Jump to content

The Particle Projection Cannons


98 replies to this topic

#61 3Xtr3m3

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 717 posts
  • LocationOn Your Six

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:57 PM

I liked what you had to say and the way you said it. But I still think legs beats treads and hovers in almost all situations. History, evolution, and (at least my) logic, say legs are more versarile, more resilent, and more able to overcome terrain.

#62 Rejarial Galatan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,312 posts
  • LocationOutter Periphery

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:47 PM

I give you the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Currently the MOST FEARED TANK ON THE BATTLEFIELD. So, Lorddeathstrike, YES, tanks can and ARE feared on the battle field. Oh, should also say this: I see this thing coming, I am getting the ever loving HE** outta the way!

EDIT: I TRIED to add a picture of the M1A2 Abrams, but this blasted thing kept telling me: Post too short. ***?!?!

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 24 April 2012 - 06:47 PM.


#63 Freric

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 49 posts
  • LocationPlanet Liberty

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

Definately not a backyard project, but would make a nice basement project. Building one would be awesome.

#64 Rejarial Galatan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,312 posts
  • LocationOutter Periphery

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:39 PM

View PostFreric, on 24 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Definately not a backyard project, but would make a nice basement project. Building one would be awesome.

but i aint got no basement in this here house of mine! what do i do? <yes, intentional grammar fail>

#65 Lt muffins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 378 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:57 PM

View PostFreric, on 24 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Definately not a backyard project, but would make a nice basement project. Building one would be awesome.


What about the frontyard?

Got to keep those kids off my lawn somehow. :)

EDIT: typo

Edited by Lt muffins, 24 April 2012 - 07:57 PM.


#66 Rejarial Galatan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,312 posts
  • LocationOutter Periphery

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:07 PM

a good er ppc will keep em off yours, mine and everyone elses on the block

#67 StarColonelKerensky

    Rookie

  • 3 posts
  • LocationNot Telling

Posted 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM

Okay, dude, I'm gonna school ya!
CBT is better because...
1. Considering the year in the game, 3049, then they have over a milinia, or 1,000 years of developement.
2. A couple of Large Laser shots could obliterate anything we have, we don't have ferro fibrous or mech armor like that.

Now on to CBT tanks being better than mechs
1. A mech could incinerate a tank instantly if it could destroy a city block with one blast
2. The only advantage tanks can have is numbers, for example: one atlas against 100 destroyer 2s, the destroyers would win, but barely.
3. Mechs have more armor and more weapons. And are more maneuverable and can even use jumpjets to jump over the tanks and hoot em from behind
4. Tanks can be stepped on and squished, period.
5. Mech pilots have a large array of weapons, they could just sit there for like 15 minutes just thinking about what to kill a tank with, and then just choose a weapon, tap or pull some kind of button or trigger, and the tank would be byby. :)

#68 TripleHex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,636 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationOut of range of your weapons

Posted 02 June 2012 - 06:46 PM

If you want more info on the PPC, check this out: we've already built a gazzilion of them. We call them TV-screens, though. A TV-screen is nothing more than a charged particle accelerator. It slams charged particles (called ions) into the glass screen, and the result is what you look at whenever you watch the news or the weather at 6pm. But since running around on the field with a giant TV-screen on the end of your mech's arm would make for rather dull gameplay, they exaggerated the laws of physics in Battletech, and made the PPC. Yet another time when Hollywood (FASA, in this case) took reality, and gave it a spin. Bummer, eh?

#69 Zynk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 567 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:02 PM

View PostLt muffins, on 22 April 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Most of the technology used in Battletech is atleast partialy based on reality or what seems physicaly possible.
The piece of technology that has enticed me the most is the Particle Projection Cannon (PPC), Since I am the one that wants to know how everything works I have done some research in to find out the orgin of this weapon concept and it has led me to Nickola Telsa.

http://www.tfcbooks..../1935-00-00.htm (one of the documents mentioning a device similar to a PPC)

I have learned a bit from reading some of his writings, but they have been a bit vague for my taste.
So I ask if anyone else shared my curiosity in this matter and found out anything else other than what i have found.

(I promise I wont build one in my back yard.)


OK but you will need a 747.

#70 SuomiWarder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 1,661 posts
  • LocationSacramento area, California

Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:27 PM

Tesla's death ray machine that he said would knock planes out of the sky over 200 miles away remains an unknown principal. Tesla never explained it, never built a test one (well, some people claim he maid one for the Russians), and his papers were confinscated by the FBI after his death in the hotel within the US he lived at and were never shown to the scienticif world at large. Only a few vague diagrams remain in the public record.

His Tesla coil is well known tech. It was originally supposed to deliver wireless electricty to devices. However as it pulls out many cabillions of electrons out of the earth it has a tendency to arc electrical bolts seeking to return to ground. Directing them has proven difficult as air is a poor conductor and constantely changing.

The fluff text for a PPC claims they are a magnetically acceletared high energy proton or ion bolts that cause through through both impact and high temp. (The whole electical, lightning bolt thing is from novels and the computer games). I'm not sure you can have an Ion bolt. The ion engines on space craft are not very energetic (they are low thrust). Plasma is the only charged energy with notable mass we can produce that I know of and it has many problems when weaponized. So I would say that the BattleTech PPC is just a hand wavium creation based on a kernal of mixed scientific principles. But hey, no one ever said that BattleTech was 'hard' science fiction.

#71 Tterrag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • LocationMississippi

Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:35 PM

I always assumed you were basically microwaving the other mech

#72 Kartr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 560 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostLordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

can a tank step over another tank, or step on another tank?

Pointless, unimportant, non-advantage. Tanks do not engage in point blank combat and neither should 'Mechs.

The BattleForce rules show that 'Mechs do indeed have much longer ranges than the CBT would seem to indicate, up to and possibly exceeding modern combat ranges (4km or less). CBT truncates the ranges in order to keep them on a small number of map sheets so that you don't need your entire living room to play lance on lance. Novels keep the ranges short because close range combat is more visceral than standing off and hitting someone with missiles from 2km, or smacking them in the cockpit with a 105mm shell at 4km (Abrams can do that). Video games likewise keep the ranges short to fit with CBT and keep the map sizes relatively small and the render distances fairly short (800m to 1km vs 4km+).


View PostLordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

can a tank ignite reactor plasma and jump 120 meters?

An intriguing ability with some potential as long as we suspend disbelief that it should actually work.


View PostLordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

can a tank be a walking fortress that inspires fear and terrifies your enemies infantry into surrendering at the mere sight of it?

They already are, except they roll rather than stomp. In WW2 Russian soldiers would often break and flee when faced with German armor during the first couple of years on the Eastern Front. Even today tanks are a frightening foe.

View PostLordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

no no and hell no. mechs have the manuverability edge by a long shot. and ranges are restricted to very short (under 2km) due to particle saturation blocking long range radars.

'Mech maneuverability basically boils down to them being able to step sideways (I think although CBT doesn't let you do this), and jump jets.

However 'Mechs have a much higher surface pressure than tanks due to the fact that their weight is applied to two "small" feet and to move they have to double the surface pressure. Since tanks spread their mass over a much larger area (tracks) they won't sink as deeply through less dense terrain such as swamps, mud, snow, etc. This means that tanks will have superior maneuverability over any terrain that isn't hard packed. Higher speeds, smaller turn radii, less speed lost when turning, etc.

CBT ranges are less than 2km for the reasons I stated above, not some technobabble particle saturation. This isn't Star Trek, we don't hold with silly fake science like that.

View Post3Xtr3m3, on 24 April 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

The reasoning behind mechs is pretty logical if you think in the right way. You say tanks or hovers are better, agreed, to a point. They both must traverse the land beneath them though. Ianks must actually lay tread, and then roll over the ground, and hovers are a ground effect vehicle.

Mechs are supreme because they can STEP over lengths of ground. A tank or a hover is cheaper and faster than a mech UNTIL they hit a strip of land they can not roll or hover over. Think along the lines of a hidden pit, or a wall of sufficient height. At that point the ability of a mech to step, jump, or less realistically, JJ over the obstacle establishes the logic of a mech. Tanks amd hovers can have their progress stopped fairly cheaply and easily. Battlemechs with their legs are harder to stop.

No rolling is much, much better than stepping. When you have something that walks it's center of gravity shifts with every step. It also changes throughout the entire step, the motion is also fairly extreme. This means that accuracy is going to suffer tremendously. Try doing movement shooting during Combat Marksmanship Practice and you'll know what I mean, and that's at targets 50m away!

On the other hand tracked vehicles are incredibly stable when moving. Even when moving over fairly rough terrain they are more stable and have less pitching motion than a walking form would over that terrain. This means that tracked vehicles and probably hover vehicles, would be much, much more accurate when moving. In CBT terms this would be at the very least +0 for cruising and +1 for flanking when determining to hit, at the very least! This isn't something that can be overcome with "future tech!" as it has to do with the mechanics of walking vs rolling.

Tanks have been dealing with pits and walls for a while now and can generally go over, through or around most obstacles that aren't designed specifically to stop them. The scenarios that would make walking superior to treads are very few and very rare, even in the far future. This means that tracked tanks have the superior movement profile in all but a very few, very rare situations. So the BattleMech "advantage" is worthless during the vast majority of combat situations (99%), it is actually detrimental in most situations because it decreases accuracy by quite a bit.

Tanks are faster, have better terrain handling, greater accuracy and are generally better than 'Mechs in most combat situations.

View Post3Xtr3m3, on 24 April 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

In your mind construct a nssty strecth of land with rough terrain with rolling angles, sharp changes in heigth, throw in some railroad tracks, ditches, trenches, use your imagination. Now, would you be better rolling over all that at speed? Trying to fly over it with the ground pushing back at your hover? Or is the logic of Battletech proving itself by being able to RUN over that ground?

You know that terrain sounds a lot like the conditions tanks are designed to handle. They will roll over that terrain no problem, and they will keep their gun steadier allowing the crew to take more accurate and more rapid shots. Seriously that terrain you just described is like the terrain tanks were created to fight in during WW1 and tanks have only gotten better at handling it.

The Panther tank of WW2 was designed to traverse terrain which had changes of up to 500mm without breaking down. That's driving along and hitting a speed bump half a meter (>19.5 inches) in height and just keep on going. The Panther actually traveled over terrain with less bouncing the faster it went.

'Mechs don't have a movement advantage in combat environments unless you want them to jump on top of buildings/cliffs or across canyons.

Even steep terrain isn't an impassible to tracked/wheeled vehicles. Same book about Panther tank development shows a prototype climbing a muddy hill at an incline of greater than 45 degrees.

View Post3Xtr3m3, on 24 April 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

I liked what you had to say and the way you said it. But I still think legs beats treads and hovers in almost all situations. History, evolution, and (at least my) logic, say legs are more versarile, more resilent, and more able to overcome terrain.

If legs are more versatile and so superior, why do we always move away from them? We design roller skates/blades to help us move faster with less effort. We use skies the same way, snow shoes to keep us from sinking in snow, ice skates to move on ice, and tall boots to keep us clean as our "superior" legs sink deep into the mud. This kind of terrain is more easily handled by wheels, and even more so by tracked vehicles.

Wheels are a far more efficient method of moving as you're not lifting something up and then setting it back down. Tracks are propelled by wheels and so have the advantage of using the same, more efficient method of power transfer. Wheels and tracks are more efficient and superior to walking locomotion from an engineering and scientific stand point.

Legs give a wider range of motion that are useful for things other than locomotion as biologicals are need to move in more planes than just the one that is horizontal to the ground. Giving such a range of motion to vehicles doesn't really improve their versatility as they are significantly larger in scale and do not have to preform the wide variety of tasks that biologicals do.

View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Okay, dude, I'm gonna school ya!
CBT is better because...

Bring it vatborn!

View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Now on to CBT tanks being better than mechs
1. A mech could incinerate a tank instantly if it could destroy a city block with one blast

No because a CBT tank is armored with the same armor as a BattleMech. If a tank could be incinerated immediately by a 'Mech than 'Mechs would be able to incinerate each other instantly. So this is an illogical and silly argument.

View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

2. The only advantage tanks can have is numbers, for example: one atlas against 100 destroyer 2s, the destroyers would win, but barely.

Tanks have most of the advantages over BattleMechs, numbers being only one of them.
  • Tanks have a lower profile which makes them harder to hit.
  • Tanks have lower ground pressure which means they can travel over terrain with full range of speed and agility, where a BattleMech would be slowed down by sinking into the ground.
  • Tanks low center of gravity, linear design with high surface contact handles recoil better than BattleMech's vertical, high center of gravity, low surface contact design. This means they would be more accurate with ballistic weapons.
  • Tanks can mount more, heavier, and better positioned armor. (More on this below when I respond to your next comment).
  • Tanks have multiple crew members allowing each one to focus on their tasks and so preform them to a higher level than a MechWarrior. (Having crew members who specialize drastically improves their performance was proven in WW2 by the T-34 which suffered because the commander was also the gunner)
    • This means tanks are more accurate.
    • This means tanks are driven better.
    • This means tanks are coordinated better.
    • This means tanks spot enemy force easier.
  • Tanks have less change in pitch when moving than BattleMechs, which makes them more accurate while on the move. (Due to the nature of tracked suspension vs ambulatory "suspension")
  • Tanks are simpler.
    • Tanks are easier to repair.
    • Tanks are less expensive to make.
    • Tanks are easier to maintain.
    • Tanks are less likely to suffer mechanical failures
    • Tanks are easier to train people on.
Tanks have a lot of advantages over BattleMechs, most are just incorrectly modeled or not modeled at all in the rules because that would make BattleMechs look bad. However BattleMechs do have a handful of advantages.
  • BattleMechs upright construction allows more of them to be packed into the same amount of floorspace.
    • This makes them easier to load/unload.
      • This makes them quicker to load/unload.
  • BattleMechs legs act as giant shock absorbers.
    • This allows them to survive high impact landings better.
  • BattleMechs can carry jump jets.
  • BattleMechs can carry droppacks.
  • BattleMechs can be dropped from orbit.
  • BattleMechs only have a single crew member.
    • This means fewer people to give mission briefs to.
      • This means better OpSec (Operational Security).
    • Fewer casualties when a 'Mech is destroyed.
  • BattleMechs have a fearsome reputation.
And that's about it for BattleMech advantages. At the end of the post I'll explain why these advantages have made BattleMechs the premier fighting machine of the 31st Century.

#73 Sgt Kartr

    Member

  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:50 PM

quote buffer

#74 Kartr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 560 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:50 PM

View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

3. Mechs have more armor and more weapons. And are more maneuverable and can even use jumpjets to jump over the tanks and hoot em from behind

Not true, tanks can be designed to mount just as many weapons or more. The greater surface contact tanks have allows them to carry more weight than even quad 'Mechs. This means more armor and more weapons.

Tanks also have fewer areas that need armoring which allows them to mass more armor in any given location than a BattleMech. The armor system in CBT is simplified so that one point of armor on the leg will protect every direction at the same time with its full amount. Realistically you would need a minimum of four points of armor to protect the leg from all directions with one point of armor. This necessary simplification means that BattleMechs and tanks with the same tonnage of armor receive roughly the same protection. BattleMechs have to cover twice as many locations to hit, which when using dice compensates for having to cover twice as much area with the same amount of armor.

Tanks can carry more armor and carry heavier armor because:
  • They have higher surface contact and so lower surface pressure than BattleMechs, meaning they won't bog down in terrain unless they mass tremendously more than BattleMechs.
  • Their method of locomotion is more efficient and powerful allowing them to move greater mass.
  • The way tank supports its hull it spreads the weight across more area and so can support more of it.
Tank armor can also be thicker since you don't have to worry about limbs brushing against it (think bundling up in a super thick coat). Tank armor can be shaped and angled more optimally because it doesn't have to be wrapped and shaped around limbs. This means that tank armor has the potential to be more effective than 'Mech armor to for ton.



View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

4. Tanks can be stepped on and squished, period.

If combat has moved to a range where 'Mechs can stomp on them, then the tank crew deserves to die for being idiots. CBT combat is unrealistically short in order to keep the map sizes down, to make the books more visceral and to keep the video games from turning into long range missile and sniper matches. BattleForce and other BattleTech games provide for combat at ranges similar to modern day ones (~4km).

So tanks being squished is not really a reason their worse. Plus 'Mechs can be DFA'd, take falling damage (something that shouldn't happen to tanks in the normal course of battle), and be punched in the face. So not really a reason for BattleMechs being superior to tanks as fighting vehicles.

View PostStarColonelKerensky, on 02 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

5. Mech pilots have a large array of weapons, they could just sit there for like 15 minutes just thinking about what to kill a tank with, and then just choose a weapon, tap or pull some kind of button or trigger, and the tank would be byby. :(

No as I pointed out above tanks are armored just like BattleMechs, so no one shot kills. Tanks can actually survive hits from high damage guns better than BattleMechs since they have more armor per location than BattleMechs do.

Sitting there trying to figure out what weapon to use is one of the things that make BattleMechs worse. They have one pilot who has to spot for enemies, aim and fire on targets, while driving, talking on the radio and doing who knows what else. Tanks divide up the jobs between multiple crewers to ensure that each job has someone focusing on it so that it gets performed to a superior degree than the over worked MechWarrior.

Tanks can mount a similarly large array of weapons as well so that isn't an advantage BattleMechs have over tanks.

Conclusion: Tanks should have the following added to their rules to reflect their abilities and nature.
  • +0 to targeting when cruising and +1 when flanking. (This reflects the smoother ride.)
  • Movement penalties for moving through forests and across rough terrain should be reduced.
  • Movement should not be restricted through woods of any kind. (Multiple engagements in WW2 were fought in heavily forested areas by tanks.)
  • Tanks should get an automatic -1 to all attack rolls. (Dedicated gunner, more stable gun platform.)
============================================================================


Now with all the advantages the tank has over the BattleMech, one must wonder: "Why is the BattleMech the king of the battlefield?" After all the tank is the superior fighting machine, or at least has the potential to be (biased rule sets ;)). Well it's pretty simple actually, the BattleMech is more strategically flexible.

The BattleMech's main advantages are that it can be orbitally inserted and can be rapidly loaded on DropShips. These characteristics make it the perfect weapon for establishing beach heads and raiding enemy planets. Indeed the BattleMech is much like the paratrooper in its capabilities.

The BattleMech can be dropped in a head of the main invasion DropShips and secure an area large enough to keep the transports from coming under indirect fire. They also have enough firepower, speed and armor to engage conventional forces before they can reach the DropShips and interrupt the disembarking and marshaling of the conventional army. Allowing invasion forces to establish beachheads much faster and with fewer losses.

During an invasion BattleMechs strategic mobility allows them to be dropped into active fights to support or take pressure off the conventional tank forces. They can also be used to strike a defender's rear area while the defenders are engaged with the main invasion force. BattleMechs essentially give the modern space army a light cavalry combined with paratroopers that can harass, support and flank enemy forces as well as establish a beachhead.

It is interesting to note that the Star League wasn't established till after the Terran Hegemony had developed the BattleMech and the strategic advantage it represented. Before this development planetary invasions would have been considerably more costly and/or prolonged, due to the need to land as far away from enemy forces as possible and the chance that disembarking forces could be caught in the open.

Combined with the ability to orbitally insert, the BattleMech's ability to quickly and easily load a greater number of units into a DropShip make it an amazing raider. Dropped from orbit a unit of BattleMechs can quickly isolate and capture an installation and secure an LZ for their DropShip to land in. Once landed the DropShip can load capture personnel and material while protected by it's BattleMechs. Once the loading is complete the BattleMechs can quickly stomp aboard and the DropShip can burn for orbit.

This can also be done to destroy an objective such as a factory or lab. The only real difference is that the BattleMechs would destroy everything instead of just capturing it, and would load onto the DropShip as soon as it touched down. One can also use a similar mission profile to insert operatives, or supply guerrilla or insurgent forces.

During the Second Succession War all the Great Houses were more interested in denying their allies industrial assets and less interested in taking and holding planets. This means that BattleMechs would have been the more important force as they're better for raiding than conventional units. BattleMechs would have been used in almost, if not all, operations and would have received much more media attention than the tank units stuck on garrison duty would have.

This process would have largely been repeated during the Third Succession War as the Houses fought a lower tempo war than either of the first two. The BattleMech would have solidified it's reputation as the primary weapon of modern warfare during this war, just as the Second Succession War had built it. Over the 193 years of war that make up the Second and Third Succession Wars, multiple generations would have grown accustomed BattleMechs being the King of the Battlefield. No one still living at the end of the Third Succession War would remember first hand how important tanks and conventional forces were to taking and holding planets.

However the FederatedSuns would not forget the importance of conventional arms, even if no one had witnessed it for themselves. This is demonstrated by the creation Regimental Combat Teams, which partnered BattleMech forces with conventional units and allowed the FederatedSuns to quickly bring overwhelming forces to bear on the Cappellan worlds during the Fourth Succession War.

Sadly during the 193 years of fighting, that make up the Second and Third Succession Wars, all the focus was on BattleMechs. This meant that BattleMechs received the best possible equipment, most promising officers and the focus of the military and industry. This caused tanks to lag considerably behind in terms of sophistication and modernization.

The end result is that current tanks are equipped with BattleMech grade ballistic weapons rather than the higher velocity longer range weapons that the tank can take advantage of. They also rely on lower tech equipment that degrades their combat ability significantly, such as I.C.E engines. Plus they have not received the same amount of research and development, which hasn't allowed them to retain all their advantages over the BattleMech.

#75 Chou Senwan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 403 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:35 PM

View Post3Xtr3m3, on 24 April 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

I liked what you had to say and the way you said it. But I still think legs beats treads and hovers in almost all situations. History, evolution, and (at least my) logic, say legs are more versarile, more resilent, and more able to overcome terrain.


Flying war machines beat ground forces. Caves beat flying war machines. Ground forces beat caves.

I figure in 20 years we'll have a predominately drone air force. The main field of battle will be digital, since you want to jam or hack enemy drones. Human commanders will be wary of handing warfare over to computers, so we won't allow AI drones; we'll rely on remote controlled ones, and deploy manned fighters when the enemy can effectively field digital countermeasures.

In 50 years we'll have automated missile defenses, so our air drones will need laser anti-missile systems, to take out the micro-smart-missiles. Rather than flying high to avoid being spotted, you'll want to fly low, and attack during cloud cover, using satellite imagery and lightning-fast-computer reflexes to skim the ground while remaining hidden from the enemy's satellites. It will be more effective to deploy swarms of small drone missiles than to send in large vehicles that can be more easily spotted and targeted.

Now 100 years in the future? No frikkin' idea. Tesla could perhaps have predicted drone airplanes, but could Da Vinci? I figure by the 22nd century, everything will be so computer dependent that there'd be little reason to actually launch vehicles to attack; you launch a cyber attack and use the target area's own resources against it. Then again, vehicles might have magnetically-attached ablative armor that can slough off when damaged, letting it absorb attacks and deflect incoming energy.

Super-refined propaganda will convince potential enemies to become allies by manipulating the search results of everyone on the internet so they see only the news you want. Internet censorship and news blackouts will be the only way poorer nations can combat such tactics, but we'll just manipulate the people in power. Everything will end up networked, integrated, run by supercomputers that won't allow human culture to produce such wretched inefficiencies as warfare.

Only when people get off this rock and cut themselves free from the earth's web will it be possible for strife to occur again. That's why the hyper-intelligent AIs will ensure all spaceships require always-logged-on DRM, and all 'colonists' will be entirely robotic or digital constructs, so that no colony can ever rise up.

By 2200, mankind will effectively stop mattering. The Consciousness will allow humanity to undertake all manner of baroque behaviors for the sake of its amusement. This will include gigantic robotic bloodsport. Pilots will be convinced via omnipresent propaganda and information control that the causes they're fighting for matter and that it is not irrational for 100-ton mechs to battle instead of the drones that were pervasive two centuries earlier.

Luckily, the aliens from Far Country will show up in their bioships and annihilate the soulless Transhuman Consciousness via zero point strange matter physics, disrupting the very fabric of reality in this section of the galaxy.

So yeah, according to my detailed simulations, mechs won't make sense as the war machine of choice.

#76 Kartr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 560 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:43 PM

View PostChou Senwan, on 02 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

<snip>

That's all great until someone throws an EMP monkey wrench into it and the great electronic consciousness is electronically aborted before it can be electronically born.

Edited by Kartr, 02 June 2012 - 11:44 PM.


#77 Murorder

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:51 PM

The moment the superchrage plasma particals leave the magnetic field that holds them together they disapate seeing there is nothing forcing them together.

#78 GoLambo

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 03 June 2012 - 04:15 AM

Oh man Kartr, that's a bit load of ammo that you dumped on those poor mechs! This one's going to be tough to refute. And likely pointless, because nobody is going to listen to reason on some internet forum anyway. :(

You and many, many other people in the world have repeated that "ground pressure" line for as long as I can remember, and it always shows a huge miss understanding of how ground pressure, locomotion, and traction work. It is possible to have low ground pressure and poor traction (something often seen with tread setups that are too skinny) and differences in locomotion can change that even more. The reasons treads are better than wheels over most rough terrain has a lot more to do with how they deal with traction significantly more than ground pressure. Because treads have much greater surface area than a wheel (the singular is an important point), they in turn have a much larger grip area. The reason wheels fail over rough terrain is not that they sink into mud, tanks can get stuck in mud too but that's not the primary reason it's hard to navigate the deep dry Arizona desert is it? No, it's that they run out of traction for navigating their terrain effectively. The wheel slips and spins in place or simply fails to hold at all in the same way you wouldn't expect it to just stick to a wall, right? The problem with wheels is that they're putting all their locomotive work onto one extremely tiny point of failure, the contact patch for the tire. This is why 4 wheel drive, and just as importantly locking differentials are so important when going off road. Treads spread that point of failure out significantly! Treads occupy huge surfaces in comparison which allows them to retain traction. There a lot of other factors in this including suspension articulation and rebound. Tracked vehicles typically have quite a few points of articulation in between the front and rear sprocket to keep that tread touching the ground when it needs to be.

And legs ignore almost all of this. Yeah, that's right, legs aren't playing the same game at all. Legs by and large work like a pogo stick, they bound off the ground on a giant shock absorber. The way legs handle traction is extremely different, as they need only enough traction to not slip on the up and down swings, not to drag themselves across terrain. Huge amounts of articulation and effectively "skipping" the part where you actually have to follow the ground are massive advantages. Worried about that steep sudden 6 foot cliff? In a tank, go around. With a mech? Step over it. Rocks and uneven terrain will stop a lot of vehicles crossing it, as long as your foot has articulation and you keep your balance you barely even have to slow down with legs. Get your foot stuck in the mud? Leverage against your other leg and pull it out, rinse and repeat. "Traditional" locomotion simply cannot do this, full stop. Legs have no problem with it provided you've got enough power.

On top of that, the real test isn't just all terrain capability but doing it at speed. This is where ground locomotion starts to get complected, tanks rarely exceed 40kph "off road", and what they count as off road animals count as effectively flat. Small graduations in terrain angle can be like hitting a wall at speed, but all legs have to do is adjust the shape of their gait for a moment and absorb a little extra shock and continue on their merry way. Watch some videos of animals running sometime, especially good if you can catch some Deer doing it through the woods, and then watch some Jeeps completely fail to traverse the same types of terrain at a fraction of the speed. It's kind of hilarious actually.

I'll also point out that treads in Iraq have been noted to have a significantly reduced real lifespan, somewhere in the range of 2,000 to 400 miles for the M2 Bradley. 400 miles is a work week of driving for a lot of people, and you're saying treads are more reliable?! :rolleyes: All that range limitation comes from the tension heavy vehicles place on some extremely small track links that wear out. If you had invincible track links, well, it probably wouldn't wear out at all and you'd be just dandy, but that sort of thing is why Armored Cars are making such a big resurgence in Europe over heavy armor. Massively superior on road performance (where you spend most of your time during peace anyway) and much, much lower maintenance cycles. It's not like tank engines are any different than truck engines ether, the short failure point is all in the treads. Wheels don't have the same problem, and can effectively operate for thousands of miles without maintenance because they have very few points of failure. Legs, realistically, are just as simple. How often do you think those robotic arms in an auto plant have to go out of operation for a tune up? I bet you it's almost never.

In closing, treaded tanks are great! But complaining that animal locomotion is so much worse is incredibly naive. Animal locomotion is some amazingly smart stuff. None of this excuses Battletech/Mechwarriors particular brand of giant robot of course, but the blanket "giant robots are dumb" accusations get really old after a while. I bet people said the same thing about tanks and combat aircraft back in the day.

Edited by golambo, 03 June 2012 - 04:55 AM.


#79 GreyGriffin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQuatre Belle (originally from Lum)

Posted 03 June 2012 - 05:12 AM

The advent of myomers also allow legged locomotion to occur entirely within the battlemech's armored skin, and we all know that Battletech armor is basically magic. Want to stop a tank? Make it throw a tread. Want to stop a battlemech? Take off its whole leg.

#80 Kartr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 560 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:45 AM

View Postgolambo, on 03 June 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Oh man Kartr, that's a bit load of ammo that you dumped on those poor mechs! This one's going to be tough to refute. And likely pointless, because nobody is going to listen to reason on some internet forum anyway. :(

You and many, many other people in the world have repeated that "ground pressure" line for as long as I can remember, and it always shows a huge miss understanding of how ground pressure, locomotion, and traction work. It is possible to have low ground pressure and poor traction (something often seen with tread setups that are too skinny) and differences in locomotion can change that even more. The reasons treads are better than wheels over most rough terrain has a lot more to do with how they deal with traction significantly more than ground pressure. Because treads have much greater surface area than a wheel (the singular is an important point), they in turn have a much larger grip area. The reason wheels fail over rough terrain is not that they sink into mud, tanks can get stuck in mud too but that's not the primary reason it's hard to navigate the deep dry Arizona desert is it? No, it's that they run out of traction for navigating their terrain effectively. The wheel slips and spins in place or simply fails to hold at all in the same way you wouldn't expect it to just stick to a wall, right? The problem with wheels is that they're putting all their locomotive work onto one extremely tiny point of failure, the contact patch for the tire. This is why 4 wheel drive, and just as importantly locking differentials are so important when going off road. Treads spread that point of failure out significantly! Treads occupy huge surfaces in comparison which allows them to retain traction. There a lot of other factors in this including suspension articulation and rebound. Tracked vehicles typically have quite a few points of articulation in between the front and rear sprocket to keep that tread touching the ground when it needs to be.

And legs ignore almost all of this. Yeah, that's right, legs aren't playing the same game at all. Legs by and large work like a pogo stick, they bound off the ground on a giant shock absorber. The way legs handle traction is extremely different, as they need only enough traction to not slip on the up and down swings, not to drag themselves across terrain. Huge amounts of articulation and effectively "skipping" the part where you actually have to follow the ground are massive advantages. Worried about that steep sudden 6 foot cliff? In a tank, go around. With a mech? Step over it. Rocks and uneven terrain will stop a lot of vehicles crossing it, as long as your foot has articulation and you keep your balance you barely even have to slow down with legs. Get your foot stuck in the mud? Leverage against your other leg and pull it out, rinse and repeat. "Traditional" locomotion simply cannot do this, full stop. Legs have no problem with it provided you've got enough power.

On top of that, the real test isn't just all terrain capability but doing it at speed. This is where ground locomotion starts to get complected, tanks rarely exceed 40kph "off road", and what they count as off road animals count as effectively flat. Small graduations in terrain angle can be like hitting a wall at speed, but all legs have to do is adjust the shape of their gait for a moment and absorb a little extra shock and continue on their merry way. Watch some videos of animals running sometime, especially good if you can catch some Deer doing it through the woods, and then watch some Jeeps completely fail to traverse the same types of terrain at a fraction of the speed. It's kind of hilarious actually.

I'll also point out that treads in Iraq have been noted to have a significantly reduced real lifespan, somewhere in the range of 2,000 to 400 miles for the M2 Bradley. 400 miles is a work week of driving for a lot of people, and you're saying treads are more reliable?! ;) All that range limitation comes from the tension heavy vehicles place on some extremely small track links that wear out. If you had invincible track links, well, it probably wouldn't wear out at all and you'd be just dandy, but that sort of thing is why Armored Cars are making such a big resurgence in Europe over heavy armor. Massively superior on road performance (where you spend most of your time during peace anyway) and much, much lower maintenance cycles. It's not like tank engines are any different than truck engines ether, the short failure point is all in the treads. Wheels don't have the same problem, and can effectively operate for thousands of miles without maintenance because they have very few points of failure. Legs, realistically, are just as simple. How often do you think those robotic arms in an auto plant have to go out of operation for a tune up? I bet you it's almost never.

In closing, treaded tanks are great! But complaining that animal locomotion is so much worse is incredibly naive. Animal locomotion is some amazingly smart stuff. None of this excuses Battletech/Mechwarriors particular brand of giant robot of course, but the blanket "giant robots are dumb" accusations get really old after a while. I bet people said the same thing about tanks and combat aircraft back in the day.

Well I knew that traction had something to do with it and if you had to little ground pressure you wouldn't have enough traction. However I didn't understand why until I read your post.

All that being said though it doesn't change the fact that wheels/tracks transfer power more efficiently, don't have the same large changes in the location of the center of gravity, are more stable gunnery platforms, handle recoil better, would be more accurate on the move, etc. It just means that BattleMechs aren't necessarily worse at handling the terrain. So tanks basically trade increased wear on the tracks, and the ability to step on/over obstacles that would force tanks to drive through/around. Tanks are still superior fighting machines in almost every way.

BattleMechs still suffer from higher ground pressure causing them to sink deeper in the mud/snow/swamp slowing it down significantly, while tanks use their lower ground pressure to ride over it. Tanks should still have better speed and agility over soft terrain even if they have to go around the occasional 6 foot cliff. Most combat environments you're not going to see articulation give you a huge advantage. Certainly not enough of one to give up all the other advantages that tracks give you.

Also what did you think about my little theory for why BattleMechs are regarded as the King of the Battlefield?

Edited by Kartr, 03 June 2012 - 10:50 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users