Until someone invents a pocket-sized fusion reactor laser weapons will not be light infantry weapons. Power conversion of lasers is very very very low.
That's exactly what I just said.
Tactical laser weapons were developed some time ago. I don't know how much they are actually used, though. Maybe someone here has more information?
They're not used at all. There are several in various stages of development, but none have got that far past proof of concept.
Airborne Laser (anti-ICBM) - proven the idea can work, but is impractical for actual use and may not get any more funding.
Advanced Tactical Laser (air to ground attack) - proof of concept prototype.
Tactical High Energy Laser (anti-missile/shell) - successfully tested but project cancelled.
HELLADS (anti-missile/shell) - follow-on from the THEL project using a different kind of laser that should be easier to get down to size. Apparently on target, but probably a long way from being ready for deployment.
I had also read about a system that could be used to fight off swarms of small boats and the like, but I think that may have just been speculation about possible uses for the THEL rather than a separate project. I don't know of any projects that have got past the "Pretty much works, but isn't practical yet" stage.
Not really. If you have enough power to penetrate (for example) 2 inches of steel, then you're going to burn through a lot of smoke quickly and without much effect. Smoke will make the beam visible, which could be a problem, and it will degrade the effectiveness some, but if there's enough smoke to seriously degrade the effectiveness of a weapons-category laser, then you aren't going to be ablet o see the target to hit it with a bullet, either.
No, he's right that smoke, or even just fog, is a big problem. I think you're seriously underestimating the amount of attenuation the laser beam will experience. With bullets, and importantly things like mortars and artillery which aren't expected to have line of sight in the first place, visibility isn't necessarily a huge problem - shoot in about the right direction and it will have at least some effect. The trouble with lasers is that they don't just become inaccurate, they end up having no effect at all.
There's a somewhat interesting discussion of the problems with lasers
here. That site is actually about Star Wars vs. Star Trek, but it makes the point that both are almost completely lacking in indirect fire weapons. Lasers sound cool, and look cool in films although rather less so in real life, but they will never replace all conventional weapons because there are some things they just can't do.
I think I agree with this, although rail guns have their issues as well, so I'm not sure they'll be first.
Rail guns ultimately have many of the same problems as lasers - direct fire only, large size, high power, and so on. They don't have the attenuation problem, but add in the problems you mention of high wear and tear, as well as still requiring ammunition.
Rail guns may end up seeing practical use, but I don't think they'll be the "next step" any more than lasers will - they both have niche use but can't replace most conventional weapons any time soon.
).
