199 replies to this topic

[KraftySOT]

Landwarrior is another great example.

Totally made it work.

Took it to Panama.

Welp this thing is a piece of ****...wheres my radio?

No mo Landwarrior.

Every soldier today has a GPS, but the entire vision of the future soldier was wrong. Battle armor, mechs, thats the same thing. It sounds like a great idea, you might even make it work, right up until it meets enemy contact. Then...well...why did we go to war against France in Panzer IIs again? Somebody call the field guns...our scientists were wrong again.

[L Y N X]

Krafty thanks for letting us know where your opinion is on this topic. Good thing we have already invented bombs that can erase whole cities before you could make a self-proclaimed ruling on their possibility.

Close minded folks do not change the world, that is for the open minded folks. Trial and error is the heart of innovation.

[KraftySOT]

Its not an opinion. Though I guess on your deathbed, when theres still no mechs, lasers, or space combat, you can just say "In the fuuuutuuure!"

But the fact is, none of these things are practical. And ideally open mindedness leads to a peaceful, mech free future, where the entire point of them is moot. Open mindedness is usually a scapegoat for madness. Which developing a weapon that can erase whole cities (another thing undermining large scale total war in which scienctists and engineers are mobilized to build "mechs" in the first place) was...madness.

[KraftySOT]

And these things have been tried, and have failed.

If this was 1991 you might have some sort of argument. But despite Skunkwerks OMG WE HAVE FUSION SAVE OUR COMPANY FROM THE TRASHHEAP!! and their plea...were not nearing some crux of human innovation that will lead to some sort of massive upheaval of technology that could make many of these things possible. Infact, recent innovations make these things even less likely.

Its 2014. There wont be giant robots smashing each other. Get over it.

We all had to accept that there wont be flying cars, because those exist in a future were people know how to drive, which wont ever happen....accept that there wont be Mechs.

Come with me. The future is bright and filled with nanomachines, 3D printing, genetics, and virology.

Were much more likely to wipe out the gene for aggression, than we are to build giant war robots.

Edited by KraftySOT, 02 December 2014 - 04:30 PM.

[Brody319]

http://www.joystiq.c...bout-insurance/

argument over, strap some guns on it and lets go.

[KraftySOT]

Brody319, on 02 December 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

http://www.joystiq.c...bout-insurance/

argument over, strap some guns on it and lets go.

lol lets go! at 10kph, only on flat surfaces, while plugged in, with plastic armor!

Definitely settled.

And for 1.35 million, plus the pricetag of your guns.

Can I have a single 30K USD LAW system and rocket?

[Brody319]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

lol lets go! at 10kph, only on flat surfaces, while plugged in, with plastic armor!

Definitely settled.

OP asked "what mech could you picture in real life". There you go, a mech.

[KraftySOT]

Brody319, on 02 December 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

OP asked "what mech could you picture in real life". There you go, a mech.

Fair enough. Thats definitely the extent of whats applicable in real life.

[Brody319]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Fair enough. Thats definitely the extent of whats applicable in real life.

as of now, but I don't see why civilian mechs couldn't be a possibility. I mean the sweeds (i believe) have that crawler they use to cut trees, is that not technically a mech? its got a saw for melee attacks.

You have to define the mech you are talking about otherwise you run into the problem of impossibility.
I saw mech, and you probably think something like an Atlas, but technically a mech could be any man piloted vehicle that walks and those can be made easily enough.

A combat mech is a different thing all together. but a Corvette is a fast car, doesn't mean it makes a good combat vehicle.

[F4T 4L]

RangerGee412, on 29 November 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

I think it would either be a timberwolf or mad dog. Chassis looks like it would be stable and the missile sections look functional. Humanoid mechs would be unstable and probably easy to knock over. The raven is also a good candidate.

A lovely shiny golden one. That'd be my choice.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Gentlemen, most of the discussion on each chassis format, either tracks or feet are still using straight force applied to the ground.
- At what point do you introduce the Mech's gyro? This is not only used to effect balance but also shift/move weight as the feet apply pressure. (and not something that a tracked vehicle can do.)
- Yes, at some point the 'push off' will be nearly full weight pressure, as that is where speed/forward momentum is produced. But that can be altered greatly with rapidly applied Gyro changes.

Just a thought, as everything previous dealt strictly with dead weight on the ground pressure.

Now, on the topic of some forms of chassis being prone to bogging down or becoming stuck. Tanks mostly.
- Why is this happening?
- In most cases if not all, it's due to lack of actual knowledge of the terrain structure and it's ability to support the chassis. What do I mean by this? The trained Mk1 eyeball judging that the ground in front of the chassis will allow for passage over or through it. The old 'Yea, we can get through there', fail.
- Relying of human sense and experience over directed sensors to physically 'look at the terrain' and identify areas of 'issue' for that chassis.

Where have we heard of this before? The BattleTech verse.
- Each chassis has a complete set of terrain sensors that can penetrate the surface and map where the unit should be 'concerned' with and where it needs to place it's structure to provide the best stability and movement. Abilities like scanning a river bed an seeing where the rock base is to 'ford' that feature. (not something we currently have on 'tracked' elements without bringing in Engineers with 'special' equipment.)
- There sensors systems are common place in this timeline and cheap, every Mech has them, and the Mech's Di computer uses them as it plots it's path and uses collision avoidance. (the Pilot directs the Mech to move in a certain direction, the Mech actually plots the safest route, unless overridden by the Pilot.)

I am not saying that it could not be used by both types of elements, tracks/tanks, and some form of mobile Mech chassis.
- Overall cost and single unit expense is what is stopping adapting the 'sensor tank' from appearing on the battlefield.
- We are at the limit of blending speed, mobility, and firepower in these chassis, they just can't carry much more and still fulfil there role. (Automated systems are being used in some tanks, reducing the required crews, but we still have hardened, robust, combat built elements being required. This sometimes overweighs the 'advanced' component for a more 'survivable' element.)

Advances are progressing very quickly in the combat vehicle field, fuel cell technology, magnetic motors within all the wheels and movement elements, lighter stronger materials. Removal of the transmission and drive trains are changing how these vehicles are designed and the space and weight now available. (rather mutt now of what engine, turbine or diesel to use.)
- Will we see future units start to appear like the 'transport' from ' Aliens'? Or the shift to the larger 'Battle Armour'?
- I would think both have there use, but the requirements of the battlefield and terrain mostly dictate how development changes these designs. It's always a battle of armour against anti-armour weapons, whether they are on chassis or not.

As a side note here on lasers:
The Military did conduct tests for hand held small laser weapons ..Years ago. They found that the lasers were great, instantaneous and no lead required, BUT, against ground troops, there were problems. They did burn right through the material and the body, but didn't stop the element. Burning a neat little hole, cauterizing the hole and unless it penetrated a vital organ didn't stop the unit. (not what the Military wanted.)
- the testing continues.

Just some thoughts,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 02 December 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Tastian]

I would like to throw in my 2 cents. I think the following conditions would have to be met:

1) Not too heavy - lighter mechs won't crush under their own weight
2) No Jump Jets - let's just stick to walking
3) Bipedal legs - chicken walkers would fall over or the strain would destroy the knee joints
4) No lasers, Gauss, PPC - stick to weapons we have now: missiles, cannons, machine guns
5) No human arms and hands - these are just unnecessary

And the winner is........

Oxide

[StandingInFire]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

First of all, the test was against a small wooden and plastic drone target, and it took 8-10 seconds to get it to flame up.

I see you ignored the intercepting of mortar rounds. If you actually do a bit of research you will find that the biggest inhibitor to lasers (again never talked about laser pistols cause that will never be effective) is the power source. This restricts lasers to large vessels such as boats and large airplanes. It also restricts the strength of the laser that can be generated, theoretically you can get a laser to flash vaporize metals at a distance with enough power (atm lasers are only used as cutters at low range). Lasers will become effective if and only if we can get high power low size (as in the size of a car) generators.

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

Its not very practical and never will be. Gauss are useless beyond the curvature of the earth, (17 miles) which if you cant fire them beyond visual range, a general ballistic or guided weapon will always be better. A sunburn for instance has a 117km range, an Exocet 80km. Ask the Falklands.

Reading comprehension is hard. I was in agreement on you with guass but pointed you to rail guns which is a different tech working on similar principals (magnetics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun projectile without the ability to change course can hit fast-moving missiles at a maximum range of 30 nmi (35 mi; 56 km)"
"The U.S. Navy plans to integrate a railgun that has a range of over 160 km (100 mi) onto a ship by 2016."

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

And actually:
http://en.wikipedia..../Military_robot
There are dozens, and none of them perform well, or to task, other than the SUAV, which is just a camera drone, and bomb defusal robots that we've been using for 20 years.

Means there are a few experimental prototypes. Half of which are probably only being worked on to get money via funding rather than a serious attempt at a military robot. I have worked in robots development some places are literally there to just siphon investor money but since they are technically actually working on something there is technically nothing wrong with that practice, and high publicity for those projects helps get investment money.

If you want to look at probably the biggest case of abusing investors (heck even a country) on a project that is totally ineffective at solving its goal look at Solar Roadways. Cause putting solar panels under things that cast shadows and dirty the panels is smart right?

[zortesh]

StandingInFire, on 02 December 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Means there are a few experimental prototypes. Half of which are probably only being worked on to get money via funding rather than a serious attempt at a military robot. I have worked in robots development some places are literally there to just siphon investor money but since they are technically actually working on something there is technically nothing wrong with that practice, and high publicity for those projects helps get investment money.

If you want to look at probably the biggest case of abusing investors (heck even a country) on a project that is totally ineffective at solving its goal look at Solar Roadways. Cause putting solar panels under things that cast shadows and dirty the panels is smart right?

this guy has a good point.

And solar roadways... stupidest thing ever, asif it would ever stay clear enough to let sunlight through with thousands of vehicles driving over it every day... people being dumb enough to give that guy money boggles me, heck the thing would be better as solar roofing tiles....

[Nothing Whatsoever]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

Landwarrior is another great example.

Totally made it work.

Took it to Panama.

Welp this thing is a piece of ****...wheres my radio?

No mo Landwarrior.

Every soldier today has a GPS, but the entire vision of the future soldier was wrong. Battle armor, mechs, thats the same thing. It sounds like a great idea, you might even make it work, right up until it meets enemy contact. Then...well...why did we go to war against France in Panzer IIs again? Somebody call the field guns...our scientists were wrong again.

Actually the problem was / is a lack in the batteries or the power source.

Edit: Also, from what I was reading the current system being developed is Nett Warrior after Land Warrior was cancelled.

Edited by Praetor Knight, 02 December 2014 - 09:16 PM.

[Squirtbox]

zortesh, on 02 December 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

this guy has a good point.

And solar roadways... stupidest thing ever, asif it would ever stay clear enough to let sunlight through with thousands of vehicles driving over it every day... people being dumb enough to give that guy money boggles me, heck the thing would be better as solar roofing tiles....

The thing with solar roads is that there is a lot of space that isn't being used all the time. Sure it would be stupid in a dense urban area but out in the suburbs or country side? Perfect place for it.

[zortesh]

Squirtbox, on 02 December 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

The thing with solar roads is that there is a lot of space that isn't being used all the time. Sure it would be stupid in a dense urban area but out in the suburbs or country side? Perfect place for it.

In the country you have alot of trucks full of livestock or milk, thats are using there breaks often and dragging dust/mud/gravel onto the road, dunno about suburbs, but one ******* doing a burnout would ruin the power collecting potential of any of the panels he touched with a nice coating of rubber.

I could see sidewalks working, but using them as solar roofing tiles would still be better.

No matter what roadways you used it'd get dirty and worn and rapidly become less efficent, really a cheap roofing material thats a solar panel is more practical.


On actual topic.

Ill say first i don't think any mech is terribly practical, but ill put out the least impractical ones.

Stalker.
High mounted weapons, lotsa smoothed rounded surfaces and angles that'd be good for deflecting shots.

Any of the rounded body mechs, becuase it'd be hard to get a solid hit on them.

Atlas would be terribad... all those flat surfaces that'd be easy to land shots on and with almost no chance of a good deflection angle.

[Pertti Munapirtti]

9erRed, on 02 December 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

As a side note here on lasers:
The Military did conduct tests for hand held small laser weapons ..Years ago. They found that the lasers were great, instantaneous and no lead required, BUT, against ground troops, there were problems. They did burn right through the material and the body, but didn't stop the element. Burning a neat little hole, cauterizing the hole and unless it penetrated a vital organ didn't stop the unit. (not what the Military wanted.)
- the testing continues.

I don't believe this for a second. Current heat rays are simply incapable of such penetration.

[Ashnod]

The hellbringer.

[Ashnod]

And apparently no one actually watched or read about the solar roadways at all.. seems legit