Weaponry

NeoSlicerZ

Right, the Cylons and their Basestars have a lovely bunch of missile launchers at their disposal while the Battlestars have... guns. I mean come on, in a space battle, it's kind of easy to avoid guns would it not? Wouldn't it be like a very high speed naval battle albeit at high speed in 3-D. I admit that missiles can be shot down while rounds from the Battlestar's guns couldn't be really and that it does make sense in a way as a round wouldn't lose velocity but don't missiles have an advantage by outranging cannons and having the ability to home in on the target? It just doesn't really make sense to me that the Galactica (albeit being an old ship) would have cannon batteries as it's main weapon, shouldn't it at least have a few missile banks?

c0y0te

ah, the lovely smell of a fresh debate ... I'm looking forward to this one hotting up while we wait for the next episode.

/me counts down the minutes until Fenster posts his first salvo on the technology employed by a battlestar

c0y0te

Fenster

As a true geek on hard sci-fi, I have a long and unwieldy answer prepeared...

(Info on Galactica's guns was pulled from fansites and everything else comes from too much geek know-how)

The four main guns on top of Galactica are flak cannons, while the smaller guns on the side are magnetic rail guns. Rail runs basically fire off a small round at a measurable percentage of the speed of light. You don't need bullets or anything. You can more or less put anything metallic into one and it'll work. Due to velocity these rounds are hard-very hard-to dodge at close range. More like "well nigh impossible".

Beam weaponry-lasers-are impractical in space due to their high-energy requirments, cranky maintainance, the fact its easy to diffuse or deflect a laser beam and also the fact you need to track targets (read Ender's Game for an elegant description).

So until some more exotic weaponry comes into play, kenetic weapons and nukes are the order of the day.

EDIT: Bastard

balkieb2002

c0y0te wrote:

/me counts down the minutes until Fenster posts his first salvo on the technology employed by a battlestar

twas more like seconds

nice explanation as well Fenster

TCamen

The Galactica has 64 rail gun batteries & has four heavy cannon fitted forward.These weapons are powered by three massive weapons coils.

I'm not really gonna argue about the tech, I think Fenster has that covered.

I do really like the low-tech approach to Galactica's weaponry, and from what we saw in the miniseries when it was Galactica vs. Basestar, they didn't do too badly with their cannons & rail guns against the Cylon missiles!

...the dark heart of the original premise where survival against a superior robotic enemy in a quest to find a new home and hope on the mythical Earth was the truest essence of the show.

Anyways, we're sposda *know* that the Cylons are more technologically advanced, so I think it works well for there to be this worry that if a massive Cylon fleet just FTL-jumps right on top of the Colonial fleet, that they're seriously screwed cos their weapons won't be able to save them.


Quotes are from Galactica2003.net

c0y0te

Hot Damn! - I didn't think it would be seconds Fenster, I figured at least minutes

Well - at least it goes to show that your frieldly neighbourhood mod knows his forum members!!

c0y0te

NeoSlicerZ

lol, thanks for the explanation.
The railgun slugs just looked so damn slow in the epsiodes... I thought they were ordinary cannon. Don't lasers also lose energy over distance?

Fenster

One thing I forgot to say last night, Galactica wins by default because "Enemy supression barrage: All batteries execute" sounds infinitely cooler than "Fire phasers!"

So there.

Nukem

Yes.I fielded this question and know one knew.
Right once again-do the Vipers have missiles?
If they do why not use them?

I ask caus remeber when that recon drone went off in the hangar bay-the investigater said "we are lucky it wasn't a missile" -missiles on what,Vipers

Com'on Fenster help me out

Fenster

Raptors probably. I think I saw some underwing racks in a few shots.

Nukem

Fenster wrote:

Raptors probably. I think I saw some underwing racks in a few shots.

That kinda sucks don't it.Those raptors aint much of a missile platform.Put a few in a Viper and put it up against 8 Cylon Raiders you know who would win.

See me point Thanx for the reply

telemachus

I thought that it might have some kind of correlation to the fact that only older vipers were usable against Cylons, could it be the case that the same holds true for missiles/guns. A missile would have to have some kind of targeting computers/system and if anyone can jam it you'd imagine it would be the cylons if they're capable of leaving entire fighters dead in the water, while the scope for jamming a straightforward gun awould be a great deal more limited.

On the subject of the weapons in the show those handguns the Caprica pilots use seem to make impressively large holes in things for a sidearm.

NeoSlicerZ

How is it that apollo can use his mk.7 against the Cylons? if only the older vipers were effective against the Cylons.

Peace

He says in the mini series that it is an older version navigation system... and not the upgrade Microsoft version (unpacthed service pack 1) that allowed the cyklons to whop ass so easy.

c0y0te

As long as they avoid SP2 they should be safe from the cylons

secret_squirrel

Anyone wanting a good introduction into the theory (sic) of spacecraft weaponry should read Hellburner - by C J Cherryh - covers the use of rail guns and aiming/target prediction in loads of detail. Its a damn fine book too.

Basically non-knifefight range space combat either has to take the homing approach ie missiles, or the shotgun approach ie rapid fire rail guns and the like.

Note the Vulcan cannons on the US Aegis anti missile cruisers use exactly the same approach - fill the sky with lead and hope the target runs into it.

Also Im sure I recall seeing the vipers fire missiles...maybe the mark 7's? Dont forget the Mark 7's had the same software backdoor as the planetary defences - thanks to Dr B. But it was removed near the end of the miniseries/ start of the series. Hence Apollo can fly his.

McClane

First Point, Slow moving Cannon fire vs Missiles.

Its been a while since i worked for NASA but the Galactia and the BaseStar are BIG. Big Things move slow. I've ran several algorithims and recompiled my kernel twice and i'm pretty sure a BaseStar has the manouverability of an Old Woman walking down a flight of stairs after 4 hot whiskeys while routing through her handbag every step.

Why do u think Vipers and Cylon fighters exist ? They are fast and manouverable. Battlestars and Base stars are not.

I'd also like to point out that the guns on the Galactia are imo designed to take out fast, manouverable things flying towards them, i.e > Missiles + Cylons. Did noone see the cylon fights getting "rained" on by the galactica's fire ?

Thats what it was designed for, not to hurt basestars but to take out fighters/missiles.

Fenster

McClane wrote:

First Point, Slow moving Cannon fire vs Missiles.

Its been a while since i worked for NASA but the Galactia and the BaseStar are BIG. Big Things move slow. I've ran several algorithims and recompiled my kernel twice and i'm pretty sure a BaseStar has the manouverability of an Old Woman walking down a flight of stairs after 4 hot whiskeys while routing through her handbag every step.

Why do u think Vipers and Cylon fighters exist ? They are fast and manouverable. Battlestars and Base stars are not.

I'd also like to point out that the guns on the Galactia are imo designed to take out fast, manouverable things flying towards them, i.e > Missiles + Cylons. Did noone see the cylon fights getting "rained" on by the galactica's fire ?

Thats what it was designed for, not to hurt basestars but to take out fighters/missiles.

That's the impression I had as well-Galactica's weapons were defensive and its offensive capability was comprised of vipers+nukes.

chromespider

In the miniseries when Boomer's raptor was taking off with refugees, a bloke jumped onto the craft's left wing, and Helo had to shoot him off. His sidearm upon discharge did not appear to have much recoil, there is no slide mechanism that kicks backwards to eject a brass shell casing. No casing was ejected at all. The projectile itself had a bright rocket trail, and started spiraling halfway to the target. On impact it blew a rather impressive hole in the blighter, exited at an angle and proceeded to fly erratically.

The projectile was a miniature rocket, and his sidearm is a modernized gyrojet pistol.

In frame-by-frame of the Galactica's dorsal turrets in action, one sees big turrets with relatively small guns. What's more, the gun barrels are unreasonably short and the barrel wall thickness unreasonably *thin*. Likewise observed is the firing sequence and one can see what appears to be a similar effect. An initial blast, followed by what appears to be a long straight contrail that fades forwards. An effect that seems to indicate that the Galactica's guns are based on a similar technology: rocket propelled munitions. Likewise with the Viper guns. The gun barrel walls are too thin to sustain explosive cannon fire. But they are more than adequate to serve as rocket launcher tubes. In this case, a rapid firing rocket launcher. This makes sense as a rocket propelled munition induces little if any recoil, does not require massive guns capable of containing the explosive gun fire, the ships do not have to put up with this weight penalty, and you have far less worries about cooling an overheated gun. Being in rocket exhaust for a fraction of a second per shot heats the gun far less than having to absorb the full energy of traditional cannon fire.

The appearance of the projectiles themselves seem to support this theory: Traditional explosively propelled artillery rounds are invisible after leaving the barrel unless they are tracers. The shape of the visible emission from a Viper's 'bullets' though is inconsistent with a tracer. Tracers in a vacuum do not form long glowing rocket contrails, because there is no atmosphere to distort the tracer combustion byproducts and slow it down. In vacuum all the generated glowing gas will have roughly the same velocity as the projectile itself, and thus will not leave long straight narrowing glowing tails. But rockets do.

As a side note, the Galactica's big dorsal guns seem to be manned. There appears to be a glass enclosed gunnery station between the barrels. Probably a manual backup to the gun remotes, which would be consistent with what we have seen of Colonial military doctrine: All systems must have the ability for direct manual intervention.

Johnny Storm

chromespider wrote:

In the miniseries when Boomer's raptor was taking off with refugees, a bloke jumped onto the craft's left wing, and Helo had to shoot him off. His sidearm upon discharge did not appear to have much recoil, there is no slide mechanism that kicks backwards to eject a brass shell casing. No casing was ejected at all. The projectile itself had a bright rocket trail, and started spiraling halfway to the target. On impact it blew a rather impressive hole in the blighter, exited at an angle and proceeded to fly erratically.

The projectile was a miniature rocket, and his sidearm is a modernized gyrojet pistol.

In frame-by-frame of the Galactica's dorsal turrets in action, one sees big turrets with relatively small guns. What's more, the gun barrels are unreasonably short and the barrel wall thickness unreasonably *thin*. Likewise observed is the firing sequence and one can see what appears to be a similar effect. An initial blast, followed by what appears to be a long straight contrail that fades forwards. An effect that seems to indicate that the Galactica's guns are based on a similar technology: rocket propelled munitions. Likewise with the Viper guns. The gun barrel walls are too thin to sustain explosive cannon fire. But they are more than adequate to serve as rocket launcher tubes. In this case, a rapid firing rocket launcher. This makes sense as a rocket propelled munition induces little if any recoil, does not require massive guns capable of containing the explosive gun fire, the ships do not have to put up with this weight penalty, and you have far less worries about cooling an overheated gun. Being in rocket exhaust for a fraction of a second per shot heats the gun far less than having to absorb the full energy of traditional cannon fire.

The appearance of the projectiles themselves seem to support this theory: Traditional explosively propelled artillery rounds are invisible after leaving the barrel unless they are tracers. The shape of the visible emission from a Viper's 'bullets' though is inconsistent with a tracer. Tracers in a vacuum do not form long glowing rocket contrails, because there is no atmosphere to distort the tracer combustion byproducts and slow it down. In vacuum all the generated glowing gas will have roughly the same velocity as the projectile itself, and thus will not leave long straight narrowing glowing tails. But rockets do.

As a side note, the Galactica's big dorsal guns seem to be manned. There appears to be a glass enclosed gunnery station between the barrels. Probably a manual backup to the gun remotes, which would be consistent with what we have seen of Colonial military doctrine: All systems must have the ability for direct manual intervention.

Cool post. Thanks

McClane

His sidearm upon discharge did not appear to have much recoil

Unless your packing Dirty Harrys .45 or higher (desert eagle) no handgun or pistol has much recoil.

there is no slide mechanism that kicks backwards to eject a brass shell casing. No casing was ejected at all.

So ? The French have a rifle that uses caseless ammunition.

The projectile itself had a bright rocket trail

Could also have been special ammunition thats meant to leave a trail. They're called tracers.

The projectile was a miniature rocket, and his sidearm is a modernized gyrojet pistol

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for posting it.

the gun barrels are unreasonably short

Agreed IF they were meant for long range attack. I believe they were meant for short range defence.

the barrel wall thickness unreasonably *thin*

Advanced Technology = harder metal alloys = thinner barrels.

An effect that seems to indicate that the Galactica's guns are based on a similar technology: rocket propelled munitions

What do u mean by rocket propelled munition ? If you mean actual "rockets" then i don't think so, if you mean guided "bullets" then yes.

The US have already developed a Sniper Rifle which carries a round when fired can be guided towards the target although the adjustment is minimal and needs to be very quick. i.e > Your not going to pull a U turn or even target something else. Its more along the lines of keeping the target in the crosshair. For some reason the round is also considerably slower then a normal bullet.

This makes sense as a rocket propelled munition induces little if any recoil,

The Bren machine gun pulls forward when fired because of the way the recoil system works. i.e > Recoil should not be an issue here, in the future i'm sure they will have developed ways to make recoil a non-issue even on guns that size.

and you have far less worries about cooling an overheated gun

Space = cold.
I'm not sure how cold but i'm pretty sure its a hell of a lot colder then any water or chemical cooling today.

Even if the coldness of space didn't cool the guns sufficently then i'm sure with their advanced technology they'd have something thats more then capable of cooling the guns.

The shape of the visible emission from a Viper's 'bullets' though is inconsistent with a tracer.

A tracer on earth works by burning, a tracer developed for space would obviously have to be different although i'm not sure why tracer rounds would be used in Vipers and especially not as standard issue munitions.

I don't believe your correct. The Rounds MAYBE guided but they are rounds, not rockets.

I believe the Galactia's gun turrents are for defensive purposes i.e > Raining down hell on Cylons. Plus when galactia was developed computer systems weren't exactly trusted, i doubt they would have trusted a computer guidance system for their weapons.

Fenster

Chrome: Galactica uses railguns, so there's no explosives involved-its all magnetic.

chromespider

McClane wrote:

So ? The French have a rifle that uses caseless ammunition.

Caseless rounds do not negate the recoil operated mechanism used to chamber the next round. In this case though, if my surmise is correct, Helo's sidearm truly is 'caseless' in that it leaves no shell casing behind to eject. The whole cartridge flies off, not just the slug.

McClane wrote:

Could also have been special ammunition thats meant to leave a trail. They're called tracers.

That was not it. If we assume for the sake of discussion that that what is depicted onscreen is to be considered as purely documentary, then: In frame-by-frame we see the firing sequence, the projectile flight path and behaviour, and the post impact behaviour. It is wholly inconsistent with a tracer. Tracers are basically just regular slugs carrying a tiny blazing chemical payload to make it visible. Tracers do not accelerate, but like all slugs, they decelerate due to wind resistance. Ballistic slugs also do not fly in a corkscrew spiral. I believe that what we see onscreen is exactly what the production and fx crew want us to see: A very well done depiction of a rocket firing pistol firing miniature anti-personel rocket rounds.

McClane wrote:

Agreed IF they were meant for long range attack. I believe they were meant for short range defence.

I would agree that the multitude of smaller guns mounted on the flanks are for point defense purposes, and the big cannon as likewise having the capability for defense. Flack bursts and guided intercept. In one scene the cannon fire had a 6-for-6 intercept of incoming missiles at significant range. If Galactica's dorsal cannon fired by regular artillery methods, then the accuracy is phenomenal for such a short barrel. Shorter barrel = less rifling engagement = less spin stabilization. I contend that the 'cannon rounds' are in fact guided missiles.

McClane wrote:

Advanced Technology = harder metal alloys = thinner barrels.

Granted. However, note the ratio between the bore diameter and the barrel wall thickness, and note that the BSG production crew have stated from the outset that they strive for maximum realism. Short stubby thin-walled barrels are not consistent with naval heavy guns. They are however consistent with a rocket launcher, in this case fed by an autoloader and capable of roughly 1 shot per 3 seconds.

McClane wrote:

What do u mean by rocket propelled munition ? If you mean actual "rockets" then i don't think so, if you mean guided "bullets" then yes.

I mean barrel-launched rocket propelled extended range guided rounds, like the Russian 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system. This is a rocket that is fired from the main gun of the T90. Or like the Copperhead 155-mm guided projectiles. Full fledged guided missiles fired from a gun barrel.

McClane wrote:

The US have already developed a Sniper Rifle which carries a round when fired can be guided towards the target although the adjustment is minimal and needs to be very quick. i.e > Your not going to pull a U turn or even target something else. Its more along the lines of keeping the target in the crosshair. For some reason the round is also considerably slower then a normal bullet.

That is the (Light Fighter Lethality Seeker Projectile) LFLSP under the OFW programme. It is considerably slower because it is a subsonic round with a pivoting head, and is only useful in-atmosphere as it relies on wind resistance to steer. Make it supersonic and you can't effectively steer the thing. We are discussing the big dorsal turret mounted guns on the Galactica though, and these are large bore weapons capable of firing full-on guided missiles.

McClane wrote:

The Bren machine gun pulls forward when fired because of the way the recoil system works. i.e > Recoil should not be an issue here, in the future i'm sure they will have developed ways to make recoil a non-issue even on guns that size.

If I may be so bold: Nonsense. The Bren is a soft recoil weapon- the bolt assembly with bipod can recoil slightly inside the receiver body to reduce felt recoil. It does not recoil forwards. If you have fired one of these weapons, then you would know that any forward 'pull' you experience is not the recoil, but the post recoil 'REBOUND' of the bolt as it chambers the next round. Recoil is never a non-issue for vehicle mounted guns, as they cannot direct the forces into the ground. Complex force absorption techniques have to be employed to 'stretch out' the forces over a longer time span instead of the instantaneous forces, in order to lessen their intensity. The only recoilless guns are those that fire an equal and opposite force vector, like the Carl Gustaf. Or a rocket launcher. In Galactica's case, if it were using traditional explosively propelled projectiles, the recoil *would* be an issue, as it would impart an equal and opposite *spin* on the ship.

McClane wrote:

Space = cold.
I'm not sure how cold but i'm pretty sure its a hell of a lot colder then any water or chemical cooling today.

Space is a vacuum, and one of the best insulators there is. It is not cold any more than a vacuum is cold. What makes things cold in space is radiation. All objects have a black body radiation. A hot gun barrel will radiate heat outwards into space, and hence it will cool. But one can only get rid of heat via radiation slowly. Try it. Have a white hot steel ingot in a vacuum chamber that has freezing cold walls. It will cool far slower than if you circulated water through it. In order to get rid of the heat faster, you will need more surface area to radiate the heat off to space. What happens though is that even though radiation cooling is slow, it goes on and on until the temperatures have equalized. At about 3 degrees kelvin. It will cool you way down, but it does so slowly.

McClane wrote:

Even if the coldness of space didn't cool the guns sufficently then i'm sure with their advanced technology they'd have something thats more then capable of cooling the guns.

We have that technology already. It's called water cooling.

McClane wrote:

A tracer on earth works by burning, a tracer developed for space would obviously have to be different although i'm not sure why tracer rounds would be used in Vipers and especially not as standard issue munitions.

Technically, it doesn't have to be different. Many tracer formulations don't require atmopheric oxygen, as the compound has it's own oxidizer. Like nitrocellulose, C4 or even gunpowder doesn't need atmospheric oxygen. My contention though is that in freeze-frame we see clear rocket exhaust tails coming from viper muntions. If it was a tracer, then any glowing gas it gives off would have roughly the *SAME* velocity as the projectile itself. No air to drag and slow down the plume and hence give you a nice tail. A gas tail of that form though is precisely consistent with a rocket. I contend that viper rounds are small unguided rockets, based on these observations. And what goes for the Galactica's big guns goes double for a Viper. You don't want Newton's 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' to be messing with your light fighter. Nor have to carry around the penalty of massive guns, recoil damping mechanisms, and cooling systems.

McClane wrote:

I don't believe your correct. The Rounds MAYBE guided but they are rounds, not rockets.

Then we agree to disagree. I do however urge you to look at the images yourself in freeze-frame. And assume for the sake of argument that the FX production crew are not incompetent dolts, and that what we see onscreen is in fact *exactly* what things would have looked like had they in fact happened. And from this we can treat it as a documentary and analyze it scientifically.

chromespider

Fenster wrote:

Chrome: Galactica uses railguns, so there's no explosives involved-its all magnetic.

Greetings Fenster. Railguns, eh? That would be consistent. One only needs a short railgun to 'kick out' the projectile at relatively low velocity, if it were a missile. The rocket engine could ignite immediately after launch and hence not heat up the barrel much, or impart high gas pressures on it. Hence a thin short barrel would be adequate. We can see that the projectile velocity is not a significant fraction of lightspeed, and hence a long railgun is not necessary. Likewise, the projectiles would not need to be visible if it was purely ballistic. But we do clearly see a bright glow and a tail, consistent with a missile. Specially in the miniseries' 'flack burst' scene. So: Railgun launched missiles.

McClane

Caseless rounds do not negate the recoil operated mechanism used to chamber the next round

Thats a lot of big words to say "It doesn't use gas and springs to feed the next round into the chamber".

I think you'll find that it does. (The version i've seen anyways)

Helo's sidearm truly is 'caseless' in that it leaves no shell casing behind to eject

The caseless round i was speaking of works like this, a compound of the explosive material is manufactured in such a way that it hardens around the actual "Bullet". When the compound is ignited it explodes and causes the "bullet" to fly out the barrell. This also causes gas which is used to "re-cock" the rifle and place the next round into position. It is also "Caseless" in that nothing is ejected. Thats why its such a big thing, no case ejected = no evidence on the ground for da enemy.

A very well done depiction of a rocket firing pistol firing miniature anti-personel rocket rounds.

Or a guided bullet. Bullets can also be "exploding" as in, when they hit something they explode.

I contend that the 'cannon rounds' are in fact guided missiles.

How long are the barrells ? We don't know by looking at the pictures. The barrels may be twice as long as depicted but half of them may be inside the ship itself. Think of the Aug Steyr, it appears to have a particulary short barrel but in fact the barrel continues almost to the back of the weapon itself.

They are however consistent with a rocket launcher

I think your underestimating technological advancment. Look at the Greeks sword, made of heavy iron and compare that to something like the Katana (Japanese Samurai sword)

If you have fired one of these weapons

Have done several times.

that any forward 'pull' you experience is not the recoil, but the post recoil 'REBOUND' of the bolt as it chambers the next round.

I oversimplified it but it does pull forward. You don't feel the recoil at all.

Recoil is never a non-issue for vehicle mounted guns

We're not talking about vehicles like tanks, we're talking about an advanced spacecraft. You nor i do not know what advancesments have occurred to combat recoil on weapons. You don't know what kind of counter-measures might be employed, like stabilising thrusters.

I still believe its a non-issue because of the technologies we are talking about and the fact we are not sure what would happen or how quickly the recoil on those weapons would affect a body the size of the Galactia especially when you can't discount the existance of things like stabilising thrusters.

like the Carl Gustaf

Simple but effective. A very enjoyable weapon to fire.

What makes things cold in space is radiation

Or the lack of heat ?

It will cool you way down, but it does so slowly.

Another thing i didn't know. It still doesn't discount the fact of advanced cooling techniques availible.

I contend that viper rounds are small unguided rockets

Right you seem to know quite a bit more then me i ask you this. Why ?

I believe the majority of the smaller guns on the galactia are for short range defensive purposes in that they fire flak in a general direction and "rain" upon the enemy and any missiles that are fired.

Why bother with rockets ? and why bother with unguided rockets at that ?
The Vipers rate of fire is far too fast for rockets and i don't believe that the systems needed to cool and the recoil system would be that demanding when the rounds don't appear to be huge. Take a modern day fighter jets guns for example.

NeoSlicerZ

also one thing i've noticed, the Vipers don't seem to lose momentum when they fire their rounds. Odd as it's mentioned that they don't use their engines continuously.

chromespider

- Caseless rounds do not negate the recoil operated mechanism used to chamber the next round

Thats a lot of big words to say "It doesn't use gas and springs to feed the next round into the chamber".

I think you'll find that it does. (The version i've seen anyways)

As I said, caseless rounds do NOT negate the recoil. Said mechanism (either spring or gas operated) would still be necessary.

The caseless round i was speaking of works like this, a compound of the explosive material is manufactured in such a way that it hardens around the actual "Bullet". When the compound is ignited it explodes and causes the "bullet" to fly out the barrell.

Quibble: Actually, early tests used molded gunpowder, later caseless rounds used HITP (High Ignition Temperature Propellant) to reduce accidental discharge and 'cookoff' problems. The propellant is molded as rectangular blocks, and can be cast with the bullet already integral to it, or that can come later. It is suficiently inert to be machined, like engine epoxy. This was developed by GSHG (Gesellschaft für Hülsenlose Gewehrsysteme / Corporation for Caseless Rifle Systems) for the GL11 rifle.

Thats why its such a big thing, no case ejected = no evidence on the ground for da enemy.

That was not even a concern. The primary reason for caseless ammunition was in eliminating the need to extract a spent shell, and to eject said shell. Hence it shortens the firing cycle from 7 steps to 5. The need for an ejection port is likewise mooted. The elimination of the brass shells also greatly reduced the amount of dead mass and space taken up by the cartridges. A cylindrical cartridge does not pack as efficiently in a magazine as a rectangular cartridge, cylindrical cartridges can also shift, potentially causing a misfeed and jamming. The elimination of the cylindrical cartridge casing allows for carrying much more ammunition for equivalent mass and volume. Not leaving cases on the ground was not even in the design requirement.

Or a guided bullet. Bullets can also be "exploding" as in, when they hit something they explode.

Guided bullets do not leave rocket flame trails, and they do not do u-turns. As I have said before, please re-watch the scene frame by frame. The bullet Helo fired changed from a flat trajectory to a corkscrew flight path halfway to the target, which is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a ballistic slug, caseless or not caseless. It also exited the target at an angle, then flew *BACK*. This is clearly seen in the frames, and is indisputable. Watch the scene.

How long are the barrells ? We don't know by looking at the pictures. The barrels may be twice as long as depicted but half of them may be inside the ship itself. Think of the Aug Steyr, it appears to have a particulary short barrel but in fact the barrel continues almost to the back of the weapon itself.

We were discussing the Galactica's big guns, yes? Those are on turrets, are they not? We can bloody well SEE how big the turret is, and how long the barrels are in relation to said turret. The barrels CANNOT be longer than the total combined length of the barrel in retracted position PLUS the remaining length of the turret behind said barrel. It is a short barreled weapon in relation to bore diameter. Look at the pictures.

I think your underestimating technological advancment. Look at the Greeks sword, made of heavy iron and compare that to something like the Katana (Japanese Samurai sword)

As I said, granted. It is quite POSSIBLE that they have uber-metallurgy and capable of making super-strong gun barrels. I merely noted that the gun barrels appear to be better suited as a rocket launcher tube, possibly with a launching cartridge charge such as is used with ALL the design variants of the LFLSP.

I oversimplified it but it does pull forward. You don't feel the recoil at all.

I presume you fired it in prone position with the bipod extended and locked? Most of the recoil would then have been translated to the ground. That you do not feel the recoil does not mean it is absent. Try firing it from the hip. All conventional explosively driven projectile weapons have recoil unless it vents a portion of the explosive charge backwards to counteract it.

We're not talking about vehicles like tanks, we're talking about an advanced spacecraft. You nor i do not know what advancesments have occurred to combat recoil on weapons. You don't know what kind of counter-measures might be employed, like stabilising thrusters.

I do know that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one does not chuck out the laws of physics. Guns have recoil. The bigger and faster the projectile, the bigger the recoil. You can delay the perceived recoil by stretching it out over the absorption time such that the percieved intensity is lowered, but the TOTAL rearward forces must in the end be equal and opposite to that of the imparted momentum on the projectile.

I still believe its a non-issue because of the technologies we are talking about and the fact we are not sure what would happen or how quickly the recoil on those weapons would affect a body the size of the Galactia especially when you can't discount the existance of things like stabilising thrusters.

Granted, and agreed. For the mass of Galactica, the specific impulse would be small. However, this does NOT negate the requirement for a much more massive support structure, recoil absorption mechanisms, and higher inertia on the turrets.


- What makes things cold in space is radiation

Or the lack of heat ?

Heat is atomic motion. A vacuum is by definition a lack of atoms, yes? There is NOTHING there. Hence there is nothing to pass the heat onto by conduction or convection. A hot gun barrel in atmosphere conducts the heat through the air, and hot air rises, bringing more cool air to the barrel. This is convection. In vacuum, you get neither, hence: radiation is the ONLY passive way to get rid of heat.

It still doesn't discount the fact of advanced cooling techniques availible.

Granted, they MIGHT have advanced cooling techniques. Most likely, in fact. However, a water jacket in the rear half of the barrel inside the turret is more than adequate. If no advanced techniques are required, then Occam's Razor stipulates that it is unnecessary.


- I contend that viper rounds are small unguided rockets

Right you seem to know quite a bit more then me i ask you this. Why ?

Why is secondary to how. The depicted images clearly show a glowing rocket exhaust plume and a contrail. HOW would a ballistic slug produce said effect? It cannot. A tracer would not produce that effect in vacuum. The visual evidence clearly supports a rocket propelled munition. The why has already been explicated in a previous post.

I believe the majority of the smaller guns on the galactia are for short range defensive purposes in that they fire flak in a general direction and "rain" upon the enemy and any missiles that are fired.

Agreed.

Why bother with rockets ? and why bother with unguided rockets at that ?

Rockets the size of bullets are potentially just as easy and economical to manufacture as regular bullets, given mass production. They impart negligible recoil, require simple, cheap launcher systems that can be made far lighter and need little cooling than a regular gun. An unguided spin stabilized rocket is just as ballistic as an unguided spin stabilized slug. It also makes more sense in a zero-g vacuum environment.

The Vipers rate of fire is far too fast for rockets and i don't believe that the systems needed to cool and the recoil system would be that demanding when the rounds don't appear to be huge. Take a modern day fighter jets guns for example.

A modern day fighter's guns are cooled by the atmosphere. They also have big wings that act as stabilizers in an atmosphere. Even tiny forces will affect the stability of craft that are in vacuum. No air, wings are useless, there goes all your stability unless you use your RCS (reaction control system) constantly to maintain attitude. This of course would not be necessary when flying straight in a ballistic trajectory.

As for rate of fire, there is no inherent limitation to a rocket launcher's rate of fire other than the exit velocity. If the previous rocket projectile can clear the barrel before the next round is fired, then it is adequate. If we use for example an M72 LAW rocket for reference, it has a muzzle velocity of ~145 metres per second. If we assume that the Viper's munitions are NO BETTER than that early '60s munition, and that the Viper's gun barrels are about 2 metres long, then we have a conservative potential firing rate of 72 rounds per second. That translates to over 2000 rounds per minute firing rate. For early 1960s 66mm disposable shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets. I will hazard that Colonial Vipers might have better tech than what was used in Vietnam. The shaped charge warhead wouldn't hurt either. : )

McClane

caseless rounds do NOT negate the recoil.

I obviously didn't read that properly sorry. No its doesn't take away the recoil. But that wasn't my point.

My point was that handguns cause very little recoil (like the BAP for example) Unless your packing some serious calibre.

ctually, early tests used molded gunpowder

I never said it didn't use gunpowder.

High Ignition Temperature Propellant

Explosive compound ...

We seem to be stating a lot of the same things except you insist on going into more detail.

That was not even a concern.

That i take issue with. Granted its not the greatest advantage but how can you underestimate leaving round shells lying around for the enemy ? For god sake your talking about a profession where you have to take a **** in a plastic bag and take it with you in case the enemy spots it.

Not leaving cases on the ground was not even in the design requirement

But IS it an advantage and a large one at that ?

The bullet Helo fired changed from a flat trajectory to a corkscrew flight path halfway to the target, which is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a ballistic slug, caseless or not caseless. It also exited the target at an angle, then flew *BACK*.

For your first few points about the weapon i stated alternatives to a rocket and then i accepted that Helo's handgun must have fired a rocket.

Take the time to read please.

The barrels CANNOT be longer than the total combined length of the barrel in retracted position PLUS the remaining length of the turret behind said barrel.

Why ?

uber-metallurgy

I love the word uber, i'm gonna use that from now on. :cool:

I presume you fired it in prone position with the bipod extended and locked?

No i had one in each arm and let rip in the general direction of ballyshannon when the officers weren't watching. :rolleyes:

Yes in the prone position.

And yes i understand that the ground is absorbing a lot of the recoil but i believe my point was that there are ways to counter-act recoil and in the bren guns case it is the ground.

I do know that,

You know what kind of measures are employed to combat recoil on the Galactia ? Please share.

p.s > If you were stating you "know" what would happen in space if a weapon like that was fire then:
1. You don't know what kind of weapon it was and what counter-measures they have employed.
2. If you are stating that u know what would happen to a large sized craft like the Galactia firing a gun like that in space without any advanced measures availible using todays technologies for the weapon then your probably right.

But we're not talking about deploying navy guns on a Battlestar where we "believe" there are no recoil counter-measures availible.

negate the requirement for a much more massive support structure

Who knows There might be metal that can be as thin as a cd and block an 84mm anti-tank weapon from today.

There is NOTHING there. Hence there is nothing to pass the heat onto by conduction or convection

Why can't u just say "Space is cold" ??? :cool:

The depicted images clearly show a glowing rocket exhaust plume and a contrail.

The Vipers fire rate is clearly similiar to a machine gun on a modern day jet fighter. I don't believe that it would be a particularly bright idea to have rockets.

IF they were rockets then why not guided rockets ? That would be the main advantage over bullets would it not ?

It also makes more sense in a zero-g vacuum environment

How does it make more sense ? When you fire a bullet in space (lets assume here cause i really don't know) it should continue at the same speed and trajectory as it was launched at until another gravitational force acts upon it. Why would a fuelled rocket-bulet make more sense.

M72 LAW rocket for reference, it has a muzzle velocity of ~145 metres per second. If we assume that the Viper's munitions are NO BETTER than that early '60s munition, and that the Viper's gun barrels are about 2 metres long, then we have a conservative potential firing rate of 72 rounds per second.

I bow to your superior knowledge of stuff.

chromespider

We seem to be stating a lot of the same things except you insist on going into more detail.

Noted. Engineers tend to quibble over details. Drives the wife nuts....

That i take issue with. Granted its not the greatest advantage but how can you underestimate leaving round shells lying around for the enemy ? For god sake your talking about a profession where you have to take a **** in a plastic bag and take it with you in case the enemy spots it.

Well, the HK-G11, Steyr Mannlicher, AAI-SBR and other similar contestants in the ACR prize weren't designed for special ops, but for the regular soldier. Hence the enhanced-concealable advantage wasn't emphasized or even in the requirements. Though I do understand that the advantages of this design would translate well to an initial deployment with specialized forces.

But IS it an advantage and a large one at that?

Agreed. Assuming of course they can work the kinks out. Without a brass shell to seal the breech during propellant detonation, chamber leakage as well as unburned propellant contamination of the firing mechanism were encountered. Likewise, without the brass shell absorbing a significant amount of the heat and then being ejected out of the gun, all the heat of weapons fire was retained in the rifle. There is also increased chemical scoring and residue buildup in the firing chamber due to direct contact with the exploding propellant. Unlike the barrel, which at least get 'wiped clean' by the next round's slug, the firing chamber does not. It's a tricky problem, with concerns that long term use could lead to increased jamming in the field.

For your first few points about the weapon i stated alternatives to a rocket and then i accepted that Helo's handgun must have fired a rocket.
Take the time to read please.

Noted. I apologize.



-The barrels CANNOT be longer than the total combined length of the barrel in retracted position PLUS the remaining length of the turret behind said barrel.

Why ?

The Galactica's dorsal turrets must house part of the barrel, yes? We can see in the firing sequence that the barrel retracts partway into the turret immediately after firing. Hence one can conclude that the total length of the barrel cannot be longer than this exposed retracted length plus the length of the turret. For if the barrel were longer than this, then the receiver must stick out the rear of the turret, and we have some pretty good video footage of the rear of said turret during a firing sequence and no receiver pokes out post-firing.

p.s > If you were stating you "know" what would happen in space if a weapon like that was fire then:

Number 2.

Who knows There might be metal that can be as thin as a cd and block an 84mm anti-tank weapon from today.

That would be inconsistent, as well as being physically impossible.

It is inconsistent because: If they had such super-strong materials in a 50yo ship, then it would be reasonable to assume that the Cylons have something at least equivalent if not better. Their ships would have been bulletproof, unless the Vipers and the flank railguns were shooting miniature nukes.

It is physically impossible because: The stronger the interatomic bonds in a material, the harder it is. And the strongest chemical bond is a trivalent, present in diamond. However, hardness is not toughness. You could shatter a thin sheet of diamond with a hammer. This is because, though it is hard, it is not tough. Toughness is the ability to absorb an impact, usually by deflecting. Like hitting a steel plate. It will dent. The denting absorbs part of the energy, the material deforms, and hence it doesn't shatter. However, there is a limit to how far a material can deform before it tears. Softer materials deform more readily, so you could use something like chewing gum or tar, and you can hit that with a hammer all day, no problem. But it won't stop a bullet. A 2mm thick material, no matter what it's made of, if it is held together by interatomic bonds, then its breaking limit is the strength of those bonds, and those bonds have finite strength. Hence said 2mm anti-tank-proof material is not even theoretically possible. Now, if it were NOT made of a material that is held together by electron valence, but was instead held together by the strong nuclear force present in the nucleus of an atom, then said hypothetical material can stand up to even point-blank 120mm main gun fire. Said material exists. It is called neutronium, and is known to exist only in neutron stars...

Why can't u just say "Space is cold" ???

Because technically, it isn't.

IF they were rockets then why not guided rockets ? That would be the main advantage over bullets would it not ?

Why indeed. I don't know. Maybe because guided target seeking projectiles would need onboard processors that might get compromised by advanced Cylon ECM?

To reiterate: I am merely going by what is depicted onscreen and treating it as a straight documentary. The video footage clearly shows rocket contrails, so I hypothesize that they use rockets, as it fits the available evidence. There is however no evidence that I am aware of to indicate that the Viper's projectiles are guided. Hence I conclude that they are unguided unless and until confronted by new video footage that shows otherwise. And I agree that 40mm unjammable target seeking guided rockets would kick ass. : )

Why would a fuelled rocket-bulet make more sense.

Negligible recoil, light simple guns, negligible effect on the firing platform, the potential to have a higher ultimate projectile velocity without the penalty of truly massive propellant charges detonating inside a complimentarily massive gun, etc. If you can save 200kg on the gun, you can carry 200 more 1kg rocket propelled slugs. And of course, as you pointed out, the potential for using target seeking guided rockets.

McClane

Well, the HK-G11, Steyr Mannlicher, AAI-SBR and other similar contestants in the ACR prize weren't designed for special ops, but for the regular soldier.

Yes but even the regular soldier has to conform to the "no leaving evidence" rule. In the field if you are part of a section scouting away from your platoon you can't leave evidence you were there for the enemy to come round and find it. Its not as emphasised as special forces but it still exists.

About the weapons, yes they were designed for the regular soldier. I am sick of hearing how the sights on the aug are set at 300m for a man to occupy the inner circle.

Still they are still used for the Special Forces, SAS use Steyr AUG from time to time.

and we have some pretty good video footage of the rear of said turret during a firing sequence and no receiver pokes out post-firing

Perhaps its somewhere we can't see ? I'm not familiar with the footage your talking about but perhaps the barrell extends under the floor or into the roof from the position you are talking about.

It is physically impossible because:

Said material exists. It is called neutronium, and is known to exist only in neutron stars

Its said to be pretty heavy isn't it ?

Thats my point, advanced space guys = advanced technically all across the board.

Because technically, it isn't.

How would u define "cold" then ? Cold is lack of heat to me.

secret_squirrel

One thing to note guys is that BSG seems determinly low tech for most things - whether this is to reduce cylon influences or a true reflection of their level of technology is open to interpretation. Personally I would assume they arent much more advanced than us in most areas (say 50-100 years-ish) the only really high tech stuff we have seen are the Starship drives and the FTL jumps. If you look at say some of the corridor supports on Galactica they look like concrete for instance!

Personally I would go for the simplest solution for their weapons systems that are consistent with the evidence from the series.

Mantel

Might be something might not, in the pilot when they start heading to Ragnar anchorage in the nebula all they talk about is warheads "50 pallets of class D warheads in storage there, they should also have all the missiles and small arms munitions we nee...."

How would u define "cold" then ? Cold is lack of heat to me.

Heat is transfered in three main ways (junior cert science time!)

convetion: In the convection process heat rises pushing cold material aside and downwards. Scince there is nowhere to rise to in space covection does not take place, never mind the fact there isn't enough material floating around out there to make it happen.

conduction: you heat one end of an object and the heat transfers to the other. i.e. the rest of the battlestar starts to get hot, nice if you like it.

and lastly radiation which is how heat moves about in space when there's no medium to help it along.

The shuttle for example dumps excess heat by radiating the heat as infrared light. I'd say the battlestar dumps heat in a similar way.

---

I'm not totally sure about this "space is not cold" a vacuum doesn't have a tempture but when you put material out there it tends to get quite cold, perhaps due to lack of other things around it to keep the heat in or something. For that I'll have to spend more than five minutes with google.com. Could be to do with the fact you can get insanly high on the hot side of things but you have to stop at a point when you get to the cold side of things. Plus it's all subjective.

---

As for the recoil, they seem to have gravity under control on the battlestar, there hasn't been any wacky scenes where adama is standing on the ceiling giving orders or the buckles on the presidents shoes have come undone and she's floating about. They could have a few handy devices that pull the gun the other way when it fires to reduce the recoil.

McClane

that BSG seems determinly low tech for most things

Galactia is supposed to be low-tech. All the craic about not having networked computers onboard etc. I'd say it was low-tech the day it was built for them guys but it was by design.

Heat is transfered in three main ways (junior cert science time!)

I know how heat is transferred. I'm asking why do we have to make such a bloody song and dance about the details. Put something in space and it gets cold! Its a simple explanation but a correct one.

secret_squirrel

McClane wrote:

I know how heat is transferred.

But the point that was being made was that in space the only way heat is transfered is by radiation - which is a fairly slow process. Which means hot things tend to stay hot and cold things tend to stay cold. For instance you could have a satellite that is in sunlight and at 100C and the rear side of it is in shadow and -100C.

McClane wrote:

Galactia is supposed to be low-tech.

Also if you see the planetside scenes on BSG - the tech is no more advanced there. Particularly the Military Base scenes and the caprica scenes. Its not just restricted to the warships designed to fight electronic warfare from the cylons.