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.
2011/04/19 07:58:07
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Emperors Faithful wrote:Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
But we are. We're much more terrified about things that will actual kill us than things that look impressive. Which is why our weapons platforms are all dedicated to be utterly lethal, as we know that scariness comes along with that.
As for the issue you've raised about being damn tall, I think that (everything else notwithstanding) Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, or at least would be far more effective than any conventional wheel on tracks. When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon) than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
Why would the mech have any less visibility issues than a tank? It'd still be one or more guys in a tin can trying to look out of vision slits and mounted cameras.
As for height... make a taller tank. You'd bypass the problems of legs (slow, complicated) and still get the apparent advantage of height in an urban environment. And I'm guessing right now you're thinking "a tall tank is a terrible idea, you'd have to cover the whole thing in armour, making it incredibly heavy, and for a marginal benefit at best."
Well yeah, that's right, and it's exactly why a big mech is also really impractical.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/04/19 08:00:31
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Heavily armed infantry with medium strengh vehicle armour and high mobility would decimate foes in almost all types of warfare.
Not if both sides have them...
OT - Stargate, space/time travel... imagine being able to prevent certain events in History... like Ghengis Khan... or the discovery of nuclear power.
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
2011/04/19 08:02:38
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
I think one of the oddities of power armor (and I suppose mechs too, and lasers and other fancy theoretical weapons) as a weapon system is that it doesn't even exist yet and there are people theorizing how it could be applied to combat. I'm unsure if that's ever happened before
Read H.G. Wells' The War In The Air. Be enlightened.
On the topic of mechs, I find it best summed up by a buddy of mine from a design forum I frequent. Warning, TL;DR ahead.
Spoiler:
What it is First off, let's make sure we're all on the same page. A "Mecha" is any sort of large robot articulated in a manner similar to a human being. It is generally excessively large and powerful compared to other war machines in whatever given story it's in. It includes Mobile Suits, Mecha, "Megadeus," Power Armor of a size significantly larger than a standard human, transformers of ANY kind, Veri-Tech, Gundams, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.
Please note that "Power Armor" of a very small size (2 meters or so max height) can, in certain circumstances, be feasible.
Why it is an Abomination Before Man and Darwin Armor Inclination Armor designers are smart. Besides recognizing the awesomeness of ye olde box (more below in Surface Area/Volume), they realized that by inclining armor, you can increase the protection it affords through partially deflecting the shot's energy. "Sloped armor" gives modern tanks a HUGE boost in protection, and is much of the reason front armor seems so much stronger than side and back armor. (the other is thickness, but that's pedantic)
Mecha, however, must have armor over their bodies to survive. (otherwise AK-47s would gun them down) Due to their complex forms, you've got to cover their surface area with armor, and can't get away with sloping. A flat chest-plate doesn't slope, it takes shots head-on. A tube of armor for an arm might deflect if it gets grazed, but a direct hit will be a direct hit. Mecha cannot allow for sufficient armor inclination, therefore require a LOT of armor, more than ground pressure can support. (see below)
Articulation Penalties Delicate things don't want to bend. Human body parts don't want a joint in the middle of a bone. Therefore, a mecha must be of a similar size to a human (doable-ish) or of such a size that a person doesn't get bent. Thusly, the person must fit entirely in the "chest"/"head," with all of their associated controls. Additionally, there is a lot of hydraulic power required to work all of these joints. Foot, knee, hip, "toe" (for stability), waist (for traverse), shoulder, elbow, wrist, gripper, "neck" (if you so choose), that's a huge hydraulic system. (hydraulic because nothing else can transfer the power necessary) That also means a lot of volume taken up by the joint systems, hydraulic control systems, gyroscopes to keep everything stable, and sensors to make sure you don't fall over. A tank doesn't need much compared.
Power Source You have to power all of your arms, legs, electronics, and weaponry. It also has to be light enough to be supported by the hydraulics in the legs of your vehicle. Unless you can do fusion without the shielding, it ain't happening.
Recoil and Weaponry Tanks and other vehicles have an easy time bracing against recoil, and weapons are mounted relatively balanced in their turrets. Mecha require bracing (just like humans when the brace to throw), which represents a time penalty. Also, most incarnations have weaponry on the arms, which have TERRIBLE leverage and must be able to lock in a manner to allow recoil to reach the rest of the body. (not rip off the arm)
Surface Area/Volume In ancient times, the Roman army had a minimum set size for its independent military formations. The reason for this is that they wanted to have an effective perimeter around their camps using only a smallish percentage of the total troops. That way, daytime combat effectiveness was not reduced by nighttime vigilance. This is made possible because a circle's volume scales with the square of the radius, so perimeter increased much less rapidly than defended camp space, so large camps rocked.
The circle, and it's three dimensional analogue the sphere, are the most efficient shapes in ratio of perimeter to area or surface area to volume. This is geometric fact. Any step taken away from these shapes represents more perimeter/surface to area/volume.
The human body (a reasonable approximation for a mech) has ~1.8 square meters of skin.* With a density of around 1g/cm^3, and an average weight of ~80kg, so about .08m^3 of volume. That's an area:volume ratio of 22.5.
Now, a standard armored vehicle is a glorified box with a funny box on top. This results in the ratio of area to volume of about 2(LW+LH+WH)/(LWH) for a box. (For a cube, this reduces down to 6/L for sides length L) That's not bad, and it means that it can be easily armored and filled with things. So if we look at an area of 1.8 square meters, this results in a volume of (.6)^3/2=~.47. This means a box has five times the volume of a human for a given area at this scale. That's a SERIOUS performance hit.
Also note that the box is of dimensions ~77 cm to a side, much lower profile, and therefore much better in terms of stealth.
Ground Pressure As a side note to the above, the box in question has an area of .6m^2. An armored vehicle probably has 15% of its area in treads, so ~.09m^2. A human foot (mine, since I can't find good internet sources) is ~.02 m^2. (shoe size 10 4E) You can see the math at this scale giving armored vehicle shapes an excessive advantage already, and it gets worse.
What Should I Build Instead? Tanks. IFVs. SPGs. Airplanes. Actual feasible vehicles. Convention is convention not because we're too lazy to experiment, it's convention because it WORKS and is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
ADDENDUM FOR "NON-HUMANOID" MECHA Some folks are believeing that if it doesn't look like a human, it doesn't fall victim to any of the aboved. So, let's step through the worst of them: "legged tanks," and tracked articulated vehicles.
Legged Tanks This topic coveres many of what most consider to be the more sane mecha designs. The specific image you should have in your mind may vary, but you're looking at everything from modified RL logging machines to the AT-PT. The basic concept is simple: humanoid mecha are unspeakably bad, so we can't even begin to justify them, but what if we just took a tank and jacked it up on legs? Designs from two or four legs to numerous have been suggested, all suffer the same issues as standard mecha to varying degrees.
The weight of the tank must be kept to an absolute minimum, as you continue to have to support the weight of the vehicle on the hydraulic system. The alternative is to support the weight on the metal structure of the leg, but this limits you to mostly 4 legged systems at a "walking" pace. Not good. Low weight means low armor means vulnerability to .50 caliber and 20 millimeter anti-tank rifles.
Ground pressure remains a massive issue. While you might be able to claim that you can use "large footpads," your vehicle must be able to actually lift these pads and put them back down at a respectable speed. Large pads mean more leg strength requried, means more hydraulic power/engine volume, which means more weight and a disadvantageous propulsion mass fraction. Good luck with that.
Balance also remains an issue. You basically need a flight computer to keep a dynamic leg system upright, and let's not even begin to talk about recoil management. By Darwin, you're adding a Mega Newton to the side of the tank at an odd angle, what do you expect? Forget about fire-on-the-move, you're going to find yourself bracing yet again, and not as well or as effectively as the S-tank. (in b4 BUT STANK DOEZ IT1111)
Finally, remember shiloette. This is important for tanks, recall the S-tank my friends. And since you're low mass due to above considerations, your armor is hilariously low. It's so low that small arms fire can chew the hell out of your massive hydraulic system, which is the only thing that propels you.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES EXIST SO LONG AS YOU HAVE LEGS. YOU CAN NOT ERASE ANY OF THESE SO LONG AS YOU HAVE LEGS. THE ANSWER IS TO ERASE LEGS IN ALL FORMS. BURN THEM WITH FIRE. Basically, legged tanks don't actually get rid of /any/ problems. They reducea few (namely armored shape and the elimination of arms provides slightly saner recoil management), but no single problem listed in the above discussions of humanoid mecha is reduced remotely enough to be useful.
Tracked Articulated Vehicles I don't have a good name for them, so this will do. Legs are bad, m'kay? But.... What do you get when you bolt the torso, arms, and head of a mecha onto a tank chasis? You get a massive lightly armored shiloette with recoil issues. This should speak for itself.
Animal-Like Vehicles You should feel dirty for thinking of these. Suggesting that these are reasonable combat vehicles is grounds for grave bodily injury as per the Munchy ordinances of right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for what I actually want, gimme teraports plox.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/04/19 08:09:56
2011/04/19 08:05:40
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
Then take that advanced armour and put in on a tank of the future. There's less surface area, and much less surface area at the front of the tank, allowing you to really secure the unit.
That's the thing about tanks have much less armour on the top, it isn't something inherent in tank designs, it's because tanks can expect to receive most hits to the front armour, so designers increase the armour there considerably. They then save on weight by putting less armour on the parts of the tank that aren't going to get as exposed to fire.
Well the front of mech isn't a few square metres like it is on a tank. It's an area that's probably going to be greater than the top of the tank, and so providing it with equivalent armour would be impossible. The end result is that you couldn't spread armour across that area like you could on a tank.
Which means when dudes hiding in buildings were about to attack they wouldn't even have to bother with getting a shot in on the weaker top armour like they would with a tank, because the mecha has so much surface area the whole thing would be armoured like the top of a tank.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
But legs aren't any more mobile than wheels. Nor do they have greater visibility.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/04/19 08:11:31
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Odins Beard wrote:I'm aware that a tank and aircraft aren't a mech I am a pilot after all, that wasen't really the point of my statement. The point is your talking about mechs as if they're a possible replacment for the roles filled by tanks or aircraft when that isn't their purpose. There are things a mech would do that a tank or aircraft woulden't be able to, so saying that tanks and aircraft could do it better dosen't work because there are some things a tank and aircraft just can't do.
No I'm not talking about mech's replacing aircraft/tanks. I'm talking about the existence of aircrafts and tanks making mech's pointless. What does the mech offer that these two systems cannot?
Ok since you obviously don't feel like listening to my request of just agreeing to dissagree so the thread can move on let's continue this argument that's going to go nowhere and stop the thread from carrying on.
The fact that a tank cannot go everywhere and neither can a helicopter and so cannot provide support to ground troops in all locations and all situations is where the Mech comes into use. As you've said yourself a Mech is a giant robot, but it is also a giant robot with a cockpit that is either partially or entirely slaved to the motion of its pilot. Now since there is the technology to create robotics which can opperate in rough terrain as well as correct themselves when over balanced this can be and most likely would be upscaled and applied to a Mech which means a Mech can go where a tank cannot.
So let's create a battle scenario, this is something we are taught when you're actually a soldier in the military like I am. Let's say U.S Marines are fighting against an enemy force in mountainous terrain that has a thick forrest canopy. Tanks cannot move in this terrain and so aren't usefull, at all. Then there is the added risk that with the dense folliage not only does the tank not have the clear fields of fire it needs (since tanks are long range mobile weapons platforms) it's also more at risk of
A. either having it's treads fouled by the undergrowth and yes it can happen, I know this because someone I went through BT with is a gunnery technitian in a tank crew.
or
B. having an enemy soldier approach through the growth with a detonation device since again the tank is intended as a long range weapons platform. So since the tank has limited mobility in this terrain, does not have the proper range or lines of sight needed and is at a greater risk for damage it is useless and woulden't even be deployed.
Aircraft are not given clearance to engage enemy units in this type of terrain unless they are out in the open because even if the enemy is tagged with a laser or smoke the risk of hitting friendly forces is to high. Explosives such as dropped bombs and rockets are not allowed either in that 1 they may detonate on a tree before reaching the enemy and 2 the resulting explosion could lead to a forest fire which is dangerous to friendly troops. So as with the tank aircraft are useless.
This is where the Mech would come into use, it is more mobile then a tank and so can navigate the mountainous terrain and given that it is below the forest canopy is more accurate then any aircraft would be in that it can actually draw line of sight to the target. So the Mech can provide heavy fire support to infantry squads where tanks and aircraft are absolutly useless. And since the armed forces tend to develop their vehicles and weapons to be highly specialised for what they do any situation where tanks and aircraft are not available or usefull would be a situation where the Mech is.
Let's do another battle scenario, the 2 opposing forces are fighting in a major city let's say Tokyo. While a tank is able to travel down the streets with ease it is extremly vulnerable in that enemy forces can hide in any building on almost any level and be able to damage it. While tanks are created to have heavy armor their track units are almost always vulnerable. As with fighting in dense terrain the line of sight of the tank is going to be incredibly dampened and again it dosen't have the range that it is intended to which means it will most likely have to rely on its secondary weapons which negates it's use as a heavy weapons vehicle. It is also very easy to trap a tank in an urban environment.
Aircraft would be of very little use in that their line of sight is blocked by buildings and helicopters are at a high risk for the same reasons as tanks with the addition of the fact that urban obstructions such as power lines or even the proximity of buildings can foul a helicopters blades causing a crash.
So since aircraft of any kind are pretty much useless in this scenario and tanks are at a diminished effectivness at the most Mechs would be the best heavy weapons support option. Given modern robotics which would be applied to the Mech it would be able to react faster then a tank, be more manuverable then a tank and woulden't be at a diminished usefullness it that it's main weapon woulden't rely on range.
Both of these battles are taken directly from Army training scenarios covered by tank and aircraft crews respectfully and are based off of the Army and Airforce threat response protocals. And those aren't even the scenarios that include SAM sites or against enemies specifically armed with anti aircraft or anti armor weaponry.
Everything in the military has something that could do a specific thing better, that dosen't mean that those that exist are rediculous.
The military develops weapons to do things that it needs done. Adding a big robot to the list adds nothing that the military isn't already capable of. It is redundant because it adds nothing.
You missed the point of what I said entirely, in flat open ground over long distances a tank is always going to be the better choice because that is what it's designed for and so no they woulden't use a Mech. In appropriate terrain and situations a helicopter can provide the best support with both machine gun and rocket payloads because it's what it's designed for so again they woulden't use a Mech. But as I have said before Tanks and Aircraft CANNOT always be used. There are situations when a Mech would be better and it is those situations when either a tank or a form of aircraft are useless, so no a tank and aircraft cannot do everything a Mech could do and they cannot do it better because the Mech would be designed to do things the other 2 can't. That is coming to you directly from a Warrant Officer Aviation Specialist and a Gunnery Seargent Tank Specialist.
Based on what? not every mech is absolutly huge and there are a number of examples with a smaller profile then a tank making them smaller targets. And are we talking speed over flat open ground or on elevated unsteady terrain.
Like I already said, we seem to be talking about two different things. I'm thinking giant robot. You're thinking something on a smaller scale and that isn't a mech.
No we are not talking about 2 differant things, you seem to believe that a Mech has to be absolutly huge to function at all and yet the mech that I said I would like to see made real which is also the most realistic given the level of todays technology which it was based off of is only 16 feet tall.
Says who? do you know the price of a tank or aircraft?
It's public information.
Then provide it because I can tell you right now there are quiet a few things in the military that the public does not have access to when it comes to the cost of making.
Do you know the price of future mechs that don't even exist?
Let's see, we can make a tank. Or we can make a tank and then put it on legs. It's pretty obvious what will cost more, not even considering the difficulty of maintaining giant robotic legs.
You say that you wern't talking about a Mech being a replacment for a tank yet you keep insisting that it's a tank on legs. Heavy weapons support does not intell that something is a tank, a Mech suit would not be created to fill the same roll as a tank and so a Mech would not be a tank on legs. You have absolutly no clue how much it would cost to develop a combat Mech and I'm sure there are very people who do. So saying it would cost more then a tank isn't even accurate.
it actually isn't that hard to tell a machine how to walk and maintain its balance, my highschool robotics team did it both my junior and senior year, if a highschool robotics team can do it then any decent military can as well.
High school robotics teams aren't teaching their robots to maintain balance while firing weapons and being hit by projectiles. How fast did those robots go by the way? I've seen ASIMO. He's not a particularly fast character. I could knock him over with a well sized rock.
Again you seem to have missed the point, you commented on the difficulty of getting a machine to walk and maintain its balance as if it would be incredibly hard for a military to do and maintain. But beings as Highschool students can and have done it the military would be able to do it and do it better, including recoil absorbtion and I'm sure battle damage resistance. Now comparing a robot that's what 4 feet tall? with a fairly small gait to a 16 foot tall Mech with a much larger gait dosen't help your case, neither does saying you could knowck down a fairly small robot as if you would be able to do the same thing to a Mech.
No I am talking about a mech, I am talking about a large mechanical suit with a cockpit for a pilot not a power armored soldier.
Learn your terminology. That's power armor. Not a mech. Mech's are by their own definition giant robots. I know some people think power armor is limited to some guy in a suit of armor, but the term as it was introduced by Heinlein is more expansive and more practical. Iron Man's armor is a little too fantastical. The suits as seen in Ghost in the Shell are more line with what we're likely to see in the future.
You're the one who needs to know your terminology. I said a Mech is a giant mechanical suit with a pilot, you said that's Power Armor and that a Mech is a giant robot with a pilot. Yet you seem to be forgetting that Exoskeletons, Mechs and Power Armor ARE ALL MECHANICAL so what I said is the same exact thing. A Mech is a large anthromorphic robot (robots are mechanical BTW) controled by a pilot who is seated in either a cockpit or cabin, the suit itself is powered by a source other then the pilot in that the pilot dosen't have to actually walk for the suit to walk. Power Armor is a mechanical suit that fits the wearer and enhances their abilities but is moved by the pilots own power, so the wearer has to actually start walking in order for the suit to move. The Mech is more akin to a vehicle in that it moves under its own power but is controlled by another, Power Armor could not move unless the person inside it actually moved.
I suggest looking up the BIGDOG robot program. It's a mechanical mule being developed for the army that can walk up and down hills to a set incline, over ice and pebbles, is able to catch itself should it start to fall and move independant of an opperator.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't make a capable or practical weapon system.
Another missed point, it's simple logic to figure out that the Army would use the balancing and rough terrain technology and robotics in BIGDOG when creating a Mech. Since BIGDOG is specifically designed to function in rough terrain where other means of carrying equiptment would fail it is an excellent starting point when developing a Mech because it's walking nature makes it more suited for rough terrain then other vehicles that cannot opperate there.
If all of this is available in a robot designed to carry gear for soldiers in rough terrain it would be in a mech.
That would be a robot rather than a mech, a word that means giant robot with a person inside. The size comes with the term. You don't get to hand wave it away.
I'm sorry but this is getting rediculous. My statement is saying in plain english that if the technology for rough terrain movement and balance correction is present in a simple robot designed to carry heavy equiptment then the same technology would be present in a Mech. Nothing in the statement says that the robot is a Mech, it says "it would be in a Mech".
All this aside if the U.S Army is researching Mechs (which they are) they obviously aren't redundant and they obviously have more use then what LordofHats believes or else the army woulden't be doing it.
Yeah. That's why we spent millions developing a fully redundant tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or that completely useful (that's sarcasm) 747 with a laser beam in it for shooting down missiles. Just because you're researching something doesn't make it useful. It just means your researching it.
Ah yes so LordofHats knows more then the military minds whose careers center around war and fighting it. What's funny is that's somethings usefullness is determined by those who use it and look back on it in retrospect. You say that anything a Mech could do an aircraft or tank could do better, well no offence but that shows just how much you know about the military and how it uses its tanks and aircraft or how it uses any of its assets for that matter.
If the Army is researching something it's because they believe they would have a use for it, which also means that the strategic thinkers who actually get paid to develop things like this have an idea as for what the Mech could be used for which means that it could be usefull. Believe it or not the Army actually knows what they're doing and if they didn't have a use for it they woulden't even be researching it, and that's regardless of your insight or opinion.
And given modern science plus the amount of resources that the U.S army has at its exposal mech suits would not be deployed as clumsy, lumbering behemoths that stick out like a sore thumb.
I already pointed out we're talking two different kinds of things. You're simply broading the word 'mech' to refer to any robot/mechanical suit under the sun. The word has a meaning. You're using it wrong.
Could you try and act a little more condacending, or how bout a little more assumption as to what my actions, motives and thoughts are. Believe it or not you are not all knowing god and you don't even know what Power Armor is when you play a game with probably the most well known Power Armored figures as its main heroes. I know exactly what a Mech is and I know exactly what Power Armor is, you on the other hand seem confuse the 2 often and since you also seem to enjoy talking to someone as if they are less intelligent then you so this "debate" is done.
2011/04/19 08:13:22
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Laughing Man wrote:Read H.G. Wells' The War In The Air. Be enlightened.
H.G. Wells also predicted the coming of armored vehicles and modern artillery. The difference is that I don't think many people gave Wells much thought about these weapons when he wrote about them, only after they had actually been used in combat. The guy who thought up the tank didn't think it up because he read The Land Ironclads (he thought it up 20 years before Wells even wrote the story) and they guys who employed tanks in WWI probably hadn't thought much of it either. The Wright brother's flew before The War in the Air was written (if anything the War in the Air was inspired by the first flight seeing as it's about a bicycle engineer...). In most cases, something is invented, and then people start thinking about how to use it.
Maybe Wells has an influence though on why today actual thought goes into some of these fictional devices
@Everyone: Now I know that I've just added to it but I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 08:33:24
2011/04/19 08:22:43
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Odins Beard wrote:Now that being said, I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
Dude, you were the first one to try and claim that mecha were practical. You can't start that, give a big response then threaten to report anyone who responds.
Seriously, conversations don't start and stop because you want them to. Despite the rumours you might have heard, we are not in fact performing monkeys for your pleasure.
So stop that gak right now.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/04/19 08:23:17
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
AvatarForm wrote:
OT - Stargate, space/time travel... imagine being able to prevent certain events in History... like Ghengis Khan... or the discovery of nuclear power.
That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate? What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him? If nuclear power had never been discovered, what about the families of the million allied service men who would have died storming the Home Islands? What about the millions upon millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have either been thrown into battle as conscripts by their government, or slowly starved to death as American bombers unleashed chemical weapons upon the Japanese rice crop?
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
As to Odins Beard, if the enemy have AT weapons powerful enough to bring down a tank, they'll be powerful enough to bring down a mech, simple as that. Even a 16 foot tall mech will be no more difficult (and probably easier) to target with AT weapons, and due to the weight limitations posed on it by being a mech it'll have lighter armour than the equivalent tank. And unless you can provide counter information as to the cost of tanks and aircraft that somehow makes them much, MUCH more expensive than the public knows we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the point stands that for the cost of a mech, you could have more tanks.
Even in an urban scenario, I'd prefer having more tanks than mechs. At least the way to use tanks in urban scenarios is well known. You also make the assumption that simply because the military is the military, their mechs will have hightened battle resistance, while you provide no evidence to that. Show us the Army development for mechs that can take more punishment than a M1A1 and we'll believe you. Not to mention things don't always scale up perfectly...just because Big Dog can work well in rough terrain does not mean a 16 foot tall mech would be able to do the same.
I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 08:32:54
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
ChrisWWII wrote:That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate?
Well, I'd be in the past and I'd have power armour and a laser gun, so I reckon I could give it a crack
What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him?
I reckon I could destroy it with no more than 50 men with AK-47s
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
If it was worse, I'd just go back with a different future weapon and have fun changing it again.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/04/19 08:32:24
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Odins Beard wrote:Now that being said, I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
Dude, you were the first one to try and claim that mecha were practical. You can't start that, give a big response then threaten to report anyone who responds.
Seriously, conversations don't start and stop because you want them to. Despite the rumours you might have heard, we are not in fact performing monkeys for your pleasure.
So stop that gak right now.
Yes I did start by saying they're practical but I didn't expect it to take over the entire thread which is why I have asked for the topic to get back on track. If you don't like it I'm sorry but I will report any post that discusses it further
2011/04/19 08:42:52
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Go ahead, I doubt the mods will start deleting posts for an OT discussion just because the OP doesn't like it. I'm not sure what it's like on other forums you've been on, but on dakka the OP is not the dictator of his thread.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
Odins Beard wrote:Ok since you obviously don't feel like listening to my request of just agreeing to dissagree so the thread can move on let's continue this argument that's going to go nowhere and stop the thread from carrying on.
If you really want to agree to disagree it's best to just say that and leave it at that rather than produce a large post that begs response.
So let's create a battle scenario, this is something we are taught when you're actually a soldier in the military like I am.
I'm sorry. I'll just shut up and bow to your obvious authority in all things military.
Battle Scenario 1
How big is this mech that it can move in dense jungle where a tank cannot? Really. You're just misusing the terms. Anyone with significant background in sci-fi will tell you
Battle Scenario 2
Again, size matters. If you're talking something along the lines of being smaller then a tank, then I can agree with you. Problem is that that falls in the category of power armor, not mechs. Really this entire discussion could have been avoided if you'd probably used the term from the start.
No we are not talking about 2 differant things, you seem to believe that a Mech has to be absolutly huge to function at all and yet the mech that I said I would like to see made real which is also the most realistic given the level of todays technology which it was based off of is only 16 feet tall.
And you don't notice any of the serious flaws in a 16 foot robot being employed as a weapon? How will a sixteen foot robot be anymore manuvrable in dense jungle and urban areas than a tank?
Then provide it because I can tell you right now there are quiet a few things in the military that the public does not have access to when it comes to the cost of making.
Look it up yourself. The defense budget is passed every year.
You say that you wern't talking about a Mech being a replacment for a tank yet you keep insisting that it's a tank on legs.
That's essentially what the entire mech concept is. A tank with legs. Really. If you want to argue with me about this, please at least come to a proper understanding of the terminology and its origin. 'Mech' comes from 'Mecha', which is a genre of Japanese fiction about giant robots. The term has an origin and meaning. Power Armor was popularized by Heinlein, exoskeleton developed as a deviation from it, and a giant robot called Gundam from the 70's got everyone to start wondering about Mechs.
Heavy weapons support does not intell that something is a tank, a Mech suit would not be created to fill the same roll as a tank and so a Mech would not be a tank on legs. You have absolutly no clue how much it would cost to develop a combat Mech and I'm sure there are very people who do. So saying it would cost more then a tank isn't even accurate.
I'm fairly confident it would cost more than a tank. Maybe not a jet plane, but definitely more than a tank. A lot more. It's simply the nature of the mechanics. A caterpillar track will cost you less to keep running than a multi-joined leg with the numerous hydrolics and gyro-scopes necessary to walk.
with a fairly small gait to a 16 foot tall Mech with a much larger gait dosen't help your case, neither does saying you could knowck down a fairly small robot as if you would be able to do the same thing to a Mech.
A very high center of gravity. The mechs worst enemy.
You're the one who needs to know your terminology. I said a Mech is a giant mechanical suit with a pilot, you said that's Power Armor and that a Mech is a giant robot with a pilot. Yet you seem to be forgetting that Exoskeletons, Mechs and Power Armor ARE ALL MECHANICAL
So I know the difference between these concepts while you seem to think they're all the same thing and my terminology is wrong? Not really getting that. Not that it matters anymore. 16 feet is definitely in Mech range so we can go back to the concept being horribly in practical.
Another missed point, it's simple logic to figure out that the Army would use the balancing and rough terrain technology and robotics in BIGDOG when creating a Mech.
You're not helping your case by suggesting the military complicate the concept further by making it a quadraped.
Since BIGDOG is specifically designed to function in rough terrain where other means of carrying equiptment would fail it is an excellent starting point when developing a Mech because it's walking nature makes it more suited for rough terrain then other vehicles that cannot opperate there.
And one immediately arrives at the question of where will this resupplying robot be a useful weapon? Just because it has an application in supply, doesn't mean it has an application in fire support.
Ah yes so LordofHats knows more then the military minds whose careers center around war and fighting it.
The failures of Tank Destroyer doctrine are well known and were well known before the doctrine failed. McNair was a bit of a douche about it, and no one really seemed to be paying much attention to the German's who were going tanks fairly right. I'm fairly convinced that silly 747 is just one big science project some congressman cooked up to fund his constituents, which if you look at the defense budget happens all the time. Why on earth that thing would be considered useful is being me.
What's funny is that's somethings usefullness is determined by those who use it and look back on it in retrospect. You say that anything a Mech could do an aircraft or tank could do better, well no offence but that shows just how much you know about the military and how it uses its tanks and aircraft or how it uses any of its assets for that matter.
Cool story brah.
If the Army is researching something it's because they believe they would have a use for it, which also means that the strategic thinkers who actually get paid to develop things like this have an idea as for what the Mech could be used for which means that it could be usefull. Believe it or not the Army actually knows what they're doing and if they didn't have a use for it they woulden't even be researching it, and that's regardless of your insight or opinion.
Not necessarily. Aforementioned budget problems excluded, thinking you can use something, and actually having a real use for it are two different things.
Believe it or not you are not all knowing god and you don't even know what Power Armor is when you play a game with probably the most well known Power Armored figures as its main heroes.
Pfft. I wish I was god. I'd add more colors to the rainbow. It's getting boring with just seven.
I know exactly what a Mech is and I know exactly what Power Armor is, you on the other hand seem confuse the 2 often and since you also seem to enjoy talking to someone as if they are less intelligent then you so this "debate" is done.
If you say so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 08:46:54
ChrisWWII wrote:I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
I ask everyone again for the last time, please refrain from discussing the usefullness of Mechs. It is not the point of the thread and if I had known asking LordofHats what he ment would take the thread so off base I would never have asked
2011/04/19 08:49:58
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Odins Beard wrote:Yes I did start by saying they're practical but I didn't expect it to take over the entire thread which is why I have asked for the topic to get back on track. If you don't like it I'm sorry but I will report any post that discusses it further
See, if a side discussion gets out of hand, the first thing you do is stop contributing to it. You don't post a small essay explaining why you're right then declare that you'll report anyone who dares respond.
Also, you don't own this thread, and you don't get to decide what is sufficiently on-topic. You certainly don't have any power to report people for daring to post things on that side conversation.
If you really want the "are mechs practical" conversation to go away, start another thread, and ask people to continue the conversation there.
Or you accept that threads can have two or more conversations going on. If people aren't talking about sci-fi equipment, it's because they don't want to. If the other conversation is canned they won't start talking about your favourite topic, they'll just let the thread die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 08:51:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/04/19 09:00:10
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
If you really want to agree to disagree it's best to just say that and leave it at that rather than produce a large post that begs response.
Indeed.
That said both sides have had a chance to provide their version of the theory or event, so those concerned can indeed now agree to disagree and move on, whilst those who wish to continue to discuss mechs can do so. Of course there's very little point in arguing against someone who's not talking about that point anymore, so it'd be best if users kept their responses restricted to those who are still interested in discussing said tangent.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2011/04/19 09:15:52
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Odins Beard wrote:
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
The sources you cited seem to be either anecdotal, or you simply saying that you have access to information we don't.
I ask everyone again for the last time, please refrain from discussing the usefullness of Mechs. It is not the point of the thread and if I had known asking LordofHats what he ment would take the thread so off base I would never have asked
This isn't your thread, you can't control which way it goes. If we want tot alk about mechs, we are going to talk about mechs whether you like it or not. Honestly, you brought this upon yourself, that giant essay BEGGING to be rebutted, and now you refuse to respond?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 09:16:03
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
ChrisWWII wrote:I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
I have yet to see a proper citation.
2011/04/19 09:38:36
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
But we are. We're much more terrified about things that will actual kill us than things that look impressive. Which is why our weapons platforms are all dedicated to be utterly lethal, as we know that scariness comes along with that.
Er...wasn't me.
As for the issue you've raised about being damn tall, I think that (everything else notwithstanding) Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, or at least would be far more effective than any conventional wheel on tracks. When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon) than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
Why would the mech have any less visibility issues than a tank? It'd still be one or more guys in a tin can trying to look out of vision slits and mounted cameras.
The Mech would be able to pivot and look around...right? I'm not sure what kind of mech you're thinking about. The vision would still be relatively restricted, but not to the extent that tank crew members experience.
As for height... make a taller tank. You'd bypass the problems of legs (slow, complicated) and still get the apparent advantage of height in an urban environment. And I'm guessing right now you're thinking "a tall tank is a terrible idea, you'd have to cover the whole thing in armour, making it incredibly heavy, and for a marginal benefit at best."
Well yeah, that's right, and it's exactly why a big mech is also really impractical.
Fair enough. Though I still really want a Baneblade.
sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
Then take that advanced armour and put in on a tank of the future. There's less surface area, and much less surface area at the front of the tank, allowing you to really secure the unit.
That's the thing about tanks have much less armour on the top, it isn't something inherent in tank designs, it's because tanks can expect to receive most hits to the front armour, so designers increase the armour there considerably. They then save on weight by putting less armour on the parts of the tank that aren't going to get as exposed to fire.
Well the front of mech isn't a few square metres like it is on a tank. It's an area that's probably going to be greater than the top of the tank, and so providing it with equivalent armour would be impossible. The end result is that you couldn't spread armour across that area like you could on a tank.
Which means when dudes hiding in buildings were about to attack they wouldn't even have to bother with getting a shot in on the weaker top armour like they would with a tank, because the mecha has so much surface area the whole thing would be armoured like the top of a tank.
Strange, I've been reading that modern tank armour has been developed to offer more protection from attacks coming from above, though not directly, more at a 45 degree angle.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
But legs aren't any more mobile than wheels. Nor do they have greater visibility.
I'd imagine it'd be easier to turn around in, no?
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2011/04/19 10:26:48
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
AvatarForm wrote:
OT - Stargate, space/time travel... imagine being able to prevent certain events in History... like Ghengis Khan... or the discovery of nuclear power.
That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate? What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him? If nuclear power had never been discovered, what about the families of the million allied service men who would have died storming the Home Islands? What about the millions upon millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have either been thrown into battle as conscripts by their government, or slowly starved to death as American bombers unleashed chemical weapons upon the Japanese rice crop?
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
As to Odins Beard, if the enemy have AT weapons powerful enough to bring down a tank, they'll be powerful enough to bring down a mech, simple as that. Even a 16 foot tall mech will be no more difficult (and probably easier) to target with AT weapons, and due to the weight limitations posed on it by being a mech it'll have lighter armour than the equivalent tank. And unless you can provide counter information as to the cost of tanks and aircraft that somehow makes them much, MUCH more expensive than the public knows we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the point stands that for the cost of a mech, you could have more tanks.
Even in an urban scenario, I'd prefer having more tanks than mechs. At least the way to use tanks in urban scenarios is well known. You also make the assumption that simply because the military is the military, their mechs will have hightened battle resistance, while you provide no evidence to that. Show us the Army development for mechs that can take more punishment than a M1A1 and we'll believe you. Not to mention things don't always scale up perfectly...just because Big Dog can work well in rough terrain does not mean a 16 foot tall mech would be able to do the same.
I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
Firstly, I was using these because they were integral turning points in time...
Also, with the nuclear situation in Japan at the moment (not to mention Chernobyl) Im sure many would disagree with your sentiment on nuclear issues. Remember, it takes 2 to go to war and History is always written by the winner. But the History you receive in schools these days does not reflect that... or does it? Another discussion for later.
On the topic of Mechs... Iron Man'esque suits would pwn Mechs.
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
2011/04/19 10:39:39
Subject: What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
Indeed, nuclear weapons debates are best saved for a different point in time. Maybe I'll start a thread about that...
In any case, I still hold that a time machine would be a horrible, horrible invention just because it would just have too much potential for misues. If we kill Adolf Hitler, how do we know that either: a) someone worse might come to power? or b) with the absence of the Second World War to weaken the Soviet Union, the Soviets invade Europe instead of Hitler? There are too many little threads of history, and cutting one of them could have impacts beyond anything we could possibly predict.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
AvatarForm wrote:On the topic of Mechs... Iron Man'esque suits would pwn Mechs.
But Iron Man esque suits are even less plausible than Mechs. I mean, how does he have enough fuel to fly for as long as he does, AND have all those weapons in there at once?
I mean, I'm not intellectual by any means, so maybe I'm overlooking something, but that has always killed those movies for me. Where does he keep his fuel?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 12:58:09
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2011/04/19 14:26:18
Subject: Re:What military tech would you like to see be made real from Sci-fi
the power comes from the Arc Reactor in his chest, hence why when he uses the Mk1 in the first film (which isnt as efficient and isnt designed for that use) he runs out of power pretty damn quickly.
however, i agree with your point that by no means could he have everything contained in the one suit while it still remaining bullet-proof and mobile IMO
inmygravenimage wrote:Have courage, faith and beer, my friend - it will be done!
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
KHADOR 
X-Wing (Empire Strong) 