Increased Acc in laser weaponry?

[Ragitsu]

Is this supposed to represent the fact that coherent light beams are not bound by gravity the way a lead/brass/steel projectile is?

[Langy]

It's not just that. A laser is extremely stable compared to a ballistic weapon - it will pretty much always hit the bullseye if you aim it at the bullseye. A ballistic weapon won't due to the natural spread of the weapon - bullets might end up in a three-inch grouping around the center, but a laser beam will simply keep hitting the exact same point over and over again.

Lasers are also speed-of-light weapons, while with ballistic weapons you need to account for the time to target - you need to lead your target in order to hit. Not so with laser weapons at engagement ranges less than a few hundred miles.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Is this supposed to represent the fact that coherent light beams are not bound by gravity the way a lead/brass/steel projectile is?

It's a general accuracy thing IMHO. If you can see your target with a laser you ought to be able to hit it. No adjustment for bullet drop and none for windage either. You don't even have to lead a moving target as much.

[ed_209a]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It's a general accuracy thing IMHO. If you can see your target with a laser you ought to be able to hit it. No adjustment for bullet drop and none for windage either. You don't even have to lead a moving target as much.

Between the speed of light, and the curvature of the earth, would you ever need to lead a target? I would think that if you can detect the target at all, target movement would be less than millimeters.

[Ragitsu]

I'll also add "less, if at all, affected by wind".

[Langy]

Ed: Whoever said his target was on the Earth? Maybe he's firing at a satellite - in which case he would likely, in fact, need to lead the target at least a little bit. If he were firing at Mars, he'd need to lead it quite a bit indeed.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Is this supposed to represent the fact that coherent light beams are not bound by gravity the way a lead/brass/steel projectile is?

Look at it this way - a laser uses light to kill. So a properly calibrated scope, which also uses light, will (almost, there are weird special cases) always put the crosshairs where the darn thing will hit. The laser sight dot will also always be where the weapon will hit.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ed_209a

Between the speed of light, and the curvature of the earth, would you ever need to lead a target? I would think that if you can detect the target at all, target movement would be less than millimeters.

I'd think you needed to allow slight amounts of time for transmission of the nervous impulse from the brain to the trigger finger and contraction of the appropriate muscles. Even a little for the laser gun's machinery.

Perhaps only 1/10th of a second but it your target is going 60 mph that comes to 3 yards.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Langy

Ed: Whoever said his target was on the Earth? Maybe he's firing at a satellite - in which case he would likely, in fact, need to lead the target at least a little bit.

Back of the envelope math would suggest that, for weapons that don't have a searchlight sized focusing array, the necessary lead on a target in orbit from the surface is going to be substantially smaller than the size of the laser beam due to diffraction. In other words, point of aim on target equals hit.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Langy

Ed: Whoever said his target was on the Earth? Maybe he's firing at a satellite - in which case he would likely, in fact, need to lead the target at least a little bit. If he were firing at Mars, he'd need to lead it quite a bit indeed.

Even so, a laser that can hit a satellite from orbit can do so with direct fire. A gun that tried to do the same thing would require the Artillery skill and lots of calculations.