a waste of effort on the part of the Nazis

That´s where the Nazis fell for their own "Wunderwaffen"-propaganda. The initial "Wunderwaffe" was the "Big Bertha"-howitzer of WW1, and it was a "Wunderwaffe" because it was a GAME-CHANGER. It was able to blow up entire forts, something not seen before.
So, then the Nazis thought "let´s make it bigger" and again we have a "Wunderwaffe". But that was not the case, since it was no game-changer. They failed to recognize that (basically philosophical) pattern.
The Dora was even more a hindrance.
Also the uboats, ships and jets and all the small things were no game-changers.

The only game-changer in WW2, and since then, was THE bomb.

That´s what the Nazis, especially Hitler (after all, he was only a stupid infantyman, brave in the WW1-field, but not smart enough for higher assingments), luckily failed to see. Otherwise they would have focused on it´s developement.

So what we need here is a game-changer. The Historians have them, and they´re smart enough to not give them to the Loroi.

@Dragoon:
Japan surrendered pretty fast after Hiroshima, and for good reason. If the US had dropped a bomb like that every day, there would be nothing left of japan within weeks.

Well, except there weren´t enough bombs then.
But they got it right in their speculation, that one or two bombs are enough to persuade the Japanese that there´s a game-changer on the table.

hunter killers would be something like the modern fast attack subs, stealthy,
...

There´s no stealth in space.

And in space warfare, mines are a waste of money. Mines work because they´re submerged, and this is not the case in space. They´re more of a fish in a (dry) barrel. Easy to shoot.

[Dragoon]

all right I stand corrected, seems stealth only works in games and fiction.... oh wait there's my loophole

Seriously though, it seems it might require some serious work ( read next to impossible)to justify stealth for star ships/mines.
far be it from me to stick to an argument when it has more holes in it than the Bismark.

now I remember why in my games and writing I moved most combat out of real space into a much more stealth friendly area....mainly because real space combat is damn near suicidal in reality.

I assumed antigrav was an option. If you move your guns around. you could probably avoid any normal gunfire...if they are dropping asteroids and meteors then the guns were useless to begin with.

@trantor

In most cases the winner is the one who uses what he has most effectively. Super weapons are most always a pipe dream. to expensive, too difficult to produce, to easily defeated. The A-bomb didn't win the war..all it did was convince the Japanese they had lost it...a few million deaths earlier than would have been required without it.

[Trantor]

far be it from me to stick to an argument when it has more holes in it than the Bismark.

<pedant>
Well, the Bismarck wasn´t sunk by the shells. It´s citadel, and therefor the ability to float, remained intact because the british artillery was too weak to penetrate it. It sunk, because her own crew opened the valves to prevent her from being captured. But indeed, it was only a smoldering wreck at that time.
</pedant>

@trantor

In most cases the winner is the one who uses what he has most effectively. Super weapons are most always a pipe dream. to expensive, too difficult to produce, to easily defeated. The A-bomb didn't win the war..all it did was convince the Japanese they had lost it...a few million deaths earlier than would have been required without it.

Yes, but look at it this way: It changed all politics and overall strategy forever.

And imagine Hitler having the bomb in summer/autumn 1944, which, according to a paper i once read, would have been technically possible if the nazis had focused on it.
One bomb on NYC, one on London, one on Moscow, and the public outcry on allied side would have been devastating. The shock would have been so deep, that it would have changed history enough to at least let the Nazis survive another 10 or 20 years minimum.

[Mayhem]

For those who desire uber effective mass drivers in outsider-like universes there is a glimmer of hope in the form of 3 named future technologies:

1. Inertial Dampers
2. Artificial Gravity
3. Reactionless Drives

Insider mentions these technologies existing, (the probably of having a common underlying piece of new physics,) and sketches their requirements/limitations from the perspective of vessel manoeuvrability but does not seem to mention their weapon potential.

Simply this new piece of physics must change the rules regarding the acceleration of masses in some undefined way and so is a potential game changer in terms of mass drivers.

On the other hand, as no race in the outsider universe has apparently done so, it can presumably be inferred that it is not possible to do so in the official outsider universe.

[Dragoon]

<pedant>
Well, the Bismark wasn´t sunk by the shells. It´s citadel, and therefor the ability to float, remained intact because the british artillery was too weak to penetrate it. It sunk, because her own crew opened the valves to prevent her from being captured. But indeed, it was only a smoldering wreck at that time.
</pedant>


Bows in respect to a point well made.
Yes her hull was intact, but a few other portions of her anatomy had been thoroughly holed.

Yes, but look at it this way: It changed all politics and overall strategy forever.

Oh yeah got to agree there. Lucky for us There was an inside man on the job,other than Hitler ( heck he might as well have been on the Allied payroll)at least according to several theories on certain Nazi scientists.

The A-bomb has always been a far more effective Psychological weapon than a practical one. The very mention of it being used is enough to scare the elver loving <red>Sorbet</red> anyone with two synapses firing.

It's a great example of why super-weapons can get you into more trouble than they can get you out of. One hint ( real, imagined or engineered) that a hostile power or party is developing such a device is enough to get you boycotted, blockaded, and invaded alone.

I imagine that if the Loroi or Umiak got wind of a weapon of similar impact being developed they would spend every resource available to make sure that the system it was being developed in was reduced to gravel and scrap metal before it could be brought into service.

@Mayhem

My brother developed just such a weapon in a game we played in....remind me never to let him play a guy with weapons design skills, and enough focus on various sciences to do anything more complex than build a slingshot....

take one 100kg nickle ion slug
Strap it to a Gravity/mass reducing bit of tech. slap a high powered reactionless drive to the rear of it. fit it with a simple flight control system that kicks out the mass reducing device a nanosecond before impact.....fire it out of a simple tube launcher. I managed to get hi to accept that the weapon might be capable of reaching hyper-sonic velocities instead of fractional Cee velocities, meaning it only hit like the main gun of the New Jersey instead of turning small moons into gravel.

It isn't an uber weapon that can reduce a target to vapor but it allows a star fighter to carry a weapon of the same power as a Starship's spinal mount guns. expensive hard to build but nasty surprise for anyone who thought that frigate or corvette can't pack a solid punch.

I also use gravitic manipulation in several devices in my game world. A plasma weapon works by creating a temporary point of hyper intense gravity. Raw plasma is injected into that point causing it to become hyper compressed reaching near fusion temperatures.
The weapons use a series of magnetic coils firing in sequence ( mass driver/coil gun) to fire the bead of plasma down range. The gravity bubble persists for several seconds after it is fire. when the bubble strikes a physical object of any mass it bursts releasing the plasma allowing it to expand rapidly. BOOM BABY BOOM!!!!!
Major drawbacks to the weapon is that is non speed of light, and the bolt can spontaneously detonate, or detonate when it strike a bit of debris or a clouds of "sand" thrown out by a target ship Or thick barriers of "cool/low temperature Plasma" created around ships by their plasma shielding .
In addition since the bubble bursts on impact with the surface of the ship, plasma weapons lack penetrating power acting more like an explosive round than a penetrater. Plasma weapons are intended to damage external weapons, and systems, and batter a ship instead of doing deep damage ... that's what mass drivers are for.

Since in My game worlds all weapons used in space require some form of self destruct weapon, and lasers are limited by the environment I created for Hyperspace ( dusty, dirty, and cluttered) Plasma weapons are the primary close in combat weapon on most ships. Mass drivers..which use gravitic instead of electromagnetic system to fire...( no nasty EMP spikes) missiles and torpedoes are the primary long range combat systems.

[daelyte]

@Dragoon:
There are some loopholes in the stealth issue. Mostly, an object can be made to look like some other object so long as it has a similar speed and heat signature. A space mine can look like a rock, a warship can look like a freighter.

See Space Warfare II - Stealth Reconsidered for more details.

Also, it works both ways. The lack of stealth makes point defenses much more effective, and you can see an attacking fleet coming from very far away.

I assumed antigrav was an option. If you move your guns around. you could probably avoid any normal gunfire... if they are dropping asteroids and meteors then the guns were useless to begin with.

Not what I meant with the meteors. I was thinking that a missile could be stopped by ground-based point defenses, but a big rock coming down a gravity well is hard to stop. Avoiding it is indeed much easier.

We're still assuming the invaders are trying to limit the damage rather than just destroy everything.

Stealth, mobility, armor.

1. Stealth. Passive sensors can be scattered all over the surface without giving away their position. Subs are almost impossible to track from space, except for a short window when they surface to launch an ASAT. A vehicle at low altitude can combine stealth with mobility to some extent, and may also launch ASATs.

2. Mobility. Getting out of the way is definitely an option, especially with aircraft or equivalent antigrav vehicles, and at high altitude these can launch ASATs easily and cheaply.

3. Armor. A bunker can be hardened to the point where the planet's surface would be glassed long before it can be breached, and rock is cheap. Would work for missile silos as well, at least good for one ASAT launch.

@Mayhem:
I already discussed the possibility of "gravitic" mass drivers, and the pros and cons relative to advanced magnetic technology. They could accelerate non-ferromagnetic mass, but the fields may not be as stable which would reduce maximum velocity (perhaps considerably).

Mass drivers are known in the outsider universe, but impractical as a ship-to-ship weapon. A longer mass driver mounted on some kind of orbital fortress is a different problem, because it could be long enough to accelerate projectiles to more useful velocities, and could have a higher sustained fire rate without running into heat management issues. Without such velocities, smaller mass drivers would be limited to point defense and bombarding non-maneuvering targets.

[daelyte]

Strap it to a Gravity/mass reducing bit of tech. slap a high powered reactionless drive to the rear of it. fit it with a simple flight control system that kicks out the mass reducing device a nanosecond before impact.....fire it out of a simple tube launcher.

Easy fix. As mass reducing device is kicked out, kinetic energy divides by mass, projectile slows way down and the impact is limited to the kinetic energy his launcher put in. Trying to put enough kinetic energy into a very small mass would likely melt the projectile. Ergo mass reducing device

A plasma weapon works by creating a temporary point of hyper intense gravity. Raw plasma is injected into that point causing it to become hyper compressed reaching near fusion temperatures.

This would take the same amount of energy as compressing that plasma using other means.

The weapons use a series of magnetic coils firing in sequence ( mass driver/coil gun) to fire the bead of plasma down range.

Magnets only affect ferromagnetic materials or charged particles, and I'm pretty sure that plasma is neither.

The gravity bubble persists for several seconds after it is fire. when the bubble strikes a physical object of any mass it bursts releasing the plasma allowing it to expand rapidly.

When plasma expands it also cools, and most of the explosive force would go in the direction of least resistance - away from the target.

In addition since the bubble bursts on impact with the surface of the ship, plasma weapons lack penetrating power acting more like an explosive round than a penetrater.

Actually plasma is hot gas so it would act more like a flame thrower, transferring some of its heat to the surface of the ship. If you do manage to accelerate it to high velocity, it could have an effect similar to a particle beam.

Since in My game worlds all weapons used in space require some form of self destruct weapon, and lasers are limited by the environment I created for Hyperspace ( dusty, dirty, and cluttered) Plasma weapons are the primary close in combat weapon on most ships. Mass drivers..which use gravitic instead of electromagnetic system to fire...( no nasty EMP spikes) missiles and torpedoes are the primary long range combat systems.

If you want some hard scifi in your game worlds, check out:

Conventional Space Weapons

Exotic Space Weapons

[Trantor]

Oh yeah got to agree there. Lucky for us There was an inside man on the job,other than Hitler ( heck he might as well have been on the Allied payroll)at least according to several theories on certain Nazi scientists.

It was just Hitler. His reputation of hindering progress is legendary. Type21 Uboats, Me262, rockets, nukes. Everything. As i said, stupid infantryman, who still clinged to his limited experiences from WW1.
Lucky us. Imagine a smart Führer with engineering skills who read his Machiavelli and Sun Tzu carefully...

The A-bomb has always been a far more effective Psychological weapon than a practical one.

And it worked.

The very mention of it being used is enough to scare the elver loving <red>Sorbet</red> anyone with two synapses firing.

I imagine that if the Loroi or Umiak got wind of a weapon of similar impact being developed they would spend every resource available to make sure that the system it was being developed in was reduced to gravel and scrap metal before it could be brought into service.

The Historians already have. And they play a wicked game - they let the Loroi and Umiak fight ´til exhaustion.

[daelyte]

Imagine a smart Führer with engineering skills who read his Machiavelli and Sun Tzu carefully...

Taken from the biography of another historical leader (name removed):

"Another influential book which he read at the time was a translation of Great Heroes of the World, becoming inspired by the American revolutionary George Washington and French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, whose military prowess and nationalistic fervor greatly impressed him."

"Returning his attention to education, he enrolled and dropped out of a series of schools in quick succession; a police academy, a soap-production school, a law school and an economics school, the latter being the only course which his father approved of."

"Deciding to undertake his studies independently, he spent much time in the newly opened public library, reading the core works of classical liberalism such as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, as well as the works of scientists and philosophers like Charles Darwin, J.S. Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Herbert Spencer."

He did not study engineering, but:

"If one should ask about hiss attitude to science, I think there can be no doubt that he gave it all the backing he could."

"The national academy grew very rapidly, with dozens of new research institutes, and young people were strongly encouraged to study the sciences, engineering, agriculture and medicine in the universities."

"In another direction, science was brought to the masses, and they were encouraged to participate in it, so that not only did magazines of popular science reach circulations unimaginably large to us, but also countryfolk were taught how to make valuable measurements and observations (in meteorology, plant physiology, pedology, etc. etc.)."