>>It probably was
>>derived from a vehicle-mounted weapon, though given its form factor,
>>it's more likely to have been an aerospace weapon than a Destroid
>>small laser.
>
>Now that's interesting. It's an infantry weapon, why derive it from
>that techbase as opposed to a technology that operates in the same
>environment as the infantry?

Because aerospace weapons are designed and built specifically to be as lightweight as possible, with the highest power-to-mass ratios in the field. Which is also something people tend to be looking for in man-portable weapons. Armored vehicle weapons, especially Destroid weapons? Not so much.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Admin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.