Welcome to Gaia! ::

The only problem I see with that statement is that my post only really invoked newton's three laws, which they teach in elementary school. Of course, critical thinking is relegated to english class so everybody sleeps through that...

Perhaps they should make an actual critical thinking class, and test people on how well then can think critically. It would certainly make for a better year of learning than the crap they force on you in AmLit... The Great Gatsby? WTF?

Do you have any idea where that discussion would be? sweatdrop

Somebody pointed out the 'Verp' gun on page ten of the recruitment thread, and I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out how it would work.

If it's silent then it can't be using chemical propellant, yet a visable puff of air left the barrel following the shot. If it was a shockwave effect, then that would have been audible. That leaves electromagnetic acceleration as the only option.

Second, kinematics works, so to counteract recoil there must be an equal force in the opposite direction. That would mean either a blast of air or a second projectile - either of which, by the by, would be lethal to stand behind, meaning that it would have to be fired from the shoulder or the hip.

Third, shattering hardened armor plate takes a lot of force, and that force is delivered from some combination of mass and velocity. It can't be speed as supersonic projectiles are quite loud, so therefore it must be really heavy. Since it must be using ferrous ammo as a result of the electromagnetic acceleration, that means that the best ammo for it would be steel as a result of it being a cheap, dense iron alloy. Using a coated DU round would eliminate the possibility of using a railgun as a result of the increased resistance causing the projectile to melt. Coilguns would allow less-ferrous projectiles without a problem, but are far less efficient and yield much lower velocities.

Ergo, the projectile must be rather large in order to shatter Level IV plate.



Oh, and also: Blasters are not better than bullets any more than a torch is better than a baseball bat. One is an energy weapon, the other is an impact weapon. One does damage by burning, the other does damage through physical trauma. It's worth noting that good anti-energy-weapon armor is notoriously poor at stopping kinetic energy; it shatters with relatively little effort. Conversely, armor made out of, say, kevlar doesn't really do much of anything to stop energy weapons.

That said, anti-blaster armor would indeed be vulnerable to a P90. 3nodding