Jump to content

Afganistan + Mechs


Guest dnoyeB!
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Disregarding the part of the suit "reading" the pilot's mind (taken from the book),

That was NEVER in the book, it said, the suit practically reads your mind, not that it actually does.

The suit in the book had what Heinlein called, negative feedback sensors, throughout the suit. It would feel what you were doing with your muscles and make the suit do it, only stronger. You jumped, the suit jumped, you jump real hard, the rockets will kick in, when you come down a tracking device within the suit will kick in the rockets again to soften your landing.

Nothing in those suits is beyond todays technology, nothing. The servos and hydraulics would be a bit tricky, but it could be done.

The eggs or pods that you get launched in from the ship and into a planets atmosphere would give me the willies, the suit had better have a built in facility, because I would definitley use it at that point!!

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Disregarding the part of the suit "reading" the pilot's mind (taken from the book), the suit itself is incredibly in-the-reach of today's tech.

I don't remember that part from the book. The control I remember being described was simply Pressure plates on the inside of the suit. The driver Moves, Putting pressure on the plate, the suit responds by moving to take pressure off the plate.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fallengod

only if the ION rocket we have these day can make more then 2oz of power than we would have some low power jetpack...we would got some nice nuke power mach(gundam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that will prob. never happen... since one round of ammo is like.. the size of a small car.. That and it would be a HUGE drain on resources .... You also have to have somewhere to put the monster.... Also maintaining it would be a thorn in the ass..

One other thing... How ya going to pilot that thing? (I still dont get how they pilot those things with the controls)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

still dont get how they pilot those things with the controls

A good place to look for that info is in Robotech (Macross, Invid). I can't say I've read the book for Starship Troopers but Robotech books (and cartoons) are damn cool. If you're thinking of the motorcycle suit in the Invid series, it's done all through the mind. In the first series however it's just like in Crazy Ivan or Mech warrior.

Or if you want to get really weird try the Japanese version of Transformers. You have to be a contorsionist to be one of the "power masters" which fits in the back of the Mech (in this case Optimus Prime). You don't pilot the mech as such but transfer your conciousness to the mech itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is any one here wondering what it might cost for a mech?????????????

battle armor may be in the gov. price range but for a mech (like thoes in mech worrier) would be crazy, they would cost as much as a fricken air craft carrier!

and thats just for one of the buggers!!

how many of them are there agen?

also no one knows if it would work.

and when it is finaly ready osama bin laden would be long dead of old age!

it would take 40 years or longer to get the thing working right....

at least with a 500 million dollar plane you know it would fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crane? Forklift. I did say non combat and you could obviously add some armor to prevent sniper fire.

Since we're talking fiction anyway.

But if they did build loader mechs it could go where a wheeled forkllift couldn't. At lest before they cleared the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a while since I watched the movie. Seemed like the feet were magnetic for low g stuff. Yeah it was hard to move. I agree with that. Or better it was slow. That's because there is a limit to how fast the pump can fill the hydraulic cylinders. That's why I chuckled at whoever posted above about a mech running 60 mph. I don't think that will happen.

Tripping? It would be the operator's job to make sure it doesn't trip. Just like it's a forklift operator's job to drive carefully and carry his load properly. And I've carried some pretty scary loads. And there would be a limit to what sort of terrain it could operate in. But I can see some areas where one would be useful.

Robots on the other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about that fiber that works like muscle... it contracts an loosens with electricity... It exist, however, havent much about in a long time, would that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To defend my made up hypothetical numbers here is human machine comparison:

The world record time for the hundred meters is 9.79 seconds. That is the max speed for a human, if human could keep that pace up, as a machine would, he would run a 2 minute 36 second mile. That comes to a speed of 23 miles per hour.

Now it stands that a machine made of superior materials, with bigger stride (10 feet tall mech) and possessing more available power should be able to max out at a little less than 3 times our top speed.

On the operational side of it, you don't need to use hydraulics to power it (even though I am sure you build a system that can), you could also use servos, or even those materials that act like human muscles when you run current through them. That is just with current tech, we all have no idea what will be developed in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Razor_87FIS:

I'm sure a similar debate ensued in the 1950s when people dreamed of putting a man on the moon.


Doubt it. Space travel and exploration were for scientific advancement possibilities which cannot be denied.

Mechs do NOT advance the battlefield in any way, shape, or form. Not much different than the old British army marching near Potomac with bright red uniforms on, standing in line, waiting to be shot. We evolved PAST that, why would we regress?

Here's the problem: a lot of you see mechs as some kind of advancement on the battlefield. The question you haven't answered is WHY they'd be an advancement. Sure, you've answered as to HOW they'd be POSSIBLE, but just because something is possible doesn't mean that it needs to be done.

Fiction is fiction. Sometimes it coincides with reality. Sometimes it doesn't. But it's naive to think that reality will ALWAYS catch up to science fiction -- it's even MORE naive to think that reality is not more ADVANCED than science fiction in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way i see it, it comes down to math.

Lets say it takes 10 hits to destroy a tank.

realoading gun every 30 seconds.

now lets say tank A shoots at tank B and tank B starts shooting back. In 5 minutes tank A will make 10 hits (assuming no one misses) destrying tank B, but it will aso take 9 hits itself ( since tank A began shooting first).

Now lets take mech. It will have 5 guns and will take 20 hits to destroy (in theory its has more armor and weapons)

Now as tank A will take 1 shot, mech will reply with 5. in 1 minute tank A will be destroyed taking 10 hits while mech will recive only 2 hits.

so in theory mechs will last longer on the battlefield then tanks.

When comes to fighting usualy simple principle applied 'He who delivers more damage in shorter amount of time wins, while taking less damage himself' isnt that why we have tanks instead of arming sodiers with LAWs.

Now i have a question for you Aramike. What do u see tanks will evolve into in the future. Or will we use same low porfile form of the tank till humans turn to pure energy beings?

And speaking of radars how did you and Soback bring real life radar on 31st century mech,

we are taking about 31st century mechs with 31st century technology. Ofcourse mechs is gonna suck if you put 21st century technology on it. just like tank will suck if u put balista on top of it instead of a cannon and move it around with horses instead of engine.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: EAGLE ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

realoading gun every 30 seconds.


Sorry, if a crew reloaded an M-1 in 30 seconds, they would be kicked out of the tank.

A good crew can fire and reload in less then 5 seconds, as well as the 50 cal machine gun on the roof, and sometimes little grenade launchers sitting alongside the gun. An M-1 is one of the MOST reliable, and deadly machines ever created, and I would take it above ALL others, including a russian T-80.

A tank is much better then a Mech, PERIOD. A mech is a walking coffin, too easy to take out, a tank on the other hand is LOW profile, fast, and just plain deadly..... A mech against a tank, the mech would lose, BIG TIME!!!

Tactically the mech idea is a LOSER!!! It would just be a real fancy and expensive way to die!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Thw way i see it, it comes down to math.

Lets say it takes 10 hits to destroy a tank.

realoading gun every 30 seconds.


The problem here is that with todays weapons a tank usally takes one or two hits then they are dead. Also if you could mount all these weapons on a large mech, why not mount them on a tank. It by nature has a lower profile and is more stable to impact of high speed weapons. Or you could mount them on several tanks so that they could move around and avoid fire. I am talking about technology in the neer future because talking about the 31st century is crazy. So much will happen in 1000 years you can't even guess about what will be going on.

I think mechs are going to be small (10 feet tall) and be used mainly as a anti-infantry weapon with some anti-tank weapons. Many reasons have been stated why tanks are better than mechs for heavy combat.

Tanks are becomeing smaller and more powerfull. That is because the US army has to be more mobile and will most likely not be fighting any large tank battles like we could of fought during the cold war. So we need lighter and faster tanks that are better transport. Here is a interesting fact, if we had to send tanks to Kosovo, it would of taken over month to cross the rivers there becuase the bridges could not handle the weight of the M-1

I have seen the concept for a new tank. The tank is about 1.5 feet lower than the M-1. Weighs 20 tons less, has 2 crew, a auto loader, and will use new armor tech to achieve low wieght.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Game_Ender ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be it as it may. Is mech better then tanks, thats questionable. Is it practical to build one, not this days. And by the time we can build them, there will be something better then mech and tank hopefully something different.

I am gonna withdraw from this battle becouse i dont have physical evidence on my side.

I am still mech fan and i think Mech will beat the crap out of a tank any day of the week in real life like it does in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said i know much about tanks

i got into this topic couse i like idea of mechs and i like challenging ppl and what they belive in and i picked mech side couse its difficult to defend mechs possition without facts.

I enjoyed this. And learned about tanks a bit. I should become a spy, finding ppl like u who will be proud of their technology so much that they will talk a lot more then they should

Like some one said "The truth is born in doubt"

And some one else said "The only way to find out where your limit lies, is to make one step beyond it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mech vs a tank?.. hmm...

They both have their ups and downs...

Lets take this for an example..

err from MW3 lets pull out a.. oh MadCat..

And now lets pull out todays m1a1...

Now the mech is ALOT bigger than the tank...

(BTW were taking out energy weapons )

So all the mech would have to do is lock on and shoot ... Or so you think..

First you would have to find the tank

THEN you can lock on

THEN you can shoot..

Now the tank should be destroyed with that shot (huge weapons)

But in the process of finding the tank.. The tank knows its outgunned so they fire on one of your legs and disable it... now your a sitting duck... Yes the mech would last longer as a pile of metal ..

Since there hasnt been a 'real mech' invented yet.. I wouldnt know... But I would go with tanks since there cost effective anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I never said i know much about tanks

i got into this topic couse i like idea of mechs and i like challenging ppl and what they belive in and i picked mech side couse its difficult to defend mechs possition without facts.

I enjoyed this. And learned about tanks a bit. I should become a spy, finding ppl like u who will be proud of their technology so much that they will talk a lot more then they should


Uh, yeah ... or just buy a little book called "Janes" in your local bookstore.

quote:


Mech vs a tank?.. hmm...

They both have their ups and downs...

Lets take this for an example..

err from MW3 lets pull out a.. oh MadCat..

And now lets pull out todays m1a1...

Now the mech is ALOT bigger than the tank...

(BTW were taking out energy weapons )

So all the mech would have to do is lock on and shoot ... Or so you think..

First you would have to find the tank

THEN you can lock on

THEN you can shoot..

Now the tank should be destroyed with that shot (huge weapons)

But in the process of finding the tank.. The tank knows its outgunned so they fire on one of your legs and disable it... now your a sitting duck... Yes the mech would last longer as a pile of metal ..

Since there hasnt been a 'real mech' invented yet.. I wouldnt know... But I would go with tanks since there cost effective anyway


Or...

Spot massive mech. Airplane or Chopper dispatched. Takes out mech from miles away.

Or...

Spot massive mech. Send coordinates to navy. Ship takes out mech from miles away.

Or...

Wait for massive mech to take a step at which point all of the HUGE amount of tonnage is focused onto one area of dirt and mech sinks into ground. Mother Nature takes out mech from below.

We built combat airplanes because we knew what they would do for us. They'd be mobile and speedy and would deliver firepower over a greater range. We built tanks because we knew what they would do for us. They'd be heavily armored, mobile, and would deliver large amounts of firepower. They were also difficult targets and could carry ANY weapon conceivable to man.

What exactly would mechs do for us that tanks can't do? Present a larger target?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if u can waist mechs with planes and chopers easy then u can waist tanks with planes as well and low profile is not gonna help.

And why did planes get into picture. We were talking about tanks vs. mechs

if we are talking about killing fast why not start droping nukes from satellites and such,

everyone is gonna die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...