950 replies to this topic

[Melcyna]

KalebFenoir, on 04 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Maybe a Battlemech's Gyro is more complex than we realize? Simply put, we're philosophizing and imagining modern equipment in an 80s-based giant robot. That kind of combo doesn't work. So the only real way to think is that, yes, today modern gyros in tanks and whatnot are small and seem simple. What if the ones in Mechs are the same way, but because Mechs are so unusual in design, the Gyros are just stepped up to match the task? Would a tank's gyro, built as it is, be able to balance a tank's guns if, in addition to the main turret it normally accounts for, be able to deal with the tank suddenly having two additional turret mounts hanging off the sides that off set its weight (especially if one gets blown off)? Or the fact that instead of being flat on the ground on its treads, which is fairly stable even at high drive, the tank is now being tipped left and right, backward and forward, and that all those turrets are now mounted on a central turret that has, in addition to the 180 degree spin, now has a waist it can bend at instead of just depressing turrets?

The gyro might be built the same, but there might be MORE of it now, simply to account for the redirection of forces and the sheer unusual bulk of the machine (no tank towers 12 meters straight up unless its on its nose).

Sure, except that gyro functions regardless of the shape of the machine it is attached to
Gyro's function does NOT CARE whether it is attached on a 12 meter high mech, a guided missile, a tank, a torpedo, a ship, a plane or anything else... (incidentally every single one of them in modern age except for the mech since that's fiction has a gyroscope of varying size inside for various purpose... down to as small as instruments which ironically is the original use of gyroscope)

Aside of that there are only 4 things one can improve or change on gyro

1. the accuracy
2. the force they can exert or rather the amount of momentum they can resist
3. the size (miniaturization)
4. the means of detection on momentum change.

Other than that, although we made many type of gyro, using more and more advanced means of sensing the attitude change, the base principle behind them are the same. Especially as a balancer.

And the biggest problem? They specifically mentioned the gyro's function and purpose on the battlemech and from that we KNOW what type of gyro it is and what it's functionality is which is basically THE EXACT SAME as every spinning gyro we have except upscaled in scope and size.

To add insult to the injury? Spinning gyro is like the OLDEST type of gyro known in existence... we've been using them for components in instruments of war since early 20th century. And it's been used in peaceful time for measurement instrument FAR LONGER than that... as old as 18th century.

Edited by Melcyna, 04 November 2012 - 06:42 PM.

[KalebFenoir]

Melcyna, on 04 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

To add insult to the injury? Spinning gyro is like the OLDEST type of gyro known in existence... we've been using them for components in instruments of war since early 20th century. And it's been used in peaceful time for measurement instrument FAR LONGER than that... as old as 18th century.

Well, to be honest, I've never read about a 'spinning gyro' in a mech. I remember in one of the Graysen Death Carlyle novels (think it was DRT but I can't be sure), when he put his Shadowhawk's fist into the back of a Hatchetmen, it ground itself to nothing against his fist. But I think it was described as turning cogs or gears or something, so, in the accent of Hermes from Futurama "That just raises FURTHER questions?!".

:/ I don't think we'll ever get a satisfactory answer.

[Melcyna]

Which is basically what the most base form of spinning or rotational gyro is...

The principle behind gyro's ability to resist momentum change essentially requires something that produces a torque, it's basic physics, hence the rotational or spinning gyro form.

They can't really change or avoid that (except by disregarding physics) because there isn't any other easy known method to produce the gyroscopic effect that allows the device to resist attitude change necessary to use it as a stabilizer and do this in sustained manner.

They could of course just say, OUR GYRO WORKS DIFFERENTLY like in most fictions where they proclaim (our X works differently, authors often use this method to try and give some unique property to their fiction)... despite the fact that EXISTING GYRO DO THE EXACT THING THEY DESCRIBE in the manual and been doing so for ages...

Spoiler

again, let me reiterate that Gyroscope or any form of devices using gyroscopic effect DO NOT CARE WHAT THEY ARE ATTACHED TO as long as the device internal is not disturbed while operating, they will do their function and perform it REGARDLESS of what it is installed on.

So since what they described the gyro function on a mech is essentially the SAME THING as our standard spinning gyro, their gyro essentially is nothing but an upscaled spinning gyro. Which is expected because when they try to make fluff or write the backstory to the technology in BT, they only had the EXISTING technology to base their idea on.

Unless they want to come up with their own theory on how to produce the gyroscopic effect necessary, and what kind of justification they used for it, it's obviously easier to just use the existing known method... copy it, and try to adapt it, and this is the problem, they used the description that PRECISELY describes our existing spinning gyro form and function.

If we therefore want to claim that their gyro mechanism is different, then we basically had to come up with ANOTHER method of producing the effect that are not described in our known physics knowledge, otherwise it's fairly obvious what the device inner working is since there isn't that many alternatives to the mechanism.

If not then that begs the question on how their tech can fail to understand the working of one of the most fundamentally basic piece of equipment engineering have produced.

Quote

Would a tank's gyro, built as it is, be able to balance a tank's guns if, in addition to the main turret it normally accounts for, be able to deal with the tank suddenly having two additional turret mounts hanging off the sides that off set its weight (especially if one gets blown off)? Or the fact that instead of being flat on the ground on its treads, which is fairly stable even at high drive, the tank is now being tipped left and right, backward and forward, and that all those turrets are now mounted on a central turret that has, in addition to the 180 degree spin, now has a waist it can bend at instead of just depressing turrets?

Slightly late but Yep, allow me to put it in simple terms:

Spoiler

Gyros do not CARE what external device you put into the housing of the gyro is and what they do.

Gyro will do it's job in the exact same fashion and manner, ie: responding to attitude or momentum change.

if for example a mech arm is blown off and the resulting imbalance produce a force, the net effect can be described in terms of the attitude change on the main torso (where the main gyro is presumably situated). Be it in terms of the torque produced by the extra weight on one side of the mech (that didn't lose an arm), or what not.

Regardless of what it was, all that the gyro care is that there is a momentum change as a result of this that will be applied on the center torso where the main gyro is situated presumably.

The gyro will sense this as it's housing is secured against the center torso, and in the case of a spinning gyro it can RESIST it to a degree (as long as it is within it's maximum capability).

Every action done by the mech, be it arm swing, leg, etc, or being hit, falling... EVERYTHING can be translated into a momentum change that will affect the housing where the gyro is situated, if it did not affect it then the gyro will not respond to it either and there's no way to be contrary to it since to do otherwise means to DEFY physics or movement that generates no momentum, in short? teleportation, and when the gyro respond to ANY momentum change it, it will do so in the EXACT SAME METHOD as our spinning gyro have been doing for ages...

Edited by Melcyna, 05 November 2012 - 05:55 AM.

[M E X]

Melcyna, on 04 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Which is basically what the most base form of spinning or rotational gyro is...

The principle behind gyro's ability to resist momentum change essentially requires something that produces a torque, it's basic physics, hence the rotational or spinning gyro form.

They can't really change or avoid that (except by disregarding physics) because there isn't any other easy known method to produce the gyroscopic effect that allows the device to resist attitude change necessary to use it as a stabilizer and do this in sustained manner.

They could of course just say, OUR GYRO WORKS DIFFERENTLY like in most fictions where they proclaim (our X works differently, authors often use this method to try and give some unique property to their fiction)... despite the fact that EXISTING GYRO DO THE EXACT THING THEY DESCRIBE in the manual and been doing so for ages...

Spoiler

again, let me reiterate that Gyroscope or any form of devices using gyroscopic effect DO NOT CARE WHAT THEY ARE ATTACHED TO as long as the device internal is not disturbed while operating, they will do their function and perform it REGARDLESS of what it is installed on.

So since what they described the gyro function on a mech is essentially the SAME THING as our standard spinning gyro, their gyro essentially is nothing but an upscaled spinning gyro. Which is expected because when they try to make fluff or write the backstory to the technology in BT, they only had the EXISTING technology to base their idea on.

Unless they want to come up with their own theory on how to produce the gyroscopic effect necessary, and what kind of justification they used for it, it's obviously easier to just use the existing known method... copy it, and try to adapt it, and this is the problem, they used the description that PRECISELY describes our existing spinning gyro form and function.

If we therefore want to claim that their gyro mechanism is different, then we basically had to come up with ANOTHER method of producing the effect that are not described in our known physics knowledge, otherwise it's fairly obvious what the device inner working is since there isn't that many alternatives to the mechanism.

If not then that begs the question on how their tech can fail to understand the working of one of the most fundamentally basic piece of equipment engineering have produced.

Slightly late but Yep, allow me to put it in simple terms:

Spoiler

Gyros do not CARE what external device you put into the housing of the gyro is and what they do.

Gyro will do it's job in the exact same fashion and manner, ie: responding to attitude or momentum change.

if for example a mech arm is blown off and the resulting imbalance produce a force, the net effect can be described in terms of the attitude change on the main torso (where the main gyro is presumably situated). Be it in terms of the torque produced by the extra weight on one side of the mech (that didn't lose an arm), or what not.

Regardless of what it was, all that the gyro care is that there is a momentum change as a result of this that will be applied on the center torso where the main gyro is situated presumably.

The gyro will sense this as it's housing is secured against the center torso, and in the case of a spinning gyro it can RESIST it to a degree (as long as it is within it's maximum capability).

Every action done by the mech, be it arm swing, leg, etc, or being hit, falling... EVERYTHING can be translated into a momentum change that will affect the housing where the gyro is situated, if it did not affect it then the gyro will not respond to it either and there's no way to be contrary to it since to do otherwise means to DEFY physics or movement that generates no momentum, in short? teleportation, and when the gyro respond to ANY momentum change it, it will do so in the EXACT SAME METHOD as our spinning gyro have been doing for ages...

The better a gyro works, the harder it would also be to accelerate or stop a mech, or even worse: to maneuver it in thight turns or circles !

So forget the idea of using only a spinning rotational mass for stabilizing a Mech ... it has to be something more sophisticated, or mechs would have to be much slower than any tank of the same weight, rendering Mechs nearly useless for combat !

MfG, MEX

[Melcyna]

Two things:

Mechs ARE USELESS for combat, that was never a question for anyone sane with an ounce of basic science knowledge and military application, we ignore most of that in games and scifi materials for obvious reason... ie: they r still cool as entertainment regardless of how nonsensical their designs are from practical and scientific point of view.

And second, to answer why this "The better a gyro works, the harder it would also be to accelerate or stop a mech, or even worse: to maneuver it in thight turns or circles !" is inaccurate:

Simple, rotational gyroscope can be designed to resist motion in CERTAIN direction... not all, depending on the design.

This is why auto balancer on things like self righting motorcycle works, without it impairing the unit itself under normal movement.

For more information on the basic science behind it you can start from
http://www.gyroscope...g/behaviour.asp

Additionally in modern gyroscope used in autobalancer, we use an array of gyroscopes... typically with several smaller gyroscopes (MEMS type or otherwise) that are used to detect the attitude change and then use the data from that to set the main rotational gyro that produces the main torque.

The entire mechanism is quite straightforward really once you understand the basic mechanism of the gyroscope behavior...

Back before we even had the more advanced microscopic gyroscope types and advanced electronics we have now we already used the existing mechanical gyroscopes for myriads of fascinating works with nothing more than mechanical engineering and physics knowledge...

as early as the 1914 we already had vehicles using the gyroscope array for balancing...

[Mousepup]

IIRC, 300,000 K/S is off by a factor of one thousand, the speed of light being about 300,000 _metres_ per second. A quick-&-lazy check of wikipedia and Google confirms. Y'all had me pretty scared, that I'd misremember something so important and well-known...

I lolled at "Abraham's tank." Imma avoid anything involving past-future IT and signal warfare since it's more worms than I feel like chewing today, but a few others I like to ridicule which I failed to notice mentioned here yet.. (still catching up to current page)

* A 20 to 100 "ton" machine would dwarf trees and buildings in size. The whole measurements system must have evolved and been revised over the centuries, as a "ton" is nothing like a Megagram, or at least as was known in the 20th century. Ground pressure has been covered already and I'm feeling lazy, so Imma leave it at:

* tracked tanks can feasibly reach maximum weight of only twice that of battlemechs.

* We've been wrong about the whole relationship between volume and surface area for millennia: as it turns out, humanoid shapes with limbs are more efficiently armored than pleasantly brickish tanks. This might possibly have something to do with Autocannon ranges and the Heavy Gauss Rifle...

* Post-information-age language evolution not only failed to accelerate dramatically, but pretty much stopped entirely.

* Fusion power plants have potential to explode catastrophically, so apparently there's a practical confinement approach that is passive and has some rather unsafe failure modes. Considering the stupendosity of FTL comms and travel, maybe it's gravitational confinement?

* These engines which occasionally _fail_very_unsafe_ are appropriate for high-end consumer automobiles.

* Manipulators shaped like gigantified, metal human hands are equipped in large part for use as weapons rather than, say, a sturdy club-like form. This is because seemingly more practical hatchet-like shapes are especially inaccurate, and also cutting-edge technology not discovered until after the fall of the Star League. (This human hand design is the best possible for a general-purpose manipulator, not just for things our size made of meat but also for battlemechs!)

* Guided rockets of many kinds, unguided rockets, and gun-fired unguided shells all remain similarly viable means of deploying explosive warheads, with neither emerging as a superior technology as they mature, even in mostly overlapping tactical and strategic applications. Not only this, but these warheads also continue to coexist with distinctly old-school impact weapons, (such as gigantified cold-steel axes and swords, and inert bullets from coilguns) laser death rays, matter beam death rays, incendiary gobs of ionised former plastic from electrothermal cannon, and prolly a few other things I'm forgetting or simply ignorant of. (IMO one of the best things about BT!)

* However, guided gun-launched munitions are a rare and expensive niche technology, guided rockets are mainly direct-fire weapons, and IDF-oriented weapons are typically unguided guns rather than guided rockets. The coilguns are, so far as I know, never used to launch any payload other than blunt trauma and railguns are almost unheard of because coilguns prove more practical.

* Magnetic acceleration of gigantic bullets is vastly more energy-efficient way of breaking stuff than of matter beams, but

* requires much bulkier, heavier, more expensive equipment which

* is stupendously dangerously volatile, while more energy-intensive matter beam weapons are not.

* The aforementioned non-coilgun electrothermal cannon behave more like the matter beams than the coilguns in every way except for requiring significant mass of ammunition, despite the phenomenology being more similar to coilguns

* and the matter beams being of "kinetic weapon" velocities (read: explosive blaster, probably with an EMP effect from the expanding plasma) rather than "laser-guided lightning" (read: taser cannon and poor man's heatray) velocities.

* Man-portable matter beam weapons are used by unarmored infantry. As it turns out, ionising radiation isn't nearly as deadly as we thought. Sadly, it still doesn't give us Marvelous superpowers, but who needs that when you've got man-pack PPC?

Miscellaneous abominations that popped into my head as a result of reading this thread:

Yes, our predecessors made some predictions that turned out to be wrong, like turbine automobile engines heated by fission piles. This conclusively proves that correct predictions are impossible, and thus no predictions will come true.

Victims of eminent domain might not like what happens to them. Obviously, then, it can't happen in here since all regimes in BT are totally strict about not doing impolite things to their subjects like slaughtering them to maintain control via fear. Yeah, Q-ships are totally ridiculous because no state can appropriate private property in an emergency.

[RFMarine]

Elessar, on 21 August 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Wrong
Mechwarriors wear a Cooling vest inside of their cockpit, that gets plugged into coolant lines via jacks in the cockpit

http://www.sarna.net...ior_%28pilot%29

(first pic shows a mechwarrior wearing such a cooling vest)

I think there were also full body pilot suits in the star league era, which are Lostech now (although mechwarriors even nowadays sometimes wear a ligth environmental protection suit, to protect themselves in case of cockpit hull breaches if their mechs operate in hazardous environments ... but due to the bulkiness of the suit they get mali on piloting and gunnery wile wearing it)

I've read a novel where a really good pilot (a solaris competitor??) had two aces up his sleeve. First he used instead of a normal cooling vest he had a star league era cooling suit which looks like a pilot's flightsuit, cooling even arms and legs. He did not hide this fact and it was the official reason why he was so good. And there was another hidden advantage that he had, I forgot what

but this still does not explain why simply extending the cooling vest to cover arms and legs was not more common

Banekane, on 25 August 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Almost all the heros are seen using old outdated Mechs tearing all the newer models to shreds

i guess its cause a mech never losses its fighting power

there's a story somewhere of someone having two star league era light mechs that were stored somehow untouched and in mint condition (maybe they just parked it in a vacum?) for a few hundred years, including star league era targeting computers. those two massacred several heavies and mediums since everything still worked like it was factory new

also

Quote

Older Is Better
"We extol ancient things regardless of the modern."
-Tacitus, Annales
The idea, especially in Fantasy settings, that older things generally are better. The swords left behind by an old civilization are better than those made by their modern descendants. Same goes for armor, magic, or whatever. Anything that can be described as "ancient" is better than its modern counterpart, as if people are regressing rather than inventing new technologies and improving on old ideas. In fact, this technology is so superior that it continues to outperform modern ones despite spending a dozen centuries half buried in dirt in a cave. This can be explained by a setting with Medieval Stasis: if technology is not advancing, then older items made by legendary craftsmen will be better than modern gear made by run-of-the-mill craftsmen. Sometimes this can also be explained by the source of the items being a Precursor race or Civilization, with the "modern" civilization having simply not caught up to them yet.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/OlderIsBetter

or maybe

Quote

Plot Armor
"Look, we got four or five of the main characters on this ship. I think we'll be fine."
— Peter Griffin, Family Guy, "Something, Something, Something Dark Side"
The main reason the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy is still in business (along with a handful of other tropes). Just by being the main character, the laws of the world seem to bend around the character in a more than figurative way. For some reason (and not even an explicit ability), just being the main character or on his team protects you from death, serious wounds, and generally any sort of harm until dramatically appropriate. Even psychological damage can be beaten by Plot Armor. Unless you're explicitly marked for death, or Tempting Fate. The real reason, of course, is that the movie/book/game/etc. would be awfully short if the main character died the first time they should. But it can get somewhat unreal at times. This trope is sometimes referred to as "Script Immunity" or a "Character Shield."

http://tvtropes.org/.../Main/PlotArmor

[RFMarine]

another criticism of mechs is that the joints, specially hip and knee joints, above a certain size/tonnage would go beyond the strength of any known current material.

Battleships and tank turrets get around this by making the diameter of the joint (a turret is analogous to a joint) very large, spreading out the force per square cm

using magnetic or fluid bearings it might be possible to circumvent the maximum strength possible with ball bearings but still, the joints would be much larger than what we see in the artwork

[Melcyna]

and then said joints had to be somehow functional after getting blasted since while they are supposed to be armored (with handful of millimeters thick armor, ie: non existent armor thickness) the joint itself is completely exposed to hostile fire that carves the parts to pieces.

traditionally in the real world, we try to overcome this limitation in the past by using armor panels overlapped on top of the joint itself to give it some degree of freedom to the joint (so it can still move and function) and protect it from incoming harm with varying degree of success.

the general trend being the more armored it is, or the larger the joint size is, the more difficult it becomes to armor it without impeding it's freedom of movement...

Hence why modern soldier armor only protects the vital area of a soldier and typically do not protect the limbs or joints with any heavy armor since it is near impossible to armor those parts with the same degree of protection as the rest without imposing difficulty to the function of the limbs or joints which would reduce the mobility of the soldier and gets him killed.

the main exception being explosive handling armor which are so heavily armored even on limbs but are near impossible to move properly, a trade off considered acceptable since the bomb disposal crew doesn't need to be able to move as quickly (if the bomb they are handling sets off there's no way they can move out of the way fast enough in either case).

[Nebfer]

Hexenhammer, on 18 October 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

This image is incorrect, an Atlas is only 13m tall (per Shrapnel)
The Games typically have them much bigger than they are in reality (or at lest B-tech version of it) particularly the older games MW4 is a bit closer to what the fluff has them.
Keep in mind at 18 meters tall it can not hide behind a level two hill (which is 12 meters), but at 13 meters it can arguably do so giving some wiggle room for the height of the hill.

Though I believe the AT-AT is a bit bigger than ~15 meters, wokkiepedia says its around 22 meters tall.


Though it should be pointed out that B-tech is an alternate reality, while it's laws are largely our own, it dose seem to have bent some of them or invented materials we can only dream of.

Though some of you are simply over analyzing a made up world, and at that level just about any made up universe starts to crumble.

Though the two biggest problems with B-tech is FASAnomics and military size.
B-techs military is tiny for the population size, as a result the apparent military industry is also small, which would odd with the supposedly tax revenues that the houses can pull in (even at very low rates and assuming a notable amount of the population being non taxed)...

Though here's a quick time line until the star league is formed, even so it's not the most detailed.
1945: WW2 ends, cold war starts
1950: the Korean war stars
1053: the Korean war ends two Korea's are formed.
1961: Yuri Gagarin is first man in space
1969: Neil Armstrong lands on the moon
1985: USA roles out a orbital defense satellite
1988: USA roles out a new space plane (Liberty Class)
1988: January: Mikhail Gorbachev becomes premier of the USSR, and the colaps of the soviet union, end of the first cold war
1990s: global depression and military draw down
1994: Crippen station begins construction
1997: Second cold war begins when hardline Communists retake control of the Russian government, military rearmament
2004: Oleg Tikonov becomes the leader of Russia
2005: second cold war ends
2005: Crippen station launched/finished (capable of holding 2,000, and having factory complexes, and houses anti-missile systems)
2007: Crippen upgraded (with orbital shipyards)
2011: January Oleg Tikonov killed, starting the second soviet civil war
2014: January NATO intervenes liberating Poland & Czechoslovakia. Then moves against the soviets, who panic and launch ICBMs all of which are shot down by the orbital defense system
2014: the second soviet civil war ends (15 million dead)
2014: Germany is reunited
2014: the Western alliance is formed
2016: Alliance Space Command formed
2016: a permanent maned presence on the moon is placed by the end of the year
2017: The AS Altair is launched in July for a two year mission to Mars, AS Procyon is launched a month latter
2018: AS Columbia launched
2018: Kearny & Fuchida publish their papers
2020: GM develops the first Fusion plant that sustains power generation
2021: GM begins constriction of fusion plants (and yes that GM)
2022: Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere formed, Korea is reunited at around this time as well.
2023: The WA stares down the ACPS over Japan, a brief war starts between japan and the ACPS when the USS Bremerton a Sea Wolf Class Fission sub (yes that Sea wolf) was sunk by ACPS ships and the JDF Destroyer Akagi badly damaged (in the attempt to save the Bremerton's crew)
2024: The Osaka agreement allows Asian nations to join the Western Alliance
2026: The first fusion rocket went online
2026: **** is eradicated as is Malaria and other diseases
2027: The AS Columbia is modified and launched to be the first fusion powered space craft, capable of reaching Mars in 14 days (vs ~6 months -this is a sustained .1G by the way)
2029: fusion power becomes an increasingly common power source.
2029: the Magellan probes are first launched
2030+: 9 Metis is colonized (asteroid belt) asteroid mining is common at this time.
~2050: Mars and Venus start being terraformed (150 years later...)
2070: improvements allow regular hydrogen to be used in fusion reactors
2086: 80% of the worlds population (of 9 billion) was part of the Western alliance
2086: the Western Alliance becomes the Terran Alliance
2098: the average life span is over 100 years world wide for Alliance citizens
2098: A Massive riot brakes out in Brazil, the TAAF sends in two divisions to deal with it after the Brazilian government fails to deal with it. (a problem the TA will have to deal with for the rest of it's life)
2102: Kearny's & Fuchida's writings are verified by two different groups
2102: the TA launches the Deimos Project to develop these findings
2107 the First hyperspace jump is performed, became known as the KF drive.
2108 the first manned hyperspace jump is done.
2108: December Michelle Land becomes the first human to set foot on another world (a woman by the way from Canada) on Tau Ceti IV (aka New Earth)
2112: the first colony is set up out side of the earth solar system on Tau Ceti IV.
2120: The Terran Space navy is created
2122: The TAS Charger is launched, the first warship
2168: The first Grand survey is established
2174: the survey is completed with 108 worlds colonized at that time in an 80 light year radius
2182: Elias Jung Liao begins his cleansing (terrorist) operations, that kills at lest 149 VIPs including 26 heads of state
2188: Elias Liao leaves earth never to return, and his operations end at that point
2189: the World Laio is colonized (by guess who)
2213: New Avalon is colonized
2235: fourth grand survey, 600 worlds in a 120 light year radius
2235: Tamar pack formed
2236: Outer Reaches Rebellion begins
2237: The Grain rebellion begins on new Avalon
2237: Outer Reaches Rebellion ends
2238: The Republic of Marik is formed
2238: Earth Alliance begins to pull out of the colony's
2253: Taurian Concordat formed
2271: formation of the free worlds league
2299: Federation of Skye formed
2300: TAS Dreadnought is launched (first true warship)
2302: Alliance of Galedon formed
2315: Terran Hegemony formed
2317: Crucis Pact signed, formation of the Federated suns
2319: Draconis Combine founded
2341: Lyran Commonwealth formed
2366: Capellan Confederation formed
2439: The Terran Hegemony introduces the battlemech
2449: first combat deployment of the battlemech
2455: The Lyrans steal battlemech plans from Hesperus II
2457: House Davion Buys the plans from the Lyrans
2459: The Lyrans first deployment of battlemechs, crushing a Marik Armor regiment and supporting elements with a single company
2461: The Draconis Combine gains BattleMech technology
2462: The Free Worlds league gains BattleMech technology
2462: the Capellan Confederation gains the plans from a Marik agent
2475: First battlemech vs battlemech action takes place on the Lyran world of Nox (vs the Draconis Combine who lose)
2496: The first dropships enter service
2571: Star League Accords signed, Star League formed


A few things to note, by this date in B-tech b-tech has had a orbiting space station that housed 2,000, and had significant orbital manufacturing capability's (not to mention anti missile systems, including lasers IIRC), and it took them under 12 years to build this, considering that the ISS is around 450 tons and only houses 6 or so, Crippen is huge. This would indicate that by the early 1990s B-tech earth had a orbital lift capability of over 100 tons per month (which indicates at the lest B-tech earth spent vastly more on space than we ever have).
Also note that B-tech has built far more Sea wolf class subs than we did, also while not listed here but Rail guns where used in the war with the ACPS. I also some how doubt that we will have a working fusion plant in roughly 8 years, could be wrong though. Also in 14 years they will have eradicated ****... do not think that one is going to go a way any time soon, though again I could be wrong... Also note by the end of the century the life expectancy is over 100 years of age for much of the world

Elias Liao liked to use a "fusion hand grenade" in his operations, the original source indicated that three city blocks where destroyed with a small number of these devices.

[Melcyna]

Nebfer, on 20 November 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Though it should be pointed out that B-tech is an alternate reality, while it's laws are largely our own, it dose seem to have bent some of them or invented materials we can only dream of.

Though some of you are simply over analyzing a made up world, and at that level just about any made up universe starts to crumble.

The problem with the first part is not that they have impossible material because technically with sufficient advance in technology we can create new materials exceeding current limitation...

the real problem (in this case) with BT like most soft scifi is their UTILIZATION of said materials..

for example, if one has a SUPER MATERIAL capable of making SUPER ARMOR out of it
THE SAME MATERIAL propelled in hypervelocity creates a SUPER PROJECTILE that will defeat said armor.

Soft sci fi tend to forget this simple relationship between armor and projectile and how the two are interlinked with each other and often presented a super material as an impenetrable armor which defy logic.

The second part ie: "Though some of you are simply over analyzing a made up world, and at that level just about any made up universe starts to crumble."

is not the fault of the reader, it is in fact the fault of the material
this is what separates low level soft sci fi (like BT, star wars, etc) from hard sci fi (like some of arthur c.clarke's work or heinlein's starship troopers [not the movie, but the original novel]).

Note that there are good soft sci fi materials out there which do not really display great logical or scientific consistency but instead focus on characters etc, such good soft sci fi however will often PURPOSELY AVOID giving accurate measurements or information that will be conflicting with the known science...

This allows open possibilities, and let the reader draw their own conclusion without running into logic fallacies and other problem that arises when such figures are given and it is the hallmark of a good sci fi material to know where and when to do this (for both hard and soft sci fi).

Most hard sci fi readers i know of LOVE dissecting hard sci fi works for logical inconsistencies or calculating and double checking the hard sci fi material's objects and action (like the ringworld for example)...

In fact it's half the fun in reading hard sci fi materials.

Spoiler

ed: incidentally the first problem is a subset of the bigger problem with most game based soft sci fi which is 'CONSISTENCY'

ie: presenting a figure or logic that CONTRADICTS or behave abnormally based on another figure or logic presented WITHIN THE SAME MATERIAL.

note that this is not a fault that is absent in hard sci fi, but hard sci fi are much more robust and resilient in scientific and logic consistency than soft sci fi.

BT is very inconsistent in general (especially in science and logic consistency) but is still tame comparatively to some other soft sci fi..

Edited by Melcyna, 21 November 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[RFMarine]

Melcyna, on 19 November 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

and then said joints had to be somehow functional after getting blasted since while they are supposed to be armored (with handful of millimeters thick armor, ie: non existent armor thickness) the joint itself is completely exposed to hostile fire that carves the parts to pieces.

traditionally in the real world, we try to overcome this limitation in the past by using armor panels overlapped on top of the joint itself to give it some degree of freedom to the joint (so it can still move and function) and protect it from incoming harm with varying degree of success.

the general trend being the more armored it is, or the larger the joint size is, the more difficult it becomes to armor it without impeding it's freedom of movement...

Hence why modern soldier armor only protects the vital area of a soldier and typically do not protect the limbs or joints with any heavy armor since it is near impossible to armor those parts with the same degree of protection as the rest without imposing difficulty to the function of the limbs or joints which would reduce the mobility of the soldier and gets him killed.

the main exception being explosive handling armor which are so heavily armored even on limbs but are near impossible to move properly, a trade off considered acceptable since the bomb disposal crew doesn't need to be able to move as quickly (if the bomb they are handling sets off there's no way they can move out of the way fast enough in either case).

medieval plate armor uses ingenious designs to protect joints with solid plates. but it still reduces joint mobility and range of motion. More elaborate designs would give more protection and more mobility at the expense of weight and bulk

[Melcyna]

RFMarine, on 21 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

More elaborate designs would give more protection and more mobility at the expense of weight and bulk

Technically there was never an exception to the rule of more protection == less mobility. (remember as well that more weight and bulk essentially == less mobility since more weight == less acceleration for a given power output, so the two are tied together)
What they did instead was place the armor with the priorities in mind accordingly to produce the best possible protection under certain weight with the least penalty to mobility just like our modern body armor.

For example one arrangement is to use plate armor for the torso for maximum protection but using only mail or chain or splint armor for the limbs and joint with plates in certain location such as gauntlets (essentially plates in locations where there are no joints or over vital parts, and chains or other more flexible material on the joints and less vital location )... giving a good protection overall (for the era) without as much mobility penalty as a full plate armor suit.

And when it is not possible to armor certain parts (limbs especially) because of the restrictive penalty to mobility, they are often ditched altogether like in the case of the limbs which especially became prevalent when gunpowder started entering the equation and render the old style armor impractical.

Spoiler

One of the biggest problem with limbs in particular (which made any humanoid or limbed combat vehicle impractical) is that the way limbs move means that any additional weight you put on the limb significantly reduces their efficiency.

5kg of material attached to the limbs directly would significantly hamper that limb's movement compared to another where the 5kg of material is attached to the object's back or chest for example (ie: not the limbs).

In modern war where rifle bullets have sufficient velocity and penetration capability that it takes a very strong material (that also happens to be quite heavy) to withstand the impact at all, it's obviously not an option to armor the limbs and joints properly since the weight of the armor would render said limb ineffective and the mobility reduction will potentially kill the soldier.

The end result is modern body armor that more or less resemble the old mixed armor mentioned above... heavy rigid ceramic plates or otherwise on vital locations such as torso, and minimal armor (level 2 or 3 protection level at best) over limbs and joints.

Edited by Melcyna, 22 November 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[sid8]

In future RC tanks are also going to play very important role in weapons and it will have amazing range, peoples are thinking to use Fusion power in those tanks for different purposes..for more RC tanks click here.

Edited by sid8, 22 November 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Melcyna]

we're not even close to getting viable fusion power source (most of ours are still negative net power) never mind getting them miniaturized to combat vehicle size.

note as well that Unmanned Ground Vehicles are NOT RC tanks, because they are not in any way intended to function as a tank nor can they be used to substitute one.

Given the way tanks operate it is highly unlikely that we will ever develop a fully remote main battle tank since tanks operating in a breakthrough or deep penetration of enemy lines will have to be expected to operate independently and cut off from the rear line...

since modern battlefield between modern armies are expected to be saturated with electronic warfare and given the way ground terrain interfere with signal relay or otherwise (even built up areas full of wires and signal like a dense urban area can effectively impedes signal relays between ground units and forward base to a degree), it would make no sense to have the tank incapable of operating independently from distant control center.

But unlike aerial drones, a ground drone will face difficulty several order of magnitude harder in terms of both navigation and combat...

UGV still have the luxury of having infantry or mechanized force nearby it that can control the UGV... (since the UGV is meant to support them), but tanks that have to execute a rapid advance and penetration of the line don't necessarily have such luxury so unless the remote tank are confined to defensive role only (unlikely any country will invest on it for such limited role) or that the remote tanks are followed closely by command vehicles that can take over the control as necessary (which then begs the question why not just man the tank instead and dispense away with the command vehicle), it's difficult to justify it.

[Skadi]

wut r pants.

[Captain Stiffy]

"Relative to tanks battlemechs are *much* harder to shoot."

I play MWO and also Planetside (1 and 2)... In PS1 they had "Battleframe Robotics" which were effectively 'mechs on the field with the tanks. Amongst the smaller-sized army the BFR's were huge and relatively slow targets. Tanks on the other hand were faster and flatter to the ground and much harder to shoot at from the side.

Just my experience. I think it's way harder to hit a moving mech in MWO from another 'mech but there aren't any tanks to compare to. They also don't usually overlap theaters unless there aren't any of the other type on the other side.

[Melcyna]

Not sure if we should necro this thread but anyway:

In every game where the two exist side by side? it's always the large bipedal mech that is easier to shoot, the exception to this are games where the range of combat is so short that it's essentially point blank firing by normal weapon standard (which is to say most action FPS where the map is often measured in mere hundred of meters or smaller)

it's just common sense, the taller target with larger surface area is obviously the one easier to shoot than the shorter lower profile target, and also the one easier to hit from any real distance.

Hence why soldiers are trained to take cover, and often prone in combat because to fight standing up in such battlefield is not only foolish, it's suicidal without solid cover

Conversely, tanks are SPECIFICALLY designed to present the smallest target profile possible within their weight and weapon loadout from the most likely direction of threat they are expected to face (that is to say forward, and from ground units), and furthermore tanks are designed to be armored best where it's most likely to hit

so not only are they in fact more difficult to hit, an actual tank is also the hardest to destroy since whatever shots actually hit the tank (provided the tank is used properly, ie: presenting it's frontal armor to the source of the threat) will strike the most heavily armored and difficult to penetrate or damage section of the tank.

Some of the mech proponent then thought that maybe a biped mech can DODGE the shots...

What they seems to forget, is that unlike in their games, actual gunfire and shots are not only incredibly fast (did they think they can dodge even bullets matrix style?, nvm CANNON shells that travel at near hypersonic speed?) they are also practically invisible except when the shell PURPOSELY have tracers mounted on them

you can't EVEN SEE the shell while it's coming at you at near hypersonic speed unlike in games, and the next thing you know there's a 50mm hole from front to back ventilating you courtesy of an APFSDS shell fired from 5km away

then assuming you have buddies still alive, you then scramble and start scanning the terrain and trying to find out WHERE ON EARTH that shot just came from

[Steinar Bergstol]

Mechs are cool and awesome, therefore better. I think that's pretty much the extent of the reasoning for the superiority of battlemechs in the battletech universe. And hey, that's reason good enough for me.

[Brenden]

-Instead of armor being able to absorb attacks, it breaks off!
-Where are my droids that I'm looking for?
-Plasma weapons are only fancy Flame-Throwers.
-The largest Battlemech they have is eightteen meters high.
-The Clans are the Canadian decedents that have had enough of being nice.
-Pickles are still in jars made of glass that's a ***** to open up.
-Where are my heads in a Jar?
-Money practically grows on trees.