2
Marack Drock, on 10 March 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:
And once again you do not ever once consider:
-Legs easy to destroy
-Legs trip in mud
-No Robot made yet has been able to out do anything we have
-A Soldier will be wearing that 100 pounds of gear in combat no matter how many camels there are
-M1A2 Abrams is only a few decades old like a Robot
-Robots and their designs have been around for years (NASA was using them in the 1950s)
-We have not developed anything bipedal as fast as an Ostrich and until then my argument for them being slow and cumbersome stands and an Ostrich can only go a MAXIMUM of 45mph with an average of 30.. average race Horse is 48. So you are wrong again not faster than a race horse as a maximum speed of a horse is 55mph on average.
-Those Camels fell over and slipped and slided through only 2 inches of mud
-Mud deep enough to sink a tank will destroy a Robot's electronics and get it stuck also
-Camels can't keep the weight off the soldiers in combat cause they can't shoot, throw grenades and would be shot down in seconds if the enemy saw them carrying supplies (cause tactics say: Cut off all support and these would qualify to anyone as support)
-I count that as a tank for one reason: Has weapons, treads, shaped like a tank, fits the definition of a tank. No weapons not a tank. Camel has nothing on that thing.
-Robot only got through.... 2 inches of mud... versus 4 feet. Yeah lets see that now. If you are going to make that statement play it fair. How fast does a tank go through 2 inches of mud? How fast did the camel? Tank wins hands down. Now do the same in 4 feet.... both never make it... so Tanks wins again. (Also Tanks can carry those 100 pounds of supplies... oh man that means it is a cargo carrier, weapon, and is smaller than a mech) Big Dog is only 3 feet high.... it couldn't even stand in that mud.
-for your final paragraph.... and yet if it rains (and soaks the electronics), or there is any explosion, or a joint is damage, or ECM charges are launched the entire robot is 100% useless. Also if it is battery powered... got to recharge which takes hours... can just fill a tank up with gas and it is good to go (and I don't give two shits about Green house crap and renewable energy cause I will be dead before anything happens in this world regarding them).
-Higher Vantage point means: Easier to hit, Easier to shoot with an RPG, easier to destroy in general, etc etc. In short for the 1 advantage height gives it takes about 10 advantages away, cause lower profiles are harder to hit, stealthier, and with today's modern warfare profile makes no difference when you can use computer targeting so yeah height has no advantages in computer warfare).
-Psychologically tanks are more menacing for one reason: Logic. Anyone with a shred of logic will just look at those open hip joints or torso or ANY MOVING PART and just blow the **** out of it with an RPG. Kind of how war works. Shoot first.
-My Backslash key is 83* degrees 60 is easily within the range that tank handled and that camel handled... 30 at most and did so at about 2mph.
-100 years and I'll be dead and it will no longer be OUR definition of Modern Warfare and for all we know Tanks will have evolved even more still proving mechs to not have the potential like they do now.
-Torso twist on a tank is actually one of the weakest point. A few shots actually means the torso twist can be damaged on a tank (look it up it is a flaw they still work on and has been since WWII)
-That in my video Tank is not even 40 years old not even close so not 100 years of testing and the tank did it faster had weapons can carry more of a load, can carry passengers, and can't be disabled by an AK-47.
-An average Race horse only runs about 40mph still slower than a Tank.
-Mechs cockpit is automatically larger to its amount of surface area by the definition you gave me. You wanted a SMALL mech smaller than a tank but with a pilot, weapons, and legs. The smaller it gets the less armor it will have because the cockpit must be a fixed size for the pilot. So unless the mech is BT sized which makes sense, your small mini mech's pilot could be killed (its like the early Tanks of WWI that could be blasted apart by heavy ballistic canons (which were used against aircraft in the day).
-Legs thigh and tibia/fibia areas could be very strong.... hip, knee, and ankle joints still will always be easy prey weak.
-Also that tank in Syria was shot through a ventilation shaft (you can tell as it cause an ammo breach which is the reason for the flame through the barrel) which is one of the only soft spots. Next that tank is currently SEVERELY outdated as Syria owns all its combat tanks and such because other countries got rid of their old outdated ones, so also not current and as you keep insisting we use current data that video is irrelevant to the discussion.
-USA Army budget got cut last year especially in weapons design and advancement. Also average m1a2 Abrams (current model) costs about 9 million dollars. Cost for a mech with all new design, we have to factor in: Research, new armor development, more computerized parts, weapons of a tank, half the size of a tank, ammo, prototype development, testing, expenditures for the next couple years of research as they will break and destroy prototypes testing them.... we are looking at more than the cost of an Abrams by about 10 to 15 million dollars especially given today's economy in the USA. Research costs more money than anything, and the more advanced the parts, the more they cost and a bipedal mech carrying a tanks load, its taller and thinner, has the SAME armor, etc will definitely outway an abram's cost.
-You still haven't addressed any major weaknesses I pointed out in legs in case you haven't noticed getting one disabled is like this
Address these please as you keep avoiding them, giving me videos of outdated mtanks, try to prove a baggage hauler that is defenseless is better than a baggage hauler with guns that is 80 years old (and it is still better), try to prove a bipedal is better by comparing 2 inches of dirt to 4 feet (not fair comparison if we are going to do this we put them on even footing and test them outright), say soldiers can only put their baggage on these 4 legged camels (but never stop to think they can do that with a tank.... and ride on it as well and it could take 40 times the weight), say the Big Dog is good on ice..... yet it fell over 3 times whereas a tank wouldn't slip once cause it CANT), and you have not yet provided a single instance where these things have EVER outperformed a tank in any manner whatsoever. The only thing Big dog can do is get in between trees easily.... and barely does that at a meager 4 miles an hour and can't keep up with any military soldier ever thus if they had to slow down to keep track of it, they risk being shot at, if they leave it they risk it being captured. Also Big Dog has never seen combat in any capacity and isn't even out of development yet. Big Dog can only carry 350 pounds max..... or 3.5 soldier's weight. So we would need 657 thousand to help all of our army.... this is not counting marines or national guard. Whereas a tank can carry a few THOUSAND pounds, shoot at stuff, has armor, can't be taken out be an AK-47, can haul people and their weight and more...... Big Dog could carry 2 military men without any extra weight maximum (cause average weight 160-180 pounds so it might actually exceed the weight limit).
So we have a Height advantage and can move through trees and 2 inches of mud...... Tank wins. Come on provide me with proof here. I have given legit flaws with these designs, and have gone off all current data. You try to prove your point using 80 and 90 year old data versus 20 year old data which is unfair as you kept saying tanks were around 100 years but only use the barely refined designs to prove your point. I am using the designs you gave me and putting them against current designs. If you want a fair fight then play it fair cause guess what there are robot designs from the 80s that are crap that I could bring up if this is how you want to play.
(a robot is immobilized by a single bullet to a hip joint..... whereas it takes an RPG to do in a tank tread tank wins again)
I am actually having fun with this
bring me current data and proof cause arguing a century old design vs a 10 year old design is not fair by your own rules.
-Legs easy to destroy
-Legs trip in mud
-No Robot made yet has been able to out do anything we have
-A Soldier will be wearing that 100 pounds of gear in combat no matter how many camels there are
-M1A2 Abrams is only a few decades old like a Robot
-Robots and their designs have been around for years (NASA was using them in the 1950s)
-We have not developed anything bipedal as fast as an Ostrich and until then my argument for them being slow and cumbersome stands and an Ostrich can only go a MAXIMUM of 45mph with an average of 30.. average race Horse is 48. So you are wrong again not faster than a race horse as a maximum speed of a horse is 55mph on average.
-Those Camels fell over and slipped and slided through only 2 inches of mud
-Mud deep enough to sink a tank will destroy a Robot's electronics and get it stuck also
-Camels can't keep the weight off the soldiers in combat cause they can't shoot, throw grenades and would be shot down in seconds if the enemy saw them carrying supplies (cause tactics say: Cut off all support and these would qualify to anyone as support)
-I count that as a tank for one reason: Has weapons, treads, shaped like a tank, fits the definition of a tank. No weapons not a tank. Camel has nothing on that thing.
-Robot only got through.... 2 inches of mud... versus 4 feet. Yeah lets see that now. If you are going to make that statement play it fair. How fast does a tank go through 2 inches of mud? How fast did the camel? Tank wins hands down. Now do the same in 4 feet.... both never make it... so Tanks wins again. (Also Tanks can carry those 100 pounds of supplies... oh man that means it is a cargo carrier, weapon, and is smaller than a mech) Big Dog is only 3 feet high.... it couldn't even stand in that mud.
-for your final paragraph.... and yet if it rains (and soaks the electronics), or there is any explosion, or a joint is damage, or ECM charges are launched the entire robot is 100% useless. Also if it is battery powered... got to recharge which takes hours... can just fill a tank up with gas and it is good to go (and I don't give two shits about Green house crap and renewable energy cause I will be dead before anything happens in this world regarding them).
-Higher Vantage point means: Easier to hit, Easier to shoot with an RPG, easier to destroy in general, etc etc. In short for the 1 advantage height gives it takes about 10 advantages away, cause lower profiles are harder to hit, stealthier, and with today's modern warfare profile makes no difference when you can use computer targeting so yeah height has no advantages in computer warfare).
-Psychologically tanks are more menacing for one reason: Logic. Anyone with a shred of logic will just look at those open hip joints or torso or ANY MOVING PART and just blow the **** out of it with an RPG. Kind of how war works. Shoot first.
-My Backslash key is 83* degrees 60 is easily within the range that tank handled and that camel handled... 30 at most and did so at about 2mph.
-100 years and I'll be dead and it will no longer be OUR definition of Modern Warfare and for all we know Tanks will have evolved even more still proving mechs to not have the potential like they do now.
-Torso twist on a tank is actually one of the weakest point. A few shots actually means the torso twist can be damaged on a tank (look it up it is a flaw they still work on and has been since WWII)
-That in my video Tank is not even 40 years old not even close so not 100 years of testing and the tank did it faster had weapons can carry more of a load, can carry passengers, and can't be disabled by an AK-47.
-An average Race horse only runs about 40mph still slower than a Tank.
-Mechs cockpit is automatically larger to its amount of surface area by the definition you gave me. You wanted a SMALL mech smaller than a tank but with a pilot, weapons, and legs. The smaller it gets the less armor it will have because the cockpit must be a fixed size for the pilot. So unless the mech is BT sized which makes sense, your small mini mech's pilot could be killed (its like the early Tanks of WWI that could be blasted apart by heavy ballistic canons (which were used against aircraft in the day).
-Legs thigh and tibia/fibia areas could be very strong.... hip, knee, and ankle joints still will always be easy prey weak.
-Also that tank in Syria was shot through a ventilation shaft (you can tell as it cause an ammo breach which is the reason for the flame through the barrel) which is one of the only soft spots. Next that tank is currently SEVERELY outdated as Syria owns all its combat tanks and such because other countries got rid of their old outdated ones, so also not current and as you keep insisting we use current data that video is irrelevant to the discussion.
-USA Army budget got cut last year especially in weapons design and advancement. Also average m1a2 Abrams (current model) costs about 9 million dollars. Cost for a mech with all new design, we have to factor in: Research, new armor development, more computerized parts, weapons of a tank, half the size of a tank, ammo, prototype development, testing, expenditures for the next couple years of research as they will break and destroy prototypes testing them.... we are looking at more than the cost of an Abrams by about 10 to 15 million dollars especially given today's economy in the USA. Research costs more money than anything, and the more advanced the parts, the more they cost and a bipedal mech carrying a tanks load, its taller and thinner, has the SAME armor, etc will definitely outway an abram's cost.
-You still haven't addressed any major weaknesses I pointed out in legs in case you haven't noticed getting one disabled is like this
Address these please as you keep avoiding them, giving me videos of outdated mtanks, try to prove a baggage hauler that is defenseless is better than a baggage hauler with guns that is 80 years old (and it is still better), try to prove a bipedal is better by comparing 2 inches of dirt to 4 feet (not fair comparison if we are going to do this we put them on even footing and test them outright), say soldiers can only put their baggage on these 4 legged camels (but never stop to think they can do that with a tank.... and ride on it as well and it could take 40 times the weight), say the Big Dog is good on ice..... yet it fell over 3 times whereas a tank wouldn't slip once cause it CANT), and you have not yet provided a single instance where these things have EVER outperformed a tank in any manner whatsoever. The only thing Big dog can do is get in between trees easily.... and barely does that at a meager 4 miles an hour and can't keep up with any military soldier ever thus if they had to slow down to keep track of it, they risk being shot at, if they leave it they risk it being captured. Also Big Dog has never seen combat in any capacity and isn't even out of development yet. Big Dog can only carry 350 pounds max..... or 3.5 soldier's weight. So we would need 657 thousand to help all of our army.... this is not counting marines or national guard. Whereas a tank can carry a few THOUSAND pounds, shoot at stuff, has armor, can't be taken out be an AK-47, can haul people and their weight and more...... Big Dog could carry 2 military men without any extra weight maximum (cause average weight 160-180 pounds so it might actually exceed the weight limit).
So we have a Height advantage and can move through trees and 2 inches of mud...... Tank wins. Come on provide me with proof here. I have given legit flaws with these designs, and have gone off all current data. You try to prove your point using 80 and 90 year old data versus 20 year old data which is unfair as you kept saying tanks were around 100 years but only use the barely refined designs to prove your point. I am using the designs you gave me and putting them against current designs. If you want a fair fight then play it fair cause guess what there are robot designs from the 80s that are crap that I could bring up if this is how you want to play.
(a robot is immobilized by a single bullet to a hip joint..... whereas it takes an RPG to do in a tank tread tank wins again)
I am actually having fun with this
bring me current data and proof cause arguing a century old design vs a 10 year old design is not fair by your own rules.I'm enjoying this too! Thank you for debating this with me
I thought I did answer most of those points but it probably got lost in all my paragraphs so I'll put it in bullet form as you did.
-As I said before, the legs are using CNT muscles, which are extremely tough. Like, defying logic tough. Therefore, the legs may even be the strongest part of the mech.
-Legs don't trip in mud. They may slow down, but legs can step out of mud. If a tank gets stuck in mud, it's stuck. If a mech gets stuck it can work its way out.
-Like I said, tanks have had over 100 years to advance, not including previous technology it built off of. Robots have only been around a few decades. I agree that they can't outdo what we have yet, but that's no reason to say we shouldn't keep pushing the envelope.
-Soldiers carry huge rucksacks into battle. The purpose of those robots is to carry those. Of course they're still going to need body armor and weapons, but it'll be nowhere near 100 pounds. Plus, the robot can carry 4 soldiers' bags, and I'm sure they'll load it down with more than it's supposed to have, so it'll be doing even more.
-The M1A2 Abrams built off of 80 years of existing tech. The robot is building off of less than 20.
-The robots you're referring to were simply pre-programmed to move a certain way. These robots are autonomous and can "think" on their own, which hasn't been around very long at all.
-You can't expect programmers to jump into robots the size of ostriches that can run that fast. It's a progression. I don't think you appreciate just how far robotics have come. Also, from Google, an ostrich's speed is 50km/h and a horse's is 40-48km/h (galloping). You're probably right, I shouldn't have said racehorse, but the fact that a bipedal animal can run as fast as a quadruped animal twice it's size (longer legs). Plus, bipedalism is much more efficient than quadrupedalism because it uses our own energy of falling to propel us forward rather than relying completely on their own energy to move twice as many legs.
-I didn't see a video of the camel falling or slipping in mud, and you're forgetting that the robot is a fraction of the size of a tank. If you had a tank the same size as the robot going through the mud then you're argument would stand up but you're comparing apples and oranges. A very small robot with very small momentum versus a huge machine with tons of momentum.
-Robots are very versatile. They can do amazing things. When a tank is stuck it's stuck. If a robot is stuck they have limbs to help them out. It's relatively easy to pull a limb straight out of the mud when compared to the huge surface area of a tank holding it under. In the field robots don't have exposed electronics.
-The camels that are being used are autonomous, so they aren't equipped with weapons. But make them into a UGV or equip them with weapons that are operated by a human and they'll be able to support a squad, especially if there are multiple camels. A robot is easy to replace. A human life isn't. Sure the enemy might pick off a few camels, but in a battle they'll focus on the immediate threat, not the supplies.
-I thought you'd count it as a tank because it is. But how would you compare it to modern tanks? That's what you're doing when you compare the new technology of robotics with the developed technology of tanks.
-Again, the robot is a fraction of the tank's size. If you scale up the robot then it's longer legs will easily step through mud, and further programming will allow it to do it more and more efficiently as time goes on. Plus, with feet you can have toes that retract or fold down so the mech can have a large surface area on top of the mud, but if it sinks it can fold the toes in and decrease the surface area to pull it out. A tank's surface area is set. If you're stuck you're stuck.
-The robot has coverings in the field, not exposed electronics. Rain is not an issue at all. Explosions can also destroy tanks. It depends on the size of the explosion. The robot is not built to stand up to massive explosions so you can't expect it to. The tank is built to stand up to massive explosions and still fails sometimes. If a tank's drive wheel or treads are damaged the tank is useless. The mech's joints are covered by CNT muscles, which would protect them quite well. ECMs or EMPs would also shut down a tank because they have tons of electronics as well, from the Fire Control System to the drive system and engine.
-I just said it could be battery powered because it's simple and quiet. A small engine could power all the systems the same way. I really don't care about carbon emissions and all that either. Research is being done to recharge batteries faster. At NTU they have a battery that recharges to 70% in 2 minutes. The Abrams tank takes 10 minutes to refuel because tanks need massive fuel tanks.
-As I said before, legs allow for crouching. Stand up, fire a shot, crouch back down. A tank has to pull far enough out from cover to clear its cannon, which leaves its whole front end open to attack. A mech can lean, crouch, change speed quickly, maybe even jump? Who knows how far technology will advance? It's kind of funny how in the same sentence you said lower profiles are harder to hit and then that with today's technology profile makes no difference.
-You tell me how quickly you'll be thinking when a multi-ton vehicle is walking towards you. A walking machine well affect primal instinct. A tank only affects a soldier's instincts because of what they've been trained. In the field of battle soldiers often forget parts of training because primal instinct kicks in. And again, the joints are well protected.
-I'll rewatch the video, but I still didn't see a tank go up a 60 degree slope for any long period of time as the robot was doing steadily on its slope, which was quite steep. Please repost the video if you can and let me know what time on the video shows this slope.
-This is all speculation because you have no way of knowing how far technology will advance and how warfare will change.
-Since torso twist is still a problem with tanks you can't really use it as an argument against mechs.
-I didn't really understand your point in the first part of your sentence, but you're still comparing a machine built for frontline battle with a machine built for troop support. That doesn't equate.
-An average racehorse is a fraction of the size of a tank. Scale the tank down and the racehorse will win over rough terrain. Obviously wheels are faster on pavement, but put them out on rough terrain and legs will win. The top speed of the M1A1 Abrams is 45 mph on roads and 30 mph off-road. The M1A2 is even slower at 42 mph and 25 mph, respectively. So the smaller horse is actually faster, and we didn't even scale up it's leg length, which would allow for longer strides and more speed. Replace it's muscles with CNT and you can replace all the weight of muscles with armor and weapons, so scaling up the weight as well isn't a problem.
-I don't want them mech to be smaller than a tank, that's like an exoskeleton or power armor. For me the most logical design is simply a tank turret on legs. Arms are pretty useless and stupid. The only reason for mechs is legs. So, when I say mechs I mean the shape of a Raven or Locust, not an Atlas or Centurion. With a turret that size and proportional legs I've been able to doodle designs where a pilot and gunner could fit in a mech that is under 14 feet.
-Hip, knee, and ankle joints would be weaker than other parts, but I've already said they'd still be covered with extremely strong, self-healing artificial muscle. Much more durable than the drive wheel and treads of a tank.
-So you point out the weakness of a mech's hip or knee which I have addressed numerous times but your tanks have a weakness like that? It may be an outdated tank but they're still being used all around the world! Once a tank is outdated it doesn't disappear from the battlefield, and most of the countries with new tanks are our allies (the UK, Germany, Israel, as opposed to the Middle East).
-The US military is still spending a ton on research and development, and many of the progress in the area of robotics is being done by private companies. Once the technology has advanced enough then the military can simply use existing tech to build a prototype. We spent over $74 billion developing and producing the F-22s we have today. If the military will do that then why wouldn't they invest in a mech if our technology advances far enough for it to be profitable? And by the way things are going, it will happen at some point.
-I already addressed that by saying the joints will be covered by extremely tough artificial muscles. Tanks still have this weakness: (If you've seen Saving Private Ryan you'll remember this scene)
P.S. Arrow to the knee made me chuckle a little
I used the 100 year old tank because that was the beginning of tanks, just as the camel is part of the beginnings of walking vehicles. I can't give you proof of how a mech will fare on the battlefield because we've never seen one before. It hasn't been developed yet. What you're saying is that you know it will be useless so we should never experiment with it. What I'm saying is that with the technology we are currently working on why not at least give it a shot? You also keep saying that because BigDog and the "camel" can't shoot or don't have armor a mech is useless against a tank. Those robots are support vehicles! You expect them to stand up to a tank? That's outrageous! I have given you proof of concept numerous times, and that's what you fail to see. You can't have an actual machine when right now we're only working on a concept. The technology is there and we just need to put it together. How far do you think tanks can advance? The basics will still be there no matter what. We still haven't even established the basics of walking armored vehicles, so they still have a lot farther that they can advance. This means that while a tank can make small advances and refinements in the next decade, robots will make leaps and bounds as programming and materials get better, and then still use the tank's advances when we apply them to a mech. I think what our disagreement comes down to is our view on the extent to which robotics will advance, because that will determine how well robots and mechs perform on the battlefield. If it doesn't advance enough then we'll have slow, lumbering beasts that are easy targets. If they do advance enough then we'll have machines that is agile and can mimic a soldier's own movements.
I'd be happy to repost my links to CNT muscles that I used in my paper and articles on the future of robotics if you'd like proof
One with a tank turret on top and the other with AA guns on top. Or have a few of the smaller bipedal ones previously mentioned protect them from tanks. Or tanks would work just fine, cause using a mech doesn't exclude you from using a tank or other armored vehicle.
