[UT] The Great Caselessness Fraud - Page 2

Seneschal · 08-25-2013, 05:46 PM

In preparations for a hard-sci-fi campaign of mine, I've been thinking of designing lots of new guns to give it a more High-Tech feel, with specific products instead of generic guns. I've been using the Ballistics Spreadsheet, the 3E Vehicles design rules, and going by the benchmarks set by High-Tech and Ultra-Tech.

However, I've realized that most caseless guns in Ultra-Tech seem more like TL8 guns (same classes, same uses, same range of calibres, etc.) made "futuristic" by adding "CL" and broadly improving them where applicable (damage and magazine capacity, for the most part). I understand why, I think; most players would like a futuristic analogue of their favourite TL8 guns, but it strikes me as a bit like... mounting a scope on a Mauser and calling it a blaster pistol.

Would caseless guns really be that broad of an advancement? Are they better in every way? The only small-arms example that I know of, the G11, is quite a quirky, specific weapon. The way it's handled, how it operates and fires, the types of rounds it uses... it doesn't really fit neatly into the generic categories that UT describes. From the picture, I'd say caseless rounds don't take up any less space. Similarly, weight shouldn't be halved either - most of the weight is the projectile anyway, especially in pistol rounds. Also, since the projectile is completely enveloped by the propellant block (is that even necessary? I suppose it's needed to have a good chamber fit), it seems natural that caseless guns tend toward smaller calibers with high aspect ratios (the G11 projectile seems to have at least a 1:5 ratio - it resembles a pencil!).

What I'm interested in is whether all caseless weapons would behave similarly. Is there a certain type of weapons in which caseless projectiles are a plus, or is it actually realistic to have them just steamroll over smokeless powder? What would they be good at, and what would they suck at?

Assuming the G11 wasn't just designed like that for kicks, then I'd attribute caseless weapons with the following tendencies:

Micro-calibers - projectiles would be long and lean, and run all through the propellant block. They'd have good penetration and rely more on velocity than mass - hence, not all pistols would benefit from caseless ammo; mostly just PDWs, .22LR analogues, maybe holdout guns that need large magazines... but a .44 revolver and its "futuristic" copycat would have regular (maybe plastic) casings.
Better performance - Strictly when compared to cased rounds of similar calibre, mass, shape and utility. From what I can tell by the examples in the "Cartridge Stats" tab of the Ballistics Spreadsheet, Douglas Cole (I think it's his baby... Is it?) gave caseless cartridges slightly higher chamber pressures (but not by much, they don't exceed 55,000 psi), usually higher projectile mass and aspect ratio, and about 20% longer burn lengths. Is this something that we can realistically expect from caseless rounds?
High RoF - lack of ejection mechanism makes action quicker. I doubt this would be that useful in assault rifles/carbines - suppressive fire isn't meant to kill in the first place, so the less shots it wastes (while still sounding menacing), the better! However, caseless weapons seem made to have high-cyclic burst functions like the AN-94. I'm not sure who would benefit from this trait - probably special forces.
High reliability - I'm not sure how true this is; on one hand, the action is simple, but on the other, the chamber is bound to get hot as hell and the propellant block probably doesn't just vanish completely and cleanly. If these hiccups are resolved by advanced materials and better explosives at higher TLs, then I guess caseless weapons would be preferred in hostile environments. How credible do you guys think this is?
Niche utility - I don't suppose caseless cartridges would be all that useful for rounds that already barely use any propellant; i.e., shotgun shells and grenades. Wouldn't the weight saving be negligible?

Please, feel free to correct me if any of the above assumptions is wrong, or if any of them might be better realized using liquid propellants or something. I'm aiming to incorporate as many different weapons technologies as possible, and not just say, "in the XY century, everyone uses blasters!" - I think it'll be more interesting if every technology has a niche in which it outperforms others.

08-25-2013, 05:46 PM	#1
Seneschal Join Date: Jul 2009	[UT] The Great Caselessness Fraud In preparations for a hard-sci-fi campaign of mine, I've been thinking of designing lots of new guns to give it a more High-Tech feel, with specific products instead of generic guns. I've been using the Ballistics Spreadsheet, the 3E Vehicles design rules, and going by the benchmarks set by High-Tech and Ultra-Tech. However, I've realized that most caseless guns in Ultra-Tech seem more like TL8 guns (same classes, same uses, same range of calibres, etc.) made "futuristic" by adding "CL" and broadly improving them where applicable (damage and magazine capacity, for the most part). I understand why, I think; most players would like a futuristic analogue of their favourite TL8 guns, but it strikes me as a bit like... mounting a scope on a Mauser and calling it a blaster pistol. Would caseless guns really be that broad of an advancement? Are they better in every way? The only small-arms example that I know of, the G11, is quite a quirky, specific weapon. The way it's handled, how it operates and fires, the types of rounds it uses... it doesn't really fit neatly into the generic categories that UT describes. From the picture, I'd say caseless rounds don't take up any less space. Similarly, weight shouldn't be halved either - most of the weight is the projectile anyway, especially in pistol rounds. Also, since the projectile is completely enveloped by the propellant block (is that even necessary? I suppose it's needed to have a good chamber fit), it seems natural that caseless guns tend toward smaller calibers with high aspect ratios (the G11 projectile seems to have at least a 1:5 ratio - it resembles a pencil!). What I'm interested in is whether all caseless weapons would behave similarly. Is there a certain type of weapons in which caseless projectiles are a plus, or is it actually realistic to have them just steamroll over smokeless powder? What would they be good at, and what would they suck at? Assuming the G11 wasn't just designed like that for kicks, then I'd attribute caseless weapons with the following tendencies: Micro-calibers - projectiles would be long and lean, and run all through the propellant block. They'd have good penetration and rely more on velocity than mass - hence, not all pistols would benefit from caseless ammo; mostly just PDWs, .22LR analogues, maybe holdout guns that need large magazines... but a .44 revolver and its "futuristic" copycat would have regular (maybe plastic) casings. Better performance - Strictly when compared to cased rounds of similar calibre, mass, shape and utility. From what I can tell by the examples in the "Cartridge Stats" tab of the Ballistics Spreadsheet, Douglas Cole (I think it's his baby... Is it?) gave caseless cartridges slightly higher chamber pressures (but not by much, they don't exceed 55,000 psi), usually higher projectile mass and aspect ratio, and about 20% longer burn lengths. Is this something that we can realistically expect from caseless rounds? High RoF - lack of ejection mechanism makes action quicker. I doubt this would be that useful in assault rifles/carbines - suppressive fire isn't meant to kill in the first place, so the less shots it wastes (while still sounding menacing), the better! However, caseless weapons seem made to have high-cyclic burst functions like the AN-94. I'm not sure who would benefit from this trait - probably special forces. High reliability - I'm not sure how true this is; on one hand, the action is simple, but on the other, the chamber is bound to get hot as hell and the propellant block probably doesn't just vanish completely and cleanly. If these hiccups are resolved by advanced materials and better explosives at higher TLs, then I guess caseless weapons would be preferred in hostile environments. How credible do you guys think this is? Niche utility - I don't suppose caseless cartridges would be all that useful for rounds that already barely use any propellant; i.e., shotgun shells and grenades. Wouldn't the weight saving be negligible? Please, feel free to correct me if any of the above assumptions is wrong, or if any of them might be better realized using liquid propellants or something. I'm aiming to incorporate as many different weapons technologies as possible, and not just say, "in the XY century, everyone uses blasters!" - I think it'll be more interesting if every technology has a niche in which it outperforms others.