mechamaniac12
06/09/11 09:01 AM
89.168.150.232
|
Note:I am not sure if this should be her but I'm gonna post it here anyway.
So Everybody I was thinking that it might be possible to build battlemechs in real life using the current technologies and Armour to build a primitive but reliable battlmech. As in using current technologies to construct one. At least that's the theory.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/09/11 09:31 AM
184.237.192.133
|
It would never happen. All a battlemech would be is a big target that could easily be destroyed with little effort. Things like battlemech are leftovers from the 1920s robot scare in science fiction short stories and comics.
Now as for battle armor that has been built and is in the process of scientific testing as of years ago. Like all other military equipment it would have its small place in a military's arsenal but would not be a fix all.
Every time when some new kind of weapon was created and claimed to be the ultimate weapon they where proved wrong. It happened with the airplane, tank, battleship, aircraft carrier, helicopter, firearms, machine guns, WMDs and anything else. Someone will come up with something to defeat it either a new weapon or a new way of fighting.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/09/11 09:53 AM
89.168.150.232
|
Not the giant ones within the Bt universe but smaller Sure things like the atlas would be impossible. I was thinking more along the lines of a legged sub type of ground vehicle rather than big **** mechs we see in board games anywhere between 3-4.5m tall I see as fairly practical. sooner or later someone will eventually successfully build a mech that can hold it's own on the battlefield as long as it has got relevantly thick Armour. battle Armour will com before battle mechs. how much longer until something like SOP(sons of the patriots) system comes in?
|
Cray
06/09/11 07:43 PM
173.168.112.109
|
"BattleMechs" larger than power armor are currently technologically impossible for several reasons. Power armor is also not feasible for reasons given further below, though it's not as impossible as 'Mechs.
First, you'd need substantial intelligence in the 'Mech for basic movement. There's no handy way for a human to control the legs of a 'Mech directly to handle decision-making about foot placement and grosser details of steering the 'Mech through complicated terrain. Power armor-style direct leg control won't work at the larger scale. Trying to suspend the pilot in a harness so he could move his legs (like Robojox) would require substantial computer intelligence to turn the pilot's odd leg motions (which won't be the same as actually walking) into the desired leg motions, and we don't have robots that smart yet - robot programmers are just fumbling their way to freeform walking, with the ungainly Big Dog technique (unsuited for a bipedal, piloted 'Mech) the most advanced. Something like Avatar's hybrid controls (arm mimicry with computer-controlled legs and basic human steering/speed control through conventional vehicular pedals) requires even more intelligence on the computer's part to understand the terrain and decide where feet can be placed safely and we sure as **** don't have robots that smart despite decades of effort.
I won't be too surprised if robots can handle rough terrain with humans charting courses through, say, a steering stick and foot pedals like BT's BattleMechs by the time I'm a drooling geezer in a wheel chair, but we don't have that now, nor would be able to develop such robotic intelligence in a near-term program.
The second strike against "build 'Mechs now" are the actuation options. Mimicking the wide-angle, swift, precise, long-stroke motions of human muscles with something light enough for a practical 'Mech is impossible. Hydraulics and pneumatics are very heavy for their horsepower and not very good at rapid, unprogrammed (free-form, spur-of-the-moment) movement without a lot of slamming and shaking at the ends of their travel; the control algorithms for smooth motion have been the topic of intensive development for decades and only work in controlled, predictable situations like a factory. You'd end up with a 5-ton ProtoMech that moved 20mph and was all hydraulics and power plant by weight because of the inefficiencies of hydraulics and pneumatics. Other options, like rotary electric motors, have difficulty at this weight range - they're heavy and have inadequate leverage to rotate such large joints. There are no functional wonder actuators like BT's myomers, only pale imitators that barely work in the lab or things that don't even come close (like the ever-popular memory metals, which actually can only change their length by a small percentage.)
So, no, off-the-shelf technology will not give you a 'Mech today, not even a little 3.5-4m one.
If you did get it, I could see some utility to it on the battlefield. It wouldn't be a tank or challenge a tank anymore than a Jeep could, but it could be handled as a heavily armored soldier with greater versatility in rough and urban terrain than conventional vehicles and ability to carry heavier weapons than any single soldier.
Power armor.
Power armor is getting closer. 10 years ago, I would cynically said that power armor wouldn't be possible until the late 21st century. Now, I can see it in 20 to 40 years. There have been real advances in human-scale robotics since the late 1990s, like (slow, pre-programmed) bipedal robots and improvements in actuators. I'm willing to bet the current US experiments with exoskeletons are going to be shelved like all past ones as technical problems creep in, but the advances are actually very encouraging after...what's it been since GE's Hardiman, 60 years? not to mention all the AI/robotics debacles of the 1980s that failed to deliver the fabled Fifth Generation of computing?
The plausibility of power armor is because it minimizes the hardest problem in robotics: software. Most of the high- and mid-level decision making are dumped on the human brain. Humans are very good at high-level software problems like object recognition of things that are bad to walk into - solid objects (walls) and threats (like canyons) - and decision making about path selection. They're also good at mid-level software problems like limb positioning.
Power armor does still battle with all the low-level problems of actuator control. It's one thing to install sensors that recognize how the wearer is moving. It's another to get a piston or electric motor to exactly mimic the human - you can't just turn on an arm motor full-power while the human is moving an arm, and once you get a heavy mechanical arm moving, there's some complicated math to smoothly braking it to a halt (like the human arm) rather than slamming to a jerking stop. However, those low-level actuation problems are fairly solved now in robotics, and certainly a number of "assisted motion" exoskeleton makers have mostly resolved it. But don't think getting these machines moving is a simple hardware problem.
Power armor currently would suffer from weight and power issues. A full-scale battle suit that can carry useful armor and weaponry without putting much load on the soldier is going to be a lot heavier than an exoskeleton that adds a little help to a 90-pound Japanese granny shuffling around her tea set. (The Hardiman attempt in the 1960s ended up with a 1500lb beast that only had one partly working arm.) The weight issue leads to the power issue: we're lacking in compact, long-life power supplies other than gasoline engines. Fuel cells are too low power and batteries are too short-lived. But that should be solvable in a few more decades.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/09/11 08:38 PM
184.217.102.98
|
Quote:
sooner or later someone will eventually successfully build a mech that can hold it's own on the battlefield as long as it has got relevantly thick Armour.
It will never happen! The bigger the machine and more surface area the less armor anything can have, period end of discussion. Any kind of battlemech is pure unquestionable fantasy.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/09/11 10:40 PM
173.168.112.109
|
Quote:
Quote:
sooner or later someone will eventually successfully build a mech that can hold it's own on the battlefield as long as it has got relevantly thick Armour.
It will never happen! The bigger the machine and more surface area the less armor anything can have, period end of discussion. Any kind of battlemech is pure unquestionable fantasy.
BattleMechs do suffer from a problem compared to conventional vehicles of equal tonnage: they will have large frontal areas, so "relevantly thick Armour" will be a lot heavier than equal armor on a conventional vehicle.
On the other hand, I don't agree with that BattleMechs are "pure, unquestionable fantasy." The technology is not there yet, but the engineering problems can be solved in time. As for battlefield utility, you wouldn't want to try to use a 'Mech in the same role as a tank - the 'Mech couldn't match the tank's protection without being impossibly heavy. But it can do other things: go places where no conventional vehicle could go, carry weapons no infantryman could match, and have armor like no infantry man.
'Mechs on the scale of battle armor and up to protomechs could be quite useful as light armor and infantry support units.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/10/11 06:59 AM
184.245.144.113
|
What is currently out there can do the job better than anything that a battlenech could ever hope to do.
The same goes for protomechs. A armored car or tank can carry heavier weapons. A helicopter can fly over any terrain. An unarmored infantry can fit into buildings that a protomech would either fall through the floor or not fit past doorways.
The only thing that I can ever see are battle armor. It can be light enough not to crash through floors small enough to pass doorways but can carry heavier infantry support weapons.
The weapons that I can see battle armor carrying
Main weapons are
30cal or 50cal machine guns
20mm anti armor rifle
Backup weapons
RPG
Sub machine gun
assault rifle
grenade launcher
full auto pistols
What I don't see them ever carrying
Any kind of missiles or rockets
Mortars
Any kind of rifle heavier than 20mm
Recoilless rifles
Any kind of machine gun heavier than 50cal
Another use I can see for battle armor used for is non combatant heavy equipment carrying. For the most part carrying large quantity of ammo to infantry that are in the heaviest combat where no ground car can go. Also carrying heavy support weapons like a heavy mortar or Recoilless rifles that has to be removed from the battle armor and set up by unarmored troops.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/10/11 11:30 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
The same goes for protomechs. A armored car or tank can carry heavier weapons. A helicopter can fly over any terrain. An unarmored infantry can fit into buildings that a protomech would either fall through the floor or not fit past doorways.
Well, sure, when you take things out of context like that, you can dismiss anything. Watch:
Helicopters are utterly useless in modern warfare. Tanks can carry more weapons and heavier weapons than helicopters. Tanks are much better armored, and don't fall out of the sky when they have engine problems. Therefore, there's no need for helicopters.
Airplanes are utterly useless in modern warfare. Most can't hover like helicopters and the few that can hover can only do so briefly. They don't carry as much armor as ground vehicles and they can't go in buildings like infantry.
HMMWVs are utterly useless in modern warfare. Tanks, APCs, and IFVs offer better protection and firepower than any Humvee, and foot infantry can go places Humvees can't.
The above four statements about military vehicles take them out of context. A plane remains useful despite lacking the armor of tanks when you use the plane in the appropriate situations. Humvees are perfectly useful - you can't afford to put everyone in Bradleys, and armored vehicles have drawbacks in strategic mobility (you can deliver a lot more Hummers in a C-17 than Bradleys, and there are many parts of the world where the bridges can't support American armor). Helicopters are obviously useful despite lacking the armor and endurance of ground vehicles or the speed of jets.
Your statement about protomech-scale units are more of the same out-of-context dismissals:
"A helicopter can fly over any terrain": True, but helicopters are not so good at flying through terrain. Oddly enough, Bad Guys do annoying things like hiding in jungles, forests, and urban areas. Helicopters can fly over those, but you sometimes need armored firepower on the ground with the infantry - hence helicopters haven't replaced tanks for infantry support. However, tanks and other ground vehicles can't go everywhere: they can't drive through mature trees in forests and jungles, only around them if there's enough space. Tanks and wheeled vehicles are also not particularly useful in off-road mountainous terrain, and their low agility in urban environments is a drawback that wouldn't hinder protomech-scale robots.
"A armored car or tank can carry heavier weapons": This is not out of context, it's just false. A 5-ton vehicle, be it protomech or armored car, can carry just about any weapon short of a large, tank-scale cannon. 3-ton Humvees carry heavy weapons: Hellfire and TOW missiles, 82mm automatic mortars, CATM-120 AMRAAMs, and even the ZEUS-HLONS laser. Light boats can deploy 1000-pound torpedoes. The payload of the 8-ton Apache helicopter should be indicative of what vehicles in this weight class can accomplish.
"An unarmored infantry can fit...": True, infantry can go places vehicles, including protomechs, can't. However, every infantryman that ever had to go unsupported into a tight area was wishing for vehicular armor and firepower to come with them.
Protomechs offer a balance: ability to carry heavier weapons than infantry or battle armor, better mobility than conventional vehicles including access to terrain types beyond any wheeled or tracked vehicle, and better armor than infantry. If you want the firepower of an Apache gunship in a jungle (not over it) or in a trackless mountain range (not over it) to help your infantry, protomech-scale mechs are an answer.
Protomechs not going to replace tanks. They're not going to replace helicopters. They're not going to replace jeeps. They're not going to replace bombers or fighters. They're going to fill an open niche in the military arsenal where none of those other vehicles fit.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
mechamaniac12
06/10/11 01:21 PM
89.168.148.94
|
Quote:
The technology is not there yet, but the engineering problems can be solved in time. As for battlefield utility, you wouldn't want to try to use a 'Mech in the same role as a tank - the 'Mech couldn't match the tank's protection without being impossibly heavy. But it can do other things: go places where no conventional vehicle could go, carry weapons no infantryman could match, and have armor like no infantry man.
Quote:
Protomechs offer a balance: ability to carry heavier weapons than infantry or battle armor, better mobility than conventional vehicles including access to terrain types beyond any wheeled or tracked vehicle, and better armor than infantry. If you want the firepower of an Apache gunship in a jungle (not over it) or in a trackless mountain range (not over it) to help your infantry, protomech-scale mechs are an answer.
Protomechs not going to replace tanks. They're not going to replace helicopters. They're not going to replace jeeps. They're not going to replace bombers or fighters. They're going to fill an open niche in the military arsenal where none of those other vehicles fit.
You have a point about battle armour - proto mech scaled mechs being able to fulfill roles that wheeled or tracked vehicles can't do and yes you are correct about military units in general each have strengths and weakness's. Sure the tech may not be all the way there yet. Mech's in general may not replace vehicles but they will fulfill a role in battle that some of the other ground vehicles can't such as go through urban,jungle and trackless mountain terrains. which is the beauty of having them support infantry and light vehicles as a general purpose support platform in rough terrain.
|
mechamaniac12
06/10/11 02:49 PM
89.168.148.94
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVhr8FrtmOo this guy contradicts you to some degree...
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/11/11 12:43 AM
173.101.190.143
|
Quote:
Protomechs offer a balance: ability to carry heavier weapons than infantry or battle armor,
And will fall over with any recoil what so ever. Have you ever watched tanks when they fire their main weapon? They have one hell of a recoil!
Quote:
better mobility than conventional vehicles
No, they are highly unstable because its center of gravity is higher. They would also be a GREAT deal slower. You just cant get the legs to move fast enough to match the speed of a tank or armored car.
Quote:
access to terrain types beyond any wheeled or tracked vehicle
I disagree, A main battle tank like the M1A2 can plow through a lot of things. And where a tank cant go like a thick forest a jeep might. A Potomech would be just as limited if not even more so.
Quote:
And better armor than infantry.
Better than unarmored infantry yes, but equal to a tank or armored car no and by a long shot. It could not have enough armor to stop heavy infantry weapons like a 50cal or a RPG. It would also be less nimble and harder to conceal than an infantry soldier and a bigger target than a tank or armored car. In an urban setting they would be just as much a target as a tank because its limited to stay in the streets. Yes a protomech could plow into a building but so can a tank and with the same result the building collapsing on top of it.
Even battle armor would be very limited in the amount of armor protection that it could have and still be of any use. The best that a suit of battle armor could hope to stop would be an assault rifle anything more powerful would go right through.
Quote:
If you want the firepower of an Apache gunship in a jungle (not over it)
You can have your protomech sink down into the muck that is under the canopy of the jungle.
Also the protomech would fall over because of the weapons recoil.
Quote:
or in a trackless mountain rangeQuote:
A helicopter would be quite useful in such terrain. A protomech would stick out like a sore thumb. Also because its walking on two feet there is a great chance that all it would be doing is falling over everything.
Protomechs not going to replace tanks. They're not going to replace helicopters. They're not going to replace jeeps. They're not going to replace bombers or fighters. They're going to fill an open niche in the military arsenal where none of those other vehicles fit.
Yes, a large slow easily hit target that is screaming "shoot me!"
If you went to a military weapon manufacture with a workable design for a protomech they would refuse to build it because they would see that it would be more a target than anything else on the battlefield. On the modern battlefield bigger does not mean better most of the time its the other way around. If you paid attention to the current new weapons systems that people are designing for the most part they're going for smaller than human not bigger.
I'm not some physics egg head but I do pay attention to things.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/11/11 04:25 AM
89.168.148.244
|
Quote:
Protomechs offer a balance: ability to carry heavier weapons than infantry or battle armor,
Quote:
And will fall over with any recoil what so ever. Have you ever watched tanks when they fire their main weapon? They have one hell of a recoil!
You did not take into account that the normal tank cannon fires a round 120mm-155mm in diameter. and that there are cannons that are smaller then 120mm. as well as artillery that were smaller than 120mm. the 88mm cannon and the 25 pounder are examples of smaller armaments within their categories.
Quote:
better mobility than conventional vehicles
Quote:
No, they are highly unstable because its center of gravity is higher. They would also be a GREAT deal slower. You just cant get the legs to move fast enough to match the speed of a tank or armored car.
again you forgotten to take qurdopod and hexapod leg configurations into account.
Quote:
access to terrain types beyond any wheeled or tracked vehicle
Quote:
I disagree, A main battle tank like the M1A2 can plow through a lot of things. And where a tank cant go like a thick forest a jeep might. A Potomech would be just as limited if not even more so.
yeah and then you get environmentalist groups on your **** straight after the conflict sometimes plowing though terrain with brute force is not always the answer.
Quote:
And better armor than infantry.
Quote:
Better than unarmored infantry yes, but equal to a tank or armored car no and by a long shot. It could not have enough armor to stop heavy infantry weapons like a 50cal or a RPG. It would also be less nimble and harder to conceal than an infantry soldier and a bigger target than a tank or armored car. In an urban setting they would be just as much a target as a tank because its limited to stay in the streets. Yes a protomech could plow into a building but so can a tank and with the same result the building collapsing on top of it.
Even battle armor would be very limited in the amount of armor protection that it could have and still be of any use. The best that a suit of battle armor could hope to stop would be an assault rifle anything more powerful would go right through.
protomech preformance varies based on fou things weight,dimensions(L,W,H) and load-outs of weapons and countermeasures as well **** the type of armour the mechs using if it is using slightly thicker version of the current generation chobram armours as well as the terrain/envoirments it's engaging in.
Quote:
If you want the firepower of an Apache gunship in a jungle (not over it)
Quote:
You can have your protomech sink down into the muck that is under the canopy of the jungle.
Also the protomech would fall over because of the weapons recoil.
again you did not take into account of smaller weaponry such as 57mm tank cannons into account. in my pinon a smaller mech design has the probability of destroying a M1A1 in guerrilla combat and shoot and scoot type tactics. there are some anti tank munitions out there that can beat a M1's front armor and some(rare) munitions can destroy a tank with little to no effort please refer to the first and second Chechen wars and see that the rebels used guerrilla combat to win most of their skirmishes prominent examples of such munitions such as but not limited to the RPG-29 or AT-15 missiles which are dual guided. the only countermeasure to defeat the RPG 29 is to use heavy bird cage Armour which also increases the vehicles overall profile at the same time make a slightly bigger target in enclosed terrains. and that qudropeds and hexapods distribute their weight more evenly than bi pods.
Quote:
or in a trackless mountain rangeQuote:
Quote:
A helicopter would be quite useful in such terrain. A protomech would stick out like a sore thumb. Also because its walking on two feet there is a great chance that all it would be doing is falling over everything.
Rebuttal:
Actually a unsupported helicopter against guerrillas would fall to infantry using ambushing tactics quite quickly. you need a small to hit profile in order to reduce being hit by anti Armour munitions and in some cases RPG's and anti materiel rifles have been used against infantry the former begin more common which generally beings most modern military Armour into question. a mech can go into large caves and through mountain rages that are too small for not only helicopters but aircraft in general and that some leg designs like quad and hexa leg's provide the advantage of reducing the overall height profile since most of the arguments are about bi pod and not quad or hexa pods. the real challenge is to make a protomech that is small enough to be just as hard to hit from long range like light and medium vehicles and compact to fit onto transports but also at the same time minimizing the loss of firepower.
Quote:
Protomechs not going to replace tanks. They're not going to replace helicopters. They're not going to replace jeeps. They're not going to replace bombers or fighters. They're going to fill an open niche in the military arsenal where none of those other vehicles fit.
Yes, a large slow easily hit target that is screaming "shoot me!"
If you went to a military weapon manufacture with a workable design for a protomech they would refuse to build it because they would see that it would be more a target than anything else on the battlefield. On the modern battlefield bigger does not mean better most of the time its the other way around. If you paid attention to the current new weapons systems that people are designing for the most part they're going for smaller than human not bigger.
I'm not some physics egg head but I do pay attention to things.
You forgotten to take into account the quadruple pedal and hexapedal's. can the fact that you can build protomechs smaller of similar tonnages. and that yes on today's battlefields bigger is not better, however there is on thing the everyone has forgotten about is that it's effectiveness is dependent on the experience of the PILOT. and that is also depends on what kind of tactics the pilot uses if the pilot uses guerrilla warfare against state army Armour in local geography and it small enough to be hard to spot as well as being able to engage outside of the crews LOS's. In other words it depends on the experience of the pilot and the tactics and strategies used. modern examples of guerrilla warfare are the viet Kong, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can be classed as examples and the Palestine and Israeli conflict where's both sides used underhanded tactics to try and win. as most peoples arguments are about bioids and not the the other leg types out there. sure they wouldn'y be as fast as a tank or ifv. but they would be able to provide support within environments where those kinds of ground vehicles can't get to unsupported infantry as well as mimize enviromental damge and use cover that a tank or helicopter can't. RPG-7's make for a crude but effective area of denial weapons against helicopters as improvised flak. So YMMV based on several factors.
Edited by mechamaniac12 (06/11/11 08:53 AM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/11/11 03:15 PM
184.242.1.255
|
OK I would like you to name one guerrilla group that is using an M1A2 main battle tank in combat. Things might have changed in the last couple of minuets but the last that I knew guerrilla fighters don't have access to the most advanced weapon systems. They use what ever they can find or put together.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/11/11 05:08 PM
89.168.148.244
|
The point of guerrilla fighting is that you try to defeat your foe with what you have the Chechen rebels got their weapons from buying them from the Russians. which I might speculate that they might try and get enough funds to perches a Russian MBT. American systems are too expensive and the guerrilla fighters would purchase what would be economical for them. and that was my point. they they are capable of construction or purchasing crude but effective equipment for their fights. and that regardless of how high tech you equipment is,it's the skill and experience that counts in the Vietnam war the Americans should have adopted a weapon the is just as reliable as the AK family of rifles not the performance sapping AR-10 based family of rifles. in other words they will always go for something that is although logically inferior on the modern battlefield works just as effectively hence why the RPG-7 is a common anti tank rocket amongst them cheap and economical. and I would think with the funding that the Provisional IRA are getting from Gaddafi at the moment might speculate that they might buy a Abrams or a MBT in general on the black market. oh and fore you information the anti Gaddafi rebels are using tanks. T-55 and T-72 to be precise. and they have a MIG-23BN. and they have been slowly advancing on the western front in the Libyan uprising of 2011 ever since the whole thing started and after the nato forces those vehicles maybe old bu they can hold their own to some degree. though those tanks were originally in the hands of pro Gaddafi forces.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/11/11 10:23 PM
184.242.1.255
|
Quote:
American systems are too expensive and the guerrilla fighters would purchase what would be economical for them.
And a protomech would make the M1A2 look like a cheap armored car in cost comparison.
Quote:
they are capable of construction or purchasing crude but effective equipment for their fights. and that regardless of how high tech you equipment is,it's the skill and experience that counts in the Vietnam war the Americans should have adopted a weapon the is just as reliable as the AK family of rifles not the performance sapping AR-10 based family of rifles.
The AK47 is a lot older weapon than the AR10 they had the time to work out the bugs. The AR 10 was ruched into service before all of the bugs where worked out. The current M16 rifle is better in every way than the AK47 with the exception of cost and that it can be as dirty as you want to get it and still fire. Now if your fighting stile is spray and pray yes the AK47 is a great weapon. But if you want a rifle that you fire one shot and hit your target than you would want the M16.
Quote:
I would think with the funding that the Provisional IRA are getting from Gaddafi at the moment might speculate that they might buy a Abrams or a MBT in general on the black market.
That's not possible The US government dictates who may posses an M1 class of tank. There are no M1s to be had at any cost on the black market.
Quote:
the anti Gaddafi rebels are using tanks. T-55 and T-72 to be precise.
So they have ancient relics that no one wants anymore. The current Russian MBT is the T90.
Quote:
and they have a MIG-23BN.Quote:
So what the current MIG is the 29 the 23 is old.
Remember, you are suppose to be arguing that gorilla fighters would posses protomechs. Not old relics that no one wants anymore and are willing to dump on anyone that is willing to take them off there hands.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/12/11 01:58 AM
97.100.135.197
|
Quote:
Quote:
American systems are too expensive and the guerrilla fighters would purchase what would be economical for them.
And a protomech would make the M1A2 look like a cheap armored car in cost comparison.
Meh. It'd be cheaper than a jet. There's nothing particularly expensive to a ground robot compared to an airplane unless the actuators have to be 50% pure gold. Militaries willing to buy over 2000 airplanes at $100 million each wouldn't blink at $10 million for a protomech.
I mean, it's damned impressive how expensive an aircraft can be. I've seen a 3000-ton ship put together with all the bells and whistles for less cost than a 5-ton civilian jet. The act of simply getting hardware qualified to leave the ground adds an amazing cost multiplier - the same turbine engine on the ground or in a ship (like the versatile LM2500) is a bunch cheaper than when you stick it under the wing of a plane.
So, fancy large robot: if it stays on the ground and build more than a dozen of them, I doubt it'll break a $20 million in today's dollars, and will probably be a lot less once your start mass-producing it. Sure, it'll be pricier than an Abrams, but they're not meant for the same roles.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/12/11 09:23 AM
72.60.237.244
|
I agree that after you start building them in mass it would not be as costly as a top of the line fighter. But you are still talking about all new technology that means a high cost. Tanks would be cheap in comparison to a protomech because tanks are old technology. For the most part anyone with a back yard shop can build a tank out of a old tracked tractor some thick metal plating and some kind of gun. Hell that was almost exactly what the first tanks where. You just cant do that with a protomech.
There is an American company that is trying to design a tank for third world counties that would have a cost base of I think well under $100k per unit. They are trying to adapt older but down right cheap technology into a dam good tank. It was on a documentary on tiny/back yard companies that are designing military equipment for the US military or other government that I saw on the boob tube.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/12/11 05:01 PM
88.108.21.185
|
Ah companies like Howe and Howe tech. and there are some older fighter designs still in use in third world countries. Oh and btw if one did have the time and resources to build a small, fairly decent protomech prototype and it was practical as well as relatively cheap design. Ever heard of the Large spider tank project on you-tube? well that Canadian just built that on his own within a year when that was constructed and that was two-three years ago I think when he built it and he was running another project in parallel with it as well. it clearly shows that some backyard/small groups/companies can build protomechs it's just everyone's more concentrated on that wars at hand. Protomechs can be done if your determined and put you mind to it. sure it won't move as fast as a vehicle on tracks or wheels but it could utilize the terrain in ways that normal ground vehicles cant within the cover aspect and there are people out there working on it. it's just a matter of time until it's refined to a level that can participate alongside other vehicles.
PS: the guy who built the large spider tank projects username is JMEMantzel look him up on you-tube. It maybe large for the legs but it does work. For the series of documented videos look up 'Giant Robot Project' by JMEMentzel.
|
Cray
06/13/11 01:57 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Oh and btw if one did have the time and resources to build a small, fairly decent protomech prototype and it was practical as well as relatively cheap design.
Sure, if you mean "Cheap" as in "Less than 100 million dollars." But a protomech ain't going to beat a tank in terms of price tag. A tracked, thick-hided hull is much simpler (cheaper) than a multi-ton robot.
Quote:
Ever heard of the Large spider tank project on you-tube?
Not until you mentioned it, no. However, color me underwhelmed. He's building a large version of what toy builders have been delivering for decades: something that stumps around blindly on flat terrain (see Part 64). That's not a protomech, it's a "kinetic sculpture."
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (06/13/11 02:01 AM)
|
mechamaniac12
06/13/11 02:25 PM
89.168.142.50
|
Quote:
Sure, if you mean "Cheap" as in "Less than 100 million dollars." But a protomech ain't going to beat a tank in terms of price tag. A tracked, thick-hided hull is much simpler (cheaper) than a multi-ton robot.
I agree on that in term of pricetag a mech wont beat a tank. but on the other hand it would beat most submarines and aircraft. I do not know the average price to construct/commission a warship but I speculate it's cheaper then certain other unit types but more expensive than tanks.
Quote:
Not until you mentioned it, no. However, color me underwhelmed. He's building a large version of what toy builders have been delivering for decades: something that stumps around blindly on flat terrain (see Part 64). That's not a protomech, it's a "kinetic sculpture."
It was the closest working example I could find to a protomech so bear with me on that one. Though not an actual protomech it does give hope for the small mechs in general. It just shows that though bi pedal designs may slightly out of reach and currently out of the question at the moment it does state a point that hexaped and quadruped designs may be possible in the near future. Come to think of it I was wondering that instead of normal tank guns on a protomech if they could use auto-cannons of the same or similar caliber sizes. Such as 120 to 155 mm auto-cannons. that is utilizing the revolver cannon reloading techniques since I highly doubt that it's physically possible to make a medium sized Gatling auto cannons within those bullet diameters. That Id say that the moderate recoil from the auto-cannons could be just bearable for a protomech.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/13/11 04:34 PM
72.60.112.132
|
Quote:
It was the closest working example I could find to a protomech so bear with me on that one. Though not an actual protomech it does give hope for the small mechs in general. It just shows that though bi pedal designs may slightly out of reach and currently out of the question at the moment it does state a point that hexaped and quadruped designs may be possible in the near future. Come to think of it I was wondering that instead of normal tank guns on a protomech if they could use auto-cannons of the same or similar caliber sizes. Such as 120 to 155 mm auto-cannons. that is utilizing the revolver cannon reloading techniques since I highly doubt that it's physically possible to make a medium sized Gatling auto cannons within those bullet diameters. That Id say that the moderate recoil from the auto-cannons could be just bearable for a protomech.
An auto cannon of the 20mm or 30mm size sure. Maybe a 50mm AA gun even. Something like a 120mm, not a chance in hell. It would fall over from the recoil. If you watch a M1M2 fire its main gun you can see what kind of recoil that they have. Something as unstable as a protomech, no its not happening.
I still say that protomechs will never see the light of day other than toys that some guy makes in his back yard.
There are some in military circles that are claiming that the tank is seeing its last days. I can see where there coming from since a cheap RPG can destroy a millions of dollars tank and that RPGs are all over the place. Also a helicopter with missiles can get the same affect. Me personally I don't agree that the tank is on the way out. Thou I can see tanks getting a lot less sophisticated and a heck lot cheaper. Where instead of having a hundred multimillion dollar tanks that they have thousands of one hundred thousand dollar tanks.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/13/11 06:15 PM
89.168.142.50
|
Quote:
An auto cannon of the 20mm or 30mm size sure. Maybe a 50mm AA gun even. Something like a 120mm, not a chance in hell. It would fall over from the recoil. If you watch a M1M2 fire its main gun you can see what kind of recoil that they have. Something as unstable as a protomech, no its not happening.
I still say that protomechs will never see the light of day other than toys that some guy makes in his back yard.
There are some in military circles that are claiming that the tank is seeing its last days. I can see where there coming from since a cheap RPG can destroy a millions of dollars tank and that RPGs are all over the place. Also a helicopter with missiles can get the same affect. Me personally I don't agree that the tank is on the way out. Thou I can see tanks getting a lot less sophisticated and a heck lot cheaper. Where instead of having a hundred multimillion dollar tanks that they have thousands of one hundred thousand dollar tanks.
OK call me underwhelmed but you may have taken everything out of context. tank guns and auto-cannons are different in type tank guns take a heavier higher velocity round than an auto-cannon. auto-cannons are in overall size smaller than most field guns and other cannon types therefore making a auto cannon of about 100mm-115mm more useful and economical also take into an account that most auto-cannons with a free floating barrel and mid velocity rounds will produce less recoil than other cannon firing the same velocity projectiles. I have the wiki page read it. it says that auto-cannons are in overall size usually smaller in size in comparison to M1's main gun. and yes there are some military circles out there that are questioning the future of vehicles in the combat role. protomechs will eventually see their place on the field of battle and do keep in mind your debating against someone with aspurges that if he put his mind to make something work with a experimental frame like a quadruped protomech I WILL make it work on a practical scale regardless on weather or not people believe me. Also your argument about the M1's main gun being an actual AC is false.
point of referance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-cannon
|
Cray
06/13/11 09:20 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sure, if you mean "Cheap" as in "Less than 100 million dollars." But a protomech ain't going to beat a tank in terms of price tag. A tracked, thick-hided hull is much simpler (cheaper) than a multi-ton robot.
I agree on that in term of pricetag a mech wont beat a tank. but on the other hand it would beat most submarines and aircraft. I do not know the average price to construct/commission a warship but I speculate it's cheaper then certain other unit types but more expensive than tanks.
There aren't many major ships or submarines in the US Navy that can be had for less than $500 million. Most are being budgeted at more than $1 billion each.
Quote:
It was the closest working example I could find to a protomech so bear with me on that one. Though not an actual protomech it does give hope for the small mechs in general.
Oh, hey, if you want examples of solutions to robot problems, look up Big Dog. It's an all terrain quadruped meant to be a pack mule for troops and is quite nimble. (The prototype has a noisy 2-stroke motor, but's an easy fix.) Also, there's a multitude of bipedal robots in operation. Honda did some good work in the 1990s that's led to such a proliferation that they're kit built by high school kids now. They're running, handling stairs, dancing, etc. Toyota's "Partner" is another encouraging development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2bExqhhWRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyV1cpE14o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBUcfFbndVY
Big Dog's even been weaponized and is ready for battle. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyV1cpE14o&feature=related
They're a long way from protomechs, but the basic software solutions are enormously encouraging. The hardware is much less of a barrier. Give it 30-40 years and they'll be viable.
Quote:
Come to think of it I was wondering that instead of normal tank guns on a protomech if they could use auto-cannons of the same or similar caliber sizes. Such as 120 to 155 mm auto-cannons.
For a ProtoMech that's about 5 tons to handle a cannon that's 3 tons and can rock a 65-ton tank on its heels...no. A ProtoMech wouldn't even handle a single shot cannon of that scale, let alone an autocannon. If you want that level of a punch, use a missile. Same punch (or more), with none of the massive cannon and recoil required.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
LAMdriver
06/13/11 11:48 PM
68.118.31.98
|
Cray, The weaponized Big Dig was awsome!!
As for weapons for a Protomech, Missles would work just fine, also 25mm or 30mm chain guns like on the Bradley and Apache would also work. I would recommend the 40mm Mark 19 grenade laucher too.
If your looking to carry alot of ammo, I would recommend the 7.62mm mini-gun from the movie "Predator."
" The object of war is not to die for your country. It's to make some other bastard die for his!"--Patton
""War is Hell. Combat is a motherfucker."---General Tommy Franks
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/14/11 12:17 AM
173.114.196.4
|
Quote:
Quote:
An auto cannon of the 20mm or 30mm size sure. Maybe a 50mm AA gun even. Something like a 120mm, not a chance in hell. It would fall over from the recoil. If you watch a M1M2 fire its main gun you can see what kind of recoil that they have. Something as unstable as a protomech, no its not happening.
I still say that protomechs will never see the light of day other than toys that some guy makes in his back yard.
There are some in military circles that are claiming that the tank is seeing its last days. I can see where there coming from since a cheap RPG can destroy a millions of dollars tank and that RPGs are all over the place. Also a helicopter with missiles can get the same affect. Me personally I don't agree that the tank is on the way out. Thou I can see tanks getting a lot less sophisticated and a heck lot cheaper. Where instead of having a hundred multimillion dollar tanks that they have thousands of one hundred thousand dollar tanks.
OK call me underwhelmed but you may have taken everything out of context. tank guns and auto-cannons are different in type tank guns take a heavier higher velocity round than an auto-cannon. auto-cannons are in overall size smaller than most field guns and other cannon types therefore making a auto cannon of about 100mm-115mm more useful and economical also take into an account that most auto-cannons with a free floating barrel and mid velocity rounds will produce less recoil than other cannon firing the same velocity projectiles. I have the wiki page read it. it says that auto-cannons are in overall size usually smaller in size in comparison to M1's main gun. and yes there are some military circles out there that are questioning the future of vehicles in the combat role. protomechs will eventually see their place on the field of battle and do keep in mind your debating against someone with aspurges that if he put his mind to make something work with a experimental frame like a quadruped protomech I WILL make it work on a practical scale regardless on weather or not people believe me. Also your argument about the M1's main gun being an actual AC is false.
point of referance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-cannon
Using an auto cannon instead of a standard cannon will increase the recoil problem not decrease it.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/14/11 12:58 PM
89.168.142.50
|
what about melee weapons as well something like a plasma cutter for those Point blank encounters with light and medium vehicles? also would it be able to equip a chemical laser or some form of laser as well? and thanks everyone about telling me that I would say scrap the 120-155mm auto-cannons and go for auto-cannons between 20-55mm and yeah missiles,RPGs and rockets can deliver a the same(Or more/less) firepower as a large caliber cannon.
Also what about 90mm auto-cannons?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/14/11 03:35 PM
173.101.202.246
|
Quote:
what about melee weapons as well something like a plasma cutter for those Point blank encounters with light and medium vehicles? also would it be able to equip a chemical laser or some form of laser as well? and thanks everyone about telling me that I would say scrap the 120-155mm auto-cannons and go for auto-cannons between 20-55mm and yeah missiles,RPGs and rockets can deliver a the same(Or more/less) firepower as a large caliber cannon.
Also what about 90mm auto-cannons?
You are still thinking of fantasy and not the real world. Tanks don't want to get close enough to use anything that would be in the melee range. They would rather have there targets a mile or so away where effective counter fire would be a lot harder and in there own weapon class. If you get close to your target then you will have to be dealing with PBI with RPGs and other can openers.
There are no combat usable lasers. There is no power supply that is even in someones dream that would not be fixed to a large non movable generator. The only lasers that could be used on todays battle field are against international law because all that they do is render people permanently blind and are not capable of doing anything else.
I would not go any higher than a 50mm gun and that's pushing it considering how unstable anything that is using legs is.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Angstrom
06/14/11 05:57 PM
68.50.204.211
|
I'm sure battlemechs would be possible one day, but what purpose would they serve?
There are few terrains that a tank can not traverse and a real life battlemech would not be able to be as well armored as an equivalent weight tank nor would it be able to carry as much armament. In a fire fight, a tank would easily defeat a battlemech of similar weight. As well, you could build a dozen tanks for the cost of a battlemech.
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/14/11 07:00 PM
173.101.202.246
|
Quote:
I'm sure battlemechs would be possible one day, but what purpose would they serve?
There are few terrains that a tank can not traverse and a real life battlemech would not be able to be as well armored as an equivalent weight tank nor would it be able to carry as much armament. In a fire fight, a tank would easily defeat a battlemech of similar weight. As well, you could build a dozen tanks for the cost of a battlemech.
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I Agree
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/15/11 12:37 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
what about melee weapons as well something like a plasma cutter for those Point blank encounters with light and medium vehicles?
Plasma torches are unsuited for plates much over 0.5 to 1 inches thick. Above that, most cutting is performed with oxy/acetylene torches. In either case, cutting rates are typically in terms of inches per minute. So if the vehicle is willing to sit still for half an hour for you to carve a big circle in the armor...
In other words, if you want a melee weapon, think of something big and explosive, like a shaped charge missile.
Quote:
also would it be able to equip a chemical laser or some form of laser as well?
You could, but don't ask for much out of it. It takes a full 747 to carry a 1-megawatt chemical laser with 20 shots. 1 megawatt (i.e., 1 million joules per second) is dangerous to soft vehicles and infantry, but it's not going to impress a tank. I mean, it takes about 2.5 megajoules to boil off a liter of room temperature water. Drill a hole through a tank? No.
Current combat-fielded lasers (Yes, they exist) are used for slow destruction of hidden IEDs at a distance or shooting down mortar shells. They're about 10kW. The USAF's Airborne Laser has been tested at full power, even if it isn't flying.
Quote:
Also what about 90mm auto-cannons?
Forget cannons above about 50mm. If you want big cannon rounds, look into recoilless rifles (basically, rocket launchers with long tubes.)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
06/15/11 12:38 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third post.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Angstrom
06/15/11 07:52 AM
68.50.204.211
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third post.
Protomechs will be as obsolete as battlemechs before they are possible and battle armor will be short lived. The era of manned combat vehicles is coming to an end in real life.
One thing that is missing from the Battletech universe is artificial intelligence and intelligent machines; something that we will have within 100 years. When such intelligence exists, there will be no point in humans being involved in actual combat. Our machines will be far superior to us in battle. Fighting our machines would simply be suicide at that point.
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Edited by Angstrom (06/15/11 07:53 AM)
|
Cray
06/15/11 10:10 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Have you ever looked into the Orion's Arm project? It's an interesting attempt to extrapolate thousands of years into the future with much harder science than BT.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
06/15/11 10:22 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
You are still thinking of fantasy and not the real world. Tanks don't want to get close enough to use anything that would be in the melee range. They would rather have there targets a mile or so away where effective counter fire would be a lot harder and in there own weapon class. If you get close to your target then you will have to be dealing with PBI with RPGs and other can openers.
Tanks would rather keep their targets a mile away, but then the bad guys get rude and hide in places like cities and jungles where tanks get down to melee range. They generally address these melees with an add-on capability-expanding system known as "infantry."
It's not a bad idea to consider such "melee" situations when the protomechs in question have been proposed as units for difficult, closed terrain. The solution isn't likely to be an actual melee weapon, though. As you said, I think an "RPG and other can openers" would be more likely.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
mechamaniac12
06/15/11 01:14 PM
89.168.142.50
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third post.
Protomechs will be as obsolete as battlemechs before they are possible and battle armor will be short lived. The era of manned combat vehicles is coming to an end in real life.
One thing that is missing from the Battletech universe is artificial intelligence and intelligent machines; something that we will have within 100 years. When such intelligence exists, there will be no point in humans being involved in actual combat. Our machines will be far superior to us in battle. Fighting our machines would simply be suicide at that point.
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Well at the moment they are taking persuasions to make sure that something like that deosent happen and I highly doubt we currently got the foolishness to make robot infantry to put humans out of work but the one thing that AI's don't have that humans have got is the will to live or survival instinct. And that a single EMP attack can put them out of commission that is why they are not as many unmanned vehicles than manned at the moment. with anything electronically operated there is very few things protected from class 3+ EMPs heck the Russians and Chinese are working on super EMP that would beat virtually any form of anti emp shielding. so it is highly unlikely the AI will take over within 100 years 10 million years maybe but not in the near future because no matter how intelligent an AI is they also have weaknesses just as humans do AI is not perfect and most programmers will refuse to make them better than a human to make sure that things like the terminator don't come around. most people are afraid of such things hence I have a strong objection to AI weapons. there was an experiment and they found out that AI's can only operate within a restricted range though a humans creativity allows them to be more unpredictable than an AI. an example of a unmanned weapon being beaten by a manned vehicle can be seen on several Wikipedia articles. There is also a questionable legality of such weapons since several U.N officials are also question on weather they should allow lethal robots to be fully autonomous. And those are the facts of the risks of lethal military robots.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/15/11 03:23 PM
173.145.162.174
|
I would have to agree mostly with mechamaniac12 on the AI topic. No matter how smart AI become they cant out think a human because humans are not that predictable and machines are.
-----------------------
There is not all that much need to take heavy tanks into a city.
First MBT not all that useful in urban fighting there more a target for some PBI with some can opener than all that useful to there own side. You would better off sending in your own BPI with their carriers into the city and if they need the firepower of a tank they can use short range weapons like Bazookas, RPGs, Rifle fired grenades, and so on and so forth.
You can park your tanks on the edge of the city where there safer from attack from the other sides PBI and fire into the city when needed.
If there is some heavily defended target that for some reason cant be hit by long range fire there are armored wheeled vehicles that can mount heavy weapons like tank killers that can be sent in. AWVs are far cheaper to build than MBTs are and in such fighting in cities can be just as affective as there more expensive brothers MBTs.
-------------------------
Going back to Protomechs. Lets look at two wars where the higher tech country had there butts handed to them. The US in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Protomechs would been just as useless in the jungles of Vietnam as tanks where because they would have just got stuck in the muck that covers the ground under the trees just like the tanks did. The only way the US could have won that war was to invade the north and to destroy there ability to supply weapons to the south. Trying to fight the war in the jungles for the US was quite useless as they found out.
In Afghanistan first off there was no one friendly to the Russians. For the most part everyone wanted them gone. The Russians only controlled the major cities the rest of the country was military hostel to them. When ever they sent out units to hold some place they would be ambushed to some degree of success. Protomechs might be able to go where some tanks could not but they would still be ambushed and with out any tanks to help defend them they would be destroyed all that more easily.
I just see that protomechs are way to costly for way to little advantage. They me be marginally better in very limited places and rolls but not enough to make them worth wiled to pursue. It would be just better to use current weapon systems.
-------------------------
I can see Battle Armor being worth pursuing. There just bigger than human size, can carry heaver things than a non armored trooper and the armor could deflect or stop small caliber rounds and protect the trooper from non directional explosions in the general area. The trooper would still be quite vulnerable to explosions directed at the trooper and higher caliber rounds. At first Battle Armor would be quite expensive but as the decades pass would become quite reasonable to where small countries could afford them.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/15/11 04:21 PM
89.168.142.50
|
Quote:
I would have to agree mostly with mechamaniac12 on the AI topic. No matter how smart AI become they cant out think a human because humans are not that predictable and machines are.
-----------------------
There is not all that much need to take heavy tanks into a city.
First MBT not all that useful in urban fighting there more a target for some PBI with some can opener than all that useful to there own side. You would better off sending in your own BPI with their carriers into the city and if they need the firepower of a tank they can use short range weapons like Bazookas, RPGs, Rifle fired grenades, and so on and so forth.
You can park your tanks on the edge of the city where there safer from attack from the other sides PBI and fire into the city when needed.
If there is some heavily defended target that for some reason cant be hit by long range fire there are armored wheeled vehicles that can mount heavy weapons like tank killers that can be sent in. AWVs are far cheaper to build than MBTs are and in such fighting in cities can be just as affective as there more expensive brothers MBTs.
-------------------------
Going back to Protomechs. Lets look at two wars where the higher tech country had there butts handed to them. The US in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Protomechs would been just as useless in the jungles of Vietnam as tanks where because they would have just got stuck in the muck that covers the ground under the trees just like the tanks did. The only way the US could have won that war was to invade the north and to destroy there ability to supply weapons to the south. Trying to fight the war in the jungles for the US was quite useless as they found out.
In Afghanistan first off there was no one friendly to the Russians. For the most part everyone wanted them gone. The Russians only controlled the major cities the rest of the country was military hostel to them. When ever they sent out units to hold some place they would be ambushed to some degree of success. Protomechs might be able to go where some tanks could not but they would still be ambushed and with out any tanks to help defend them they would be destroyed all that more easily.
I just see that protomechs are way to costly for way to little advantage. They me be marginally better in very limited places and rolls but not enough to make them worth wiled to pursue. It would be just better to use current weapon systems.
-------------------------
I can see Battle Armor being worth pursuing. There just bigger than human size, can carry heaver things than a non armored trooper and the armor could deflect or stop small caliber rounds and protect the trooper from non directional explosions in the general area. The trooper would still be quite vulnerable to explosions directed at the trooper and higher caliber rounds. At first Battle Armor would be quite expensive but as the decades pass would become quite reasonable to where small countries could afford them.
I would have to say disagree. Not matter what kind of vehicles you have what matter is how you use them same goes for battle Armour they could be sent into the mountains to help protect the protmechs in case of an ambush. and it also depends on how they were designed as well. if they have large cluttered designs than yes they would get stuck like an MBT however by distributing the weight over a reasonable surface area the only way to prove such things is to get actual test data. nothing can be proven without present day evidence as in no historical facts but real experiments heck big dog was officially classed as a mecha. The only two types of support a protomech can have in areas where tanks can't go are helicopters and PBI's themselves. the only reason the both the US and soviets lost those two wars because one they weren't aware about what kind of terrain they were going into and two they weren't actually prepared of trained to counter the tactics used then. and wasn't it the US that provided the training to the afgahns to counter the soviets? there are several factors you need to take into account as well. you only based your opinions off history and to some extent simulated scenarios. I would need to collect actual test data to prove that theory of protomechs being inferior in those two terrains true or false from actual testing and results. in the field anything can happen.
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/15/11 05:29 PM
173.145.162.174
|
Protomechs would be useless at any distance from there base of operation do to being so slow biped or quadrupedal.
The only way to be able for one to go faster than say 10 miles per hour is for one to be quadrupedal and to use a gate like a horse or cat/dog. Do you have any idea how much the pilot would be knocked around? After no time the pilot would be so exhausted from the beating that he would be completely useless.
To be quadrupedal the protomech would have to be almost as big as a tank. That is just a slow easily hit expensive target.
Quote:
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
I will agree with anyone that I think that is or am convinced that they are right.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/15/11 05:58 PM
89.168.142.50
|
Quote:
Protomechs would be useless at any distance from there base of operation do to being so slow biped or quadrupedal.
The only way to be able for one to go faster than say 10 miles per hour is for one to be quadrupedal and to use a gate like a horse or cat/dog. Do you have any idea how much the pilot would be knocked around? After no time the pilot would be so exhausted from the beating that he would be completely useless.
To be quadrupedal the protomech would have to be almost as big as a tank. That is just a slow easily hit expensive target.
Quote:
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
I will agree with anyone that I think that is or am convinced that they are right.
I can think of some ways of reducing or even nullifying the knocking about all together one way is to use a fairly tight primary and secondary harness-like system within the cockpit seat similar to what metal gear RAY used tight enough to reduce the chances of the pilot being knocked about but loose enough to allow the pilot to breath, Another way would be to use buffer materials like the VT's in steel battalion use.
Also an alternate way to help it move faster when engaging in flat terrain would be to use a secondary propulsion system. such wheels or treads, they would not be as large as seen on IFV's,MBTs or APC's but they would provide an enhancement in speed performance on flatter more open terrain where tracked or wheeled combat vehicles have and advantage against it when it's walking. In other word it would ONLY use it's legs in terrain where it's secondary propulsion systems wouldn't be of use.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/23/11 02:03 PM
75.163.101.82
|
The description is simple.
Are "Mech-like" bipedal machines possible? Yes, you can (and we have) build a large, two (or four) legged machine that a person "rides" that could be used for construction.
Is it feasible? Hell no.
Like Cray said earlier, we lack Battletech's "wonder materials" for armor and movement, not to mention the fusion reactor that powers the machine. Armor protection would always be sub-par since you would also have to work with factors of ricochet and penetration (instead of BT, where even a machine gun damages armor plating that can withstand a hit from a 120mm cannon) and present day-moymers aren't nearly to the point CBT's are for efficiency. Power could be solved using smaller Fission reactors (Pebble Bed spring to mind, with their size and safety) but that would also limit the size of the machine.
I don't know why this conversation took a turn for Protomechs- they use the same construction methods of Battlemechs, but on much smaller scales and with far more advanced piloting needs (with the whole "Advanced Neurological implants" thing). I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." but I'm just going to chalk that up to normal ignorance on the subject- which in his case, seems to be a lot of military technology. But since you wouldn't arm a 6 ton walker with a cannon that goes on a 62 ton Challenger 2 tank, the point is moot either way.
However, Battle armor are more than feasible as Cray pointed out, and minor, "power-assist" suits can be built with little effort on the civilian side. There have actually been competitions for homebrewed powered suits, with most contestants spending a little over $1,000 to make a pneumatic system to help lift, metal supports to keep weight off the legs, and a small power supply.
Armaments (in which my earlier point of Donkey's lack of knowledge shows) would be almost anything that can be carried or fired by tripod mount by infantry today. Recoilless Rifles, small anti-armor or Frag warheads, mortar launchers, heavy rifles, browning .50 caliber... If the suit built can carry a, say 180 pound marine and over say a 1/2 ton of metal and electronics while still being able to run, there is no reason why recoil from these weapons would be a factor, especially when most of these listed are man-portable.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/23/11 02:46 PM
173.105.15.200
|
Quote:
I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever."
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/23/11 03:02 PM
75.163.101.82
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever."
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
You forget that a soldier in some form of power armor would have to weigh over 400 lbs. at the least, which by itself would help counteract the force of weapon firing. That not even mentioning the power-assist/strength enhancing system (in CBT, being moymer fibers) and wether or not he's bracing for the shot anyway- our soldiers don't exactly fire assault rifles one-handed, you know.
|
Cray
06/23/11 10:54 PM
173.168.112.109
|
Quote:
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
Well, yes, there's such a thing as action-reaction, but that's doesn't automatically mean people and 'Mechs topple over when presented with recoil.
The problem is pretty complicated with humanoid forms because there are so many axes of motion and various counter-forces from muscles/actuators in addition to simple inertia. You know, hydraulic dampers and the like.
But to start with, you need to put some numbers to the problem. What is the mass of 'Mech, and what is the mass and velocity of the projectile? The basic law of inertia is very simple before you introduce the complications noted in the prior paragraph.
Tell me the mass and velocity of the projectile fired, and I can tell you what sort of recoil the "real" 'Mech is facing.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/24/11 09:19 AM
108.119.234.171
|
Quote:
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
That is not what I meant, but since you are looking for any hairs to split yes it can be read that way. The subject was arming mechs, protomechs and battle armor with heavy weapons not small arms.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/24/11 10:18 AM
108.119.234.171
|
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
How stable is the weapon platform.
Is the weapon platform be in motion or does it have to be in a fixed position.
How stable the ground is that the weapon platform is on.
A 50cal machine gun that is on a tripod that is on solid ground is quite stable. Its less than a foot off the ground and the pivot point is behind the weapon with it being spread out in a relatively large area and the weapon is in a fixed position and not meant to be that easily moved. The same machine gun on a protomech is no where near as stable because it is what eight feet off the ground, the pivot point straight down which is concentrated in a relatively small area and the protomech is meant to be in consent movement.
I am sure there are even more factors involved which Cray would know better than I would do to his greatly superior knowledge of physics.
I am not as uneducated as Prince Of Darkness wants to believe.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/24/11 02:43 PM
147.160.248.10
|
Quote:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
Oh, sure, rotational inertia, torque, etc.
So, what sort of shell do you want to fire to see if a 'Mech topples over? Name the caliber and I'll crunch some numbers for you.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
mechamaniac12
06/24/11 04:37 PM
89.168.128.93
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
Oh, sure, rotational inertia, torque, etc.
So, what sort of shell do you want to fire to see if a 'Mech topples over? Name the caliber and I'll crunch some numbers for you.
OK cray how about this a 40mm ATG. I'll let you make up the rest.
|
Cray
06/25/11 12:44 AM
97.100.135.197
|
Quote:
OK cray how about this a 40mm ATG. I'll let you make up the rest.
40mm ATG...that took some searching. The closest fit seems to be the British "2 pounder" anti-tank gun, also listed as 40mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_2_pounder
With a 1kg projectile flung at 800m/s: 800kg*m/s
For a 5000kg "protomech," the resulting overall recoil would be 800 kgm/s / 5000kg = 0.16m/s or 0.358mph.
For comparison, a .30-06 bullet is 12 grams and 820m/s. Rounding down a bit to 800m/s, that's 9.6kg*m/s. A 60kg human would experience the same recoil with the rifle as the 5-ton protomech with the 40mm ATG; a 75kg (average) human would experience less recoil at 0.128m/s.
In other words, the ATG kicks a 5-ton 'Mech a bit harder than the average adult human (75kg) experiences from a .30-06, but just a bit.
This, of course, ignores any advantage from recoil systems on big guns. The 40mm ATG of WW2 had hydrospring recoil system that allowed it to be deployed in an 814kg mount and fire over 20 rounds a minute.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (06/25/11 12:52 AM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 01:10 AM
173.157.230.85
|
Well mechamaniac12 wanted to put a 88mm on a protomech. So what numbers does that have?
lets ignore that the 88mm WW2 gun weighs its self as much as a heavy protomech.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 01:22 AM
173.157.230.85
|
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/25/11 02:29 AM
97.100.135.197
|
Quote:
Well mechamaniac12 wanted to put a 88mm on a protomech. So what numbers does that have?
An 88mm won't work as a conventional cannon; it'd be like trying to shoulder-fire a 14.5mm sniper rifle. 88m would be easy as a recoilless rifle, though.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
mechamaniac12
06/25/11 05:23 AM
89.168.128.93
|
Quote:
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle. In other words in most parts of the world cat 20 AC's are impractical and only go up-to 57mm. the mount for a AC 20 would have to be A scaled down version of the dora cannon for some of the bigger ones that are 200mm and up a 185mm AC would need a kind tiger tank base to mount them due to the immense recoil what you is therefore null and void to a certain degree. if you want something that has the power of a AC/20 with minimal recoil go with things like RPGs,Missiles,Rockets or recoil-less rifles.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 08:14 AM
173.143.162.178
|
Quote:
Quote:
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle. In other words in most parts of the world cat 20 AC's are impractical and only go up-to 57mm. the mount for a AC 20 would have to be A scaled down version of the dora cannon for some of the bigger ones that are 200mm and up a 185mm AC would need a kind tiger tank base to mount them due to the immense recoil what you is therefore null and void to a certain degree. if you want something that has the power of a AC/20 with minimal recoil go with things like RPGs,Missiles,Rockets or recoil-less rifles.
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world. I believe the biggest true auto cannon that is used in the real world is the 30mm gun that the A-10 Thunderbolt, Warthog, uses. I could be wrong; there might be something out there that is bigger, I just don't know about it.
Using BattleTech's definition of an auto cannon of "any cannon is an auto cannon" then the biggest AC is the 800mm gun that the Germans had in WW2. The biggest practical well used gun was the 16" gun that the US used on battleships.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
mechamaniac12
06/25/11 08:38 AM
89.168.128.93
|
Ho-401 cannon was a WWI/WWII(?) that was 57mm in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-401_cannon
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 09:04 AM
173.143.162.178
|
Quote:
Ho-401 cannon was a WWI/WWII(?) that was 57mm in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-401_cannon
I will assume that it had passed all tests and was usable.
From following link to link I found that autocannons that have knowingly been used in combat have gotten up to 40mm in WW2 for AA work.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/25/11 10:44 AM
97.100.135.197
|
Mechmaniac said:
Quote:
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle.
Cannons larger than 155mm, some with quite rapid fire, are used on the battlefield. The Mark-16 8"/55 caliber of US late WW2 service could sustain 10 rounds per minute per gun, making the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers highly favored fire support ships. The Mark-16 was later up-rated in the 1970s to 12 rounds per minute as the Mark 71, but not put into service. Those are more artillery than autocannon, though. Autocannons tend to have, well, automatic loading mechanisms akin to machine guns.
The Swedish Bandkanon really gets the "holy ****" award. Not only mounted on a ground unit, this 155mm howitzer had a firing rate of almost 20 rounds per minute (2 per BT turn, using a true "automatic" reloading mechanism) and the Swedes wanted it fire **nuclear artillery shells.** That's right: the Swedes had a nuclear autocannon. They dropped their nuclear weapons program, but they had a gun ready to spray-and-pray with nukes.
His_Most_Royal wrote:
Quote:
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world.
Nope. BattleTech also single-shot cannons: Long Tom, Thumper, Sniper, and the light/medium/heavy Rifle (Cannons) of Tactical Operations.
Anyway...
The problem with BT autocannons is not so much their caliber as their muzzle velocity. These aren't your 20th Century GAU-8s and Bofors on a large scale. BT autocannons really are products of the 24th century: they fire projectiles at very, very high velocities. An AC/20 fires its projects fast enough to cross 6 space hexes (72km) in no more than 1 space turn (60 seconds), which calls for a minimum velocity of 1.8km/s, though it's high accuracy at 72km indicates the AC/20 must fire a lot faster because 60 seconds is enough for a ship, even a lumbering Aegis WarShip or Behemoth DropShip, to dodge out of the way by tens of kilometers, so the velocity might be 4 to 6 times higher than 1.8km/s. (For comparison, ultra-high velocity tank rounds today at 1.7km/s.)
Autocannons with medium and long aerospace ranges have muzzle velocities of 3.6 and 6km/s, minimum, but again are probably much faster. That's beyond the level of real world railguns.
Now, when you mount something that fires 200kg of shells at 5 or 10km/s on top of its shoulder...yeah, it's going to get knocked on its ****.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 08:36 PM
184.238.173.0
|
Quote:
Now, when you mount something that fires 200kg of shells at 5 or 10km/s on top of its shoulder...yeah, it's going to get knocked on its ****.
On its donkey?
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/25/11 08:51 PM
184.238.173.0
|
Quote:
Quote:
His_Most_Royal wrote:
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world.
Nope. BattleTech also single-shot cannons: Long Tom, Thumper, Sniper, and the light/medium/heavy Rifle (Cannons) of Tactical Operations.
I have always heard of artillery being called pieces not cannons. That is why I did not think of them when I made that comment feeling that it was correct. As for Tactical Operations I have never had that book to read so I have no clue what is in it.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
06/25/11 10:14 PM
97.100.135.197
|
Quote:
I have always heard of artillery being called pieces not cannons.
Artillery is very often called cannons.
"A cannon is any piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellants to launch a projectile."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
And, yes, the bleeped word was donkey.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/27/11 04:04 PM
75.163.118.153
|
I'm back.
Quote:
Quote:
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
That is not what I meant, but since you are looking for any hairs to split yes it can be read that way. The subject was arming mechs, protomechs and battle armor with heavy weapons not small arms.
Splittin' hairs? Nope, I was just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, as per debate team ruling. Now, if you had said something along the lines of "Would suffer from recoil, and would fall over easily" then I could agree with you, at least on some level. This is the internet, Donkey- if you aren't picking apart an argument bit by bit, you aren't arguing well  .
Quote:
His_Most_Royal said:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
How stable is the weapon platform.
Is the weapon platform be in motion or does it have to be in a fixed position.
How stable the ground is that the weapon platform is on.
On the aspects of ground stability and motion, I (or really, anyone) would agree, as well as the stability of the platform itself and how it disperses force. However, I don't understand what you mean by "distance"- if the weapon is question is solidly fastened to it's attached/held/whatever, than why would height matter?
Quote:
A 50cal machine gun that is on a tripod that is on solid ground is quite stable. Its less than a foot off the ground and the pivot point is behind the weapon with it being spread out in a relatively large area and the weapon is in a fixed position and not meant to be that easily moved. The same machine gun on a protomech is no where near as stable because it is what eight feet off the ground, the pivot point straight down which is concentrated in a relatively small area and the protomech is meant to be in consent movement.
This is where my question of height really comes into play. The question of it's "Pivot point" is moot, as it's entirely possible that the machine gun would be internally mounted and not in some external, "Main gun" mount like some proto weaponry- hell, it could be like some battlemechs and have a barrel instead of a hand. The statement of being "eight feet of the ground" doesn't really even matter- if the protomech is able to lift and fire the weapon while maintaining good accuracy, why would it's height off the ground matter?
Quote:
I am not as uneducated as Prince Of Darkness wants to believe.
heh
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/28/11 10:53 AM
173.96.230.169
|
Quote:
I'm back.
Quote:
Quote:
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
That is not what I meant, but since you are looking for any hairs to split yes it can be read that way. The subject was arming mechs, protomechs and battle armor with heavy weapons not small arms.
Splittin' hairs? Nope, I was just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, as per debate team ruling. Now, if you had said something along the lines of "Would suffer from recoil, and would fall over easily" then I could agree with you, at least on some level. This is the internet, Donkey- if you aren't picking apart an argument bit by bit, you aren't arguing well .
I am sorry that unlike you I am not a Mater Bater. I will just have to do the best that I can when it comes to discussing my point of view.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
07/04/11 09:35 PM
75.163.118.153
|
I'm gonna put this thread to bed in a moment; not being able to reply for this amount of time doesn't make it worthwhile.
Quote:
I am sorry that unlike you I am not a Mater Bater. I will just have to do the best that I can when it comes to discussing my point of view.
First, it's Master-deBATER- comon', a dick joke is not hard to screw up
I can understand the second part, tho. Years of writing have led me to be rather punctual on the interbutt.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/05/11 06:38 AM
108.114.226.116
|
Quote:
I'm gonna put this thread to bed in a moment; not being able to reply for this amount of time doesn't make it worthwhile.
Quote:
I am sorry that unlike you I am not a Mater Bater. I will just have to do the best that I can when it comes to discussing my point of view.
First, it's Master-deBATER- comon', a dick joke is not hard to screw up
I can understand the second part, tho. Years of writing have led me to be rather punctual on the interbutt.
I am sorry, I just could not rise to the occasion.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Cray
07/05/11 09:00 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
I am sorry, I just could not rise to the occasion.
I get it! 
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
07/05/11 12:09 PM
75.163.118.153
|
That was pretty good 
|
Cray
07/11/11 01:03 PM
147.160.248.10
|
A useful video on the state-of-the-art in humanoid robotics: Robo-Soccer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14105078
There's also some examples of wheeled robots, which help illustrate the software problems for robots even executing a simple program in a very structured environment.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Hythos
11/22/11 07:36 PM
137.78.94.42
|
The value of having a functional, semi-autonomous, bi-pedal robotic vehicle has reached a level of being invaluable - especially in a theatre of confrontation... Just ask Israel. Wheeled/tracked/rover-style robotics are only practical to an extent, but never are they as maneuverable as with what a leggeded design can achieve (even today).
NASA already has an option for the 'large scale' robotics (see http://athlete.jpl.nasa.gov/); While this is designed to be lightweight and ultra energy-efficient, the capabilities can be increased considerably by reinforcing any element (structure or motors, ect). The "full scale" will be closer to 10m tall.
As for existing structures, take Boston Dynamics or Osimo, for example. These are design concepts, but that's where they end. HIGHLY impractical, with very high energy use simply by their design. Gimble-type joints require too much power, and provide limitted strength and response. And *real* robotics with CPU-controlled movement are a far cry from the toy robot-kits used for "RoboCup Soccer".
A medium (3m) or larger-sized (10m) design will be capable in not too much longer, and will easily serve as a construction or garrison-type vehicle in almost any environment. They surely are coming.
So, to answer: Yes, the possibility is absolute, as is the necessity. Time is the real question.
|