Jump to content

Afganistan + Mechs


Guest dnoyeB!
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe mechs as in Mechwarrior will never be a reality. The main reason being that it would be near impossible to overcome the physics involved. But if you could, it would be a natural target for everyone (either for fun or because it’s a threat). And if this happened you would have to put enough firepower and armor on the thingy to survive. If you don’t, you would have to compensate with an escort. If you had something/someone escorting it, why build it in the first place. If you had enough weapons and armour on the mech, well…… yes it would be cool. Just not probable

If you're going to have mechs, they will have to be man size. That would probably mean something like either an armor you could put on, with different weapons attached to it, muscle enhancements, etc. OR maybe some kind of a robot. Not controlled from some room, but actually operating on its own. BUT it would probably have more than two legs.

When it comes to ideas just being fiction, I believe that science is inspired by art and art is inspired by science.

An artist is often freer in his thinking than a scientist/engineer. That’s probably why there are very few people doing both design (as in design made for selling) and engineering at the same time. Also artists tend to come up with ideas that at the moment seems to be impossible (and/or silly), but when the scientists/engineers set their mind to it, they manage to find a solution. An example of this is architects that want to build something weird, and the engineer finding a way to do this. Often an engineer would say: “This is stupid. Why build this when we can build it simpler and therefore a LOT cheaper” – and to be honest this is true. On the other hand, this is one of the ways we gain new knowledge and technology.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Vixef ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i was waching this show on the dicovery channel last night, it was about advanced wepons and such.

and some of the things freked me out (I WANT SOME!!!!!)

any way, they had new types of guns

[lazors, rail guns, guided bullets, photon gun, and heat ray]

all this stuff is just in the begning stages of development and like fills up a hole barn (like the old computers and such) but in 30 years there are going to be some very cool killing machines out there!!!

the heat ray burnt clear through a 5 foot peace of steel in less than 3 seconds, but the thing uses the power of a small town in one fireing. so if they can get that worked out then damn that bugger is going to burn some people new a!! holes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they do have some nice toys they are playing with, the Rail Gun, and X-Ray Laser started Development with the Star Wars SDI project I believe.

Even the New Infantry Rifle they are working on is pretty Damn impressive. Read an Article on it a couple years ago, in Popular Science(I think). 5.56mm Rifle, with 20mm HE Gernade launcher, the weapon is supposed to be accurate out to 1000 Yards(using the computerized scope/Rangefinder). It was supposed to have some type of helmet hook-up, so the Infantrymen could use it to Fire around corners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new infantry weapons are incredible, but the new Tanks, and new mobile artillery are even more incredible. A tank with 2 crew, one to drive and one to lock onto the target, that's it. It will load it's own ammo, figure out it's own firing solution, and fire it's antiinfantry weapons by itself.

The artillery will be fully automatic as well, they will be totally computer controlled, imagine, 10 mobile artillery, 2-3 miles apart, all firing on a position at once, and all 10 rounds hitting within 20 feet of each other. Then change targeting and fire again in less then 10 seconds!! each putting out 5-8 rounds a minute!!

Incredible!! just incredible!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

One more step and we'll have robotic warriors.


we are a long away from that, just wach the t.v. (thoes stupid "robot" toys they keep coming out with) have the inteligence of a cockroach.

it will take a lot more to make a killing machine.

it will at least nead the inteligence of a monkey.

cockroach - monkey there is a lot of difference.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


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.

Wrong. What do you think is easier to spot: a tall mech casting a huge shadow or a low tank with camo?

Oh, and a tank can hide below radar cover. A mech could not.

quote:


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

No, we're talking about whether or not there's a point to building mechs. What do you think, if we build mechs every other nation will just get rid of their aircraft?

quote:


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

everyone is gonna die.


Uh, don't need to use satallites -- that's what ballistic missiles are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Melcar:

Yes, they do have some nice toys they are playing with, the Rail Gun, and X-Ray Laser started Development with the Star Wars SDI project I believe.

Even the New Infantry Rifle they are working on is pretty Damn impressive. Read an Article on it a couple years ago, in Popular Science(I think). 5.56mm Rifle, with 20mm HE Gernade launcher, the weapon is supposed to be accurate out to 1000 Yards(using the computerized scope/Rangefinder). It was supposed to have some type of helmet hook-up, so the Infantrymen could use it to Fire around corners.


Heh, you're talking about the new OICW rifle. That thing can even be disassembled to be used like a submachinegun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an aircraft could destroy a hardened underground bunker, what chance would a mech have. Not to mention how much speed could a 100 ton monster have. It would be useless on most terrains, and one man with an anti-armor rocket would be able to destroy or disable it. Helicopter crews would love a target like a mech, they would hide behind a hill fire their payload, and bam easy kill. Sixty years ago the aircraft prove the battleship obsolete, what good would a land battleship do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Sixty years ago the aircraft prove the battleship obsolete, what good would a land battleship do?

there's another good point. but do the afgans have any more planes?

and so what if they do, i could kill a mech with a bazoka. why would you need a bomb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


there's another good point. but do the afgans have any more planes?

and so what if they do, i could kill a mech with a bazoka. why would you need a bomb?


...in any case, it would be a colossal waste to build weaponry that would only be applicable in theatres with no aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true,

but why do you need a plane when,

quote:

getting rid of a mech would be as easy as digging a 20 foot deep hole in the ground and covering it up, then have about 20 guys get the mechs attention and then have them run across the hole and when the mech follows and falls in the hole toss in about 20 pounds of c4 amd bam that would be what 100 billion bucks blown up in smoke?

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by warreng:

true,

but why do you need a plane when,

getting rid of a mech would be as easy as digging a 20 foot deep hole in the ground and covering it up, then have about 20 guys get the mechs attention and then have them run across the hole and when the mech follows and falls in the hole toss in about 20 pounds of c4 amd bam that would be what 100 billion bucks blown up in smoke?


Uhm, yeah, or just fire a missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Werreng would you like to be one of those guys trying to dig this mammoth hole in the ground? Not only that would you like to run across the mech's field of fire in order to draw it into the trap? Suicide mission man. Use of landmines, missles, artillery, or bombs would be much more practical and less time consuming. How many hours would it take to dig a hole that big anyway? Would a mech just sit around and wait for you to get done, I don't think so! If you wanted to dig it faster you would have to use heavy equipment, and don't you think the mech driver would get suspicious if he saw treadmarks everywhere, not to mention the forward looking scouts could not miss all the activity.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: eric3045 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


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

War ain't Total Annihilation MP. You don't outlaw certain weapons and have a gentlemans duel. If your opponent can't force you not to use a weapon, then you will use that weapon to your advantage.

Case in point. We don't stop bombing Afghanistan and send in infantry because the Taliban doesn't have an effective airforce. We use our aircraft to eliminate them because it is the most ecomonical way of dealing with the threat while putting the fewest American servicemen and American political intrests at risk.

However...

If, hypothetically, mechs are better than tanks, an intelligent commander won't send in armored divisions to get toasted. He will look for an alternative. In this case aircraft are that alternative; they are an effective means of targeting and destroying the threat. War isn't chess: the playing field doesn't always start equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

If, hypothetically, mechs are better than tanks, an intelligent commander won't send in armored divisions to get toasted. He will look for an alternative. In this case aircraft are that alternative; they are an effective means of targeting and destroying the threat. War isn't chess: the playing field doesn't always start equal.


Well, nukes will even the sides up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

afraid I have to disagree here, Nukes have one purpose when used, to kill Civilians. Nobody wins when the Nukes start flying.


Where did you hear this little piece of propaganda?

It is fatally flawed, in a number of respects, first a nuke is a bomb, a messy bomb but a bomb none the less. There are a number of different sizes of nuclear bomb. From a deep diggin tactical of around 10 kiloton to a city buster in the megaton range. The megatons are the ones that both Russia and the US are dismantling.

Now, a nuclear response is what our response would be to WMD on our own soil, and a tactical would probably be what would be used, to destroy the stockpile of chemical or biological weapons and labs involved in such an attack.

We would not Nuke a city to avenge a WMD attack, but we would attack the place of origin with tacticals and then take out the leadership in the same way we have in Afghanistan.

No, all nukes are not bad, there are specific reasons to have them and there are specific targets to use them on, and 99% of them are not civilian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Where did you hear this little piece of propaganda?

I did not, that is my opinion. Unfortunatly Historically speaking the ONLY use of a Nuclear weapon has been to destroy a civilian target(2 of them to be exact.)

quote:

It is fatally flawed, in a number of respects, first a nuke is a bomb, a messy bomb but a bomb none the less. There are a number of different sizes of nuclear bomb. From a deep diggin tactical of around 10 kiloton to a city buster in the megaton range.

quote:

About 90,000-140,000 people were killed those who where still alive writhed in agony from their burns. The atom bomb obliterated more than 10 sq km/4 sq mi and there was very heavy damage outside that area.

This quote was taken from this web page

and If I am not mistaken wasn't the bomb dropped on Hiroshima 2 Kiloton? I think your statement has more propaganda in it then mine does. Now granted the US has done a lot to further Nuclear munitions, such as cutting down on the radiation and other nasty side effects.

Also if I'm not mistaken, around 1996 wasn't part of the treaty with Russia to dismantle the Majority of our Tactical Nuclear weaponry, keeping Nuclear power in the Strategic theatre? I seem to remember reading something about that, don't remember the details nor where I read it(or even if I did for that matter).

The Fact remains however the Only use that a Nuclear weapon has been put to is to Destroy a City. That is the Only Use FOR a Nuclear weapon in my opinion. It is kind of Overkill to take out 4 sq miles when we can send a Laser guided smart bomb through a window of our choice from 15,000 feet. Don't ya think?

EDIT:Correction, The Hiroshima Bomb was 20Kiloton, My mistake. (should have looked that up BEFORE posting)

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a big deal, no problem with the Kiloton range of the Hiroshima, I won't argue semantics with you.

The fact still is, if you have an underground bunker with real bad little nasties in it, such as Anthrax, smallpox, mustard gas etc, a bunker buster will just spread the stuff around, whereas a small tactical nuke will incinerate the stuff before it gets a chance.

M.A.D. was the doctrine with the USSR, Mutually Assured Destruction, but because of the fall of the USSR this is really not needed anymore, unless you toss in China Nuclear arms, but they have VERY FEW of them, and what we would have left after a deal with Russia would more then make up for China's arsenal, this is also what the Missile defense sytem is for, it would make Nuclear Ballistic missiles a Moot point.

And by the way, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets, they had tactical targets within them that needed to be destroyed, that is the ONLY reason that they were hit, the civilian casualties were a side effect of taking out those tactical targets.

Civilians were not the TRUE targets of those nuclear weapons. The city busters, those are/were indeed targeted at Civilians, but again, we are talking MAD doctrine.

Tactical Nuclear weapons have thier place, just as all weapons do, except for Chemical and biological, these are too uncontrollable as far as I am concerned to be a viable weapon against military targets, they are far more likely to spread into civilian populations.

My 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Tactical Nuclear weapons have thier place, just as all weapons do, except for Chemical and biological, these are too uncontrollable as far as I am concerned to be a viable weapon against military targets, they are far more likely to spread into civilian populations.

I feel that about Nuclear, to likely to spread to the civilian Populations. Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both Military bases as well as cities. But the Fallout spreads FAR and stays forever.

Well enough of this, we are taking this thread off topic. If you wish to continue to debate this go ahead and create a new thread.

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...