Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And it's been pointed out repeatedly that mechs or walkers necessarily aren't going to be the most 'effective', but they'll be 'reasonably useful' as an alternative to multiple various roles performed by many different vehicles deployed now.

And I'm sure the alternatives 'then' would see the mechs relegated to dreams, mothballs or construction equipment just as our lack of technology sees them now. Any technology that fundamentally makes the flawed concept of a tall legged fighting vehicle useful would serve to just as likely make alternates to it superior for not possessing such flaws. Mechs are the new flying saucers. It's a form searching for a function.

I did a 12 hour power drive across my state and back and I saw two Bradley's on two tractor trailers, tanks are cool because you can put them on trucks. I also saw a Stuart in front of a VFW building, it was also cool. I didn't see any robots until I looked around a hobby store and saw that they had 40k stuff for sale and I bought an imperial armor and a set of Gaunt's Ghosts, but I didn't buy any robots because robots suck and Gaunt is cool.

Kanluwen wrote:It was my fault, I forgot to add your earlier quote. It's a perfectly acceptable image considering your question of:

Ah, cool, your point makes more sense... I still don't agree, but it makes more sense

How do you think tanks are deployed to warzones? Just because they "drive out of the engagement zone" sure as hell doesn't mean they "drove to the warzone". They get flown there or shipped there via boat.

Yes, all vehicles will be transported into the theatre via plane or boat. The issue is once in theatre, how does it rapidly deploy to reach a conflict point quickly. It is an option for tanks to be deployed from air drop,, this can be very effective when launching an offensive.

So it was proposed that walkers could make up for their low speed by being airdropped. Except that the stated role of these walkers was as infantry support in low intensity conflict. Which would require having a number of aircraft prepped and loaded on the runway at all times, waiting for conflict to break out to react to it. Which is incredibly expensive, and a huge investment of time, equipment and airspace.

Or we can just drive tracked and wheeled vehicles to the combat. Certainly not as cool, but actually practical.

But for that matter, what's going to stop a mech/walker from walking on out of the engagement zone?

Speed. It's top speed would be a fraction of the speed of an equivalent weight, equivalent motor wheeled or tracked vehicle.

But, since we're pretty much going to have to rely on fictional examples:

There is nothing to be gained from fictional examples. They're invented with the end game in mind - having mechs on the future battlefield. They assume away all the problems inherent in the designs for the sake of cool.

Which is fine for the purposes of creating a cool story, but it makes them fething useless for any effort to determine if mechs are viable on a real world battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because it was so expensive and effective to uparmor the HMMVs and Land Rovers for Iraq/Afghanistan, right?

And all those problems would be solved by putting legs on a vehicle. Come on.

Of course you can uparmor the future alternative to the HMMV. But it doesn't negate the fact that a single operator versus a fireteam(or at the bare minimum two persons) would be a benefit.

A more automated weapons platforms that can put all functions in the hands of a single operator is an advantage of developing a more automated weapons platform.

It is not an advantage of giving a weapons platform legs, because equivalent systems would be just as practical on a vehicle with tracks or legs.

This has been explained before. It is not complicated.

Hardpoint mounting is what would make the weapons loadout 'more easily alterable'.

Hardpoint mounting that allows for the quick swapout of weapons is an advantage of developing hardpoint weapons mountings.

It is not an advantage of giving a weapons platform legs, because equivalent systems would be just as practical on a vehicle with tracks or wheels.

This has been explained before. It is not complicated.

And it's been pointed out repeatedly that mechs or walkers necessarily aren't going to be the most 'effective', but they'll be 'reasonably useful' as an alternative to multiple various roles performed by many different vehicles deployed now.

And the point, simply, is that a light weapons platform that is guaranteed to be much slower than an equivalent wheeled vehicle, and almost certainly be many times more expensive is very unlikely to ever have a viable place on the battlefield.

STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Kanluwen wrote:STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Sorry mate. At some point this thread became a discussion of mechs as a realistic idea, and they're not. Just don't let that affect your enjoyment of mechs as a cool idea. I haven't, I've been a long time fan of Battletech despite having realised a long time ago it's really unlikely we'll ever see one in the real world.

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Sorry, I can't even agree that they'd work on a psychological level. Sorry.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Sorry mate. At some point this thread became a discussion of mechs as a realistic idea, and they're not. Just don't let that affect your enjoyment of mechs as a cool idea. I haven't, I've been a long time fan of Battletech despite having realised a long time ago it's really unlikely we'll ever see one in the real world.

See, I'm not entirely sure that we won't see some kind of walkers at some point.

I do, however, think they won't be the stories tall mechs but rather something like the Sentinel or the AT-ST. Relatively small, easily transportable/airdroppable and packing firepower/ammunition in spades.

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Sorry, I can't even agree that they'd work on a psychological level. Sorry.

*points at 'The Empire Strikes Back'*

Do you think that guy on the intercom talking about "Imperial walkers sighted!" was doing it for the fun of it? No! Clearly--he was terrified!

Ulver wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Yes, and if I had the technology to fire invisible psychic mind lasers that can destroy the mind of the operator of mechs, whether present or remote, biological or synthetic, then I could kill all mechs with a thought.

Or to put it another way: if my aunt had a cock and balls, she'd be my uncle

This entire discussion is based around theoretical technology. I posit that those are the most essential prerequisites for such a walker to work, and that if they were met it could fulfill a useful role in mopping up scattered infantry in an urban environment as a supporting vehicle for infantry, or in garrisoning captured territory (since it would effectively be a walking guard tower with heavy machine guns).

IceRaptor wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Assuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Armor is generally outpaced by weaponry, by and large. You're making the major assumption that you can design an armor that can defeat the increasingly powerful weapons available. And you are assuming that tank designers in the future are stupid enough to continue to make their top armor vulnerable to mechs. And this assumes the buildings are sufficiently large enough to provide enough coverage for your walker, and that sensors aren't sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate those buildings.

Walkers in a tank role are generally suboptimal to a tank because of their greater exposure to attack helicopters and guided artillery (missile or otherwise), and offer very few advantages over the tank. Mechs might make sense in a zero-g environment, or as basically larger scale infantry, but they just can't be armored as reliably as a tank can. You won't get the same depth of armor coverage due to the need to have joints (which can't be sufficiently protected), and they are going to have very limited deployment profiles due to their relatively large ground pressure.

sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:ssuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

You're assuming a light walker with equivalent resilience and usable firepower to a heavy tank. Your assumption is completely ludicrous.

I don't think it's something that would replace tanks in all their roles, though I do think most of their roles could be just as easily served with various forms of air support, but something that would serve a role as a mobile version of a guard tower or a sniper/machine gunner on a rooftop, able to escort an APC full of troops, or drones capable of serving the same role as modern infantry, in an urban environment.

Try again, this time thinking about the tonnage of your walker, and what vehicles in that weight group actually bring into the battlefield. That is, what light platforms currently have the capability to carry AMS, or resist multiple rocket hits, or even remain entirely immune to small arms fire?

To my knowledge, there isn't any current technology able to swat RPG rounds out of the air, so that's a bit of a moot point, and the only non-RPG weapons that pose a threat to light armor and are infantry portable that I know of are petrol bombs or flamethrowers (both of which are extremely short range) and anti-materiel rifles.

You're trying to push a false dichotomy of "either deadly or a walker".

No, I'm not. For the sake of this point I've been willing to grant you the possibilty of an effective, deadly walker. Meanwhile I've been trying to explain to you, with far more patience than you've justified, that a deadly weapons platform is very, very scary, whether it's or walker not. Once there's a unit advancing on your position with a cannon and multiple HMGs, it's terrifying whether it is on legs or not.

If one is assuming that both vehicles being compared are equal in terms of available firepower and staying power, then I don't see the grounds for such a vehement objection to "the bipedal testament to your godlike technology has more of a psychological impact than a funny looking car, while providing a better vantage point for its weapons than something close to the ground".

I have no particular certainty that the required technological hurdles will be cleared, though I don't see them as impossible challenges, so there may never be something that meets the theoretical specifications I put forth, but that's not particularly relevant to a hypothetical discussion assuming that they were met...

I think you do, because you still haven't even attempted to provide one weapons platform, either in use today or in development, that has 'being scary' as a major design element. Because there aren't any. Because 'being scary' is a completely stupid design goal, when you design something to be deadly and scary will just happen because of that.

I agree that having "looks scary" as a primary design consideration isn't very sound, but a great many weapons have had terror as at least a secondary concern, generally through being deadly in a horrific manner (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, incendiaries, etc), and a not insignificant percentage of uniform or armor aesthetics have involved an intimidating appearance.

But I don't think the impact of a walker would be terror, but more a further symbol of technological supremacy. A tank is a tank, and no matter how advanced and awesome you make it it's still a metal box with treads and a cannon, with any advanced technology being hidden away from the casual observer, regardless of the difference it makes in a fight, and even then it's not so far removed from the mundane car or truck in general appearance. A metal giant strolling down the street? That's something alien, with its every step proclaiming just how advanced you are.

The Abrams is also about seven times the weight I proposed as a requirement for getting over the issue of less weight distribution impairing mobility due to soft or fragile ground.

Which I noted, as I was granting you the technological capability to do what you proposed, before I went on to question the practicality of actually doing it. Read.

Right, I was reiterating it for emphasis.

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

You expect choppers to come in, and perform this operation during combat? This really, realy doesn't sound as sensible as a tracked vehicle driving out of the area under its own power, does it?

If it had to retreat, it could get clear of the combat area before being picked up, or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place. If you're not fighting against vastly inferior forces, you're doing something very wrong.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!

(img snipped)

The part of my post you quoted element was asking how you plan to get the weapons platform out of an area you'd dropped it into. Read.

Clearly the tank is leaping into that plane. Tanks are sneaky like that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I don't think it's something that would replace tanks in all their roles, though I do think most of their roles could be just as easily served with various forms of air support, but something that would serve a role as a mobile version of a guard tower or a sniper/machine gunner on a rooftop, able to escort an APC full of troops, or drones capable of serving the same role as modern infantry, in an urban environment.

You've lost track of the conversation there. You suggested the loadout of a theoretical walker, and I pointed out that you were giving capabilities and armour more line with a mbt, something much heavier than your proposed mech design. The point isn't whether it can compete with a tank in any role, the point is that you need to go back and look at what you're assuming this light walking unit can do.

To my knowledge, there isn't any current technology able to swat RPG rounds out of the air, so that's a bit of a moot point, and the only non-RPG weapons that pose a threat to light armor and are infantry portable that I know of are petrol bombs or flamethrowers (both of which are extremely short range) and anti-materiel rifles.

There are actually point defence weapons for vehicles in development which will react to an incoming rocket by putting enough lead in the air to shoot it down. If they see field application it'll be in the next few years... but I say "if" because with the amount of lead they throw out to shoot down a rocket they might pose more of a risk of friendly fire than anything else.

Meanwhile, you need to consider actual light tanks out there right now in the same tonnage as the proposed mech, around 10 tons. Which means you're probably looking at something like the M113 APC, which still vulnerable to high calibre machine gun rounds.

If you want immunity to that you have to start looking at platforms like the Bradley, at which point you're looking at a minimum of 20 tons.

If one is assuming that both vehicles being compared are equal in terms of available firepower and staying power, then I don't see the grounds for such a vehement objection to "the bipedal testament to your godlike technology has more of a psychological impact than a funny looking car, while providing a better vantage point for its weapons than something close to the ground".

No, again, you've lost track of the point. I was simply saying that walkers do not have any additional 'terror' factor, because once you've got the base level terror of 'they have armoured vehicles advancing on our position throwing all kinds of deadly gak in the air' then you need something far more terrifying than 'it's walking' to increase the terror level any.

I agree that having "looks scary" as a primary design consideration isn't very sound, but a great many weapons have had terror as at least a secondary concern, generally through being deadly in a horrific manner (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, incendiaries, etc), and a not insignificant percentage of uniform or armor aesthetics have involved an intimidating appearance.

Yeah, as ahtman mentioned earlier flamethrowers are one such weapon, because in addition to killing you, they cause you a lot of pain beforehand, and that'll scare your comerades plenty.

'In addition to killing you, this will do so in a completely horrible manner' is the kind of thing. 'In addition to killing you, this will do so while walking' is not. Especially if we're talking about a vehicle coming in at around 10 tons, designed for light infantry support.

But I don't think the impact of a walker would be terror, but more a further symbol of technological supremacy. A tank is a tank, and no matter how advanced and awesome you make it it's still a metal box with treads and a cannon, with any advanced technology being hidden away from the casual observer, regardless of the difference it makes in a fight, and even then it's not so far removed from the mundane car or truck in general appearance. A metal giant strolling down the street? That's something alien, with its every step proclaiming just how advanced you are.

So the primary effect is strategic, rather than tactical? Interesting clarification.

I really doubt the sense of producing amazing look tech to wow the enemy into not fighting, but this isn't so far from. As a giant prestige project that troops on the ground really bloody hate, I can see mechs being developed

If it had to retreat, it could get clear of the combat area before being picked up, or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place. If you're not fighting against vastly inferior forces, you're doing something very wrong.

Yes, no-one plans to fight against weaker forces. But it happens and when it does you want a decent exit strategy. Having slow moving units dependant on air travel for rapid movement means they can become a liability if you want to retreat quickly.

sebster wrote:Clearly the tank is leaping into that plane. Tanks are sneaky like that.

Crank it in reverse and then hammer the handbrake, blues brothers style.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Ulver wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Yes, and if I had the technology to fire invisible psychic mind lasers that can destroy the mind of the operator of mechs, whether present or remote, biological or synthetic, then I could kill all mechs with a thought.

Or to put it another way: if my aunt had a cock and balls, she'd be my uncle

This entire discussion is based around theoretical technology. I posit that those are the most essential prerequisites for such a walker to work, and that if they were met it could fulfill a useful role in mopping up scattered infantry in an urban environment as a supporting vehicle for infantry, or in garrisoning captured territory (since it would effectively be a walking guard tower with heavy machine guns).

Some of it appears to be making up technology to fit with fiction. The discussion I'm reading is, "technology aside, would walkers be a viable alternative to AFVs?" Sure they may at some point invent a material that is incredibly light but hold many times its own weight, so that a walker's legs can support the rest of the vehicle and still be lifted off the ground with a powerplant small enough to fit in the vehicle the legs themselves are carrying (in my imagination it's a diamond-like crystal lattice structure), but it doesn't mean that a walker will still be practical if other drawbacks inherent in the design cannot be overcome (stability, speed disadvantage, whatever).

I've been meaning to do some maths around moving mechs based on some (probably wildly inaccurate) assumptions:

Walker weighs 70 tonnes; legs - 10 tonnes each
Leg is lifted 2 metres high when taking a step
Energy required for lifting each leg = mass x gravitational acceleration x height = 10000 (kg) x 9.81 x 2 = 196200 joules.

If we assume that each step allows them to cover 5 metres (I have no idea how stride height/length/motion are connected) then to cover one kilometre (200 steps) would require
39.24MJ (about 1 litre of diesel, not factoring engine efficiencies, I think). That only includes the energy required to lift the leg vertically, I haven't factored in the energy required for actual lateral movement (read: don't know how).

I think that viable walkers would have between 4 and 8 legs, with gyro tech from the Big Dog (I can't be bothered searching for videos at the mo, maybe later) - that would be feasible.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
...or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place.

If that's a viable strategy then why isn't it employed now? The US (which I assume has the largest military) will still withdraw from a situation if required, rather than throwing more troops and resource at it.

My own view of the original question: mechs are cooler than tanks (slightly), but tanks are 'better' and I can't see mechs or walkers having significant advantage to replace them.

mecha, because some also have air and space superiority over tanks

Tanks beat everything. True story.

Just as a ray of sunshine for you Kan, there are prototype "walking transports" around. There is a video around somewhere of a robot that looks like the wrong trousers from Wallace and Gromit, where the "pilot" sits in a seat above the legs and drives it around the test area/lab with a joystick.

Not quite a Sentinel yet, but it is a start

ShumaGorath wrote:Anything mechs can do helicopters can do better. Their only advantage is uneven urban terrain too small for similarly weighted vehicles, and thats really just indoors. For payload, maneuverability, battlefield position dominance, and virtually anything science fiction fakemechs are good at you can just use a helo.

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

Why don't we make the helicopter bigger and just use that?

Oh no, I agree with Shuma completely. With nukes giong down, and Saint Patty's Day this may indeed be the end times. I guess no use waiting, time to break out the tequila.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just as a ray of sunshine for you Kan, there are prototype "walking transports" around. There is a video around somewhere of a robot that looks like the wrong trousers from Wallace and Gromit, where the "pilot" sits in a seat above the legs and drives it around the test area/lab with a joystick.

Not quite a Sentinel yet, but it is a start

I know Japan had something like that going on, they were going to use it for firefighting(it had an enclosed canopy and full air filtration systems) and search & rescue after disasters.

I kind of wonder if it ever got off the ground.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Still going with this?

I've come to the conclusion that Mechs as we are talking about them probably have far less tactical flexibility than a power-armored force backed up by mechanized transports and tanks.

I can just imagine a 30 foot tall mech falling over after it gets a missile in the knee joint, that thing will be down for the count unless they get cranes in to pick it up. I'd say the Heavy Gear mechs are about as close to what we'd ever get, realistically.

A 30 foot mech would take a missile in the face from an apache or f22. Or it would just fall over because it misjudged the load tolerance of a road or something. Either way, non redundant walking platforms of any size that can't fit in a building is foolish.

Totally agree.

This is why I was saying that exo-suits/powered armor would probably be much more tactically flexible for infantry, whilst also being backed up by heavy transports/armor. Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air, while easily being able to carry out urban assaults. Sheesh, sounds a lot like Space Marines.

Bah, I was designing a mech about the size of a Heavy Gear, but now it just feels silly. Might go back and make a tank-transport/exo-suit combo.

It really doesn't matter what we use on the battlefield. Nothing is perfect. All things we create will be destroyed someway or another. It's about how cheap can we go to create a super efficient machine.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

The answer to all this is to combine the various technologies and produce...

The Flying Mank (Mecha Tank)



ULTIMATE ALL TERRAIN COMBAT VEHICLE

Do you think it needs more Dakka?

Platuan4th wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

One would think that powered armor would be proof against small arms carried by some drones. However, drones may not be effective at all vs another enemy with powered armor, if that is any indication of the rest of their military. The individual humans drones are taking out now aren't exactly high tech equipped soldiers with aerial surveillance going. Would drones be as effective as they are now if we were facing an equally technologically advanced foe?

What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

One would think that powered armor would be proof against small arms carried by some drones. However, drones may not be effective at all vs another enemy with powered armor, if that is any indication of the rest of their military. The individual humans drones are taking out now aren't exactly high tech equipped soldiers with aerial surveillance going. Would drones be as effective as they are now if we were facing an equally technologically advanced foe?

Basically every combat drone the U.S. utilizes carries hellfire missiles. Those are anti tank/bunker weapons. You're power armor suit isn't going to save you against something designed to kill things of that nature. The primary use of powered armor would be to make the soldier relatively immune to small arms fire giving them dominance indoors. Swat power armor would be a godsend to police units the world over. In an open field they would still prove to be excellent against infantry so long as they don't require constant logistical support. They're not gonna stand up to any sort of vehicle designed primarily for combat though.

War mopeds.

I remember a sci-fi writer gave a speech on Tank v Mecha.
He said how since a Mecha can go where ever it wants,the enemy can't trap the road like they did in Iraq,in that case the Mecha can be unpredictable,and less vunerable to IEW.

But at the end of the lecture he just told us that they would only ever be specialised weapons,and won't really replace a tank,Mechs guns won't be lighter and they would be better as an infantry support unit,or mixed with infantry squads.

Tanks don't need roads either. Its kind of the point of the tracks...

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

If you want to continue this line of reasoning, why do we need soldiers/tanks at all if drones can do everything they can do but better?

Obviously we can see that that idea is working well.

I wasn't really ever saying that power-armor/exo-suit would withstand hellfire missiles, I was saying I thought that powered infantry supported by heavy transports/tanks would be much more tactically flexible than a mech. I'm not really sure if people thought I meant the powered armor would be replacing tanks or what. I think a mech would be an absolute giant target from the air, however if you were fighting a sufficiently technologically advanced army, wouldn't they have AA to shoot down drones? Or perhaps cheaper/faster drones just meant to shoot down other drones? What happens then?

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

How so? The UN didn't ban Drones when it was proposed(the opponents of drones reasoning was exactly that it's not fair that the US and other countries with Drones can send them in and kill while there is no actual soldier to shoot back at) and according to the Air Force(I do nothing but hang out with AF officers, mind), Drones are customizable to a degree.

Platuan4th wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

How so? The UN didn't ban Drones when it was proposed(the opponents of drones reasoning was exactly that it's not fair that the US and other countries with Drones can send them in and kill while there is no actual soldier to shoot back at) and according to the Air Force(I do nothing but hang out with AF officers, mind), Drones are customizable to a degree.

The UN isn't a monolithic organization. It doesn't have opinions of its own. Independent member states have opinions concerning this and considering the fact that the majority of the security council is developing armed air drones I somehow doubt the most powerful entity within it believes they shouldn't be used "because they aren't fair". Most criticism has been related to how they are used, which is a form of long distance targeted bombing to strike insurgents and insurgent leaders on tips. This is tantamount to assassination by some arguments, which is outlawed by many pieces of paper the U.S. is signatory to. There is also a lot of criticism of the fact that we are using them in Pakistan and Yemen without the consent of the people or governments of those regions.

Also I misread your post and read you as "To which the UN basically said "war should be fair". Which caused a lot of the snide and which I didn't realize until after typing the above paragraph. Sorry

ShumaGorath wrote:
Also I misread your post and read you as "To which the UN basically said "war should be fair". Which caused a lot of the snide and which I didn't realize until after typing the above paragraph. Sorry

That's cool.

Watching the video for the proposal is pretty funny, especially the US delegate's reaction. But yeah, I should probably also have clarified that I didn't mean the UN as some singular world governing entity.

I think I may only be 3/4's here thanks to my wife being given 4 Midshifts in a row because she's one of 2 Satellite Vehicle Operators in her squadron currently, so that accounts for some of the not reading sensibly.