• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    A laser that is powerful enough to hurt a human target (especially a human target with body armor) is going to be powerful enough that it’ll be ionizing the air to some degree. It’ll be like a lightning bolt, there’ll be flashes of light and sharp cracking sounds. That’s also ignoring the fact that the random bits of terrain that the laser is hitting will also be exploding. Someone under “suppressing fire” from a laser weapon would be quite aware of the fact.

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also whatever you’re using to generate that much energy will make noise as well

    • Dimand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The pure joy of putting a single joule of optical power into a sub nanosecond pulse.

      For those not familiar with lasers, that’s a GW of instantaneous power that you can focus down to a micron sized spot.

      https://youtu.be/Z1Xky_ermd4?si=1Luz0fuzm4kcwIwc

      All that said, the successful laser weapons right now seem to all be anti drone/aircraft and they are typically using tracked CW (not pulsed) lasers with heating over time to avoid atmospheric lensing. Lots of challenges to overcome in getting pulsed energy a long way through air.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was wondering if we’d see pulsed lasers in anti-drone warfare… the power supply advantages aside, focusing on just the right point in time with the pulse seems hard.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The hard part is predicting atmospheric effects to get the focus right. It’s basically impossible without some form of just in time compensation. One idea I’ve seen is that you fire a physical projectile and use that to calibrate the focal point at arbitrary distance, almost like a laser tracer.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Suppressive fire is already an obselete doctrine. That’s why the British army is replacing their machine guns with DMRs (Canadian military may be heading in the same direction).

    Turns out turning a motherfuckers head into a fine red mist with a 7.62 tends to make everyone else around them really eager to seek cover. The threat of a well placed shot has a far better suppressing effect than the reality of a bunch of inaccurate fire.

      • cro_magnon_gilf@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Curious where you found a credible take.

        This “we’re past machine guns now” thing has been tried multiple times before, including by the brits.

        our rifles will shoot better instead

        our rifles will shoot more instead

        I wonder what MG they’ll get after this doesn’t work

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, basically what the USSR did ? (IIRC, machine gunners and sharpshooters carrying some semi auto scoped rifle were basically interchangeable in their doctrine, at least during WW2)

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Turning the Brit’s own standard of having officers walk instead of run into something like the end of Planet Terror.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d imagine a sniper is probably one of the most effective ways to suppress a group. They probably don’t know where the shots are coming from, and don’t know when it’s safe to move again.

      Having said that, I would imagine there are situations where traditional suppression is better. A hail of bullets against the side of an APC is probably terrifying even if none of them are getting through. It’s going to be tough to get someone to open the hatch as the bullets are flying in. But, with designated marksmen only, you’d have to wait until the enemy tries to get out of the APC and then make a tough shot to hit them as they do.

  • teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    You also wont be able to see them with the naked eye. Imagine you’re on patrol and your buddy drops dead and there was no sound and no visible sign except the crackling from the fire that carved a hole in his chest. War is already scary enough tyvm. Everyone is going to have to wear white or reflective gear.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        If there’s a constellation of them orbiting a few hundred kilometers up they’ll be pretty optimal. Like fairly optimal. Sufficiently optimal.

        • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t hide those from ground-based anti-satellite laser

          It’ll be like with GBAD in Ukraine but in space, and satellites can shoot at other satellites too

          • sbv@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, hear me out: camouflage. Desert camo for the satellites orbiting between Earth and Mars. Ocean gray for satellites orbiting between Earth and Neptune. And we can get Hugo Boss to design the camouflage for the satellites between the Earth and the moon.

  • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    YeH, a large part of suppressive fire is that the enemy doesn’t want to be randomly wounded.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      And ironically, some armies are moving away from it because they’ve realized that suppressive fire isn’t super effective in modern urban warfare. When you’re trying to “suppress” someone in a building, there’s a good chance that they can just relocate and continue firing before you have a chance to move up. Your suppressive fire is suddenly aiming at the wrong area and isn’t doing anything.

      Instead, some armies (like the British armed forces) have started focusing on quality over quantity. Turns out, when every shot has a good chance to turn you to paste, you’re much more inclined to stay in cover. Even when you’re not being actively suppressed, knowing that they have a dozen scoped 7.62 rifles trained on your location means you’re hesitant to even peek your head out. They don’t need to burn through ammo to keep you suppressed, and the suppression is more effective. The occasional “hey we still have rifles aimed at you” warning shot is enough to keep them behind cover.

      • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How does this tactic work when counting for light machine guns?

        specifically a SAW or 240B. Which as I understand is the largest enemy casualty producing weapon carried by a U.S. army member.

        I don’t know if it really counts as suppressive fire or just overwhelming fire power at that point

        • skulblaka@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those are more of an area denial weapon. Less “suppressing fire” and more “oppressing fire”

  • EvilEyedPanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If Star Wars has taught me anything, this is incorrect, well still be sitting at about a 35% hit rate.

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meh. If I saw a bunch of people pointing shit at me and the smell of ozone that would work, probably indefinitely.

  • Narrrz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m just sad that plasma weapons are essentially a no-go in an atmospheric environment…