Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: headdie on June 27, 2012, 12:18:23 pm
-
http://www.geekosystem.com/japan-wants-a-real-gundam/
Yep, Japanese politicians are discussing building a "Full-Sized, Working Gundam"
-
New News Headline:
"Globally, elected officials are becoming more outgoing about their general incompetance..."
-
New News Headline:
"Globally, elected officials are becoming more outgoing about their general incompetance..."
millennium dome
-
http://www.geekosystem.com/japan-wants-a-real-gundam/
Yep, Japanese politicians are discussing building a "Full-Sized, Working Gundam"
Bread and Circuses.
Besides, didn't they already build a Scopedog?
-
This pops up ever so often.
They already determined the cost of building one a while back (it would be powered by 6 of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_T700) or something)
It would be an awesome attraction really, one step above the 1:1 scale model (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/3642947535_04059f1d18.jpg). But as an actual practical machine something more the size of a patlabor would be more... well, practical.
The guy that wrote the article is a dumbass though, having hands to actually manipulate things (change loadouts on the fly, help with rescue operations etc etc) is one of the few actual practical reasons why you would want a bipedal mech. Going for a "stripped back mechwarrior" is less sensical because it would offer nothing over a regular MBT.
All in all, nothing will actually materialize from this, cause its just an other crazy japanese political party shouting things. Japan has plenty of those.
-
While a walker could have it's advantages over a tracked MBT, this is a ridiculous approach to this concept. Unless, of course, they go for a design that actually makes sense, making the Gundam comparison rather pointless (it'd end up looking more like Titans from C&C, if anything).
Of course, this whole project is pointless by not being suited to modern warfare requirements (well, a tall platform with lots of side-mounted miniguns could come in handy in urban warfare, but how many people thought about that when talking mechs?). They'd be better off developing powered armor.
-
Any mobility advantage a walker would have over a tracked MBT is completely offset by well, everything. A single RPG would be the end of this super expensive fragile walker.
They'd be better off developing powered armor.
This sentence pretty much ends every discussion about the viability of making a bipedal warmachine.
-
*technological strides in relatively unexplored field*
"They'd be better off doing <almost completely unrelated field>."
Right. I mean, cuz it's impossible that these strides could find a way to negate the massive shortcomings inherent in not knowing everything about what you're doing.
-
*technological strides in relatively unexplored field*
"They'd be better off doing <almost completely unrelated field>."
Right. I mean, cuz it's impossible that these strides could find a way to negate the massive shortcomings inherent in not knowing everything about what you're doing.
Pffft, people who think we should fly are crazy. It'll never work and it'll just be too risky and cost-ineffective compared to taking a boat. I mean, look what happened to the Hindenburg.
-
I know, right? They'll never be able to adequately protect those pockets of gas enough to be competetive. A single bullet would be the end of this super expensive fragile aircraft.
-
I know, right? They'll never be able to adequately protect those pockets of gas enough to be competetive. A single bullet would be the end of this super expensive fragile aircraft.
:( I'll show you. I'll show you all! Just wait!
-
I remember having a very in-depth and good discussion on IRC with a few other 'mech-heads about the reasonability and (dis)advantages of a walking war machine. Specifically, we were talking Battletech, and an interesting observation emerged: in that universe, 'mechs rule the battlefields due to the higher-end equipment fitted to the machines. Apparently nobody ever thought to put a fusion reactor and top-notch guns and armor on a tank, and yet there are some tanks that can readily give many 'mechs a cold sweat with their "inferior" equipment. (Don't ask me for specifics this was a while ago and I'm not super-familiar with the universe)
While the size of the machines was actually quite reasonable (an M-1 Abrams is approximately as long as a laying-down Atlas, f.ex.) the inherent flaw we kept coming back to was locomotion. Tracked and wheeled vehicles will simply need to devote less tonnage to locomotion than just about any practical walking design. I mean, if somebody was hell-bent on making walking tanks, then yeah, it could work. But it would simply be less design-efficient. It would take some bizarre confluence of circumstance and technology for any 'mechs appreciably larger than powered armor to be practical.
To be fair, I would personally like to see 'mechs and power armor in the not-too future. Powered armor we're already pretty close to, but walkers need a lot more work. You know, because of the whole "walking" thing. I'll give the issue some more thought and keep an open mind, but I doubt I'll run across any real insights.
Pffft, people who think we should fly are crazy. It'll never work and it'll just be too risky and cost-ineffective compared to taking a boat. I mean, look what happened to the Hindenburg.
While I understand the sentiment of this statement, I feel that it is not an accurate comparison. Our understanding of physics and mechanical engineering is vastly more developed today than in 1937. There is a possibility that we missed something that would easily allow 'mechs and eventually Gundam analogs, but I suspect it to be unlikely.
-
In BattleTech, vehicles can use any kind of engine that 'Mechs can use, barring compact fusion engines, which is only useful for saving critical space that vehicles don't spend on reactors anyway. Tanks can mount effectively more armor than 'Mechs due to fewer hit locations, and the same kinds. Tanks can mount all of the same guns that a 'Mech can use, and ballistic and missile weapons are actually more effective on vehicles than on 'Mechs. What tanks cannot do is mount double heatsinks, which makes using energy weapons more painful than it's worth. They also suffer significantly more immobilizing hits, reducing most armored vehicles to de-facto pillboxes in a few turns of heavy combat.
The only real distinction in components between vehicles and 'Mechs are the heat sinks I mentioned and the fact that 'Mechs are less easily immobilized. Everything else is either the same, or actively slanted in the tanks' favor.
-
The only real distinction in components between vehicles and 'Mechs are the heat sinks I mentioned and the fact that 'Mechs are less easily immobilized. Everything else is either the same, or actively slanted in the tanks' favor.
'Mechs actually have substantially better durability over all, due to their compartmentalized multiple hit locations and better ability to withstand critical hits. From most angles a vehicle has only two hit locations (turret and body) and just a few critical possibilities, all of which will immediately and seriously damage the ability of the vehicle to continue the fight.
A 'Mech can meanwhile waltz through five or six critical hits and suffer no damage that seriously impedes it's ability to keep fighting, while its many hit locations work to spread out the damage any single one takes.
(Consider the game mechanics more closely, etc.)
-
While it's true that losing a single section from a vehicle results in the destruction of the vehicle, while a 'Mech can keep going after losing an arm, a vehicle can also mount significantly more armor per section, and with less area to cover, you can cram more of it on a facing than you can on a 'Mech.
I'd take a 30 ton tank with 4 tons of armor over a 30 ton 'Mech with 4 tons of armor in most cases, because unless you've got a turret, you can cram enough armor on it to take a gauss rifle to any section without even breaching with standard armor. Upgrading to Heavy Ferro-Fibrous only makes it better, since vehicles pay significantly less space for the upgrade as well, and lets you armor almost all sides to 20 full points each. A comparably armored 'Mech will only be able to take ten or twelve damage to any one location, perhaps more, perhaps less, before significant degradations in fighting ability become apparent.
That doesn't make vehicles consistently more mobile in the long term. One of the larger downsides for vehicles is motive hits, which will leave you unable to maneuver in short order.
-
Thread about mechwarrior
it gets hijacked by gundam talk
Thread about gundam
it gets hijacked by mechwarrior talk
:p
-
Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around. Mech wins.
-
A comparably armored 'Mech will only be able to take ten or twelve damage to any one location,
But given the range of damage locations available on the 'Mech a bunch of light weapons are unlikely to fatally damage to any one, due to inability to intentionally concentrate fire on a single section. A tank has only two and could easily succumb to an overly lucky barrage of light fire. (Their problems with crits are also related; you can lose a few arm actuators, an engine hit, and a life support, and still be okay enough to deal with that Arctic Wolf who just spewed SRMs everywhere; a vehicle probably just blew up.)
tl;dr 'Mechs fight better when outnumbered or confronted by large numbers of small weapons.
-
Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around. Mech wins.
If you can even design me a combat-capable machine able to pick up a tank, I'll give you the chance to win.
Otherwise, get out.
:p
-
Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around. Mech wins.
If you can even design me a combat-capable machine able to pick up a tank, I'll give you the chance to win.
Nick a heavy crane from a seaport. (You know the ones. They lift cargo containers full of cars.) Give the operator a rocket launcher. It's not quite a battlemech, but I think it's something we should test as a proof-of-concept.
-
You forget about locomotion issues. It'd be very difficult to make it move. Mechs make sense when they're rather small, because then, legs give them a mobility adventage. A tank can't step over thick vegetation and in urban or jungle warfare, it'd lose to a more agile mech. Just like it'd lose to a bunch of guys with rocket launchers flanking it. Walkers will never replace tanks, but could compliment them nicely, fitting in between infantry and armor. A medium-sized mech could, for example, stick it's cannon through a second story window and sweep a room there, something neither infantry nor conventional armor could do. Or climb a slope way too steep for a tank. This would also make mechs work well in mountainous terrain, where almost all conventional vehicles are completely useless (IIRC, mountain troops used donkeys and mules as pack animals as far as WWII, maybe even later). Mobile Suits from Gundam are a bit too big, but smaller mechs (slightly bigger than the ones from Avatar) could actually come in handy in difficult terrain.
-
This times forty tonnes. (http://youtu.be/ASoCJTYgYB0)
-
So if they'll succeed it will not be that long for a Colony Drop eh?
-
I remember having a very in-depth and good discussion on IRC with a few other 'mech-heads about the reasonability and (dis)advantages of a walking war machine. Specifically, we were talking Battletech, and an interesting observation emerged: in that universe, 'mechs rule the battlefields due to the higher-end equipment fitted to the machines. Apparently nobody ever thought to put a fusion reactor and top-notch guns and armor on a tank, and yet there are some tanks that can readily give many 'mechs a cold sweat with their "inferior" equipment. (Don't ask me for specifics this was a while ago and I'm not super-familiar with the universe)
i know most of my BT knowledge comes from the MW4:Mercs game, but how often did you get infront of a ****ton of myrmidons? overall, i died more from the various tanks in that game than i did from mechs...
-
My understanding is that in BT, Vehicle weaponry is identical to mech weaponary
-
You forget about locomotion issues. It'd be very difficult to make it move. Mechs make sense when they're rather small, because then, legs give them a mobility adventage. A tank can't step over thick vegetation and in urban or jungle warfare, it'd lose to a more agile mech. Just like it'd lose to a bunch of guys with rocket launchers flanking it. Walkers will never replace tanks, but could compliment them nicely, fitting in between infantry and armor. A medium-sized mech could, for example, stick it's cannon through a second story window and sweep a room there, something neither infantry nor conventional armor could do. Or climb a slope way too steep for a tank. This would also make mechs work well in mountainous terrain, where almost all conventional vehicles are completely useless (IIRC, mountain troops used donkeys and mules as pack animals as far as WWII, maybe even later). Mobile Suits from Gundam are a bit too big, but smaller mechs (slightly bigger than the ones from Avatar) could actually come in handy in difficult terrain.
How do you expect mechs to walk up difficult terrain when small robots can't even walk up a flight of stairs?
Think about all the balance issues.
If a Mech took a hit to the leg, it's finished.
Power armor? Hah! if the power source goes down, the soldier is trapped inside with no way to get out!
And guess what else? There's no energy shielding in real life my friend.
Save all this science fiction talk for the movies. The simple fact is, our military will never get more advanced than it is now. We're at our technological peak right now, and if something happens, we'll be thrown into the dark age of technology.
I don't think we'll be seeing any revolutionary breakthroughs in space or military tech anytime soon, and I'm inclined to say our advances in computing are also coming to an end.
Although..... I will admit one thing.
If you had powered armor that would give you the strength to carry around a minigun, you'd be immortal.
-
Save all this science fiction talk for the movies. The simple fact is, our military will never get more advanced than it is now.
Get the **** out.
-
How do you expect mechs to walk up difficult terrain when small robots can't even walk up a flight of stairs?
Think about all the balance issues.
If a Mech took a hit to the leg, it's finished.
Power armor? Hah! if the power source goes down, the soldier is trapped inside with no way to get out!
And guess what else? There's no energy shielding in real life my friend.
Save all this science fiction talk for the movies. The simple fact is, our military will never get more advanced than it is now. We're at our technological peak right now, and if something happens, we'll be thrown into the dark age of technology.
I don't think we'll be seeing any revolutionary breakthroughs in space or military tech anytime soon, and I'm inclined to say our advances in computing are also coming to an end.
Although..... I will admit one thing.
If you had powered armor that would give you the strength to carry around a minigun, you'd be immortal.
This post is silly but not quite something that you wouldn't say - I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to stop trolling.
-
Isn't my point about the leg a valid point?
-
It is in today's technological framework.
That's not why you need to get the **** out of the thread though.
-
I doubt legs are as much of a weak point as people make them seem. Sure they're bound to be pretty delicate but think about where they are - legs on a mech will be about as high as any modern armoured vehicle and much smaller in profile, not to mention moving in a much stranger fashion than modern armor. You're going to have a hard time hitting them unless you toss around a huge volume of ordinance. It's an issue that will have to be addressed, but I think there are bigger issues that need to be confronted with mechs.
-
edit
damn it wrong tab
-
How do you expect mechs to walk up difficult terrain when small robots can't even walk up a flight of stairs?
Think about all the balance issues.
Yeah, because there have never been any advances or attempts to improve this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ
-
How do you expect mechs to walk up difficult terrain when small robots can't even walk up a flight of stairs?
Think about all the balance issues.
Except that small robots are expected to do them by themselves. A human can easily move the mech's legs in a much more complex way than robots do. Of course, a better control system than a joystick would be needed for this, preferably some sort of motion capture. This technology is developing at a rapid pace, so it might soon become feasible.
If a Mech took a hit to the leg, it's finished.
Go start up ArmA II and try to deliberately score a hit to the leg on an enemy soldier. Or go to a firing range with moving targets, and then imagine the movement is completely unpredictable. Hitting a leg is even more difficult than disabling a tank thread.
Power armor? Hah! if the power source goes down, the soldier is trapped inside with no way to get out!
It should be possible to rig an emergency release system for the armor. It's definitely doable.
And guess what else? There's no energy shielding in real life my friend.
A little behind the times on this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window) (of course it isn't feasible yet, but it's speculation)
Save all this science fiction talk for the movies. The simple fact is, our military will never get more advanced than it is now. We're at our technological peak right now, and if something happens, we'll be thrown into the dark age of technology.
I don't think we'll be seeing any revolutionary breakthroughs in space or military tech anytime soon, and I'm inclined to say our advances in computing are also coming to an end.
"Everything that could be invented has been invented already." -various people, all of them wrong. Every time somebody says something like that, a completely new, potentially revolutionary invention was invented within his lifetime. The only thing such talking accomplishes is preventing you from making progress yourself. In fact, I do expect a breakthrough in military tech once people would switch from Cold War era design philosophy to one more suited for modern warfare (this is happening, but too slow for my liking).
Although..... I will admit one thing.
If you had powered armor that would give you the strength to carry around a minigun, you'd be immortal.
A power-armored trooper wielding a minigun would make an awesome recruiting poster, that's for sure. :)
-
I see a niche.... crowd/riot control... compared to a run of the mill MBT... a bipedal mech is a huge deal more scary and impressive to an ordinary human being at it's feet.
Also, gives the operator a great vantage point to observe what is happening in a full scale riot.
And ya know what? That armor may not stop a shell or even bullet... but it is gonna work splendidly against any kind of thrown rock or bottle...
Makes actually sense that the Chinese regime (with their overpopulation problem) would be developing it if that is the intended purpose.
-
Yeah, it'd be good for riot duty for similar reasons it'd be good for urban warfare, plus the aforementioned psychological reasons. Though this might be a bit too expensive for police forces to afford.
-
I see a niche.... crowd/riot control... compared to a run of the mill MBT... a bipedal mech is a huge deal more scary and impressive to an ordinary human being at it's feet.
Also, gives the operator a great vantage point to observe what is happening in a full scale riot.
And ya know what? That armor may not stop a shell or even bullet... but it is gonna work splendidly against any kind of thrown rock or bottle...
Makes actually sense that the Chinese regime (with their overpopulation problem) would be developing it if that is the intended purpose.
(http://www.starshipmodeler.com/mecha/tn_ingram2.jpg) (http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/thumbnail/mecha_patlabor_desktop_1400x1000_wallpaper-424795.jpg)
(http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/48781/1270318101m_SPLASH.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Mechagodzilla.jpg/200px-Mechagodzilla.jpg)
The future of law enforcement.
-
you know robotics tech is always advancing, and with enough sensor data control theory and a little ik you can make a walker that is fast and agile. the main problem is control. i made the point the other day that a computer with billions of transistors will not be as good at walking than a brain with trillions of neurons. but if the stuff coming out of darpa is any indication, its a problem we will likely be able to solve.
there are a couple things though. maintenance will likely be more expensive than in wheeled vehicles. more moving parts means more that can go wrong. also i dont think the role for mechs will be front line combat unit. the walkers and powered exoskeleton type suits ("power armor" is kind of a misnomer as the thing just makes you stronger and improves your battlefield endurance, its not a forcefield). with what we've seen come out of darpa in recent years have all had an infantry support role. they carry your gear, your ammo, etc, and for exoskeletons you, a bigger gun, more ammo, maybe some armor, and twice the gear of your standard foot soldier. weve got some way to go before that is used in a front line situation. i also want to point out the complete lack of stealth. a soldier can always get down into some cover, if your strapped into a walker good luck doing that, you had better hope your armor is tougher than their guns, because guess where every enemy weapon will be pointed, right at your toaster ass.
now scale it up to something the size of a tank. you are now tall enough so the enemy has to aim up at you. from the elevated height you will be able to see infantry in their foxholes and deliver ammo upon them. but that wont be your job. no your job will be to shoot at other tanks and walkers. they put billions into the thing and they want their moneys worth. say you have a machine that can walk rough terrain and do it quickly and quietly. but in the case of a bipedal walker you have a much less stable platform than something on treads. since you have less surface in contact with the ground at any given time you better not take it through sand, in swamps or any ground that cant support it. the mech stands up 20 feet high, so it has a highly visible cross section to the guys with rpgs or the a-10s overhead (your entire mech sits in the gau-8's cone of fire nicely). apply the damage of a modern rpg shape charge, or a heavy caliber gun firing depleted uranium shells (or any other armor penetrating round) that can liquify bits of your legs on impact. however your worst enemy will be guerrilla fighters with good intel, shovels and camo nets.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jNep1Ywc8
This is what future urban warfare will really look like.
-
I should probably watch Unicorn at some point. That's the hot **** right there.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jNep1Ywc8
This is what future urban warfare will really look like.
Funny thing is, in-universe, all those units were obsolete pieces of junk at that point.
I remember what one of the Jegan pilots showing up later said upon seeing them: "What is this, some kind of walking war museum?"
-
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2cnibt5.jpg)