How would a laser actually work "in real life", as

>>48348260
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

>>48348260
The beam would be invisible to the naked eye, however the point where the beam actually touches something would be extremely bright. Also real weaponized lasers are still quite large and demand massive power supplies to get results. I'm not an expert, but if the beam is intense enough to be visible to the naked eye, whatever it touches would probably combust explosively, whether it's metal, terrain, or people, in fact people especially since they're full of water.

a laser wouldnt cut a person, a "real" laser would be a brief but powerful pulse, so it would deposit a mini-explosion rather than a slow burn. on a person this would create a wound much wider than it is deep, as the laser would deposit all its energy on the topmost layer. the wound would be similar to a bullet wound, producing an open hole in the target, with profuse bleeding. it would not cauterize the wound, the rapidly expanding gases would tear apart, rather than join together

the beam itself would likely be invisible, or be extremely translucent. the visible part would probably be light reflecting off of dust or the glow of ionized air. protective gear may be required of soldiers using portable lasers.

the cooling and power supply will take up the most space. a single large pack may be more economical to use over many small packs, although spares will be essential in the field. laser weapon itself will heat up in use, and require constant cooling, a water coolermay suffice for emplaced or mounted lasers, but a smaller cooling-fan or heat sink may be required for man-portable devices, in the case of the former, a significant bulk will be added to the weapon, in the case of the later the user must carry spares, and used sinks will be too hot to carry and will be discarded

>>48348977
Read ye olde War of the Worlds. The 'Heat Ray' is exactly a weaponized laser from the point of view of a man in the 1890s.

>>48348260

Luke Campbell is a physicist and real-life laser weapons expert. He is also an avid GURPS player and his username is lwcamp on the SJGames forums. He's done several questions-and-answers for players giving game-relevant stats, and his website includes a calculator that produces damage stats for different laser values.

http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/DeathRay.html

Plus Winchell Chung (of course) and one other I found:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php

http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2014/02/fws-armory-lasers-killer-light.html

Going purely by memory from these sources, a fast-pulsing laser's beam is usually so fast as to be nearly invisible even when it's in the visible range. It makes a noise all along the path of the beam, about the same overall audibility as a suppressed handgun, and due to interactions with the atmosphere, you get retina-burning UV lines.

So much as a shooter needs hearing protection or he'll suffer long-term hearing damage from prolonged shooting, someone who spends too much time around lasers without safety goggles/contacts will gradually suffer long-term vision impairment.

For very fast-pulsing beams, damage is by thermal shock and the overall effect is similar to a gunshot. Roughly: 1kJ = modern handgun, 3+kJ = battle rifle. (A NATO round has 6kJ of gunpowder, of which about a third makes it downrange as the bullet's kinetic energy.)

So basically the differences from a normal gun are:

* Sound is similar to a suppressed handgun, but harder to localize.

* Visually can't be traced for short duration beams, maybe for beams in visible wavelengths that pulse for a while; those are easy to trace.

* No long-term hearing damage, but potential for long-term vision damage.

* No recoil

* Vulnerable to atmosphere conditions

* Damage is similar to a gunshot.

* Powered by battery, so most of the weight can be on your back instead of in your arms.

>>48349537
thanks, that is so helpful for clarifying a laser gun

battles must not be very loud, but shine like a rave

>>48349700

You're welcome. Read my sources-- what I posted is just summarizing my 2 years ago recollection of what's in those links.

Really, a battlefield will be quieter, but still alive with snaps and buzzes. Depending on the laser pulse durations, MAYBE alive with rave lights. If the pulse durations are short enough, then it's snaps and nothing else visible except the wound effects when something is hit.

Short duration pulses are the way to go, if your hardware can handle it. More damage, easier to aim (you don't have to keep your aim steady), and firing doesn't reveal your position.

Also consider auto-targeting rapid fire weapons (in other words, a setting where point defense is too good) might create a very large no man's land where drones and missiles can't survive. On the borders are laser drones, out of LOS from one another but covering the no man's land. Then deeper in are the infantry, advancing behind the front and relegated to a support function due to lethality on the front line. So the GM creates the tech to reduce the use of drones and missiles, but ends up changing the whole nature of the battlefield and weakening rather than strengthening the importance of the PC infantryman.

It reinforces the point: science fiction technology has to be carefully crafted to justify your setting. In a pre-fab setting this is no big deal so long as the author's already closed the biggest plot holes. But in a custom setting you have to do that yourself.

>>48348260

File: Russian Space Laser.jpg (70KB, 599x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 599x480px

>>48348260
Currently they're primarily able to blind optics and people... which is why there's a Protocol in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons concerning energy weapons, and the short of it is that you can't aim for people's eyes, only their optics and cameras and such.

It's probable they'd be very useful against drones though

While this can obviously be ignored, it might get you sanctions and shit, and may get you in trouble later.

Amusingly it also means that if those completely enclosed helmets that clearly aren't direct visors you see in lots of future soldier art actually do become popular then shooting lasers at them would be fine

relevant links haven been posted

looks like nobody wants another pointless discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmoldX1wKYQ