/k/ - Weapons

>as to kill two birde with one stone air supply will be from firing your weapon and breathing the ttapped oxygen in the cartridges

>mags will be gravity fed to redice weight and friction from moving parts thus increasing reliability

>we will no longer issue medical kits as armored suits will be filled with gel blood clotting chemicals

Modern powders already contain all the oxygen (oxidizers) needed for complete combustion regardless of atmospheric availability, don't they?

If anything were to change, it would be the principles of bullet design. Aerodynamic efficiency would no longer be a factor so anything from wadcutter-like shapes to completely new shapes would become viable.

>>543143

In space, if you can propel it forward, it will do massive damage. Artillery will be god, most likely a cannon designed to shoot a hunk of metal around a planet's orbit to pick up momentum before launching out to impact a ship will be planetary defense systems.

>>543161

Wouldn't you get more accuracy out of an autonomous/self-guided KKV than an unguided chunk of metal?

>>543156

>completely new shapes would become viable.

>non-euclidian space bullets

ayy lmao this.

>>543154

>sharing oxygen between weapon and yourself

Unless you're constantly firing your weapon, you'll run out of oxygen. Or propellent. +1 chromosome.

>gravity fed mags

>in space

>worrying about friction

>in space

+5 chromosomes.

>no more medical kits as exo suits will clot wounds

>forcing a soldier to depend on his exo suit to keep him alive if/when it fails

Also, what's keeping the clot goo from leaking out when the exo is punctured?

+10 chromosomes. Sorry sir, you're retard. I recommend suicide.

>>543183

I imagine the military would reuse what we already have because why change it?

I think the gun would change though, it'd probably be the same shit with space slapped on it and a higher price tag.

The hand weapons that do exist will probably be modified for better use by people in bulky space suits. Think either flip down winter triggers or large paddle triggers that occupy the majority of the grip. I strongly doubt that we'll ever see anything like a gun-arm like those seen in the pilot episode of ST:TNG or the Expanse. They don't seem to mitigate recoil in any way and remove the second hand and shoulder as points of stability.

Ships specialized for combat would likely have a very angular outward appearance, at least at the front end. Some concept art for interstellar craft have shown them with large, thick, flat or slightly domed ablations shields but angling the armor in a narrow cone will have 2 important benefits. First, it will increase the effective thickness of the armor to any projectiles striking the ship head on. The second reason is that it will increase the likelihood of a deflection where the projectile is bounced off and retains at least some of its kinetic energy rather than transferring all energy to the target. This is why tank armor is strongly angled today. Except wedges or cones to show up often and turn to face their opponent even if they have to fly sideways to do so.

Assuming we're talking small arms specifically, there's a couple of things you're forgetting.

First, your rifle is going to have to be in line with your center of mass, otherwise the recoil will send you ass-over-teakettle in a microgravity environment.

Second, you're not exactly going to be able to get a cheek weld in your spaceman helmet.

Even black powder doesn't use gaseous oxygen to fire, and it's an actual redox reaction. Oxygen isn't even a consideration.

Heat dissipation is a problem, aerodynamics is no longer a problem, recoil is a problem if you're still using small arms. Honestly in space a computer and automated aiming is the best strategy; the only limit to your range is how well your computer adjusts for the myriad forces on the projectile.

>Trap oxygen in the cartridges

>Gravity fed magazines

Fucking retard.

>>543288

More likely we would fire the equivalent of mini MANPADS at each other. Theyre recoilless and have a powered range of several miles.

The problem with projectile weapons in microgravity is that any mass you throw away from yourself, such as a bullet, will change your trajectory. Firing a rifle in space would in most cases cause you to start spinning. Likewise artillery on a spacecraft. >>543165 has the right idea, you'll want a self-propelled missile.

if you're in a fight in micro-gravity and you're not on the hull of your ship with magboots, or otherwise securely tethered, you're gonna have a bad time. the emphasis will move to lightweight ultra high velocity projectiles like flechettes, because why bother actually killing them with bullets, let the vacuum do the job for you.

>>543165

I think an RKKV is more destructive, but you have to consider factors other than destructive power when it comes to defending space lanes, planets, etc. Namely an object in motion stays in motion. Using planetary orbit to slingshot debris isn't unguided at all, and can be performed by a computer algorithm- the enemy will focus on you and thus be less likely to intercept the object in question unless their computer computes and calculates where it will go. A RKKV has its energy added on launch or soon after launch. Thus there's greater recoil than debris-lobbing (which can be deadly for orbital satellites/ships), and it has a much greater "scatter" to it when it impacts. If the enemy spites you and shoots down some space rocks/chunks of metal you lobbed at them with an orbital slingshot effect from losing gravitational pull, at most it will drift into space or it will get pulled into another planet's orbit. It's easy to track. With an RKKV you have two options: Super tough/dense materials that will effectively puncture through a ship + any futuristic kinetic shielding much like a .308 round through cheap apartment walls, or an "exploding" object that uses high speed/scattered mass much like a shotgun to damage an enemy ship.

In the first case, if the object punctures through the ship, you now have a slightly slower (but still pretty fucking fast) ballistically shaped chunk of metal traveling through space, that will inevitably give someone a very bad day whether in a few minutes as they're entering the hyperlane you shot it along, or in a few ten thousand years when it impacts something.

In the second case, you've just created thousands or millions of these particles that will spread out over an even wider area and continue to move. God forbid they get caught in a planet's orbit because then they'll rip apart every satellite object along the way creating shit tons of "orbital pollution" that destroys spacecraft/satellites in orbit, potentially dooming a planet's species to not leaving orbit (if you're lucky) for a few hundred years.

Either way, RKKVs work out in truly empty space, but in context of ship lanes, solar systems, planetary bodies, etc. they fall short because of blowback on your surroundings. You want something as simple as possible that will cause as little damage to the "interplanetary ecosystem/trade routes" as possible.

>>543304

so basically, energy weapons are almost a necessity for space combat if you dont want to fuck up your flight environment.

>>543222

Lots of shit doesn't hold up in space. Red plague is a nightmare up in space, medicine loses its effectiveness in the course of days even though it would last years back on Earth. Space is not a pleasant place to be with standard guns- of course space guns would cost more.

>>543308

Yup, more or less, except as I was discussing in >>543311 then you have to deal with all the fuckery of electronics up in space (lead solder is mandatory, red plague, etc.).

>>543311

plus heat dispersion and all that. how does medicine lose its effectiveness though?

>>543313

Lemme see if I can pull up an article. Apparently oxidation actually preserves medicine, and it loses this property in space? I'm not too knowledgeable on it other than some reading on the side.

>>543317

https://archive.fo/BcCia

Well, it's something.

>>543321

bah, once they figure out effective storage methods, itll be fine. rad proof cage and earthlike atmosphere would be a start. or even inert atmosphere.

>>543317

>antibiotics

Silver.

Everything else is sourced from the in-ship hydroponics facilities.

heres an idea. electrically cocked high draw crossbows. you could ramp em up to 500+ pounds of draw, as long as you dont mind a slow rate of fire. sure, hard armour would shrug them off, but the superior soft armour penetration would be handy.

>Altercations to how we make magazines?

I always go into the fagpul offices drunk and start screaming and throwing stuff. I'm doing my part, are you?

>>543328

>Silver

You know, /k/ just gets more and more fucking retarded with each passing year. You people don't know basic science. Silver has medical uses, but it is not an antibiotic. Please kill yourself, preferably with some kind of bacterial infection. Go get some MRSA on your dick, dipshit.

>>543231

Why? Reduced gravity if not zero gravity would make the extra weight negligible.

>>543156

The more I think about this retarded idea the more it makes sense- airguns generate no heat if you wanted to put holes in pressure suits.

>>543231

>Water cooled MGs

It's not entirely a bad thing - soldiers would find it much easier to brew up a cup of tea while on patrol. Also, wouldn't the weight issue be more or less negligible in orbit?

>>543375

they do though. barrel friction m99. its just not all that much.

>>543143

Russia actually tested a Rikhter R-23 (which is a fucking weird gun to begin with even as plane autocannons goes) on Almaz 2 (with no-one on board).

Only major problem they noted was not cooling actually (as thye had been ready for it), but the vibrations as gravity dampens far more than we give it credit for and recoil isn't actually a 100% straight force easily compensated with thrusters all the parasite vibrations have to go somewhere and in space they might continue infinitely until actively compensated by something. And a vibrating hull is really bad for a spaceship integrity…