Outsider Ground War

[Arioch]

You didn't mention missiles. Missiles have stupendous range. If your spacecraft can cross the solar system, so can your missiles. Unless it runs out of propellant or is scragged by hostile point defense, missiles will Always Hit.

As with mass drivers, the issue is not maximum range (which is practically unlimited in space) but rather whether you can cross the large distances required in a timely manner to catch a fast-accelerating target, with the added problem of potentially being disabled by the target's point defense weapons. One way to go is to have a smaller missile with a very high acceleration, but these burn their fuel very quickly (the Sprint and HiBEX ABM's accelerated at hundreds of G's but depleted their fuel in less than 5 seconds). The Outsider equivalent would be the Loroi AMM, which might have a full-burn endurance of as much as a minute, but would still have an effective range of not much more than 10,000km, making it exclusively a point-defense weapon.

The other way to is to make the missile larger and more expensive and give it the same kind of drive that the starships have, and that result is a torpedo. Torpedo warfare is a larger subject, but suffice it to say that ground bases are not ideal launch plaforms for torpedoes, as their exhausts spew radioactive materials and are not safe to operate in atmosphere or near the ground. You'd need some kind of a booster that was safe to operate in atmosphere, adding to cost and response time.

The atmosphere has the same effect on lasers and mass drivers both ways.

Perhaps true for lasers, but not really projectiles. If the atmosphere causes a projectile to explode near the target, the firer may not care. If it causes a projectile to explode as it leaves the barrel of the gun, the firer is definitely going to care.

Current scramjet record is mach 9.6, or 3266 m/s so a well designed mass driver round could probably go at least as fast. That's faster than what you said was typical starship system transit velocity of 3,000 m/s.

That record was achieved at an altitude of 33,528 meters, in the stratosphere where the air is very thin; we can't fly Mach 9.6 at sea level without burning up. I think it might be possible to harden a projectile to survive at this speed when fired from the ground, but 3,000 m/s is nowhere near the system transit speed of 3,000 km/s. As mentioned in the xkcd article linked above, a projectile at 3,000 km/s would heat the atmosphere to fusion temperatures.

If defensive screens are electromagnetic (like it says in the Insider), why wouldn't they work on the ground?

This is kind of a "because I say so" answer, but I figure the fields would generate a nasty current in the atmosphere and short the whole thing out. I don't know a great deal about magnetic fields, but I do know that Earth's magnetosphere traps charged particles (the Van Allen belt) that can be quite dangerous to passing devices and organisms. But I'm mainly just following the traditional model that "shields don't work in the nebula" or the atmosphere.

Who says a mass driver round can't have a guidance system?

I assume that it does, otherwise it wouldn't be able to hit anything at all. But that doesn't change the basic problem of taking too long to reach a target at long ranges. But yes, such things could be used for short-range point defense weapons.

[fredgiblet]

Did you even read the article? He covers all that and more, and then there's further comments like this:

"But while kinetics launched down from space don't need boosters, if they are launched from high orbits the surface defense also has plenty of time to engage them. And since they have to pass through the atmosphere beaucoup fast, even minor pitting will degrade their accuracy if not cause a failure.

So in a missile dominant environment, I see high orbit as a standoff, with neither side in good tactical position to reach out and touch the other."

How are the point defenses going to engage them? A laser could hit a slug, but you're really just sticking a lighter onto a blowtorch if you do that. AAA would have a very difficult time hitting it due to the speed it's travelling at until it gets close enough that the AAA doesn't really matter anymore. Missiles might work but using a missile to counter a slug is going to get really expensive really fast.

We were talking about the ability of air and orbital forces to detect and attack submarines and vice versa; my comment had nothing to do with surface ships.

Ah, right.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

I think I have a ship in mind for what you need...a super large version of the GDS Kodiak. A Frigate size transport, gunship, and mobile command center.

A Loroi space to air version of the C-130 with a few add ons or variants.

Unless you like something like these.

[daelyte]

@Arioch:
Did some checking, the atmosphere would NOT cause a projectile to explode at high speeds. However, it would alter its trajectory enough to make ground-based mass drivers impractical when shooting through an atmosphere, and it wouldn't do missiles much good either. There are ways around that, but it's easier without an atmosphere.

A planet like mars with not much atmosphere wouldn't have that problem however, and would still benefit from the natural armor and heat dissipation benefits of all that extra mass. A fortified moon or asteroid would make a nice orbital battle station too, and capturing an asteroid to use for that purpose wouldn't be very difficult.

If defensive screens are electromagnetic (like it says in the Insider), why wouldn't they work on the ground?

This is kind of a "because I say so" answer, but I figure the fields would generate a nasty current in the atmosphere and short the whole thing out. I don't know a great deal about magnetic fields, but I do know that Earth's magnetosphere traps charged particles (the Van Allen belt) that can be quite dangerous to passing devices and organisms. But I'm mainly just following the traditional model that "shields don't work in the nebula" or the atmosphere.

Shields don't work in some nebulas due to some specific rare gases. They may also be affected by especially strong electromagnetic interference present in some planets. Most of the time shields should work on earthlike planets.

An electromagnetic shield would be the best defense against particle beams. If plasma weapons use some form of magnetic containment, it would be affected by magnetic interference and plasma dissipates quickly once containment is lost. In fact, plasma weapons would have poor armor penetration for the same reason - plasma just doesn't have enough mass and forward momentum to make a dent, all it will do is heat the surface.

Lasers, mass drivers (including "smart slugs") and missiles would be unaffected by an electromagnetic field but there are other defenses for those.

Who says a mass driver round can't have a guidance system?

I assume that it does, otherwise it wouldn't be able to hit anything at all. But that doesn't change the basic problem of taking too long to reach a target at long ranges. But yes, such things could be used for short-range point defense weapons.[/quote]

If you have the power to move a ship at high speed, you can move a slug even easier.

Smart slugs can be accelerated to very high speeds, and only need enough thrust for minor course corrections as they get closer. They would be very good against armor and hard to stop or deflect.

Now the downsides. Offensive mass drivers would be big, need a lot of power (even by spaceship standards), and have a lot of recoil. Even smart slugs with some guidance are not going to chase agile fighters through an asteroid field, you're better off with normal missiles for that.

Heavily armored targets can't maneuver as fast with all that mass. So I see offensive mass drivers as the sort of thing you'd put on a capital ship or orbital fort, to use against same.

With mass drivers as point defense you're just throwing out buckshot hoping to scrag some missiles (or plasma?). You could also have a hybrid that goes a distance and then blows up into a cloud of shrapnel, increasing the chance that something (missile or fighter) will crash into it.

How are the point defenses going to engage them? A laser could hit a slug, but you're really just sticking a lighter onto a blowtorch if you do that.

Depends on what you're trying to stop. A slug can hit a slug, it doesn't even need to destroy it, at that long range you just needs to deflect it a fraction of a degree to make it miss the planet entirely.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

I got it!!!

I read this story by a friend of mine...it's a B5 AU but so far everyone likes it.

Here the first part they are working on new toys.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6303785/2/B ... -beginning

This maybe something we could use...but the best case Massive low orbit Orbital Gun Platforms enough to stop a invasion fleet in it's tracks.

These guns are massive rapid fire cannons supported by ground base surface to space missiles and fighter, bomber squadrons...along with PD guns.

But the reason for surface base guns is to make them harder to hit and be a less open target in space. Basically three lines for orbital defense. Fleet...Orbital Guns and Battle stations on the ground Mass Drivers to hold back anything that gets thought all that.

[Absalom]

The other way to is to make the missile larger and more expensive and give it the same kind of drive that the starships have, and that result is a torpedo. Torpedo warfare is a larger subject, but suffice it to say that ground bases are not ideal launch plaforms for torpedoes, as their exhausts spew radioactive materials and are not safe to operate in atmosphere or near the ground. You'd need some kind of a booster that was safe to operate in atmosphere, adding to cost and response time.

Enter the super mass driver. Primarily used to launch small (or perhaps "small") acceleration-resistant payloads into space, but in time of war used to launch torpedoes, fighters, and drones for the war effort.

Though in the case of at least torpedoes I think that pre-placing them into orbit might be the better option.

Current scramjet record is mach 9.6, or 3266 m/s so a well designed mass driver round could probably go at least as fast. That's faster than what you said was typical starship system transit velocity of 3,000 m/s.

That record was achieved at an altitude of 33,528 meters, in the stratosphere where the air is very thin; we can't fly Mach 9.6 at sea level without burning up. I think it might be possible to harden a projectile to survive at this speed when fired from the ground, but 3,000 m/s is nowhere near the system transit speed of 3,000 km/s. As mentioned in the xkcd article linked above, a projectile at 3,000 km/s would heat the atmosphere to fusion temperatures.

Hey guys, I have an awesome idea for a new type of ramjet!

If defensive screens are electromagnetic (like it says in the Insider), why wouldn't they work on the ground?

This is kind of a "because I say so" answer, but I figure the fields would generate a nasty current in the atmosphere and short the whole thing out. I don't know a great deal about magnetic fields, but I do know that Earth's magnetosphere traps charged particles (the Van Allen belt) that can be quite dangerous to passing devices and organisms. But I'm mainly just following the traditional model that "shields don't work in the nebula" or the atmosphere.

The same thing would indeed presumably happen with shields protecting against plasma weaponry. The plasma gets trapped in the region of the shield, forming a radiation hazard until it dissipates. Also, you get the shockwave of the weapon regardless, because you have a meaningful atmosphere for it to traverse. That having been said, any facility that you're sticking a shield on is presumably important enough to bury and/or armor anyways, so neither of those are really important.

Similarly, unless the field is oscillating you won't get a meaningful current flow (at least from the perspective of the facility, since it will presumably be shielded from the magnetic field).

That having been said, a ground-based weapon that can be defeated so trivially is probably not going to be used in situations where that method is likely, so even if you have a shielded facility, all that you're doing is causing your enemy a logistical problem. It won't matter in a fight.

To be really useful in that situation, a shield would probably need to be based on manipulating probability fields to keep particles out of an exclusion zone. Given thermodynamics, this indicates that any force that was resisted would need to be forced onto either the shield emitter or a sacrificial mass. Also, what you could block would depend on how efficient/effective/powerful your emitters and power supply were, and I expect you'd be vexed by quantum leaps allowing weapons fire in anyways. Not that any of this matters, since probability engineering is presumably outside the capabilities of all of the participants and non-participants combined.

[fredgiblet]

A fortified moon or asteroid would make a nice orbital battle station too

*Obligatory "that's no moon" post*

[Just a Crazy-Man]

It's a battle station.

[discord]

daelyte: was thinking more along the line of the transport bringing the drop ships, troopers and logistical tail, think huge aircraft carriers designed for ground unit transport and fire support.

crazy guy: cute but small, decent taxi cabs though.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

Thank you.

[Smithy]

Gah, I hate taking time out, you end up dangerously behind in the discussion. Such is life.

@ discord, back to our discussion about mortar/ close support orbital strikes. Sigh. Your right, why stick them on crusiers when the assault ships could mount them. Except modern and historical landing ships have virtually never carried weapons (there are always of course the odd exceptions) as it tends to take them away from their class specialisation, facilitate the landing of troops. I would imagine Landing ships are pretty similar to the modern day Wasp class assault ships, ie a form of cheap carrier vessel. So why bother taking up cargo space with your dedicated infantry space mortar (possibly the most expensive and complicated way to deliver the one of the cheapest weapon solutions around). When you could load up with more multi-purpose drones/aircraft. Which gives you greater tactical flexibility. And if Ground ops tend to be insurgent based warfare then aircraft can probably get a bomb on target far faster on average than your orbital landing ship. And if Hamas can fire rockets 75km, I reckon the Loroi/Umiak guerrillas could probably pop off a couple at your landing ships. But finally if warfare on planets is nearly always asymmetrical. Landing/assault ships probably brake orbit as soon as they have disgorged the "men and materials" and probably take on a supply mission, or another planetary assault, and leave the wet work to the boots on the ground.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Most of the stuff on rocketpunk manifesto isn't really applicable in this instance because, while quite well thought out, the tech level assumed in rocketpunk is substantially lower than outsider.

The main defense in Outsider is acceleration. Armor may mitigate some things, but if you cannot maneuver, you're a sitting duck. The reason why weapon emplacements on the surface have a shorter range than weapons in orbit is because they can't move around, least not at an appreciable acceleration. Your ability to dodge directly reduces the opponents ability to score a hit. The ships in Outsider have phenomenal amounts of DeltaV.

Self propelled mass driver slugs are called Torpedos in Outsider, and they exist. The industrial capacity required to produce them in significant quantities makes them impractical. Even the Umiak use them mostly as a way of tying up Loroi point defense while they get closer with their starships. (Planets can't do that)

Planets do have lots of resources with which to build stationary defenses, self propelled mass drivers, etc. but why build those stationary things that you may not ever use when you could use that industrial capacity to build starships? Maybe if some backwater planet didn't have the capability of building starships, they could make an admirable stand against an alien race that cared enough to not glass the entire planet. Since they probably don't care though, you really ought to be going out of your way to welcome your new alien overlords as friendly like as possible. Hence the Bellarmine's mission.

No matter how much mass your orbital asteroid base has, if a similarly sized asteroid traveling at cruising speed hits it, there's not going to be much left. If your asteroid base has the firepower to destroy an incoming asteroid before impact, an invading star fleet would have the firepower to destroy the asteroid base. If the asteroid base can move out of the way and fire at the same time, it is a starship.

[daelyte]

@icekatze:
There's plenty of stuff on rocketpunk manifesto covering higher tech levels, up to and beyond Outsider, so yes it's very much applicable.

Armor mitigates everything. Heat-based weapons like plasma and lasers are largely ineffective against just meters of armor. Particle beams have better penetration but much shorter range. Even nuclear missiles and mass drivers would have difficulty digging through kilometers of rock such as what an asteroid base could have. When you have that much armor, you may be sitting but you're no duck.

Put the same energy as ship engines into a projectile of equal mass and it will have an equal amount of DeltaV as a ship. Without the extra mass for engines and life support it can be much faster.

Mass driver slugs are not self-propelled. They are a big lump of iron (or similar) accelerated to high speed in a large magnetic coil gun. Even with a guidance system to adjust their course a little bit, they would still be very cheap.

You could accelerate a slug to the same speed as a fighter of the same mass, for a comparable energy cost. It would go through an electromagnetic defensive screen unhindered. Point defense lasers, plasma and particle beams (blasters) would be helpless to stop it. Stopping lumps of iron using missiles would get expensive fast. One hit on a ship that doesn't have thick armor could do pretty nasty damage.

Luckily, most of the thrust comes from the coil gun, so a slug can't alter course by very much. It can be pretty fast in the direction it was fired, but it still probably wouldn't be faster than missiles. A longer coil gun means faster and more damaging projectiles as you have more distance to accelerate them. Since they are cheap and can do good damage, even if most of them don't hit they can still be fired in large numbers to thin out an enemy fleet.

Why build stationary defenses instead of more ships? The more mass a starship has, the more it costs to move it at a decent speed. Stationary defenses can be much more massive than a ship because they don't have to move around, and that means not only more armor but also more heat dissipation for high energy weapons, and more room for bulky weapons. Drilling into an asteroid is very cheap compared to making an similarly massive spaceship with large enough engines to move it at a decent speed. This is true at any tech level.

No matter how much mass your orbital asteroid base has, if a similarly sized asteroid traveling at cruising speed hits it, there's not going to be much left. If your asteroid base has the firepower to destroy an incoming asteroid before impact, an invading star fleet would have the firepower to destroy the asteroid base.

You don't need to destroy an incoming asteroid, deflecting it is much easier. Accelerating an asteroid to cruising speed would take a lot of energy, and a lot of time. Divert it by a fraction of a degree and it will be very difficult to put back on course.

@Arioch:
I just had a thought about mass drivers on warships. If the major races have more propulsion technology than industrial capacity, it may make sense for them to build relatively smaller but faster ships. These ships would simply have no room for large mass drivers that can accelerate a projectile up to a useful speed. Since technology transfer seems to be common in the Outsider universe, I think this would be very plausible.

Asteroid bases (and moons and low atmosphere planets) is another matter, they have plenty of room for a low industrial cost, but you can't use static defenses to attack, so aggressive races like the Loroi and Umiak would mostly use them in key locations (Citadels?) and keep most of their resources for mobile forces. Other more defensive races like the Barsam and especially Historians might have more use for them, but might have less resources invested into military equipment in the first place, so it might only be enough to make them as hard to invade as races with more warships.

[Muttley]

"Mass drivers" make no sense as anti-ship weapons, or even as ship-mounted weapons. They throw dumb rocks that do damage by their kinetic energy alone.

The original "mass driver" was the lunar catapult in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". It has two fairly significant characteristics: it's got an inexhaustible supply of ammunition (moonrock) and it's mounted on a massive object, so does not recoil significantly on launch. Not to mention the fact that the kinetic energy accumulated by the rock comes from the target's graviational field - the lunar catapult is just powerful enough to get the rocks out of the lunar gravitational well and into the Earth's. Three fairly significant characteristics.

Yes, I know JMS used "mass drivers" to illustrate the barbarity of the Centauri, but even then he was throwing rocks into the Narn homeworld's gravity well, not imparting all the lethal energy on initial acceleration from the ship. He never did explain how they got all the rocks there, either.

Explain to me how this makes spaceships throwing rocks at each other a good idea, because I'm lost.

In imparting sufficient energy to a dumb rock, the recoil of the whole ship will be significant, affecting the accuracy of the shot, as it's an unguided hittile (it has to hit to do damage, near miss is no good).

You should also note that anything in orbit is as easy to hit as a ground installation: it's orbital parameters are easy to work out and so it's location is known and predictable. Orbital battle stations are there to avoid having to lift your warshots out of the gravity well, which takes time and leaves an obvious trail. But they need to be very heavily defended, or to be sacrificed after shooting all their ammunition off. Objects in orbit are sitting ducks.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Your weapons aren't going to do you any good if they are stuck beneath kilometers of asteroid. They need to have a port on the surface to fire. Pulverize the surface, you've pulverized their ability to fire. But even if that wasn't an issue, asteroid bases are a bad idea because of a little thing called "Conservation of Momentum." It is applicable in this instance. As I said, if something of a similar mass strikes the asteroid base at cruising speed, even if the rock doesn't explode into zillions of little bits of gravel, anything on the inside is going to have a very, very bad day, as it is accelerated by thousands of meters per second almost instantly.

Without engines, the object cannot change direction and is going to be useless outside of a very short range. Additionally, putting all the energy into an object instantly rather than spreading the Delta V out over hundreds of hours involves some incredible design challenges. And if you try spreading that Delta V out along the length of a barrel, by the time you've fired, your target has already moved. Mass driver rounds might be very cheap, but they will ultimately be useless against a moving target. (Wooden swords are really cheap too.)

Space is big, really freaking huge, you can't saturate the sky with iron, and a moving target can just move out of the way. No matter what large numbers of projectiles you think you might have, space is filled with a whole lot more nothing, vast mind boggling amounts of nothing. You can accelerate something to the same speed as a fighter, its called a torpedo. They're expensive and point defense weaponry does work against them. Since the relative velocities are so extreme, you don't even need to accelerate a point defense projectile to particularly high velocities relative to yourself in order to ruin its day.

How do you deflect an asteroid that has a propulsion system to course correct? You're going to be accelerating this thing with a tug ship of some sort, and ships have dozens of hours of burn time. If you can fire at and score hits on a target as it is approaching you, an enemy of the same tech level could do the same to you. If you cant destroy the asteroid and you can't accelerate out of the way, it will score a hit. (The usefulness of a maneuvering drive as a weapon is directly proportional to its usefulness as a maneuvering drive.)

[Absalom]

Yes, I know JMS used "mass drivers" to illustrate the barbarity of the Centauri, but even then he was throwing rocks into the Narn homeworld's gravity well, not imparting all the lethal energy on initial acceleration from the ship. He never did explain how they got all the rocks there, either.

Probably the same way the Loroi would: use whatever's most convenient in the target system. Mass drivers are really useful for bombardment, since the target will presumably be staying still, allowing you to hit it from where ever you want. Useful for the initial launch of small craft and self-propelled munitions as well. Just not relevant for shooting ships (or even "static" defenses such as Loroi/Umiak Citadel stations), due to a ship's ability to move out of the way.

[Arioch]

You should also note that anything in orbit is as easy to hit as a ground installation: it's orbital parameters are easy to work out and so it's location is known and predictable. Orbital battle stations are there to avoid having to lift your warshots out of the gravity well, which takes time and leaves an obvious trail. But they need to be very heavily defended, or to be sacrificed after shooting all their ammunition off. Objects in orbit are sitting ducks.

Even the most basic satellites must have maneuvering thrusters, and any orbital craft that claims to be a "battle" station must have significant ability to dodge kinetic attacks and change orbits as the situation demands. It will need a starship-type powerplant to power its weapons anyway, so it's no significant problem to give it a few small drives. Less than 5G acceleration should be sufficient to avoid sucker-punches. You don't need a mass driver to launch a dangerous kinetic attack, just a ship with an open airlock.

Larger civilian orbital platforms will have less-impressive ability to maneuver, but even they will be able to avoid a long range kinetic attack if given sufficient advance warning.

[daelyte]

@Muttley:

In imparting sufficient energy to a dumb rock, the recoil of the whole ship will be significant, affecting the accuracy of the shot, as it's an unguided hittile (it has to hit to do damage, near miss is no good).

Explain to me how recoil in the same axis as the shot itself would reduce accuracy?

Also, hint: if you use Smart Rocks, a near miss can become a hit.

Hint: Smart Rocks

Pulverize the surface, you've pulverized their ability to fire.

Easier said than done. Energy weapons do next to nothing against thick rock, missiles can be scragged by point defenses, small mass drivers won't do much either, and moving asteroids around takes a long time (see below).

Without engines, the object cannot change direction and is going to be useless outside of a very short range.

What about propulsion similar to what is found on a small missile? Forward thrust is provided by the initial launch, so you only need it for maneuvering, and you don't need much endurance either.

Additionally, putting all the energy into an object instantly rather than spreading the Delta V out over hundreds of hours involves some incredible design challenges.

As does making a spaceship or missile that change course in the space of a few seconds.

Space is big, really freaking huge, you can't saturate the sky with iron, and a moving target can just move out of the way.

Hint: Smart Rocks

Fire towards where the enemy is expected to be by the time your projectile intersects their path. If your projectile can move a little bit, a near-miss becomes a hit.

How do you deflect an asteroid that has a propulsion system to course correct? You're going to be accelerating this thing with a tug ship of some sort, and ships have dozens of hours of burn time.

Accelerating a large asteroid up to cruising speed would require an entire fleet, or a very long time. You'd see them coming probably weeks or months ahead of time, with an extremely predictable trajectory. That is a lot of time to shoot the ships and the asteroid itself. If only we had a really big weapon like say a kilometers-long mass driver...

Incidentally, you need to be able to do this to protect your planets from the same kind of attack. Otherwise it would be the standard extermination tactic. If an orbital station can protect a planet from incoming asteroids, it can protect itself the same way.

If you can fire at and score hits on a target as it is approaching you, an enemy of the same tech level could do the same to you.

No. A ww2 battleship can fire at and score hits on a soldier as he is approaching, that does not mean that a soldier with a more modern assault rifle can do the same to the battleship. An asteroid base with a weapon several times the length of an Outsider battleship can shoot very far, very fast, very often.

[pinheadh78]

Just a thought about huge asteroid / moon type fortresses. Those are only effective if your opponent actually wants to attack whatever it is protecting or to defeat the station. The huge fortress isn't going to do anything to a fleet that is just passing through or has more interest in other strategic objectives in the system. This has happened several times in our own history where the enemy simply ignored a defenders positions.

Given the fast changing dynamics of a modern battlefield the doctrine of hitting really hard then displacing holds more appeal. An enemy transiting the system cannot simply bypass / ignore your ships as these can get into position to cause an invader trouble.

If you really must stand and defend a planet bound asset then layered system defenses with something like a Golan Space Stations as the innermost tier is probably a better choice than heavy ground based assets http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Golan_sp ... e_platform. These could be towed by other ships into position (or towed away if defense isn't a good idea) to protect fixed position assets and carried much heavier armor and weaponry as the primary mission was to defend until victory or defeat. These had limited maneuverability to change orbits and sometimes very limited system travel with good evacuation systems for the crew when defeat was imminent. When these were not engaged in system defense the stations would be put to use as a depot for the local defense fleet, police station, customs area.

[discord]

daelyte:

Explain to me how recoil in the same axis as the shot itself would reduce accuracy?

if the energy is not perfectly aligned with center of gravity it will turn the ship, it will not effect the first shot much, but is a nuisance for volleys since it forces perfect timing on shots or serious degradation of accuracy.

well, you CAN shot one gun at a time and correct after each, but that is probably not a good idea.

and on smart rounds, we HAVE talked about this, argued about this, the problem is simple propulsion.
mass drivers of any kind will have limited acceleration and muzzle velocity, travel time to target gives these weapons exceedingly short range, since given outsider acceleration the shooting ship accelerating after the round will have to move to avoid collision with it's own shot in a minute or two....

oh, and not to forget, no atmosphere to use for course correction = needs engine = more costly.