Regarding the best weapons for use in any conflict on the moon definitely the simpler the better.  Keeping any type of complex mechanism operating in those extremes of conditions is going to be a nightmare for the reasons alreadly laid out.  The metal storm concept of small arms would actually seam ideal for this environment, well maybe not ideal, but at least more easily adaptable than our current inserevice small arms.

No mechanism, and your magazine is your barrel ;)

 

Artillery would be a phenomenely accurate weapon system on the moon as you are dealing with a much simpler ballistic solution considering you have eliminated the biggest source of errors evident here on earth (met conditions).  Projectiles are going to follow a beautiful parabolic arc and the computations for this could be done by any decent highschool math/physics student who has a grasp of teh equations of motion.  You know the ones ;) V=U+AT S = UT +1/2AT^2, V^2 = U^2 + 2AS, there is another but a cant remember and too lazy to google it.  Some basic trig is also needed. But it really is easy, only slightly tricky part is taking into account teh rotation of the moon (coriolis force).  But even that isnt too bad.

 

Regards

Arty

Arty, thanks for posting that. I had a brain cramp, that's the ideal bullet hose.

 

Few moving parts, electric ignition.

 

As far as a reload, you just change the barrel pack and toss the old one. Batteries? Use solar cells to recharge.

GoG,

 

Assuming you're referring to firing a missile of some sort at a ship, I wouldn't use a gun against it. I'd use a DEW, either microwave or laser. Once you're talking interplanetary warfare, it becomes a matter of time vs. distance. DEW's move at lightspeed, and the max you'd get out of a missile would be a fraction of c, barring truly revolutionary tech, and would have to track whatever target it is they are aimed at in 4 dimensions, predicting the orbital track of whatever it was they were aimed at.

 

 Probably the best choice for the environment.  No lubricants or mechanical operating mechanisms at all. 

 

Not as simple as it seems.  Apparently the Moon's gravity field is non-uniform over fairly small distances.  I was watching a program about the 'return to the moon' on a science channel the other day and this is a major concern of the project planning team for soft landing items at the proposed site (well, OK, the proposed site is at the edge of a 2 mile vertical drop).

Ahhhh.  Yes indeed a non standard "G field" does indeed complicate things somewhat.  Not an insurmountable problem but the problem does become slighty more complex than I stated.

 

However proir to any type of military engagement on the moon we are going to have to spend significant effort mapping and and developing the moons equivilent of the various "earth gravity models" (EGM) that we use for the purposes of indirect fires, navigation etc here on earth. 

 

So I still believe Artillery will be more accurate on the moon, just not a simple to compute the solution as I initially believed.

As with bullets, frags also fly a long way. Even uncontrollably so! I wouldn't want to be around making observations within 3 kilometers to 155mm shells going off. 

 

Good thing is, you can use larger fire impact areas (not sure of the correct terminology; referring to 100mx100m, 100mx300m etc. shapes/sizes of impact area), so pinpoint accuracy isn't that crucial. 

 

81mm mortars maybe? Light, portable (in one piece on Moon!), maximized bang-for-buck properties with minimal amount of frags going awaste either to the ground or up high. Pressure blast effect is - what - non excistent or just minimal? So frag effect is the way to go.

 

This is fun!

 

Mikko

It's cheaper to put some Talibans there.

The plutonians will be piss off and they will go back.