I recommend checking out the game Children of a Dead Earth for a game that takes realistic assumptions and, well, turns it into a game. One thing I'd like to note is that as much as space is a 3d environment, realistically combat is almost a 1d affair as it turns out, thanks to the iron laws of inertia and orbital mechanics - the former no matter how advanced you are; the latter more so when your rockets aren't really that great. Other things to note: While kinetics have massive concentration of force at a small point, past a certain point the material strength of the projectile isn't sufficient to withstand this force by any means. The result looks less like bullet penetration, and more like an impact crater - a localized explosion that doesn't actually penetrate that much, surprisingly. Similarly, we already have armors meant to defeat a reasonable range of kinetics - whipple shields, meant for micrometeorites. This doesn't change too much, but just some technical details. Depending on the size of your bullet though, you can spam them, so they might potentially be useful at much longer ranges than anticipated regardless. However, another thing that the gun assumption requires is that the bullets are faster than the ship - but it need not necessarily be that way. Spaceships can be brutally fast, with guns being just a small addition to the bullet's end velocity. You could end up dropping kinetic mines en masse instead, with the mines travelling extremely fast the way a bomb dropped from a dive bomber travels extremely fast. Missiles seem mostly on point. Lasers... a few hundred kilometers is too short to realistically matter, and it is possible to create massive laser arrays with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of kilometers of effective range in the future (Using the laser calculator, ~50m radius firing UV waves with extreme pulse concentration would do). This said, missiles will always have the range advantage - if lasers reach even light minutes of range, missiles will by then probably have reached nigh infinite range given time. Short range defensive range will just be defined by whatever the range of the laser is. -- The model that you came up with isn't bad - it's the lancer combat model, one of the better realistic models out there. A number of interesting issues arise though: 1. If you decide to accelerate to get faster... well, I don't need to accelerate, because you closing down on me is the same as me closing down on you. I can save my fuel to maneuver while letting you burn yours away. The delta-v argument doesn't really apply there. 2. Energy weapons tend to scale drastically better with size. A larger laser with a larger focusing array not only has far more energy avaliable to it, but far more effective range. This can give us our 'battleships' back, although said battleships are also likely to be disturbingly low on armor. 3. If one goes with the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion system, on the other hand, armor can make a return if only because of how horrifically powerful the engine system is. The result is that saving on weight is not a real consideration; battles are fought with nuclear bombs for both offense, movement, and possibly defense, and in general the 1960s were quite the hillarious time.
Little to no friction mean they can cut off the engine to save fuel Newton's law 1.what is in motion will stay in motion unless another Force acts upon it There is no friction or gravity in space so they can continue go without anything to stop them or slow them down
There is gravity in space. Ships will be in some orbit and need to spend delta-v to change it. They don't need to use fuel to stay in the same orbit though.
Ships can maneuver. Also, even chemical rockets have rather pathetic ranges if you calculate them out... for a hydrogen-oxygen fueled rocket, making a 1g acceleration out of the tube (you want it to clear your ship, after all!), you're looking at a range of a few hundred kilometers if it burns the whole way. You can also only start and stop a rocket so many times. Pauses WILL stretch the range, but the target ship will have free reign to radically change its vector during "coast" phases.
I think larger ships may have a use. since they are much larger, they have way more surface area for radiators. this means you can have a ship specifically designed to shoot lasers at incoming missiles.
Well remember you wouldn’t even need much in terms of radiators, space is VERY cold. It would be able to cool way more efficiently than an earth radiator
Actually, this isn't the case. There is actually something called the square-cube law, which states that an object's volume increases at a faster rate than its surface area as it grows in size. Therefore, larger ships would technically have a smaller surface-area-to-volume ratio than a smaller ship with the same proportions.
I think the more accurate of the two would be children of a dead earth. Also the game "nexus the jupiter incident" does a good job as well especially in the beginning.
You've basically just described the combat in my sci-fi story. Though with the harnessing of dark matter (and by extension dark energy) as fuel Delta V is not a problem. Because dark matter is everywhere they can just refuel anywhere but are afraid to leave the solar system.
I'm disappointed they left out AI and autonomous warfare systems. Humans would be terrible at fighting in zero G, and they take up space and mass on the ship.
Surely, eventually, we'll reach a point at which large numbers of military assets have to be transported into space or through space between different terrestrial locations. This would mean larger ships, counterpart to our current aircraft carriers. I still think large hefty ships with dense hulls will be possible once energy is less of a constraint, and considering you can simply shuttle goods from locations in gravity wells instead of docking the actual ship in them.
8:19 is where they revealed they don't understand basic physics. If two ships are going toward each other, neither of them is moving "faster" than the other. Their speed relative to each other is the same. Now whoever's kinetic weapons are faster relative to their launch gun actually will have an advantage. But the ships have the exact same speed relative to each other.
Uh no. 2 objects moving toward eachother, have a calculatable velocity relative to the world around it. If one has a higher velocity than the other, then it has a higher velocity than the other. Period. If both their missles have the same starting speed relative to the ship that fired it, the the excess velocity of the faster ship would indeed be added to the velocity of the missle, giving it a small speed advantage. I think ur confusing this scenario with lightbeam experiments. Light travels at lightspeed, the relative velocity of the emitter is NOT added to the velocity of the lightbeam coming out. Thats cause light is massless. But missles are not. Therefore the velocity of the ship gets added to the velocity of the missle, because it has mass. The velocity of an emitter however, is NOT added to the velocity of the light it emits, because light is massless. None of this, however, says in any way, that there is no speed difference between 2 objects moving toward eachother, or that the higher velocity of the one is somehow canceled out by the fact that the other is moving toward it. Dont know where u got that from. Seems like a misunderstanding of "basic physics" to me.
@@evannibbe9375 Thats only cause the ground is actually still, relative to u. If ur traveling 30 mph, the ground "appears" to be moving 30mph under u. It "appears" to because its actually still while ur the one moving that fast in reality, not the ground. Now, if im moving 30mph toward an object it will "appear" to move that fast towards me, but its not. Thats an "appearance". What if the object moves 10mph towards me while im gaining on it? It will then appear to be moving 40mph towards me, (my 30 plus its 10 equalling an apparent 40). But thats just appearances. In reality im moving 30 towards it and it 10 towards me. However, the reality, nor the appearance, in anyway, shows the velocity between the 2 objects somehow being canceled out or nonexistent, as the original commenter seems to be suggesting. Not sure where he got that from.
It would be basically jousting with something akin to “energy fighting” seen in air combat. You put yourself on a course that uses local gravity wells to intercept your target. At max range you begin to trade shots. Things escalate as you and your target get closer, eventually if you’re both still standing down to trading shots with PDWs, then trying again with a new course.
explosions don't cause damage in space because of the lack of air, even nukes. the shock wave may transfer into space stations though, but it would probably just be more effective to punch a hole.
Ever hear of the Casaba Howitzer? It's a way to focus the blast energies of nukes. A tungsten plate mounted on the front of the nuke turns it into a plasma cannon.
The massive ships could be used in the far future for interplanetary or even interstellar warfare. They can be thought of as space aircraft carriers. For now, there is no use. But in the future, they can carry absurd amounts of weaponry, cargo, fuel, etc. They can be used as a command center for when communication is difficult. For example, it would take a message 8 minutes to reach Mars, and it would take around 9 months for a package to arrive. Intermediate sized ships would be used for orbital bombardment. They can carry a large amount of ordinance and can rain conventional or nuclear weapons onto the enemy from above. Small ships are the most useful as they can maneuver quickly, are cheap to build, are harder to hit, and can go much faster. The strategy for Earth based combat would be to have a few intermediate sized bombers surrounded by small fighters. The fighters engage in combat, while the bombers lay waste to enemy targets below.
@@colejosephalexanderkashay683 the best technology for exploring space would be a alcubire warp drive. This was most likely take the humans 200 years. And it's possible to make
i can still imagine a sort of hybrid fighter to be used in low orbit around planets sense you still have a horizon to deal with that limits your firing range. a sort of "hybrid" fighter could dip into atmosphere into dense cloud cover to sneak past enemy radar, and then shoot back into space, catching the opposing force off guard from a surprise attack from atmosphere. less a game chicken a more a game of leap frog. it would be a "flying submarine" type situation.
I imagine things would be like halo, Most fights will be at a distance, outer colonies will probably have insurrectionists and would be comparable to third world countries, nuclear weapons are use in ship to ship combat, we would use a lot of missiles and kinetic weapons like M.A.C.s and point defense cannons. Although I am not sure we would see any tactics like a Keyes loop three dimensional maneuvers would still be a thing
In the Halo videogames, ships have a gigantic coilgun as their main weapon, which is located right in the middle of the ship, practically the ship is co-educated around the main weapon.
For fighters in space it’s likely they will use the same style as the F-35 where it’s thrusters can change direction making them more maneuverable and taking or putting small thrusters in small areas of the ship to be able to turn them
Very interesting. I am also bugged about the "Gravity" scenario from a space war.. (Even as a moody teen at the age of 16, I wrote a short story about space being the next front in a war, but still all that orbiting debris is a problem..)
I really like that idea of war in space being too expensive to practical - the amount of time, money, and resources put into each ship makes even a single loss deal a devastating blow, not to mention all the valuable humans lives who would’ve been lost It simply wouldn’t be worth the effort to keep fighting like this
If we are talking about modern technology, yes. But in the future, if we ever get to this point, that won't be much of a problem. Technology always evolves becoming cheaper and more viable trough time and effort. Even rockets that used to cost a huge lot are becoming cheaper and cheaper due to the recent reusable technologies. If you consider that we'll be doing space mining as well, we'll have virtually a infinite amount of recourses around the solar system to build a gigantic fleet of several kinds of space crafts, not depending on the limited resources from Earth anymore.
@@Joao-ur7ey Very true And it'd also be likely we'll be using machines to do our fighting for us (whether controlled remotely or through ai) rather than risk the lives of actual humans, at least for the most part
If fighting where to occur at extremely long distances... like the distance between the earth and moon, it would be possible for ships to dodge laser attacks, because the opponents would be a few light SECONDS apart. To elaborate more on that idea, fighting in space would be mainly like a guessing game, because what you see is always a few seconds in the past, or a few minutes. If I where to guess how fighting would be like, spaceships would focus more on stealth than shielding. Unless you have extremely advanced shields that can deflect a nuke or a projectile going at 14% the speed of light, you're toast. Spacebattles would be more like submarine warfare.... See them before they see you.
some place: exists humans:our battle will be legendary war:oh boi, here i go killing again cod:world war 3 (space edition) also cod: its free estate hotel:trivago
But if we get to a point where warfare in space is possible, it's also a given that ships will use multiple thrusters that will vastly improve mobility so it won't work like the water physics shown here
Smaller mussels will not be faster nor longer range. If you make a missle twice as big and double the surface area you increase the volume by 8x. That extra can accommodate a larger warhead plus larger engines and fuel tanks.
As an EVE: Online player I can say that the spaceships in the thumbnail are called: Apocalypse, Rifter and Abaddon. just search them up and compare with the thumbnail! neat, right?
If we happen to develop these kinds of technology, I'm pretty sure that we fellow humans are not going to fight each other but rather we are defending against some external forces that is beyond the capacity of Earth's civilization.
Mass of a ship in space doesn't matter. Mass affects weight, but weight only applies under the effects of gravity and in space, there is no gravity. But yes, a space battle would be nothing like sci-fi shows it as. There would be no fancy maneuvering or sudden surprises. Heck, there wouldn't even be any cool sound effects as the vacuum of space prevents sound. And even more over, due to the extreme distances in space, radio contact would be heavily delayed both ways if you were trying to communicate with a base on earth ETC. FInally, due to the lack of air and gravity in space, I don't think ships would even look anything like shown in pop culture. I imagine ships would look very box-like as cool aerodynamic shapes wouldn't matter.
0:00 If they will keep wasting FREAKIN RESOURCES ON WAR AND MILITARY STUFF WE WILL NOT LIVE IN SPACE coz we need hella energy and resources to create something
Unfortunately most of this is wrong for a few key reasons. First, by Newton’s third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Due to this, any ship that shot any of those projectiles would be thrown back, potentially damaging the ship. Second, when a ship is destroyed, it would break into fragments that would at close range completely destroy the attacking ship. Finally, because there is no gravity or friction in space, ships could not move the way you have shown. Ships would literally need an engine on every side of the ship. Due to this, ships would weigh a lot more than what we have today. You had mentioned that ships would need to be as light as possible, which is correct. However, with all of those engines, protection systems, and weapon systems that are accurate enough to hit a ship at long range, which is feasible but heavy and large, space warfare would be practically impossible.
Want to know what Space War would look like today? Check it out here: th-cam.com/video/wuD9Wo1J8iQ/w-d-xo.html
The Infographics Show Want to know what TH-cam will look like when businesses take over?
How about plasma rifle.
"Probably not" LOL real cynical.
Space warship anyone.
I recommend checking out the game Children of a Dead Earth for a game that takes realistic assumptions and, well, turns it into a game. One thing I'd like to note is that as much as space is a 3d environment, realistically combat is almost a 1d affair as it turns out, thanks to the iron laws of inertia and orbital mechanics - the former no matter how advanced you are; the latter more so when your rockets aren't really that great.
Other things to note: While kinetics have massive concentration of force at a small point, past a certain point the material strength of the projectile isn't sufficient to withstand this force by any means. The result looks less like bullet penetration, and more like an impact crater - a localized explosion that doesn't actually penetrate that much, surprisingly. Similarly, we already have armors meant to defeat a reasonable range of kinetics - whipple shields, meant for micrometeorites. This doesn't change too much, but just some technical details. Depending on the size of your bullet though, you can spam them, so they might potentially be useful at much longer ranges than anticipated regardless. However, another thing that the gun assumption requires is that the bullets are faster than the ship - but it need not necessarily be that way. Spaceships can be brutally fast, with guns being just a small addition to the bullet's end velocity. You could end up dropping kinetic mines en masse instead, with the mines travelling extremely fast the way a bomb dropped from a dive bomber travels extremely fast.
Missiles seem mostly on point.
Lasers... a few hundred kilometers is too short to realistically matter, and it is possible to create massive laser arrays with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of kilometers of effective range in the future (Using the laser calculator, ~50m radius firing UV waves with extreme pulse concentration would do). This said, missiles will always have the range advantage - if lasers reach even light minutes of range, missiles will by then probably have reached nigh infinite range given time. Short range defensive range will just be defined by whatever the range of the laser is.
--
The model that you came up with isn't bad - it's the lancer combat model, one of the better realistic models out there. A number of interesting issues arise though:
1. If you decide to accelerate to get faster... well, I don't need to accelerate, because you closing down on me is the same as me closing down on you. I can save my fuel to maneuver while letting you burn yours away. The delta-v argument doesn't really apply there.
2. Energy weapons tend to scale drastically better with size. A larger laser with a larger focusing array not only has far more energy avaliable to it, but far more effective range. This can give us our 'battleships' back, although said battleships are also likely to be disturbingly low on armor.
3. If one goes with the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion system, on the other hand, armor can make a return if only because of how horrifically powerful the engine system is. The result is that saving on weight is not a real consideration; battles are fought with nuclear bombs for both offense, movement, and possibly defense, and in general the 1960s were quite the hillarious time.
the scenario described here is pretty much just The Expanse
like eve online also
Or the new Battlestar Galactica (minus jump tech)
Just leave out any protomolecule
And the expanse's magic is how the ships have indefinite delta v. The videogame children of a dead earth is a step further than expanse for realism
@@hobog there's literally an episode called Delta-V. Its not indefinite, its approximately 44 mins.
Let’s get over WWIII first
Let's see if we can survive this.
And Global Warming first
@FuranDuron what?
WW3 it for chumps now WW6 thats the greatest generation ever!! you try fighting the french chinese in south american mountains.
well WIII would be a great opportunity to test new technology that can be used in the space wars to come
Little to no friction mean they can cut off the engine to save fuel
Newton's law
1.what is in motion will stay in motion unless another Force acts upon it
There is no friction or gravity in space so they can continue go without anything to stop them or slow them down
There is gravity in space. Ships will be in some orbit and need to spend delta-v to change it. They don't need to use fuel to stay in the same orbit though.
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ships can maneuver. Also, even chemical rockets have rather pathetic ranges if you calculate them out... for a hydrogen-oxygen fueled rocket, making a 1g acceleration out of the tube (you want it to clear your ship, after all!), you're looking at a range of a few hundred kilometers if it burns the whole way. You can also only start and stop a rocket so many times. Pauses WILL stretch the range, but the target ship will have free reign to radically change its vector during "coast" phases.
@@phil6272 just give that him favorite nanotechnology of nanosuit exosuit armor
I'm sorry, have you never played Kerbal Space Program??
*_Bold of you to assume that humanity has a future_*
If we survive another WW then we would have a future
Tomorrow is never guaranteed.
John K r/woosh
Depends on how much you will amuse me, humans. So far, only reason you guys are still alive is cuz of entertainment industry, also Japan and Britain.
j0epark1 scientifically it is
Oh, you mean the UNSC v. Covenant war?
@@yamcha8309 free planets alliance vs Goldenbaum/Goldenlowë empire?
XD lol
Nah we be playing Infinite warfare
@07 CHIN WOEI GIAN J2C another 2 words halo array
IMC vs militia
I think larger ships may have a use. since they are much larger, they have way more surface area for radiators. this means you can have a ship specifically designed to shoot lasers at incoming missiles.
And you have a lot of places more to get shoot at
Well remember you wouldn’t even need much in terms of radiators, space is VERY cold. It would be able to cool way more efficiently than an earth radiator
Actually, this isn't the case. There is actually something called the square-cube law, which states that an object's volume increases at a faster rate than its surface area as it grows in size. Therefore, larger ships would technically have a smaller surface-area-to-volume ratio than a smaller ship with the same proportions.
@@yhiggy8971 surface area can be artificially increased using strange shapes
@@jwcfive7999 actually you do have a point
he who plays eve online: *OH*
Amarr for life
Megathrons and Armageddons
@@soji-yeunmochi-con1162 and an Abaddon
I saw the thumbnail and got flashbacks of my eve online days
Yup XD
Woohoo!! Back to back uploads!!! Thanks a lot guys! ☺️
💪🏻 Thank you!
@@TheInfographicsShow PLEASE MAKE WHAT IF EARTH VS STAR WARS VIDEOS?!
@@TheInfographicsShow your my mom
NEWS: US Military suddenly starts training Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer, Halo and Marvel fans.
I'm in
Frost Fire
I have a feel we'd be better off with D.C than Star Wars or Star Trek tbh.
No halo?
İm in. But not sure if Star Wars or Warhammer.
@@batuhangocer6642 PRAISE BE TO THE MAN-EMPEROR OF MANKIND
Future people that saw old star wars movies: i love democracy.
TV show and books: the expanse. Videogame: children of a dead earth
I think the more accurate of the two would be children of a dead earth.
Also the game "nexus the jupiter incident" does a good job as well especially in the beginning.
@@mill2712 people:where it's a military people
based people don't know sea too just in space
_"So long and thanks for all the fish."_
*~ Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy*
I love this series!
so sad it had to come to this.
@@kspmissions9314 we tried to warn you all but oh dear...
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden 8:56 did bag of space cost expensive
also space company:
space industrial company: **stonks**
Back to back uploads. Much respect
Thank you!
@@TheInfographicsShow WISH THERE WILL BE WHAT IF MODERN EARTH IN STAR WARS VIDEOS, PLEASE?!
The expanse covers this pretty well
Hey second video in single hour. Great video.
Thank you! ♥
If there is a war in the space
Space Battleship Yamato: EXIST!
From what I’ve heard, the expanse is pretty accurate
Fallout: war never changes
Space: are you show about that
Space combat will be exactly like what it is in The Expanse cause that’s a full Newtonian physics sci-fi show.
Children of a Dead Earth is even more realistic actually
Check it out if you want the proper stuff
I like how they used the ship models from EVE Online.
The new Star Wars looks great
SpongeBob is that you
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I was searching for this comment XD
You've basically just described the combat in my sci-fi story. Though with the harnessing of dark matter (and by extension dark energy) as fuel Delta V is not a problem. Because dark matter is everywhere they can just refuel anywhere but are afraid to leave the solar system.
I'm disappointed they left out AI and autonomous warfare systems. Humans would be terrible at fighting in zero G, and they take up space and mass on the ship.
@@cyclopsmouse2247
like a slow expensive chess battle in space fought by the smartest chess engines
Surely, eventually, we'll reach a point at which large numbers of military assets have to be transported into space or through space between different terrestrial locations. This would mean larger ships, counterpart to our current aircraft carriers. I still think large hefty ships with dense hulls will be possible once energy is less of a constraint, and considering you can simply shuttle goods from locations in gravity wells instead of docking the actual ship in them.
shrek will destroy us
oh no
I'll eat him up 😂
@@Meowmeow2052a in russia shrek eats you
Destroy me daddy shrek
Babylon 5 and the expanse are the best examples of realistic space combat
8:19 is where they revealed they don't understand basic physics. If two ships are going toward each other, neither of them is moving "faster" than the other. Their speed relative to each other is the same. Now whoever's kinetic weapons are faster relative to their launch gun actually will have an advantage. But the ships have the exact same speed relative to each other.
Shem Casimir All velocity is relative, if I am in a car traveling 30 mph relative to the ground, the ground is traveling 30 mph relative to me.
@Shem Casimir yeah, relativity and velocity is completely nonexistent in space
No, actually the physical nobody cares part is a HUGE help
Uh no. 2 objects moving toward eachother, have a calculatable velocity relative to the world around it.
If one has a higher velocity than the other, then it has a higher velocity than the other. Period.
If both their missles have the same starting speed relative to the ship that fired it, the the excess velocity of the faster ship would indeed be added to the velocity of the missle, giving it a small speed advantage.
I think ur confusing this scenario with lightbeam experiments.
Light travels at lightspeed, the relative velocity of the emitter is NOT added to the velocity of the lightbeam coming out. Thats cause light is massless.
But missles are not. Therefore the velocity of the ship gets added to the velocity of the missle, because it has mass.
The velocity of an emitter however, is NOT added to the velocity of the light it emits, because light is massless.
None of this, however, says in any way, that there is no speed difference between 2 objects moving toward eachother, or that the higher velocity of the one is somehow canceled out by the fact that the other is moving toward it. Dont know where u got that from.
Seems like a misunderstanding of "basic physics" to me.
@@evannibbe9375 Thats only cause the ground is actually still, relative to u. If ur traveling 30 mph, the ground "appears" to be moving 30mph under u. It "appears" to because its actually still while ur the one moving that fast in reality, not the ground.
Now, if im moving 30mph toward an object it will "appear" to move that fast towards me, but its not. Thats an "appearance".
What if the object moves 10mph towards me while im gaining on it? It will then appear to be moving 40mph towards me, (my 30 plus its 10 equalling an apparent 40). But thats just appearances.
In reality im moving 30 towards it and it 10 towards me.
However, the reality, nor the appearance, in anyway, shows the velocity between the 2 objects somehow being canceled out or nonexistent, as the original commenter seems to be suggesting.
Not sure where he got that from.
Venator Star Destroyer fan: I've been looking forward to this.
I wish and hope there will never be a space war :)
More space debri is great
The US would start training Star Wars Battlefront players.
pirate and megacorp: am I a joke to you?
Only if countries all around the world can cooperate together which is highly unlikely.
It would be basically jousting with something akin to “energy fighting” seen in air combat. You put yourself on a course that uses local gravity wells to intercept your target. At max range you begin to trade shots. Things escalate as you and your target get closer, eventually if you’re both still standing down to trading shots with PDWs, then trying again with a new course.
Infographics Show: Wars In Space
Me: WOOHOO STAR WARS
Hello there
GENERAL KENOBI
@@obi-wankenobimasterjediand5091 umm u r dead
Did you notice The Expanse? very cool series about realistic warfare.
I like how you used EVE online ships in the thumbnail art
Eve Spaceship thumbnail brought me here. Insanity kept me until the end.
*Earth: Become Planet*
Here we will see master chief and samus aran fighting
Uploads are back. You're the best. 😊
explosions don't cause damage in space because of the lack of air, even nukes. the shock wave may transfer into space stations though, but it would probably just be more effective to punch a hole.
Ever hear of the Casaba Howitzer? It's a way to focus the blast energies of nukes. A tungsten plate mounted on the front of the nuke turns it into a plasma cannon.
@@wesleythomas7125 alabama maybe has best defense future weapon
7:15 Look at that! A Victory Star Destroyer instead of a Imperial. Classy.
I clicked because of the EvE art, lol
This looks like an stellaris guide on war
Hmm i see someone has yet to play :sins of solar empire rebellion
The massive ships could be used in the far future for interplanetary or even interstellar warfare. They can be thought of as space aircraft carriers. For now, there is no use. But in the future, they can carry absurd amounts of weaponry, cargo, fuel, etc. They can be used as a command center for when communication is difficult. For example, it would take a message 8 minutes to reach Mars, and it would take around 9 months for a package to arrive.
Intermediate sized ships would be used for orbital bombardment. They can carry a large amount of ordinance and can rain conventional or nuclear weapons onto the enemy from above.
Small ships are the most useful as they can maneuver quickly, are cheap to build, are harder to hit, and can go much faster.
The strategy for Earth based combat would be to have a few intermediate sized bombers surrounded by small fighters. The fighters engage in combat, while the bombers lay waste to enemy targets below.
7:24
Unless in future we use thermonuclear or anti matter engines instead of current fuels.
Antimatter is incredibly efficient, but using it on a warship is absolutely dangerous. Nuclear fusion is far more likely.
@@torinmorris6648 fusion is probably best for power, but antimatter missiles may be deadlier than nukes
@@colejosephalexanderkashay683 the best technology for exploring space would be a alcubire warp drive. This was most likely take the humans 200 years. And it's possible to make
@@capnsteele3365 talking about power generation; not means of travel
i can still imagine a sort of hybrid fighter to be used in low orbit around planets sense you still have a horizon to deal with that limits your firing range.
a sort of "hybrid" fighter could dip into atmosphere into dense cloud cover to sneak past enemy radar, and then shoot back into space, catching the opposing force off guard from a surprise attack from atmosphere. less a game chicken a more a game of leap frog.
it would be a "flying submarine" type situation.
3:36 that’s why we could build heavily armoured spaceships in space, so they don’t need to worry about escaping a planet’s gravity as much
eye tear war
This one is the best infographics video.
Once a very wise space engineer said: *Just weaponize the clang*
Syfi has a cool series called 'The Expense'. Politic and war in space.
War in space is called Star Wars
I just imagine early space wars as rudimentary spaceships filled with scientists with calculators shooting at eachother with lasers and missiles
It’ll look like halo
Xeloro fi
I love halo do you like halo
I imagine things would be like halo, Most fights will be at a distance, outer colonies will probably have insurrectionists and would be comparable to third world countries, nuclear weapons are use in ship to ship combat, we would use a lot of missiles and kinetic weapons like M.A.C.s and point defense cannons. Although I am not sure we would see any tactics like a Keyes loop three dimensional maneuvers would still be a thing
Halo, star trek, and Lotgh
It seems not a lot of people talk about coilguns. Railguns have recoil while coilguns don’t
In the Halo videogames, ships have a gigantic coilgun as their main weapon, which is located right in the middle of the ship, practically the ship is co-educated around the main weapon.
“What will war in space look like future”
Wow i Learned something new all the time watching the youtuber
For fighters in space it’s likely they will use the same style as the F-35 where it’s thrusters can change direction making them more maneuverable and taking or putting small thrusters in small areas of the ship to be able to turn them
I choose to believe that space battles would be similar to the Expanse
Very interesting. I am also bugged about the "Gravity" scenario from a space war.. (Even as a moody teen at the age of 16, I wrote a short story about space being the next front in a war, but still all that orbiting debris is a problem..)
I really like that idea of war in space being too expensive to practical - the amount of time, money, and resources put into each ship makes even a single loss deal a devastating blow, not to mention all the valuable humans lives who would’ve been lost
It simply wouldn’t be worth the effort to keep fighting like this
If we are talking about modern technology, yes. But in the future, if we ever get to this point, that won't be much of a problem.
Technology always evolves becoming cheaper and more viable trough time and effort. Even rockets that used to cost a huge lot are becoming cheaper and cheaper due to the recent reusable technologies.
If you consider that we'll be doing space mining as well, we'll have virtually a infinite amount of recourses around the solar system to build a gigantic fleet of several kinds of space crafts, not depending on the limited resources from Earth anymore.
@@Joao-ur7ey Very true
And it'd also be likely we'll be using machines to do our fighting for us (whether controlled remotely or through ai) rather than risk the lives of actual humans, at least for the most part
Great video, I actually learned a lot
7:49 reminds me of the game Endless Sky
The background music alone deserves its own video...
I hope the world doesn't end before 2077
I know you're referencing fallout, but if you payed any attention, you would notice that the world didn't end.
I would say reverse thrusters and side thrusters will make things like star wars dogfights possible
So... basicly The Expanse.
The facts in this video were quite on point, the visuals however were all over the place, despite getting the point across.
*_The new series of Space Dandy looks great._*
I miss that show
Stfu
Best channel on TH-cam so far. Keep up with the daily and interesting uploads!
Well what would a space war look like in the past?
Newby ton space. Just plain space
There wasn't really any space weapons, saying as they were still making a rocket
Derpy Boi r/woooosh
seniorgamer78
Lol
In a galaxy far far away...
This is like an older episode ya did but this one’s more visualizing 🤩🤩
If fighting where to occur at extremely long distances... like the distance between the earth and moon, it would be possible for ships to dodge laser attacks, because the opponents would be a few light SECONDS apart. To elaborate more on that idea, fighting in space would be mainly like a guessing game, because what you see is always a few seconds in the past, or a few minutes. If I where to guess how fighting would be like, spaceships would focus more on stealth than shielding. Unless you have extremely advanced shields that can deflect a nuke or a projectile going at 14% the speed of light, you're toast. Spacebattles would be more like submarine warfare.... See them before they see you.
No
In response to your last point, humans will never give up war.
Trailer for 300000
ITS OVER ANAKIN I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND!
You under estimate my power!
Don’t try it
AGuuHGgg
Ur dead
Lol. I'm literally watching that movie as I read this comment. 🤣 Gotta love Star Wars!
I WAS PROMISED EVE ONLINE IN THE THUMBNAIL
2019: Powering space and no privacy
Some one needs to watch the expanse, it’s awesome and it’s space combat is exactly like this
It's a Gundam!!!!
Someone really pissed off the Zabi family this time.
I see you fixed the title lol. Great video
North korea wants to know your location
T minus ...
30
29
28
Pretty much as described in The Lost Fleet book series. Head on/passing fights over in a few seconds.
i was here before 15views. hahaha
Congratulations you won the
No life award
And all it is, is the crumbs from the no fucks cookie i gave to the first guy
some place: exists
humans:our battle will be legendary
war:oh boi, here i go killing again
cod:world war 3 (space edition)
also cod: its free estate
hotel:trivago
But if we get to a point where warfare in space is possible, it's also a given that ships will use multiple thrusters that will vastly improve mobility so it won't work like the water physics shown here
I love you videos!
Thank you! ♥
The videos love you too.
"What if Space Battles are real?"
It's simple. Star Wars are becoming a reality.
If we were to design space fighters,they should be designed like starfuries from babylon 5
and have their uses
Yeet
Yes! 💪🏻
*Human-Covenant war intensifies*
*_GURREN LAGANN_*
Clearly nobody at Infographics read any of the Halo books to learn about how the UNSC made their ships
Did you just assume I live in present?
Smaller mussels will not be faster nor longer range. If you make a missle twice as big and double the surface area you increase the volume by 8x. That extra can accommodate a larger warhead plus larger engines and fuel tanks.
Am I the only one that thought the title was slightly confusing?
Fixed 😉
Haha thanks
johnny kev it was “What will War in Space look like Future” or something like that
@@TheInfographicsShow it should've been "What war in space will look like in the future"
As an EVE: Online player I can say that the spaceships in the thumbnail are called: Apocalypse, Rifter and Abaddon. just search them up and compare with the thumbnail! neat, right?
No pls dont..
Space is good.
Its 1.25am jesus i should sleep, but this looks interesting
If we happen to develop these kinds of technology, I'm pretty sure that we fellow humans are not going to fight each other but rather we are defending against some external forces that is beyond the capacity of Earth's civilization.
lenght time required so many people
Mass of a ship in space doesn't matter. Mass affects weight, but weight only applies under the effects of gravity and in space, there is no gravity.
But yes, a space battle would be nothing like sci-fi shows it as. There would be no fancy maneuvering or sudden surprises. Heck, there wouldn't even be any cool sound effects as the vacuum of space prevents sound.
And even more over, due to the extreme distances in space, radio contact would be heavily delayed both ways if you were trying to communicate with a base on earth ETC.
FInally, due to the lack of air and gravity in space, I don't think ships would even look anything like shown in pop culture. I imagine ships would look very box-like as cool aerodynamic shapes wouldn't matter.
0:00 If they will keep wasting FREAKIN RESOURCES ON WAR AND MILITARY STUFF WE WILL NOT LIVE IN SPACE coz we need hella energy and resources to create something
It's an inevitability, one way or the other.
@@isymfs space war even ship in warzone cause depression
I would put laser beams too, to shred the enemy ships armor
Unfortunately most of this is wrong for a few key reasons. First, by Newton’s third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Due to this, any ship that shot any of those projectiles would be thrown back, potentially damaging the ship. Second, when a ship is destroyed, it would break into fragments that would at close range completely destroy the attacking ship. Finally, because there is no gravity or friction in space, ships could not move the way you have shown. Ships would literally need an engine on every side of the ship. Due to this, ships would weigh a lot more than what we have today. You had mentioned that ships would need to be as light as possible, which is correct. However, with all of those engines, protection systems, and weapon systems that are accurate enough to hit a ship at long range, which is feasible but heavy and large, space warfare would be practically impossible.