CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
How would combat evolve as to varying degrees it may also account for things like heat and radiation based attacks?
What If? "Energy Barriers" were created that could block bullets and other fast-projectiles, but not melee attacks?
- Thread starter CarlManvers2019
- Start date
Depends. Can they be 'beaten down' with repeated hits like say Halo? Or too powerful for that from modern day small arms? Also how expensive and or widespread is such a system?
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Beaten down with enough firepower from modern small arms
Helps if it’s rapid fire
Costs as much as say, $100-$200 at cheapest and that’s not accounting for MODs or ones that are meant to take more firepower
I’m kinda thinking of Borderlands’ shields when I say MODs
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
5-10 and that’s not accounting for the relatively quick videogame speed recharge if they hide behind cover
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The next generation of military rifles, all designed to fire a 10 round burst with a tiny pattern, soon make their appearance. Training to acquaint soldiers with how to punch through shields ensues. Soldiers have to carry vastly more ammo now, and complain bitterly about it. They're not going to switch back to swords if a measly 5-10 bullets will take a shield down, though. If it's a matter of total impacts there may be a switch to small caliber high-firing-rate weapons or possibly auto-shotguns designed to fire a couple of shot rounds to dispel the shield with the third one being a slug round to do the killing. If the shield works off total KE we may see bigger bore guns reminiscent of the old school Jagers they built to hunt Grizzly Bears, which will be designed to punch through a shield and person in one shot.
The more interesting development will be if the shields can be scaled up, in which case engineers are going to have to figure out how to make a tank with a fully-automatic cannon for punching through tank and bunker shields. It's probably mechanically doable but I don't envy them trying to make a mechanism that can handle that kind of stress.
The more interesting development will be if the shields can be scaled up, in which case engineers are going to have to figure out how to make a tank with a fully-automatic cannon for punching through tank and bunker shields. It's probably mechanically doable but I don't envy them trying to make a mechanism that can handle that kind of stress.
Then the system quite literally becomes a serious game changer in ways I can barely comprehend. I know it'll create a new arms race. Our current generation rifles increase incrementally every so often. But there is no question a weapon, say a circa 2010 to 2020 is clearly better in every way than a weapon from the 80s to 90s, which are also better than weapons from 20 years before that and so on. The only thing thats really brought about rapid development in weapons is war or approaching conflict. The Development of certain body armors has to also spurred weapons development but only to a smaller degree and that was usually focused in new kind of armor piercing round.
But this? This changes basic defense against incoming fire in a very real way. This may be the thing that explodes the development of new kinds of personal defense weapons. New rifles, new gun powders, new rounds. All with the express purpose, of defeating these new shields. Beyond that, its hard to say. But for 200 dollars a pop you could see the US Government field its troops with these and Police units given these to reduce the dangers they face. Might make some of the more gun happy ones a little less likely to go for their guns but that's another argument. Beyond that...it changes things in every conceivable way.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
@Spartan303
Say, how would putting them on a high speed aircraft go? Would the barriers somehow smash the jet itself somehow?
Also, could it be possible to try and adjust it to make it account for extremely low-speed objects?
Say, how would putting them on a high speed aircraft go? Would the barriers somehow smash the jet itself somehow?
Also, could it be possible to try and adjust it to make it account for extremely low-speed objects?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
One thing this might do is give real teeth to "10 round magazine" bands that are getting torn down right now. Currently these are a feel good measure that provably doesn't do much. However, if a shield would soak that many rounds it makes reducing magazines to less than it takes to pierce a shield somewhat logical. It hoses self defense of course but that's always been the goal.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Just made me think, how'd this affect Gun Laws or self-defence
Would it be legal for civilians to own them? It'd almost be like banning plexiglass
And this may mean you needs guns that shoot more bullets than a revolver or pistol or a shotgun
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Is it just the number of projectiles that allow them to overcome the force field? If so, maybe they will design bullets that fragments as some point during their flight. That or smaller bullets shot at rapid rates or maybe even multiple barrels shooting at the same time. I don’t think that this would make melee combat much more important on the battlefield. It might, however, make civilian combat (including police) more close combat intensive.
First world countries would have an easier time adapting to this. Third world nations, not so much. American soldiers facing AK-47 fire would now be considerably safer. Snipers might be a lot less effective too. I suppose that explosive can overcome the force field, either through brute force or effectively more than 5 projectiles.
First world countries would have an easier time adapting to this. Third world nations, not so much. American soldiers facing AK-47 fire would now be considerably safer. Snipers might be a lot less effective too. I suppose that explosive can overcome the force field, either through brute force or effectively more than 5 projectiles.
Last edited:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
I was admittedly thinking of video games when I thought this up, the more impact, that could be followed up by extra shooting, the more the shield gets depleted
If you really want to kill someone in one shot, either get a bazooka or get a VERY high caliber pistol or shotgun and shoot at VERY close range
ShieldWife
Marchioness
If a high caliber pistol can overcome the force field, then I don’t think we need a bazooka. Even those super high powered pistols have similar energy as a rifle firing a .30-06 which is the standard hunting rifle round and similar to some weapons used by the military.
Maybe you should bump up the power of those shields a bit, so that you essentially need anti-tank weaponry to overcome them at a range.
Speaking of tanks, if a human portable force field can stop most small arm fire, what can one of these force fields do when you scale them up and mount them on vehicles?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Yeah, if a high caliber pistol can punch through it in one shot most rifles will be able to. An .50 Action Express round fired from a Desert Eagle has about 2032 joules of kinetic energy. That's only about the halfway mark for most rifles.
There's a useful tool here which lets you calculate kinetic energy based on a bullets weight and muzzle velocity. The biggest handgun load is going to hold up to around the .243 Winchester (which is not a serious hunting cartridge but a "varmint" round) after which every rifle beats it out.
www.shooterscalculator.com
As an amusing note you'll never get from video games or such that tend to make "military" do more damage, you'll notice the cartridges designed for combat purposes tend to actually be on the mid-lower end of rifle firepower compared with hunting sized rounds. This is because a war rifle is used to shoot humans, and a serious wound is often as good as a kill so saving weight is more valuable when you have to ship a quarter million bullets a day to your forward base and your soldiers need to carry twenty magazines apiece. Meanwhile a hunter loses big if he merely wounds an animal and has to track it ten miles, and many game animals are huge and stupidly tough like hogs, bears, etc. that can soak human-stopping wounds up for days, so the higher firepower tradeoff is warranted.
The shield is likely to change this, since a shielded human is now significantly tougher there will be a switch to larger rounds to punch through shields
There's a useful tool here which lets you calculate kinetic energy based on a bullets weight and muzzle velocity. The biggest handgun load is going to hold up to around the .243 Winchester (which is not a serious hunting cartridge but a "varmint" round) after which every rifle beats it out.
ShootersCalculator.com | Bullet Energy Calculator
Calculates the kinetic energy of a bullet. May also be used to calculate the muzzle energy of a rifle or handgun cartridge and compare it to other cartridges.
As an amusing note you'll never get from video games or such that tend to make "military" do more damage, you'll notice the cartridges designed for combat purposes tend to actually be on the mid-lower end of rifle firepower compared with hunting sized rounds. This is because a war rifle is used to shoot humans, and a serious wound is often as good as a kill so saving weight is more valuable when you have to ship a quarter million bullets a day to your forward base and your soldiers need to carry twenty magazines apiece. Meanwhile a hunter loses big if he merely wounds an animal and has to track it ten miles, and many game animals are huge and stupidly tough like hogs, bears, etc. that can soak human-stopping wounds up for days, so the higher firepower tradeoff is warranted.
The shield is likely to change this, since a shielded human is now significantly tougher there will be a switch to larger rounds to punch through shields