Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => VB6 Mechanics => Topic started by: bean on April 04, 2016, 09:36:29 AM
-
Mechs or titans would be be a natural progression from combat suits.
The combat suit has a very simple problem: stairs. If it's capable of going up stairs without breaking them, it's not going to have enough armor to stand up to heavy hand weapons. If it can't go up stairs, it's a vehicle, not infantry.
It starts out as a small combat suit for soldiers and get bigger and bigger. A Mech is a more natural movement if integrated as a suit rather than a tank, with articulated arms and legs, it can step over object where a tank cannot, if function like a suit it can be used in a mountain environment where tanks cannot.
Stepping over things is an excellent way to expose yourself to enemy weapons fire. One of the primary limits on tank warfare is the danger of being killed by ATGMs and the like. Mechs have no advantage over tanks here, and are much taller for equivalent firepower. And I'm not sure how much use a mech will be in the mountains.
A tank needs a crew of three and mech needs a crew of one, and if operates like a suit would be more combat effective in target acquisition and get the round of sooner, however target accuracy may go to the tank.
There's a reason tanks have a crew of 3. Assuming that one person can drive the mech and fight it effectively when compared to a tank is rather silly. The tank will win because it can move and shoot at the same time. Tanks where the gunner and commander were the same person (back in WWII) were seriously handicapped relative to their 3-crew peers, and that was still with a separate driver.
However I think plasma weapons attached to power suited soldiers would probably make both the mech and tank obsolete.
They've been saying that new weapons will render the tank obsolete for several decades now. Hasn't happened yet. Also, plasma weapons don't actually make much sense, unless it's just another name for some form of particle beam. (And those have their own problems when you're using them in an atmosphere.)
-
The combat suit has a very simple problem: stairs. If it's capable of going up stairs without breaking them, it's not going to have enough armor to stand up to heavy hand weapons. If it can't go up stairs, it's a vehicle, not infantry.
I see is as an in-between. It also depends on technology level. A sufficiently technologically advance race could use gravity manipulation to neutralize the affect of the weight of the suit while retaining its mass.
Stepping over things is an excellent way to expose yourself to enemy weapons fire. One of the primary limits on tank warfare is the danger of being killed by ATGMs and the like. Mechs have no advantage over tanks here, and are much taller for equivalent firepower. And I'm not sure how much use a mech will be in the mountains.
Sure they will step into fire, but it would be to reposition to get to cover and/or to be able to get fire into the enemy. Also, mechs/suits would be able to crouch/prone (depending on design), lean in/out of cover, fire over objects, and be able to move in more directions than a conventional tank (hover tanks are a different matter I will concede). Also, they would probably have defensive systems like modern tanks to shoot down incoming missiles and such. Or even the passive/active camouflaging like some prototype tanks nowadays are doing, to make them invisible to thermal/ir sensors.
There's a reason tanks have a crew of 3. Assuming that one person can drive the mech and fight it effectively when compared to a tank is rather silly. The tank will win because it can move and shoot at the same time. Tanks where the gunner and commander were the same person (back in WWII) were seriously handicapped relative to their 3-crew peers, and that was still with a separate driver.
No one said mech couldn't have multiple crew. Most of the Imperial Titans in 40k have many crew. But I think what he was getting at would be the mech literally hooked up to the pilot so it mimics his movements (or controlled by thought, or transfers his consciousness to it so its like his own body, etc).
Hasn't happened yet. Also, plasma weapons don't actually make much sense, unless it's just another name for some form of particle beam. (And those have their own problems when you're using them in an atmosphere.)
I would have thought it would have been ionized gas (plasma) fired/controlled by an electromagnetic system, like a plasma torch but bigger. Or creating a railgun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun#Examples) by using plasma.
-
I see is as an in-between. It also depends on technology level. A sufficiently technologically advance race could use gravity manipulation to neutralize the affect of the weight of the suit while retaining its mass.
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one. It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.
Sure they will step into fire, but it would be to reposition to get to cover and/or to be able to get fire into the enemy. Also, mechs/suits would be able to crouch/prone (depending on design), lean in/out of cover, fire over objects, and be able to move in more directions than a conventional tank (hover tanks are a different matter I will concede).
A tank-replacement mech will be about the size of a tank, but instead of having its big side oriented vertically, it will be pointing towards the enemy. Going prone at best evens this up, but the mech now can't move effectively. Tanks are able to move, too.
At this point, let's introduce some numbers on ground pressure, which is one of the main determinants of cross-country mobility. An adult human might have 8 psi (standing, peak is double that for walking). An M1 Abrams is around 15 psi. A horse is 25 psi, and a typical car is 30 psi.
If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law. (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.) So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure. In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.
Also, they would probably have defensive systems like modern tanks to shoot down incoming missiles and such. Or even the passive/active camouflaging like some prototype tanks nowadays are doing, to make them invisible to thermal/ir sensors.
All of these could be fitted to a tank, too. They don't change the balance between tanks and mechs.
No one said mech couldn't have multiple crew. Most of the Imperial Titans in 40k have many crew.
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it? It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars. I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
But I think what he was getting at would be the mech literally hooked up to the pilot so it mimics his movements (or controlled by thought, or transfers his consciousness to it so its like his own body, etc).
That's what I think he's getting at, too. And I see no reason why a giant walking armored suit would be better than a small walking armored suit, and lots of reasons it would be worse.
I would have thought it would have been ionized gas (plasma) fired/controlled by an electromagnetic system, like a plasma torch but bigger. Or creating a railgun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun#Examples) by using plasma.
Those are research devices. I don't see any reason to use one as a weapon. Replacing the plasma with a solid projectile would make it much better. And a 'bigger plasma torch' would either be a flamethrower (but worse) or a particle beam weapon.
-
I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
We had a whole movie about this! The drift!
-
I for one am pretty much just going to assume that they are enourmous tanks of some sort rolling around.
-
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one. It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.
Technology that is yet understood is always mistaken for magic.
A tank-replacement mech will be about the size of a tank, but instead of having its big side oriented vertically, it will be pointing towards the enemy. Going prone at best evens this up, but the mech now can't move effectively. Tanks are able to move, too.
At this point, let's introduce some numbers on ground pressure, which is one of the main determinants of cross-country mobility. An adult human might have 8 psi (standing, peak is double that for walking). An M1 Abrams is around 15 psi. A horse is 25 psi, and a typical car is 30 psi. If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law. (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.) So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure. In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.
I will concede that tanks would be better in those conditions given the mech be 1:1 proportional to human physiology. However, changes to the designs to improve the mech's ability in these conditions would include a larger surface area of the feet (so they are wider/longer or like paddles). Even with those changes, you are correct, the mech will never be as "stable" in those terrain conditions as the tank. Only with improvement of other technologies will mech be able to catch up with the tanks (even though tanks could benefit from said technological improvements).
All of these could be fitted to a tank, too. They don't change the balance between tanks and mechs.
It all depends on what is equipped where and how it used. Some future gadget may be more suited for tanks, another few to mechs.
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it? It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars. I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
What is a mech? They are vehicles that separate themselves from other vehicles (cars, tanks, etc) by humanoid or bimorphic appearance. The list of the types give the Star Wars walkers (AT-AT and AT-ST listed specifically) as an example of a mech, as well as the cargo lifter from aliens (It even lists one of my favorite mechs from Battlefield 2142).
That's what I think he's getting at, too. And I see no reason why a giant walking armored suit would be better than a small walking armored suit, and lots of reasons it would be worse.
Armor and fire power mainly, area dominance, and psychological affect.
Those are research devices. I don't see any reason to use one as a weapon. Replacing the plasma with a solid projectile would make it much better. And a 'bigger plasma torch' would either be a flamethrower (but worse) or a particle beam weapon.
40k plasma gun is an example of a plasma railgun. I just see it as basically an HE version of a ballistic railgun (even though those could fire HE type shells, but there might be technical limitations when doing that). And flamethrowers are already an example of a modern day plasma weapon (technically). And plasma weapons don't need to be fully plasma. It ould be perfectly viable to use a solid device as your main projectile which holds the EM field to contain the plasma until it reaches the target. Also, plasma torpedoes/missiles. One Sci-fy I've read a while ago had a missile type that, instead of a warhead, had a plasma generator. Once it reached activation range, it would send a wave of plasma at the ship when its still on approach, burning its way inside while simultaneously destroying external components like weapons and sensors. Nothing to say a smaller version of that could be implemented for anti-armor use.
Although, once one has an ample amount of anti-matter generation, one wouldn't need balistic or plasma railguns, just an anti-matter railgun (which is more akin to a plasma railgun than balistic).
I for one am pretty much just going to assume that they are enourmous tanks of some sort rolling around.
I may even do that for one of them so I can have my mobile battlefortress dominating the area of the battlefield, Supreme Commander style.
I feel like this has started drifting off topic from the v7.2 change discussion to a "future tactics/weapons/vehicles" discussion.
-
Technology that is yet understood is always mistaken for magic.
Antigravity is not just 'yet understood', it's firmly in magic territory. Also, that proposal has other issues. Among other things, you'll see limited maneuverability, as you're dealing with what is essentially poor traction.
I will concede that tanks would be better in those conditions given the mech be 1:1 proportional to human physiology. However, changes to the designs to improve the mech's ability in these conditions would include a larger surface area of the feet (so they are wider/longer or like paddles). Even with those changes, you are correct, the mech will never be as "stable" in those terrain conditions as the tank. Only with improvement of other technologies will mech be able to catch up with the tanks (even though tanks could benefit from said technological improvements).
So we mount it on snowshoes? I don't have experience with snowshoes, but I'll let you try to use those in combat. And what technological improvements are/could favor mechs over tanks? I can't think of anything.
It all depends on what is equipped where and how it used. Some future gadget may be more suited for tanks, another few to mechs.
I don't really see it. A mech is a tank with much more complicated propulsion and less efficient armor distribution.
What is a mech? They are vehicles that separate themselves from other vehicles (cars, tanks, etc) by humanoid or bimorphic appearance. The list of the types give the Star Wars walkers (AT-AT and AT-ST listed specifically) as an example of a mech, as well as the cargo lifter from aliens (It even lists one of my favorite mechs from Battlefield 2142).
Those are more sensible than 'massive powered armor', but I still expect similar problems. You'll probably evolve down to using tracks again.
Armor and fire power mainly, area dominance, and psychological affect.
No, why it should suffer from fewer technical issues. If you can't make powered armor work, you can't make mechs work.
40k plasma gun is an example of a plasma railgun. I just see it as basically an HE version of a ballistic railgun (even though those could fire HE type shells, but there might be technical limitations when doing that).
No, they aren't. There's no good way I'm aware of to contain the plasma and have it burst on impact when compared to, say, explosives. Or just a small bursting charge to turn the ballistic version into shrapnel shortly before impact. Also, terminal performance of hypervelocity weapons is really complicated. I think there's a thread in the Newtonian Aurora forum on the subject. (Although I'm an aerospace engineer, not a plasma physicist, so I could be wrong.)
And flamethrowers are already an example of a modern day plasma weapon (technically).
A. There's a reason we don't use them much any more.
B. You're twisting the definition of plasma quite a bit.
And plasma weapons don't need to be fully plasma. It ould be perfectly viable to use a solid device as your main projectile which holds the EM field to contain the plasma until it reaches the target.
That's not an easy problem. If it's to be competitive with conventional HE weapons, you need much better energy density, and that's a very hard challenge.
Also, plasma torpedoes/missiles. One Sci-fy I've read a while ago had a missile type that, instead of a warhead, had a plasma generator. Once it reached activation range, it would send a wave of plasma at the ship when its still on approach, burning its way inside while simultaneously destroying external components like weapons and sensors. Nothing to say a smaller version of that could be implemented for anti-armor use.
'Plasma' is not magic. Your fundamental limit is the energy density of your power source. That's essentially a standoff warhead/EFP, but with plasma instead of a physical projectile. It's not totally impossible, but I'd say there are probably easier ways to do things.
Although, once one has an ample amount of anti-matter generation, one wouldn't need balistic or plasma railguns, just an anti-matter railgun (which is more akin to a plasma railgun than balistic).
That raises the problem of dealing with ammunition that makes nitroglycerin look like water in terms of stability. And I'm not sure what your second statement means.
I feel like this has started drifting off topic from the v7.2 change discussion to a "future tactics/weapons/vehicles" discussion.
Well, yes. This has happened before, and will happen again.
-
Personally I always imagined all of the trans-newtonian combat units as being more-or-less what the Mobile Infantry in the Starship Troopers book were, with the Heavy Assault Battalion just being the most advanced (and expensive) type and the Mobile Infantry/Assault Infantry just being cheaper dedicated attack/defence variants. In other words, less like mechs and more like medium to heavy power armoured infantry.
-
I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.
-
It also has artillery support, and is repaired with maintenance supplies. You could think of normal ground units as infantry, and the titans as armor, or even gunships.
-
1) Having an option for Titans (or any of the other optional bits) is surely better than not having those options
2) Tactically, Titans would be like the proposed WW2 German super-super-heavies (P.1000 / P.1500). Wherever they are is the schwerpunkt, unless opposed by other Titans or VERY heavy opposition (although that does suggest that a dedicated "Anti-Titan Battalion" with generally mediocre stats, but a big bonus vs Titans might be a good way to balance them)
3) Titans would have superior mobility over tracked vehicles in rough terrain, for instance. They would probably be slower on the open plains though. They would certainly offer a different set of capabilities to commanders
-
I see this topic is escalating quite a bit. Athom wrote nicely, and already admitted Titans are not feasible without some fundamental technological change.
Byron, you scolded him for that, but I think that is not fair in the context.
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one. It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.
Antigravity is not just 'yet understood', it's firmly in magic territory. Also, that proposal has other issues. Among other things, you'll see limited maneuverability, as you're dealing with what is essentially poor traction.
For real life there are enough phenomena about gravity that are not understood to make this at least not complete wonderland in matters of sci-fi, as who knows what comes up that explains the theoretical discrepancies we currently have.(can only be view re-inventing though) But most important thing today is that in Aurora, this kind of 'magic' already exists, as we have proven movement methods that defy gravity and newtonian mechanics, so that should actually give the proposition of agile battlesuits some argument.
..That is at least if you are really going with agility as the main convincing factor, but then again we happen to know that they are WH40k Titan inspired, and to propose that those walking cabinets would move more dynamically than any tank is just a dead end.
If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law. (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.) So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure. In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.
Yeah, this is probably the most striking argument against any traditional mech. There is a reason why small insects walk on water, while we break in, and if you make mechs large enough, they will eventually start to "sink" on even solid stone footing too.
..But we have that physics denying argument here again, so the reason to have large war-machines as this in Aurora could actually be that you need it to be at least around 100tons, like with the fighters, so that one of those TN generators fits onto a land vehicle.
Maybe that accounts for other kind of weapons too, like it would need to be another 50tons at least to have a shield generator, which could be a huge tactical asset to have, so you just need to build something big.
The size of a war-machine is mostly determined by how much we can miniaturize the things we want mobile. If we could build tanks in nano format while retaining all their striking power, and somehow even fitting personal in, we would do it. If 100+tons Titans are the only way to fit in shields, newton denying generators and anti-orbital weaponry, then that will be the size they will come in.
And if science eliminates the critical ground pressure problem, then tank shape is really not needed anymore, albeit most Mechs of science fiction are then still not exactly what you would come up with when the shackle of weight has been reduced to (ghost-)impulse only.(why have so much weak-points; one leg done, whole mech down)
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it? It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars. I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
As Athom said, walkers are mechs. There are multiple franchises that have all kinds of walking steel all listed under mech armor corps.
I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.
Good point. Others have said that they would rule them to be giant tanks, or just ignore them, but who says that they cannot be something like "a mobile bunker installation", essentially just a ground HQ building with artillery and all that gets dropped from orbit. It could also be a "drone factory" whose damage can be interpreted as constant attrition from fresh disposable semi-AI troops.
Being a building can easily explain why you'd need an extra component to carry it around in comparison with just normal troops.
Atmospheric gunships does sound nice too, though there might be a similar argument between them and fighters as there was between mech and tanks.
-
I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.
I must subscribe to this way of thought. I don't really understand what the problem seems to be. Call them titans. Call them FriendlyCuddlySmashers.
All they are is a big mechanized unit with high strength. You can imagine them as big robots, as big tanks or as mobile giant plushies with nukes strapped on their back. It does not matter.
Last time I checked Aurora was mostly a game about roleplay, where each person is free to imagine and customize things in his/her own mind since the graphic is basically nonexistent apart from the system maps.
All this huge discussion for something that matters not at all makes no sense....
-
I see this topic is escalating quite a bit. Athom wrote nicely, and already admitted Titans are not feasible without some fundamental technological change.
Byron, you scolded him for that, but I think that is not fair in the context.
I tend to be rather combative, and that may have come off wrong here.
That said, my fundamental point is that I don't know what fundamental technological change will make walking vehicles a good idea relative to other forms of mobility.
For real life there are enough phenomena about gravity that are not understood to make this at least not complete wonderland in matters of sci-fi, as who knows what comes up that explains the theoretical discrepancies we currently have.(can only be view re-inventing though) But most important thing today is that in Aurora, this kind of 'magic' already exists, as we have proven movement methods that defy gravity and newtonian mechanics, so that should actually give the proposition of agile battlesuits some argument.
But in that case, why bother making them battlesuits? Instead of having one propulsion system and potential source of failure, you now how two, both of which have to work for the suit to be effective. Scrap the legs, and build a Dalek instead.
(Also, we don't have that many holes in our model of gravity.)
..That is at least if you are really going with agility as the main convincing factor, but then again we happen to know that they are WH40k Titan inspired, and to propose that those walking cabinets would move more dynamically than any tank is just a dead end.
Agility isn't my main objection. It was a point about unintended consequences that can come from suggestions like 'antigrav'. And it was in the context of battlesuits, not big mechs. I will admit to not being a WH40k person.
Yeah, this is probably the most striking argument against any traditional mech. There is a reason why small insects walk on water, while we break in, and if you make mechs large enough, they will eventually start to "sink" on even solid stone footing too.
..But we have that physics denying argument here again, so the reason to have large war-machines as this in Aurora could actually be that you need it to be at least around 100tons, like with the fighters, so that one of those TN generators fits onto a land vehicle.
But in that case, make it a hovertank! If you can use antigravity, then why would you want to anchor yourself to the ground? Without using special pleading, I don't see any reason to favor antigrav+walker over just antigrav. Not only do you get better agility, you also have one mobility system instead of two, which is a big deal.
As Athom said, walkers are mechs. There are multiple franchises that have all kinds of walking steel all listed under mech armor corps.
We have several different people involved, each using a different definition of mech. One person (can't remember who) definitely seemed to be going for giant waldo suits instead of just walking tanks. Those are sillier than, say, AT-ATs.
Good point. Others have said that they would rule them to be giant tanks, or just ignore them, but who says that they cannot be something like "a mobile bunker installation", essentially just a ground HQ building with artillery and all that gets dropped from orbit. It could also be a "drone factory" whose damage can be interpreted as constant attrition from fresh disposable semi-AI troops.
Being a building can easily explain why you'd need an extra component to carry it around in comparison with just normal troops.
Frankly, I just assume that the normal system for carrying light troops is not adequate for moving around heavy mechanized formations. I'm looking forward to these, although I'll headcanon them as being armored battalions or the like. I just don't like mechs on practical and aesthetic grounds, and thus am arguing that they're not particularly realistic.
-
You use legs so you have extra height for your sweet laser beam and gravity claws to pick targets out with
//supremecommander
-
(Also, we don't have that many holes in our model of gravity.)
Not in our everyday gravity, but we have no chance of explaining the current fringes of the model.
- Why did the early universe expand, when it was essentially a singularity black-hole which should be able to 'escape itself'/stretch.
- Where is all the supposed to be abundant dark matter that holds the galaxies together. If there is so much of it, you would find some observations of objects appearing heavier than we can explain by the composition of the dust that we can pick up on Earth. Yet they all fall in line, as if Dark Matter is either repellent to electromagnetic one, or an illusion, - a math model ghost like the epicycles of the greeks that explained orbital mechanics relatively exactly despite placing Earth at the center of all. If it is such illusion, our model of Gravity for long ranges would have a critical flaw that could topple all our current predictions about its age and evolution, and who knows what.
- Why are our two best and individually uncountable times tested right theories, General Relativity and Quantum Physics, non-combinable? Though General Relativity does seem promising in its predictions on large scale, Quantum Physics paints an entirely different picture of the macroscopic universe, and it also has always worked whenever we applied it before.
- How come that at small enough scales, or large enough energies, all the fundamental forces of physics seem to vanish and unify into one? What has gravity to do with electromagnetism to begin with, or the strong force? We have no clue.
- Then there is the thing with the extra-dimension which admittedly might never concern us, as we are probably incapable of testing it as prisoners of our universe, but should, should that curtain be pierceable (if it exists at all), hurray for opportunities.
Anyway, there is much potential for revolutionizing insights. Problem is always that you cannot imagine a new color, but it will seems foolish in hindsight to one who has already seen it. In the steam age they thought everything had been invented, even so there were problems like lightning which they haven't been able to explain.
We have our lightning too; that stuff is still there, and a lot of it has to do with gravity. I am not a fan of all too optimistic clutching after straws to fit a universe you would like to have, like all these esoterics, citing quantum physics to explain their random invented fluffy pink world convictions. But don't write of gravity control just yet. There is yet hope. :)
But in that case, why bother making them battlesuits? Instead of having one propulsion system and potential source of failure, you now how two, both of which have to work for the suit to be effective. Scrap the legs, and build a Dalek instead.
When your suit has no disadvantage from its weight, then having some sort of legs (doesn't need to be human in proportions) indeed bestows all-terrain. It could be faster/more efficient with wheels, but it would also be restricted.
That with the propulsion system, well, a jet also has just one, and if that fails, nighty-night. Better make those generators reliable, because building in 2 layers of redundancy makes the designs so inefficient that the death toll from that will far exceed the one from failing first layer TN-generators.
Then also, massive tanks or massive mech, at some point in size they will actually both be unable to operate without that wonder-tech anyway.
But in that case, make it a hovertank! If you can use antigravity, then why would you want to anchor yourself to the ground? Without using special pleading, I don't see any reason to favor antigrav+walker over just antigrav. Not only do you get better agility, you also have one mobility system instead of two, which is a big deal.
I thought of that too when I wrote, and asked myself this question "why not hovertank then". Well, the hovertank doesn't move from itself just because he is afloat, so he would need to expel some sort of jet propulsion, as we certainly cannot rely on atmosphere with this dynamic space fighting force. While jets are certainly possible, there is a more energy efficient method to gain your impulse: Don't anull all gravity, but leave enough so you can push of the ground.
You would still have to pay the motors of course, but it should be far superior to the enormous amounts of ejection mass that any jetted object would have to carry around, because this ejection mass is the planet for anything that interacts with ground. (storing 20% hull mass as H² and 10% O² in a floating battle tank? Is this thing meant to fight, or just an orbital drop bomb?)
Frankly, I just assume that the normal system for carrying light troops is not adequate for moving around heavy mechanized formations. I'm looking forward to these, although I'll headcanon them as being armored battalions or the like. I just don't like mechs on practical and aesthetic grounds, and thus am arguing that they're not particularly realistic.
That is fine to do, and since I change my thematic from game to game, there have been (Star Trek, Stargate) and will definitely be a couple more themes that don't have place for those, so I will cross them too.
-
I must subscribe to this way of thought. I don't really understand what the problem seems to be. Call them titans. Call them FriendlyCuddlySmashers.
All they are is a big mechanized unit with high strength. You can imagine them as big robots, as big tanks or as mobile giant plushies with nukes strapped on their back. It does not matter.
Last time I checked Aurora was mostly a game about roleplay, where each person is free to imagine and customize things in his/her own mind since the graphic is basically nonexistent apart from the system maps.
All this huge discussion for something that matters not at all makes no sense....
Because Aurora already has ground units that model big mechanized units with high strength, and these are the first and hopefully last non generic units to rear their ugly heads. If for instance Steve had called them Super Heavy Assault units, I would be far less against them (though I still think they don't really serve a purpose)
-
If I'm honest I enjoy the thought of dropping ten giant doom bot things onto a planet and watching them obliterate the ground forces.
-
Because Aurora already has ground units that model big mechanized units with high strength, and these are the first and hopefully last non generic units to rear their ugly heads. If for instance Steve had called them Super Heavy Assault units, I would be far less against them (though I still think they don't really serve a purpose)
I would have assumed the titans are just one more step above the other units. Lets take this to a 40k example (why Steve decided for the Titans and Particle Lance); Assault = Tactical/Devistator/Assault Marines, Terminators, and/or Tanks, and Heavy Assault = Dreadnoughts/Knights. The Titans would then be the... Titans.
Then again, they can be renamed, so you can have a Super Heavy Assault Tank, Object, Titan, Battlefortress, Armored Core, Artillery Battalion, or anything you would want (Keep in mind there are 3(4?) types for different names). We would also then need the "Titan Bay" to be renameable, or just changed to something like "Heavy Maintenance Facility", "Heavy Unit Hangar", or something in that direction.
-
Not in our everyday gravity, but we have no chance of explaining the current fringes of the model.
Snipped for length. Pretty much all of those are, as you say, on the fringes of the model. I give very low odds of any of them during into antigrav.
Anyway, there is much potential for revolutionizing insights. Problem is always that you cannot imagine a new color, but it will seems foolish in hindsight to one who has already seen it. In the steam age they thought everything had been invented, even so there were problems like lightning which they haven't been able to explain.
They had a good idea of what lightning was by the age of steam. Also, those statements were made by a few old scientists, and didn't reflect consensus views.
When your suit has no disadvantage from its weight, then having some sort of legs (doesn't need to be human in proportions) indeed bestows all-terrain. It could be faster/more efficient with wheels, but it would also be restricted.
No! I was talking about just making it fly, not using wheels instead.
That with the propulsion system, well, a jet also has just one, and if that fails, nighty-night. Better make those generators reliable, because building in 2 layers of redundancy makes the designs so inefficient that the death toll from that will far exceed the one from failing first layer TN-generators.
Exactly. Good engineering allows you to build systems with single points of failure. The two systems of an antigrav suit are not even really redundant, or if they are, the cost is way too high.
Then also, massive tanks or massive mech, at some point in size they will actually both be unable to operate without that wonder-tech anyway.
That's kind of the point.
I thought of that too when I wrote, and asked myself this question "why not hovertank then". Well, the hovertank doesn't move from itself just because he is afloat, so he would need to expel some sort of jet propulsion, as we certainly cannot rely on atmosphere with this dynamic space fighting force. While jets are certainly possible, there is a more energy efficient method to gain your impulse: Don't anull all gravity, but leave enough so you can push of the ground.
But then you lose a lot of the mobility inherent in the hovertank. Also, it seems a bit odd to assume that you have antigrav, but can't turn that into a reactionless drive.
You would still have to pay the motors of course, but it should be far superior to the enormous amounts of ejection mass that any jetted object would have to carry around, because this ejection mass is the planet for anything that interacts with ground. (storing 20% hull mass as H² and 10% O² in a floating battle tank? Is this thing meant to fight, or just an orbital drop bomb?)
There are many reasons that this isn't the case. First, that's not the proper mass ratio for a LOX-LH2 rocket. Normally, it's about 5:1 LOX:LH2 by weight. Second, if it's far future you can use other sources of power. Heat whatever happens to be to hand into plasma. This could be plastic, or water, or anything else you care to name, and it's going to come out faster than a LOX-LH2 rocket produces.
Also, how do commanders work for Titans? Is this a good place to drop extra officers? Is there going to be a special 'Titan Combat' stat? And how do they interact with higher headquarters?
-
I thought of that too when I wrote, and asked myself this question "why not hovertank then". Well, the hovertank doesn't move from itself just because he is afloat, so he would need to expel some sort of jet propulsion, as we certainly cannot rely on atmosphere with this dynamic space fighting force. While jets are certainly possible, there is a more energy efficient method to gain your impulse: Don't anull all gravity, but leave enough so you can push of the ground.
No, nullifying the affect of gravity would be the most efficient. You would then need an additional form of energy propulsion (Like from an electromagnetic force via plates/devices mounted on the bottom). Boom, hovertank (similar to how the PAC tank from Battlefield 2142 works, except without the antigrav).
You would still have to pay the motors of course, but it should be far superior to the enormous amounts of ejection mass that any jetted object would have to carry around, because this ejection mass is the planet for anything that interacts with ground. (storing 20% hull mass as H² and 10% O² in a floating battle tank? Is this thing meant to fight, or just an orbital drop bomb?)
A good portion of all tanks (past and present) is fuel tanks. Tanks are quite the gas guzzlers.
Also, how do commanders work for Titans? Is this a good place to drop extra officers? Is there going to be a special 'Titan Combat' stat? And how do they interact with higher headquarters?
I would assume they would benefit from the standard "ground forces" bonus like everyone else. And I would also assume they are classified as a battalion.
-
Should Erik or I pull the Titan conversation out into a separate thread? It seems to have exploded a bit....
John
-
Yes.
Quite frankly I'm shocked people have started such a large argument over what amounts to a single word.
On a more applicable note, I can't immediately recall any time when 'titan'-like weapons have been used as artillery. They're usually large shock troops, meant for line breaking/holding.
-
As a former armour and artillery officer, I can safely vouch (argument from authority, my apologies) that there will not be a technical or tactical advance that would make Walking Mechs a better option than a traditional tank.
If you invent super-duranium armour to protect a Mech, a tank can use it more of it to achieve higher protection level - or less and stay more mobile. If you invent gravity manipulation, tank again benefits more of it. You can't cripple a tank by shooting a relatively thin leg off - even a busted track can be put back in action in just few hours. Powered armour for infantry kinda works but anything bigger than that and it becomes more of an handicap than an advantage.
Having said that, more options is never a bad thing and I'll use them, just change the name to Air Support. I already try to make Combined Arms divisions as much as possible and Heavy Assault are my tanks so this will actually fit in pretty well.
-
If we want to consider still in 40k terms, Manta Gunships are also Titan class combatants
So the Titans could also be massive floating battle platforms or even light parasite ships that provide close fire support in the way full sized star ships in orbit can not.
-
As a former armour and artillery officer, I can safely vouch (argument from authority, my apologies) that there will not be a technical or tactical advance that would make Walking Mechs a better option than a traditional tank.
A modern MBT has, what, maybe 10 degrees of gun depression? If its' designers were Western influenced? A mech-type chassis could crouch behind a ridge line, pop up, take a shot and be gone. Ain't no tread-head in the world who can match that ;D. A non-conventional chassis with 2 or 4 legs would also have superior mobility in some terrain over tracked or wheeled designs.
The biggest thing is probably the shock effect though. Tactically, Titans occupy the super-heavy armour space, being ideal to create local firepower superiority, open a gap in enemy lines and let exploitation forces get into their rear areas.
I'm certainly not saying that tanks as we know them would be made obsolete or anything, but adding them (whatever you choose to call them) certainly changes the dynamics of the ground combat system
-
If the mech topic gets snipped of, I will reply further as there are still things to say. Otherwise I won't add anything beyond from here.
-
Should Erik or I pull the Titan conversation out into a separate thread? It seems to have exploded a bit....
John
Go for it.
As a former armour and artillery officer, I can safely vouch (argument from authority, my apologies) that there will not be a technical or tactical advance that would make Walking Mechs a better option than a traditional tank.
If you invent super-duranium armour to protect a Mech, a tank can use it more of it to achieve higher protection level - or less and stay more mobile. If you invent gravity manipulation, tank again benefits more of it. You can't cripple a tank by shooting a relatively thin leg off - even a busted track can be put back in action in just few hours.
Well said.
Powered armour for infantry kinda works but anything bigger than that and it becomes more of an handicap than an advantage.
Have to disagree with you here. The problem with powered armor is that it's impossible to hang enough from a person to protect him from heavy hand weapons, and still have him be mobile enough to be infantry. Weapons and armor are at least loosely linked, so it's hard to see how armor could pull far enough ahead of weapons for this to be viable.
Having said that, more options is never a bad thing and I'll use them, just change the name to Air Support. I already try to make Combined Arms divisions as much as possible and Heavy Assault are my tanks so this will actually fit in pretty well.
I quite like that way of handling it.
A modern MBT has, what, maybe 10 degrees of gun depression? If its' designers were Western influenced? A mech-type chassis could crouch behind a ridge line, pop up, take a shot and be gone. Ain't no tread-head in the world who can match that ;D.
Really? It seems trivial to design a tank with that capability. Put the gun in a pod which you can raise and lower and give the commander and gunner periscopes. Much less mechanical complexity than a mech.
A non-conventional chassis with 2 or 4 legs would also have superior mobility in some terrain over tracked or wheeled designs.
Two words: ground pressure. On a concrete obstacle course, you might have a point, but the number of legs necessary to get the ground pressure down to where you can function on mud is going to be large enough that I think it will start to look tracked.
The biggest thing is probably the shock effect though. Tactically, Titans occupy the super-heavy armour space, being ideal to create local firepower superiority, open a gap in enemy lines and let exploitation forces get into their rear areas.
That doesn't work nearly as well in reality as it seems like it should. The exploitation forces usually run into the reserves and get bogged down. Also, we could build such things today (with tracks, not legs) and don't. I think you gave the German ultra-heavies as an example. This is because large targets are vulnerable to people with small weapons. ATGMs, for instance. Same reason we don't build battleships any more.
-
What about urban terrain though? That seems like the area where Mechs/power armor could shine.
-
What about urban terrain though? That seems like the area where Mechs/power armor could shine.
Well, for powered armor, urban terrain is actually where I expect to see the biggest problems. Stairs. That's the case I analyzed when I came to my conclusion on the subject. In seriousness, in rural areas you rarely have to worry as much about the load capacity of the terrain around you on the level of a few hundred pounds. (At least in militarily relevant terrain.) In urban areas, you have lots of cases where you have stuff stressed for people and light loads, but not for heavy loads.
For mechs, I'm very dubious. The ground pressure issue doesn't go away in urban areas, and if anything gets worse. Stuff isn't stressed for 30-ton mechs stomping around, and the countryside doesn't have sewers to collapse underfoot. (I have no clue if this is a threat or not. I'm not a civil engineer.)
The other problem is that tanks have serious trouble in urban environments because they're surprisingly vulnerable to infantry at close range. Mechs don't solve that, and they present a much bigger target profile while moving, which is a bad thing. Looking over buildings sounds great, but then you realize that anyone on a rooftop can also see you, and thus shoot at you. And a mech's head is a lot easier to see than someone with a Javelin hiding behind a rooftop AC unit.
-
Put the gun in a pod which you can raise and lower and give the commander and gunner periscopes. Much less mechanical complexity than a mech.
Yes, but a pretty impractical solution. Firstly, it makes the turret/pod very much more massive and complex to maintain than a conventional turret. Secondly, you are pretty much guaranteeing you *have* to use dry ammo storage, which it turns out is a catastrophically bad (almost literally) design choice. By the time you've overdesigned everything to make your gun pod usable, you probably might have just as well designed a mech, which gets the capability for free as a consequence of its' chassis design.
I do know what you are getting at, but here it just adds design constraints to an already pretty constrained design, and parasitic weight penalties quickly make the whole concept unworkable, compared to a new design which gets the capability just because it is what it is
the number of legs necessary to get the ground pressure down to where you can function on mud is going to be large enough that I think it will start to look tracked.
A mech chassis doesn't have a hull bottom. Ground pressure is much less of an issue than it is for wheeled or tracked vehicles, because it won't get grounded. A walking device can just use a high-stepping gait (up to a point - eventually you'll get stuck), and doesn't rely so much on friction. Mud and the like is MUCH less of a hindrance than it is for conventional designs. Similarly in heavy forest, or very rugged terrain, a walking gait can let you traverse ground that tracked or wheeled vehicles just can't cope with at all. It might not be very fast or efficient, but it's better than just considering the terrain impassable
That doesn't work nearly as well in reality as it seems like it should.
Strongly disagree here. Shock effect is the basis of pretty much all armoured warfare doctrine, and has been since the French got rekt in 3 weeks. It is the entire point of any armoured force.
Also, we could build such things today (with tracks, not legs) and don't. I think you gave the German ultra-heavies as an example.
We don't because of politics, national and international, ad economics, not because we can't, or think they wouldn't work. Super heavies are only useful for breaking very strong fortifications, or fighting "standard" armour. The world has seen precisely zero "real" wars since the end of WW2, so there has been no imperative to design or build Supers since. Even so, the US did design and build both the Super Pershing and the T28/T95. The T28/T95 only got as far as the prototype stage when the Siegfried Line fell (it's intended job). The T26 Super Pershings did see a little combat in WW2, and a little more in Korea, where they utterly outclassed the T34-85s of the Koreans - the tanks that had been the largely undisputed kings of the WW2 battlefield.
If we did enter another large-scale, protracted war (taking years, not weeks or months) that somehow became a battle of fixed positions and attrition, you would see exactly the same sorts of designs re-emerge, updated for the then-current situation. Unless such a war occurs, there would be no actual requirement for super-heavies. Given that they are very much more expensive, and once built would be going obsolete as you looked at them, the second they rolled off the line, there just hasn't been any reason to build one. I bet a few design studies exist though, tucked away in various draws across the world. Just in case.
Aurora does present such situations though. Planets can be considered "fixed positions", and the timescales and distances involved make super-heavy forces attractive options
-
Actually I'm pretty sure the air force breaks fortifications much better than super heavy tanks could these days.
-
what screws super heavies is that armor only goes so far. Super heavies are just as vulnerable to mobility kills, disabling, artillery fire, and airplanes/helos as a normal tank - meanwhile they are MUCH more difficult to move around (because of sheer tonnage and size) and require an additional logistical infrastructure of super heavy recovery vehicles.
-
Yes, but a pretty impractical solution. Firstly, it makes the turret/pod very much more massive and complex to maintain than a conventional turret. Secondly, you are pretty much guaranteeing you *have* to use dry ammo storage, which it turns out is a catastrophically bad (almost literally) design choice. By the time you've overdesigned everything to make your gun pod usable, you probably might have just as well designed a mech, which gets the capability for free as a consequence of its' chassis design.
Surely you're joking. Even if we did essentially mount the entire turret as it exists now on jacks, it wouldn't approach the complexity of a mech's legs and other control systems. The chassis design costs so much that 'free' benefits like being able to crouch are fairly pointless.
But we don't have to do that. Instead, we remove the men from the turret, and leave them in the body of the tank. The gun (with autoloader) is on its own, and much smaller. Also, the M1 doesn't use wet storage, and I know of several cases where the ammo cooked off and the crew were fine. There have been moderately serious plans to do pretty much what I'm describing here.
I do know what you are getting at, but here it just adds design constraints to an already pretty constrained design, and parasitic weight penalties quickly make the whole concept unworkable, compared to a new design which gets the capability just because it is what it is
This is very amusing. Do you have any idea how much mechanical complexity is involved in making a flexible walking machine? Now, instead of being a few hundred pounds, make it tens of tons. Oh, and it has to work on the battlefield, with mud, and dirt, and small amounts of damage. Suggesting that adding a jack-mounted turret to a tank is going to be much, much worse is completely absurd. 'Before you remove the speck from your brother's eye' and all.
A mech chassis doesn't have a hull bottom. Ground pressure is much less of an issue than it is for wheeled or tracked vehicles, because it won't get grounded.
???
I don't think you understand how ground pressure works.
A walking device can just use a high-stepping gait (up to a point - eventually you'll get stuck), and doesn't rely so much on friction.
Conservation of momentum. You have to push on the ground somehow to go forward, and I can't see any reason why you'd do better with shoes than with wheels/tracks before starting to slip. Unless you can think of another way to generate said force, you're stuck with friction and close cousins.
Mud and the like is MUCH less of a hindrance than it is for conventional designs. Similarly in heavy forest, or very rugged terrain, a walking gait can let you traverse ground that tracked or wheeled vehicles just can't cope with at all. It might not be very fast or efficient, but it's better than just considering the terrain impassable
And yet, on moderately good terrain, the wheeled/tracked vehicles will be much faster. Assuming, of course, that you haven't gotten stuck in the mud they went straight through.
Strongly disagree here. Shock effect is the basis of pretty much all armoured warfare doctrine, and has been since the French got rekt in 3 weeks. It is the entire point of any armoured force.
That particular doctrine worked exactly twice. In Poland, because the Poles were horribly outgunned, and in France due to insane luck. Every other armored campaign of the war was decided by combined arms and slower movement.
We don't because of politics, national and international, ad economics, not because we can't, or think they wouldn't work.
That's not what you were talking about earlier:
2) Tactically, Titans would be like the proposed WW2 German super-super-heavies (P.1000 / P.1500).
Attempting to bamboozle me with tales of conventional heavy tanks won't work. I know armored history better than that.
Super heavies are only useful for breaking very strong fortifications, or fighting "standard" armour. The world has seen precisely zero "real" wars since the end of WW2, so there has been no imperative to design or build Supers since.
Right. The 45 years we spent staring at the Russians in Central Europe produced no imperative to plan for serious armored combat.
Even so, the US did design and build both the Super Pershing and the T28/T95. The T28/T95 only got as far as the prototype stage when the Siegfried Line fell (it's intended job).
The T28 was an assault gun, not a tank. And its job got taken by better tank guns and things like ATGMs.
The T26 Super Pershings did see a little combat in WW2, and a little more in Korea, where they utterly outclassed the T34-85s of the Koreans - the tanks that had been the largely undisputed kings of the WW2 battlefield.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually getting this many errors in on accident. There was no 'Super Pershing'. The T26 was a prototype of the M26 Pershing, a conventional heavy tank. Of course it beat the T-34, which was a pretty good medium tank with a vastly overinflated reputation. It was not 'the undisputed king of the battlefield'. Version-for-version, the Sherman was better (this is true, look up actual numbers, not to mention what Soviet guards units were using), to say nothing of actual heavy tanks (or the Panther).
If we did enter another large-scale, protracted war (taking years, not weeks or months) that somehow became a battle of fixed positions and attrition, you would see exactly the same sorts of designs re-emerge, updated for the then-current situation.
Now you're just being obtuse. The MBT has replaced those as tanks, for a lot of reasons, which I'm not going to bother going into. Other weapons have rendered them pointless in other roles. And tank development takes longer than you think.
Actually I'm pretty sure the air force breaks fortifications much better than super heavy tanks could these days.
There are a lot of reasons that heavy tanks went away, and only the Germans ever built proper superheavies (Maus). The problem with titan-scale things is that they're too vulnerable to air forces.
-
Going to largely agree with bryon here. However.
There was no 'Super Pershing'. The T26 was a prototype of the M26 Pershing, a conventional heavy tank. Of course it beat the T-34, which was a pretty good medium tank with a vastly overinflated reputation. It was not 'the undisputed king of the battlefield'. Version-for-version, the Sherman was better (this is true, look up actual numbers, not to mention what Soviet guards units were using), to say nothing of actual heavy tanks (or the Panther).
Technically there was a Super Pershing. It was a modification to the T25/T26 changing the barrel of the gun and welding armor plates onto the mantlet and upper/lower glacis (increasing the angle of the front armor drastically).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#/media/File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#/media/File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg)
And the Sherman was really only superior in its designed roll; rushing through breaks in the enemy line to attack supply lines, flanks, etc. And strength in numbers. Otherwise, they were outmatched in mostly every way by Soviet/German counterparts (except mobility).
-
Going to largely agree with bryon here. However.Technically there was a Super Pershing. It was a modification to the T25/T26 changing the barrel of the gun and welding armor plates onto the mantlet and upper/lower glacis (increasing the angle of the front armor drastically).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#/media/File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#/media/File:M26_Super_Pershing.jpg)
Interesting. I didn't know about the gun program, and the name was strictly informal. The armor is field add-on. But I do maintain that it wasn't different enough from the conventional Pershing to be treated separately. And it certainly didn't serve in Korea.
And the Sherman was really only superior in its designed roll; rushing through breaks in the enemy line to attack supply lines, flanks, etc. And strength in numbers. Otherwise, they were outmatched in mostly every way by Soviet/German counterparts (except mobility).
A common myth, but not true. It was designed primarily as an infantry support vehicle, because American doctrine at the time said that tank destroyers were supposed to kill tanks. In fairness to them, they had no experience and only a few years to thought to draw on.
As for its superiority over the T-34, I can point again to the Soviet units Shermans were given to: the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, and 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, all of which were elite units. Actions speak louder than words, and the Soviet actions were pretty clear here.
And it was definitely at least on par in terms of armor to its contemporaries, both German and Soviet:
Sherman: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/united-states/vehicle/medium-tank/m4-medium-tank.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/united-states/vehicle/medium-tank/m4-medium-tank.asp)
T-34: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/vehicle/medium-tank/t-34-76-1941-medium-tank.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/vehicle/medium-tank/t-34-76-1941-medium-tank.asp)
Panzer IV: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/vehicle/medium-tank/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-f1-medium-tank.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/vehicle/medium-tank/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-f1-medium-tank.asp)
All of these should be approximately the 1941 models. They're pretty similar in terms of overall armor. Add in that Soviet metallurgy was appalling, and I'd really rather be in the Sherman. (Or the PzKpfw IV, but nobody sings the praises of that). I suspect that some of the claims of the T-34s invincibility were Soviet propaganda. Proving-ground tests don't bear them out.
Armament is much the same story. The M3 on the Sherman had similar armor penetration using a conventional APC round to the F-34 on the T-34 using HVAP (tungsten-core). The German gun mounted in 1941 was considerably worse than the M3, although they later up-gunned to one that is broadly equivalent to the 76mm Sherman.
-
Largely agreeing with byron (as well....) but:
Add in that Soviet metallurgy was appalling, and I'd really rather be in the Sherman.
This is just another myth spread by the Germans at the time. Soviet metalwork might not have been top of the world, but it was rather good. And the t34 were the king of the battlefield, mostly because there were so many of them and that they were soooooo cheap. And very resistant to the standard shells of the 5 and 7.5 cm used during the invasion. Still rather be in a sherman (or you know, a Tiger 2 bc it would break down and then I would not have to fight.........)
Also:
Mud and the like is MUCH less of a hindrance than it is for conventional designs. Similarly in heavy forest, or very rugged terrain, a walking gait can let you traverse ground that tracked or wheeled vehicles just can't cope with at all. It might not be very fast or efficient, but it's better than just considering the terrain impassable
The problem with moving through a heavy forest is not that you have to move over things, it is that there are things you have to move around (or, you know, chop down......)
-
Largely agreeing with byron (as well....) but:
This is just another myth spread by the Germans at the time. Soviet metalwork might not have been top of the world, but it was rather good.
Well, I found a report that describes Soviet metallurgy as being rather variable (apologies for the poor copy):
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf)
That's a US report based on lab evaluations of Soviet tanks, so German propaganda doesn't enter into it.
And the t34 were the king of the battlefield, mostly because there were so many of them and that they were soooooo cheap.
You're sort of double-counting there. Cost is one of the main factors determining how many tanks could be deployed. The US had different drivers, which meant that the absolute cheapest tank wasn't the best for us. But by this logic, the Sherman definitely shares that crown.
And very resistant to the standard shells of the 5 and 7.5 cm used during the invasion.
I suspect that the variety of stories on this has to do with the variable quality of the armor. If it's a tank with good armor, then a bunch of low-velocity 75 mm shells bounce off. If it's got poor armor, a Pak 38 knocks it out. Each side points to the one that supports its position. Also, Soviet tankers weren't able to gripe in their memoirs. I point again to the Sherman's use by the Guard Corps. If they'd thought the T-34 was better, they were in a good position to demand them instead, and they didn't.
-
Interesting. I didn't know about the gun program, and the name was strictly informal.
The gun change was so big, those tubes on top are actually springs to keep the gun up and stable. And there were 2 extra 38mm plates mounted on the glacises, each an extra ~15 degrees sloping (don't quote me on that, the sloping) more than the last, giving it redementary spaced armor. So you effectively had a 38mm plate at a high angle, a space, another 38mm plate at a slightly less high angle, a smaller space, then the front of the hull. And the extra turret armor was pulled from Panther tanks, so an additional 80mm of mantlet armor.
A common myth, but not true. It was designed primarily as an infantry support vehicle, because American doctrine at the time said that tank destroyers were supposed to kill tanks. In fairness to them, they had no experience and only a few years to thought to draw on.
Yes, I agree that against early war vehicles, they were supreme. And yes, I know there were special anti-tank vehicles (tank destroyers such as the M10 and M18 and their varients) used by the US to combat tanks. However, by the time the US's Sherman got over there and started fighting in Europe (not counting the USSR/UK Shermans that were modified), other sides were using vehicles such as the Tiger, Panther, T34-85, KV-85 (IS1) which totally outmatched the Shermans in armor and weapons. The Sherman however did have the mobility and numbers advantage over Germany's tanks, but they needed the numbers advantage every time they went against such beasts (which is a lot fewer times than many people would think). However, the Shermans that were then mounted with the long 76 guns were able to at least penetrate and kill Panthers and Tigers, but many of the crews wouldn't give up their short 75s because they would then lose their HE effectiveness with the new gun.
And yes, the soviet metallurgy at the time was quite appalling (and not mythical propaganda), but when you see 1 T34, there is bound to be another few thousand around the corner. And the reason the Gaurds Corps used the Sheramans was because their job was to operate behind enemy lines for extended amounts of time, the sole role the Sherman was specifically designed to do, whereas the T34s were literally designed to throw at the enemy lines until they broke (the enemy lines or the T34s)(and extended trips the Sherman tanks could do were lethal to T34s).
Do we need another split topic for talking about WWII tanks?
-
The gun change was so big, those tubes on top are actually springs to keep the gun up and stable. And there were 2 extra 38mm plates mounted on the glacises, each an extra ~15 degrees sloping (don't quote me on that, the sloping) more than the last, giving it redementary spaced armor. So you effectively had a 38mm plate at a high angle, a space, another 38mm plate at a slightly less high angle, a smaller space, then the front of the hull. And the extra turret armor was pulled from Panther tanks, so an additional 80mm of mantlet armor.
I have access to all the Hunnicutt books (the standard reference on US armor design.) As I pointed out, the extra armor was a field mod, not official. And it did bad things to the suspension, which is a serious concern in production vehicles.
However, by the time the US's Sherman got over there and started fighting in Europe (not counting the USSR/UK Shermans that were modified), other sides were using vehicles such as the Tiger, Panther, T34-85, KV-85 (IS1) which totally outmatched the Shermans in armor and weapons.
The 76mm gun Sherman was superior to the T-34/85, although it did take a bit longer to get there. The Panther was a bit of a revolutionary leap (although never available in the numbers needed) and the others are all heavies. The US decided not to go for heavies because of shipping limitations and the theory that tank destroyers would deal with them. In practice, it was a good plan. Most of the time, it was US infantry+Shermans vs German infantry with no tanks.
The Sherman however did have the mobility and numbers advantage over Germany's tanks, but they needed the numbers advantage every time they went against such beasts (which is a lot fewer times than many people would think).
This is the key point, actually.
However, the Shermans that were then mounted with the long 76 guns were able to at least penetrate and kill Panthers and Tigers, but many of the crews wouldn't give up their short 75s because they would then lose their HE effectiveness with the new gun.
Not just that, Army Ground Forces really didn't want to lose that fantastic HE round.
And yes, the soviet metallurgy at the time was quite appalling (and not mythical propaganda), but when you see 1 T34, there is bound to be another few thousand around the corner.
Applies just as much to the Sherman. (Well, the bit about another few thousand around the corner.)
And the reason the Gaurds Corps used the Sheramans was because their job was to operate behind enemy lines for extended amounts of time, the sole role the Sherman was specifically designed to do, whereas the T34s were literally designed to throw at the enemy lines until they broke (the enemy lines or the T34s)(and extended trips the Sherman tanks could do were lethal to T34s).
An interesting theory, and one I hadn't heard before. Unfortunately, it falls afoul of two factors:
1. Tanks didn't operate that way, except in France, when the Germans really, really should have lost or been stalemated. For that matter, I don't think that was US Army doctrine at the time the Sherman was designed.
2. The T-34's range is twice that of the Sherman, even the model supplied to the Russians.
That said, it's an interesting idea, and I'm not an expert on WWII armor development. Sources?
Do we need another split topic for talking about WWII tanks?
Quite possibly.
-
Well, I found a report that describes Soviet metallurgy as being rather variable (apologies for the poor copy):
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf)
That's a US report based on lab evaluations of Soviet tanks, so German propaganda doesn't enter into it.
Interesting read. Seems most of the "shoddy" metalwork was a product of rushed production and availability of metals and tools/people at the specific factory rather then a lack of knowledge. Same as german metalwork late in the war then. Really not worthy of the word "abysmal". Also, most of the shells studied had been captured in korea, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the soviets had started there long habit of not really giving away there best stuff to its allies by then.
You're sort of double-counting there. Cost is one of the main factors determining how many tanks could be deployed. The US had different drivers, which meant that the absolute cheapest tank wasn't the best for us. But by this logic, the Sherman definitely shares that crown.
Bad choice of words from me there, meant more of a 'because'. And don't get me wrong, sherman was a really good tank, just not quite as.
I suspect that the variety of stories on this has to do with the variable quality of the armor. If it's a tank with good armor, then a bunch of low-velocity 75 mm shells bounce off. If it's got poor armor, a Pak 38 knocks it out. Each side points to the one that supports its position. Also, Soviet tankers weren't able to gripe in their memoirs. I point again to the Sherman's use by the Guard Corps. If they'd thought the T-34 was better, they were in a good position to demand them instead, and they didn't.
Remember what the german army were expecting to meet, things like the horrible t-28. And then you suddenly meet a kv1 at really long range and no mater how many shoots you fire into it it will not explode or go up in flames. Same with the t34, a tank that accelerated when you killed its driver.
The 76mm gun Sherman was superior to the T-34/85, although it did take a bit longer to get there.
Eeee, agree to disagree on this one.
The Sherman however did have the mobility and numbers advantage over Germany's tanks, but they needed the numbers advantage every time they went against such beasts (which is a lot fewer times than many people would think).
This is the key point, actually.
Some time after the war ended the swedish army tested a Sherman, a Panther and Strv m/42 (basicly a LT-38 copy) for cross-country capability. Lets say that the sherman dont fare very well. The link I had to the report has sadly been subject to link rot but here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38&nohtml5=False) is a information film about it.
However, the Shermans that were then mounted with the long 76 guns were able to at least penetrate and kill Panthers and Tigers, but many of the crews wouldn't give up their short 75s because they would then lose their HE effectiveness with the new gun.
Not just that, Army Ground Forces really didn't want to lose that fantastic HE round.
If I remember correctly this changed rather drasticly when the allies started pushing out of france and they could no longer flank the german tanks as easily.
And the reason the Gaurds Corps used the Sheramans was because their job was to operate behind enemy lines for extended amounts of time, the sole role the Sherman was specifically designed to do, whereas the T34s were literally designed to throw at the enemy lines until they broke (the enemy lines or the T34s)(and extended trips the Sherman tanks could do were lethal to T34s).
Heard that it had more to do with crew comfort more then anything else.
-
Okay, please make a new thread for WW2 tanks, I'm dying to sperg out but I don't want to push this thread any further off-topic!
-
1. Tanks didn't operate that way, except in France, when the Germans really, really should have lost or been stalemated. For that matter, I don't think that was US Army doctrine at the time the Sherman was designed.
Actually, that was the US's tank doctrine at the time because the generals in charge (Patton for example) were cavalry officers. An a thing about the US R&D is that they fulfill the needs the commanders need at the moment for what they need to do. The cavalry officers wanted a tank that was ultra reliable and fast/maneuverable that they can rush through breaks in the line made by infantry. The Sherman was born.
"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword"
2. The T-34's range is twice that of the Sherman, even the model supplied to the Russians.
It wasn't a matter of range, it was a matter of reliability. The T35s would break down and have to be abandoned (and were plenty of times) long before they ever reached the Sherman's top range (which was extended by jerrycans and supply trucks they would bring along).
-
Okay, please make a new thread for WW2 tanks, I'm dying to sperg out but I don't want to push this thread any further off-topic!
I split out both Titans and WW2 tanks into a single thread (this one). If y'all want another thread I can split that out too, but I didn't see a crisp break at the Titans --> Tanks segue (plus the segue didn't seem to branch into multiple thread heads), so I figured I'd keep them both together for now.
John
-
Although possibly this thread now belongs more in Chat than Mechanics?
-
Interesting read. Seems most of the "shoddy" metalwork was a product of rushed production and availability of metals and tools/people at the specific factory rather then a lack of knowledge. Same as german metalwork late in the war then. Really not worthy of the word "abysmal". Also, most of the shells studied had been captured in korea, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the soviets had started there long habit of not really giving away there best stuff to its allies by then.
My initial statement was based on an informal source, and it appears that it was somewhat overstated.
Remember what the german army were expecting to meet, things like the horrible t-28. And then you suddenly meet a kv1 at really long range and no mater how many shoots you fire into it it will not explode or go up in flames. Same with the t34, a tank that accelerated when you killed its driver.
That's probably another part of it. In fact, I vaguely recall very glowing reports of the Sherman's initial performance in North Africa. It's just that the early reports of the T-34's invincibility got turned into legend, and those of the Sherman ignored.
Some time after the war ended the swedish army tested a Sherman, a Panther and Strv m/42 (basicly a LT-38 copy) for cross-country capability. Lets say that the sherman dont fare very well. The link I had to the report has sadly been subject to link rot but here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38&nohtml5=False) is a information film about it.
I haven't been pushing the mobility line. And the Strv m/42 wasn't a LT-38 copy. It weighed about twice as much, for one thing.
If I remember correctly this changed rather drasticly when the allies started pushing out of france and they could no longer flank the german tanks as easily.
To some extent, it changed even in Normandy, when they discovered there were more Panthers than expected and the Tiger wasn't as easy to deal with as it had been in Tunisia and Italy.
Heard that it had more to do with crew comfort more then anything else.
That may well be true. But even so, it's good evidence that it wasn't considered to be a significantly worse tank by the Soviets. If they'd had any reason to doubt its performance, they'd have shuffled them off on someone who wasn't a guards unit.
Actually, that was the US's tank doctrine at the time because the generals in charge (Patton for example) were cavalry officers. An a thing about the US R&D is that they fulfill the needs the commanders need at the moment for what they need to do. The cavalry officers wanted a tank that was ultra reliable and fast/maneuverable that they can rush through breaks in the line made by infantry. The Sherman was born.
Only sort of. While the doctrine statements at the time of the Sherman's selection do support that, the history leading up to it doesn't. Remember that the Armored Force wasn't created until July 1940, and for most of the 20s and 30s, the Infantry had sole responsibility for tanks. If the Cavalry had totally dominated the process, we'd have seen a faster tank with less armor. As it was, the Sherman was pretty clearly a compromise between the 'Infantry' and 'Cruiser' tanks of, say, the British. (Parallels to the development of the MBT are left as an exercise to the reader.) More can be found in volume 10-9 of the US Army in WWII green books.
It wasn't a matter of range, it was a matter of reliability. The T35s would break down and have to be abandoned (and were plenty of times) long before they ever reached the Sherman's top range (which was extended by jerrycans and supply trucks they would bring along).
That makes no sense. It's the equivalent of building a ship in aurora with 1000 days of fuel and a maintenance life of a year and a half. If the T-34 had a mean failure range in the double digits (the Sherman's range was ~100 miles), then why did they give it 200 miles of fuel? I'm not disputing that the Sherman was more reliable than the T-34, but everyone (except the Germans) put a fair bit of emphasis on reliability. We were just better at it, but that's a pattern which occurs across pretty much every piece of military equipment we built.
(I believe the reason for the disparity in range had more to do with the US having considerably greater confidence in its logistics train than the Soviets did in theirs.)
-
"The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi)" -Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
So comparing it to Aurora ships; A Sherman has a year or two worth a fuel and a decade worth of parts. A T34 has 3 years of fuel but forgot to install engineering spaces (maybe cause they checked the no overhauls box).
-
"The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi)" -Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
That's referring to the radios, not the tanks themselves. See this (https://web.archive.org/web/20140422051559/http://english.battlefield.ru/evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv-dp1.html) for a more complete version of the report, which makes it very clear that's talking about radios. Even the Tiger generally did better than 10 miles between breakdowns.
-
I was just reading the Chat thread on TN Ground Combat, and it occured to me to wonder why Titans aren't vulnerable to meson fire? If they were, it would completely break them, so there has to be a reason; but unlike other ground units they are a relatively huge single target, so the usual 'dispersal' argument doesn't work.
-
If I remember correctly, the rule of thumb was that a Panther ran 150 km before breaking down while a T-34 ran 500 km before breaking down.
-
I was just reading the Chat thread on TN Ground Combat, and it occured to me to wonder why Titans aren't vulnerable to meson fire? If they were, it would completely break them, so there has to be a reason; but unlike other ground units they are a relatively huge single target, so the usual 'dispersal' argument doesn't work.
You might want to post this one back in the main discussion thread - I'm not sure if Steve is reading this thread, and it sounds like a potential inconsistent he'd want to be aware of.
John
-
As a former armour and artillery officer, I can safely vouch (argument from authority, my apologies) that there will not be a technical or tactical advance that would make Walking Mechs a better option than a traditional tank.
If you invent super-duranium armour to protect a Mech, a tank can use it more of it to achieve higher protection level - or less and stay more mobile. If you invent gravity manipulation, tank again benefits more of it. You can't cripple a tank by shooting a relatively thin leg off - even a busted track can be put back in action in just few hours. Powered armour for infantry kinda works but anything bigger than that and it becomes more of an handicap than an advantage.
Having said that, more options is never a bad thing and I'll use them, just change the name to Air Support. I already try to make Combined Arms divisions as much as possible and Heavy Assault are my tanks so this will actually fit in pretty well.
Starsiege had to go the distance of forbidding shield generators for tanks for the purposes of balance, as well as lowering the number of weapon hardpoints. I think that's the 40K thing as well, titans have starship classed void shields that tanks may not be able to mount because reasons.
-
you just have to look at the vehicle design rules used in Battletech, they had to add so many arbitrary limitations on non-Mecha vehicles to justify the entire Battlemech thing, which to be fair would've invalidated the entire setting if they hadn't.
-
There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages. Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.
Let take everything you know about Earth and flush it down the toilet.
Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.
Number 2. A complete planet which is a swamp, and very tall trees.
Sorry a high gaited, lean able, walking suit would be better then a tank.
A planet criss-crossed with consistent steep gullies which require climbing.
A full articulated mech which has the ability to climb like a human being, is better then a tracked tank.
A planet with tank size boulders that cover the whole landscape.
where something that is able to squeeze through narrow gaps is needed instead of a wide flat based weapons platform.
Again the Mech has to have the same articulation and strength to weigh ratio as a human
I agree that tracked vehicles are better in many terrains, but not all environments, again the mech need to be a full articulation human, hell yes it complex weapon platform, but in some environments it might be the only option, A mech could be even based on spider legs instead of human legs. I do believe a mech say in mechwarrior are possible too big and not articulated enough to be a good example of a desirable weapon platform, perhaps transformer type mechs are more in line with my thought process, with that level of articulation and strength.
Hell yes the power source for out current level of technology does not even come close to that level of speed and power, but neither did the first motorcar out run a horse.
A Mech can be a viable weapon platform (but not until there is a serious amount of technology and power supply available to make it fully articulated)
-
Don't forget about shock absorption. If a tank were to take a fall, it would barely have any suspension to absorb the force of landing, the rest of the energy goes to something important (like the suspension or drive shaft) and breaks it. A mech would be able to absorb that force from landing a lot better (not 100% all the time, but a lot better than a tank. And tanks with legs like the Pupa/Shagohod of MGS would be considered mechs).
And on the note of terrain, I've tried explaining that, but he keeps going back to the "ground pressure" thing. Yes, mechs would sink somewhat in a lot of terrains, but when said terrain gets compressed enough, it is hard and stable enough to cross (hence why vehicles and living things leave tracks, they all sink somewhat).
And the mech can be anything from a Gundam, to a Armored Core, to a Chromehound, to a Heavy Object, to a Emporer class Titan, etc. ANd on the note of technology, I do agree with bryon on that, techs that will advance mechs will also advance tanks and current types of vehicles. However, we simply don't know how the warfare of the future will be handled. We once fought in large battlelines charging with swords/spears, then we had battlelines with ranged weapons sitting at range blasting at each other, then we had skirmish lines picking off the enemy while behind cover, then trenches, then blitzkrieg, etc etc, all the way to our current tactics. Who knows how we evolve warfare in the future, you never know, we could find that mechs are more potent than you believe or that they are a terrible weapon platform.
-
That is why I stipulated strength to weight ratio.
If you look at 10 ton two legged dinosaur or a 4 legged 60 ton dinosaur, if ground pressure was a problem they coul never of grown to such a size.
Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.
the disclaimer is as usual this is not the best weapon's platform, but perhaps the best platform for certain terrain and complexed issues on an alien world without roads.
-
Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.
Its no as cut-n-dry as that though. Its more like a line graph snaking around each other as they grow (armor tech is better than weapon tech at one point, the next point gun tech is better, then back, etc). Take HESH and Sabot rounds for example. They were death sentences for enemies at their introduction, hence why most countries then prioritized mobility over protection. Then advances in armor (angles, thickness, composites, reactive, spall lining, etc) then made sabots and HESH a lot less effective. Then came guided HEAT missiles (and more advanced HEAT than what was previously available). Then tank sized active defenses and stealth techs. And now, railguns.
-
There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages. Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.
We never had tanks before WW1; we did however have bipedal fighting machines that tended to sink in mud if you loaded them down too much. Roughly 38 million of them were destroyed in WW1.
Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.
Nope. If that was true they would have never invented the Lunar Roving Vehicle because astronauts bounding everywhere and just carrying all of their stuff would've been the most practical solution.
Also I'm fairly certain friction is something you want if you've got something that has constant contact with the ground. That's why it's illegal to have bald tyres on your car in this country. That's why shoes before we learnt how to make rubber were so terrible to run in. It depends on the specifics of the planet and the dirt its driving on, but all you'd need in most cases are some snow-weather tracks and the tank would be able to move just as fast as the walker.
Number 2. A complete planet which is a swamp, and very tall trees.
Sorry a high gaited, lean able, walking suit would be better then a tank.
Nope. Ground pressure, and having colossal snowboots on the mech to negate this would make it too wide to be purposeful. Even if the tank wins, infantry and aircraft are more useful than both. Vietnam? Any takers?
A planet criss-crossed with consistent steep gullies which require climbing.
A full articulated mech which has the ability to climb like a human being, is better then a tracked tank.
Aircraft and infantry are more useful than both. Why would I get a very situational robot to climb over these things when I can just airdrop my men over it? Even in a very special circumstance where I can't because of anti-aircraft defences, that doesn't really help the mech out very much either if its on the attacking team.
A planet with tank size boulders that cover the whole landscape.
where something that is able to squeeze through narrow gaps is needed instead of a wide flat based weapons platform.
Infantry and aircraft.
I agree that tracked vehicles are better in many terrains, but not all environments, again the mech need to be a full articulation human, hell yes it complex weapon platform, but in some environments it might be the only option, A mech could be even based on spider legs instead of human legs. I do believe a mech say in mechwarrior are possible too big and not articulated enough to be a good example of a desirable weapon platform, perhaps transformer type mechs are more in line with my thought process, with that level of articulation and strength.
Nah, in those specialised environments the solution is a squad of dudes in powered armour and a dropship.
-
Just to throw a large spanner in an already unstable set of cogs, there is a blindingly simple solution to the issues of weight for bipedal mechs with regards to low, standard, or high gravity. Just strap on a set of directional thrusters in various places, when you walk over soft muddy ground aim the nozzles towards the ground thereby giving you a perceived reduction in overall weight, when fighting on a small moon aim them upwards to do the opposite. If you went a slight stage further and said they were near omni-directional nozzles then it also fixes your problems of mobility and speed, a well set up system that alters the nozzle direction in relation to what a limb is doing and the speed desired can then happily take off the load from the mechanical moving parts and so on.
As pointed out above you cannot really use too many real Earth historical technical arguments, especially not when you are talking about craft that instantly move from zero to fractions of the speed of light and back again, or any of the other space magic technologies we happily accept as normal for Aurora.
-
That's not a solution that makes the mech better than the tank, since the tank can use this as well.
And we're not talking about craft that can move at percentages of C, we're talking about bipedal fighting machines which we can actually theoretically build in real life.
-
That's not a solution that makes the mech better than the tank, since the tank can use this as well.
And we're not talking about craft that can move at percentages of C, we're talking about bipedal fighting machines which we can actually theoretically build in real life.
Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive. So the strength of armour plates in Aurora must be equally mind boggling to cope with such impacts.
Now with that as a baseline it is quite easy to imagine a mech that has a series of thrusters all over itself, and that these all have a high degree of individual rotation. This first of all solves any and all problems with regards to planetary weight of the mech, and issues of gravity and so on. But it also means you have a machine that can far outclass the ability of any other to move, if you have an object moving towards you then sharp burst of thrusters allow you to make a sidestep dodge. Likewise you could use them to facilitate running, jumping, or even climbing (since you can vary your own weight).
I may have got the entire wrong end of this discussion in that it may be all about arguing the possibility of actually making and using mechs in the real world as a successor to the modern battle tank. In which case then obviously yes they are a stupid idea that cannot possibly work, but surely that is so obvious due to real world metallurgy that such a debate should be moot. If this is about how plausible they are in the context of Aurora then again it should be obvious that they can be done, and one quite easily with zero space magic needed. Aurora has already given us the required amount of technology to create a usable platform like this, all it takes is creative application of that technology beyond the original intended usage.
-
Giving the mech maneuvering jets to cancel out its weight seems like kindof a cop-out to me. Yes that would allow it to push off of the ground and maneuver to some degree, but it would still be pretty sharply limited in the amount of acceleration it could achieve. Low contact area means low friction force for the same PSI. So you are kindof going to be running in place digging trenches where a tank would be accelerating relatively rapidly.
I tend to side with the hover-tank crowd. If you could give it some jets that can rapidly modulate their thrust then you'd have superior maneuverability in every way. For that matter, you could switch to having a low flying heavily armored gunship.
-
Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive.
I always just assumed the missiles couldn't do direct hit, which is why we need warhead in the first place.
-
And the WW1-era tanks already had major advantages over horse cavalry - they were armoured, giving protection from machineguns and artillery shrapnel, which were the two big killers of cavalry at the time. Plus, it could just drive over barbed wire. Yes, they were actually slower than horse cavalry and very little operation mobility, hence why during the inter-war period the Cavalry officers managed to claw back some prestige - but every major power was going toward mechanization. Germany had their Panzer divisions and only a single cavalry brigade, France had multiple types of motorized/mechanized/armoured divisions, Soviet Union had tank brigades and motorized rifle divisions, and even Britain - where the Cavalry officers held most power - had an Armoured Division on the making.
If we're giving Mechs maneuvering jets, why can't the tank have them too and increase its mobility?
Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.
It's impossible to make 100% accurate predictions because none of the big players have engaged each other in a full-scale mechanical warfare since the Korean War (where Sherman and Pershing proved superior to T-34/85). In the 1991 Gulf War, the Sabot rounds fired by Abrams achieved very impressive penetrations against the Iraqi T-72s. However, these were export versions of the original T-72 and Soviets always kept their best toys at home. Tank protection has advanced since then, so it's not certain that "one shot, one kill" is still an absolute truth in tank-to-tank combat.
-
If we're giving Mechs maneuvering jets, why can't the tank have them too and increase its mobility?
Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost. There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design. And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area. The tank would have most of the trhusters facing either up or down, and can fit some facing back/sides. So basically you now have a gunship that can land and crawl around. Now lets look at the mech. The most common places that you would find thrusters on these are the feet and torso (front and back). You now have forward, back, and up thrust. Ad vectoring to the trusters and you get virtual all angle thrust (would help the tank example as well but a lot less).
-
Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.
Friction you want, unless you like skating around on ice........ Just saying.
Don't forget about shock absorption. If a tank were to take a fall, it would barely have any suspension to absorb the force of landing, the rest of the energy goes to something important (like the suspension or drive shaft) and breaks it. A mech would be able to absorb that force from landing a lot better (not 100% all the time, but a lot better than a tank. And tanks with legs like the Pupa/Shagohod of MGS would be considered mechs).
And on the note of terrain, I've tried explaining that, but he keeps going back to the "ground pressure" thing. Yes, mechs would sink somewhat in a lot of terrains, but when said terrain gets compressed enough, it is hard and stable enough to cross (hence why vehicles and living things leave tracks, they all sink somewhat).
You have a LOT of shock absorption in a tank. And why cant one take the shock absorber from your mech and put on a tank?
It is not just about sinking and being able to get free, it is about the amount of energy required to get it free. The less energy required the better. For example, if you are traversing a snowy field and you sink down to your knee or above, it is easier and faster to crawl over the field then to walk.
If you look at 10 ton two legged dinosaur or a 4 legged 60 ton dinosaur, if ground pressure was a problem they coul never of grown to such a size.
Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.
the disclaimer is as usual this is not the best weapon's platform, but perhaps the best platform for certain terrain and complexed issues on an alien world without roads.
They did not have those dinosaurs in a swamp or a thick forest.
The question is not if two even weapon system can take out each other. The question is what inferior weapon can take out your weapon. For example, can I take out your mech with, say, a hand grenade to the knee?
And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.
Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost. There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design. And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area. The tank would have most of the trhusters facing either up or down, and can fit some facing back/sides. So basically you now have a gunship that can land and crawl around. Now lets look at the mech. The most common places that you would find thrusters on these are the feet and torso (front and back). You now have forward, back, and up thrust. Ad vectoring to the trusters and you get virtual all angle thrust (would help the tank example as well but a lot less).
I really don't understand your thinking here. I mean, no mater where you put your thrusters you have a roughly 180 degree area where they can push. And this is the same on both the mech and the tank. Also, if you are putting a lot of thrusters on your mech/tank, why not remove the tracks/legs completely?
-
You have a LOT of shock absorption in a tank. And why cant one take the shock absorber from your mech and put on a tank?
I know there is a lot of shock absorption in a tank. However, by design the mech will have more shock absorbtion and you cant put them on a tank because then it would be a mech.
The question is not if two even weapon system can take out each other. The question is what inferior weapon can take out your weapon. For example, can I take out your mech with, say, a hand grenade to the knee?
Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").
And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.
When you wear a mech like a suit (tank as well) it would be a lot different. Also, another benefit the mech has is that it can just pop its arm off and reinsert a new one (or leg, or head, or gun, etc). Of course with some tanks being made with modular parts now they could start doing just that.
I really don't understand your thinking here. I mean, no mater where you put your thrusters you have a roughly 180 degree area where they can push. And this is the same on both the mech and the tank. Also, if you are putting a lot of thrusters on your mech/tank, why not remove the tracks/legs completely?
When you line thrusters up behind each other, they can damage each other and other things. MEchs have less of a problem with that. And why you wouldn't remove them completely is fuel reasons. The thrusters would be for combat engagements and burn a lot of extra fuel.
-
Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").
This is pretty asinine considering that it's harder to just toss a grenade into the crew compartment of a tank (especially if they're expecting a fight and have most of their entry points closed), than it is to throw a grenade into something's path and cause damage to its legs. This is more comparable to tracking a tank. The only difference between a tank getting tracked and a mech getting legged is that the tank is still a fully operational weapons platform that poses a threat to anything attempting to get past it, where the mech is completely disabled outside of its self-guided weaponry (missiles etc)
-
First, wow. I thought this thread was dead.
There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages.
Yes. Because obviously I'm a luddite who doesn't want any new technology, just like anyone who questions the plausibility of the latest fad.
Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.
Condensing? If you're going to insult people, at least make sure you're using the right words.
Let take everything you know about Earth and flush it down the toilet.
Sorry. My head is too big to fit down the pipe.
Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.
I'm not sure I do. Bounding means you're out of contact with the ground and easy to shoot at.
Number 2. A complete planet which is a swamp, and very tall trees.
Sorry a high gaited, lean able, walking suit would be better then a tank.
No, it'll just bog. Swamps are the place where low ground pressure is the most important. Look up the M29.
A planet criss-crossed with consistent steep gullies which require climbing.
A full articulated mech which has the ability to climb like a human being, is better then a tracked tank.
That's really, really hard to do. Also, look up AVLB.
A planet with tank size boulders that cover the whole landscape.
where something that is able to squeeze through narrow gaps is needed instead of a wide flat based weapons platform.
I'm going to call special pleading here. How likely is this?
Again the Mech has to have the same articulation and strength to weigh ratio as a human
Well, the strength to weight ratio has to be much, much higher (square-cube law and all). And articulation is very, very hard. I take it you're not an engineer who spends much time on mechanical things.
Don't forget about shock absorption. If a tank were to take a fall, it would barely have any suspension to absorb the force of landing, the rest of the energy goes to something important (like the suspension or drive shaft) and breaks it. A mech would be able to absorb that force from landing a lot better (not 100% all the time, but a lot better than a tank. And tanks with legs like the Pupa/Shagohod of MGS would be considered mechs).
Square-cube law again. Big things are inherently more vulnerable to falling. Mice can fall from any height and not be injured. Some of this is terminal velocity, some is the aforementioned law.
And on the note of terrain, I've tried explaining that, but he keeps going back to the "ground pressure" thing. Yes, mechs would sink somewhat in a lot of terrains, but when said terrain gets compressed enough, it is hard and stable enough to cross (hence why vehicles and living things leave tracks, they all sink somewhat).
And how much does the terrain need to compress before it becomes stable? A mech is much worse than a tank of similar size/weight, and while walking may be slightly better in terms of movement/ground pressure than a tracked/wheeled vehicle, the increased ground pressure more than makes up for that.
If you look at 10 ton two legged dinosaur or a 4 legged 60 ton dinosaur, if ground pressure was a problem they coul never of grown to such a size.
By that logic, horses should never get stuck in, say, mud, or they wouldn't have grown to the size they are. I'm not claiming that a mech would sink into firm ground at reasonable sizes, but you keep bringing up bad terrain.
Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.
There's a reason tanks pretty much all have a crew of at least three. It's because that's the minimum number to fight them well. And modern tanks are surprisingly durable.
We never had tanks before WW1; we did however have bipedal fighting machines that tended to sink in mud if you loaded them down too much. Roughly 38 million of them were destroyed in WW1.
That's quite good.
Nah, in those specialised environments the solution is a squad of dudes in powered armour and a dropship.
Well, powered armor has its own problems. It's really hard to get enough armor to be useful and still be able to go up stairs.
Just to throw a large spanner in an already unstable set of cogs, there is a blindingly simple solution to the issues of weight for bipedal mechs with regards to low, standard, or high gravity. Just strap on a set of directional thrusters in various places, when you walk over soft muddy ground aim the nozzles towards the ground thereby giving you a perceived reduction in overall weight, when fighting on a small moon aim them upwards to do the opposite. If you went a slight stage further and said they were near omni-directional nozzles then it also fixes your problems of mobility and speed, a well set up system that alters the nozzle direction in relation to what a limb is doing and the speed desired can then happily take off the load from the mechanical moving parts and so on.
Leaving aside trans-newtonian effects, that's a bad plan. Rocket fuels are often nasty, the amount of weight required is non-trivial, and the exhaust is a hazard to everything around you. Let's say we're in an environment with lots of dust. Congratulations. You've now made a giant cloud, so you can't see, and everyone can see where you are.
-
Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive. So the strength of armour plates in Aurora must be equally mind boggling to cope with such impacts.
No, it doesn't have to. It's trivial to prove that Aurora beam weapons are superluminal (otherwise, tiny bits of dodging would make hits impossible), and due to trans-newtonian technobabble, things don't have kinetic energy/momentum. Aurora armor is impressive, but so are aurora weapons.
I may have got the entire wrong end of this discussion in that it may be all about arguing the possibility of actually making and using mechs in the real world as a successor to the modern battle tank. In which case then obviously yes they are a stupid idea that cannot possibly work, but surely that is so obvious due to real world metallurgy that such a debate should be moot. If this is about how plausible they are in the context of Aurora then again it should be obvious that they can be done, and one quite easily with zero space magic needed. Aurora has already given us the required amount of technology to create a usable platform like this, all it takes is creative application of that technology beyond the original intended usage.
Again, though, all of these are things which could be done to a tank, too. What technologies has Aurora added that give a mech a relative advantage over a tank?
Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost.
If it's a choice between a hovermech and a hovertank, the answer is obviously the hovertank. It's simpler, which means it's cheaper and needs less maintenance.
There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design.
The mech has the same problem.
And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area.
And? Look at the base of a modern booster. It's the smallest (or second smallest) side of the rocket. Improved rockets mean the problem is even smaller.
And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.
That's one of the big reasons cited for keeping the loader. During WWII, they discovered that 1 and 2 man turrets didn't work well, because the commander was having to do things besides command, namely either load and shoot, or just load. This distracted him, and made his tank much less efficient than a 3-man turreted tank. These days, we have decent autoloaders, so a 2-man turret approximates the 3-man turret of WWII, maintenance/morale/personnel issues aside.
Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").
Tank designers have been aware of the threat of infantry at close range (in fact, a chunk of metal shoved into the tracks will often immobilize a tank) since at least WWII. They haven't managed to make the tanks infantry-proof yet. What makes you think that your mech will be any better?
When you wear a mech like a suit (tank as well) it would be a lot different.
Why? You can still only look in one direction at once, and you have to split your attention between move, shoot, and think. A modern tank has one person for each job, which means they get done better.
Also, another benefit the mech has is that it can just pop its arm off and reinsert a new one (or leg, or head, or gun, etc). Of course with some tanks being made with modular parts now they could start doing just that.
That's not really a differential advantage to mechs. Doing that is really, really hard. Theoretically, it's easier to do with mechs, but there is the problem that for a given weight, you have a lot more vulnerable surface area, which means the limbs are easily damaged.
When you line thrusters up behind each other, they can damage each other and other things. MEchs have less of a problem with that. And why you wouldn't remove them completely is fuel reasons. The thrusters would be for combat engagements and burn a lot of extra fuel.
Well, if we have trans-newtonian tech, not so much. But even granting you the fuel, you fit the tank with lightweight road/minor offroad wheels instead of full tracks. If the going gets really bad, you fly. Also, tracks are much, much simpler mechanically than legs. Probably lighter, too.
-
Well now I am just totally confused, is this thread an argument to:
1. Debate the possibility that a mech could be build based on real world history and technology (I sincerely hope five pages haven't been generated on this one).
2. Debate on if a mech is possible from within the confines of Aurora and the tech involved in the game.
3. Debate on which is better two legs or two tracks (there was an Orwellian joke there somewhere I just couldn't find it).
Now I personally won't even look at #1 since the concept is madness with a capital Cthulu. Looking at #2 though is simple as you can happily come up with hundreds of ways a mech can work, you simply need to have enough power generation and the right sort of metallurgy. Both of these are in abundance in a trans newtonian universe. But the idea of #3 seems a really strange thing to try and argue the merits of, simply because it is debating an arms race and the entire point of one of those is that one side does something to render their opponent impotent on the field.
Yes a tank is generally the obvious solution to ground battle for all the benefits it has, though a mech could be argued to be sacrificing some of that brute force for versatility (a mech could for example step quickly over an obstacle, or could also lift large equipment in place ala Ripley in her loader). But then you simply move to create a hover tank, and so you create a hover mech, a tank becomes a gunship and a mech becomes Optimus Prime. In short there is no real winning concept simply because Aurora is far too flexible in what can be achieved with TN technology and materials.
So yeah I am a bit baffled as to what this thread was trying to do at the beginning and moreso what it is at this time, it seems like there are points crossing between each of the above ideas which could well be why it is about as successful as a G8 summit at arriving at a point.
-
Well now I am just totally confused, is this thread an argument to:
1. Debate the possibility that a mech could be build based on real world history and technology (I sincerely hope five pages haven't been generated on this one).
2. Debate on if a mech is possible from within the confines of Aurora and the tech involved in the game.
3. Debate on which is better two legs or two tracks (there was an Orwellian joke there somewhere I just couldn't find it).
Yes. ;D
Now I personally won't even look at #1 since the concept is madness with a capital Cthulu.
That's quite a good line.
Looking at #2 though is simple as you can happily come up with hundreds of ways a mech can work, you simply need to have enough power generation and the right sort of metallurgy. Both of these are in abundance in a trans newtonian universe.
The problem is that you can apply the same techs to tanks, and it's hard to see what technologies would give mechs more of a benefit.
So yeah I am a bit baffled as to what this thread was trying to do at the beginning and moreso what it is at this time, it seems like there are points crossing between each of the above ideas which could well be why it is about as successful as a G8 summit at arriving at a point.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that arriving at a point is the reason for the exercise. To some extent, I'm just here because it's fun. And to some extent, to defend the position that a mech is not likely to be a good combat vehicle under any circumstances absent very, very precise special pleading, which is not a good general reason to build them.
-
I believe the only correct response to it all is.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cryptidz/images/6/6b/Aliens-meme.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150822174323)
-
There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages. Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.
I looked at this again. I'm sorry about whatever I may have done to get you boiling over, but that was no reason to misspell my name.
-
First, wow. I thought this thread was dead.
Yes. Because obviously I'm a luddite who doesn't want any new technology, just like anyone who questions the plausibility of the latest fad. Condensing? If you're going to insult people, at least make sure you're using the right words.
Hell NO! Spelling ####! <Smile>. Do not play the validate your argument by a spelling/grammar test, I am not playing that game (because I will lose, I am terrible at spelling and grammar, but not bad at everything else <smile>. I found your posts to others opinions to be condescending (happy) that is what got me fired up. But calmer now.
I am sorry, but I think the greatest combat weapon platform, is a bipedal, AKA the human being. Now if you give that human being an armour exoskeleton, to protect it from small arms and a weapon that is capable of engagement range and that human being witht he same fluid of movement as human does without the suit. Then IMHO it would be better than a tank as a weapons platform, the articulation and view and movement responsiveness to acquire and engage a target would be far faster then a metal box with a rotating turret.
Now the size of that armour exoskeleton, may only be double that of a human to deploy a weapon system capable of knocking out that coffin box. If that platform has the ability to climb, step over objects, crawl, surprise and flip over your turtle tank, in close combat, grab the turret gun in urban combat and bend it.
yeah you may have straight speed and possible range on the mech, but put that into a urban or close quarters environment. My money is on the Mech you can have your turtle.
-
Well now I am just totally confused, is this thread an argument to:
1. Debate the possibility that a mech could be build based on real world history and technology (I sincerely hope five pages haven't been generated on this one).
2. Debate on if a mech is possible from within the confines of Aurora and the tech involved in the game.
3. Debate on which is better two legs or two tracks (there was an Orwellian joke there somewhere I just couldn't find it).
Now I personally won't even look at #1 since the concept is madness with a capital Cthulu. Looking at #2 though is simple as you can happily come up with hundreds of ways a mech can work, you simply need to have enough power generation and the right sort of metallurgy. Both of these are in abundance in a trans newtonian universe. But the idea of #3 seems a really strange thing to try and argue the merits of, simply because it is debating an arms race and the entire point of one of those is that one side does something to render their opponent impotent on the field.
Yes a tank is generally the obvious solution to ground battle for all the benefits it has, though a mech could be argued to be sacrificing some of that brute force for versatility (a mech could for example step quickly over an obstacle, or could also lift large equipment in place ala Ripley in her loader). But then you simply move to create a hover tank, and so you create a hover mech, a tank becomes a gunship and a mech becomes Optimus Prime. In short there is no real winning concept simply because Aurora is far too flexible in what can be achieved with TN technology and materials.
So yeah I am a bit baffled as to what this thread was trying to do at the beginning and moreso what it is at this time, it seems like there are points crossing between each of the above ideas which could well be why it is about as successful as a G8 summit at arriving at a point.
My understand it closer to point 3 and with a bit of point 2, definitely not point 1. However point one is being brought up to validate arguments. It all very simple really. I think <smile>
As for point 1 current technology hell no, future technology in about 500 years I think yes, by that time we will already have advanced in robotics to that stage, the question being would you need a pilot considering AI will be 100 time better. It will of course start out as human size but then get better to accommodate weapon platforms, but I could not see it be worth anything bigger then double a human size.
-
This whole bogging thing, thinking a mech would be worse in a bog is incorrect
What can a Mech do that a tank cannot, it can lay down and still get forward momentum by using it arms and feet, much like a human . So it may sink then it would hit a form of solid ground at some point. When that solid ground is too deep so it will fall forward, and then use arms and legs to extract itself. What will a tracked do when it get bogged oh yeah wait for it recovery vehicle to pull it out.
I am really not sure what your mech looks like in your head or the ground clearance it has over a tank, but I am imagine mine to have more ground clearance then a track vehicle. Even swamp at some point has a hard bottom, also extracting a foot out of the ground to move forward after hitting solid ground, take less effort then a tracked tank.
Let look at the War or the World mechs, they hard three legs, are you telling me that it would get bogged, with those narrow spindly legs, imo that the type of mech I would be sending to a swamp world not tanks.
I know this was a joke, but let call humans those 38 million mech that died in the mud in WW1 they were at the hands of other million of mechs, tracked or wheeled due to numbers did cause many deaths. Also those mechs aka human traversed the grounds where those tracked/wheeled could not go. My money still on the mech in wet/mud terrain. So I felt it was not a good point for tanks.
-
Well, powered armor has its own problems. It's really hard to get enough armor to be useful and still be able to go up stairs.
I figure power armour in real life is going to be used less for making the infantryman protected like a tank and more like making him armed like one. Armour-wise, I don't imagine power armour (if actually genuinely trialled today) would give that much protection over the armour that infantry usually wear aside from having greater coverage. One big benefit though is that you can use the exoskeleton to put far heavier guns on the guy, and the optics to successfully engage targets with them without need for a second man to spot for you.
With stairs though, it really depends. If I'm going to be using powered armour I'm going to probably make all of my buildings and fortifications out of fairly solid stuff to make up for it, so defensively we're okay, and offensively it mostly depends on whether or not he's using it as well.
-
With stairs though, it really depends. If I'm going to be using powered armour I'm going to probably make all of my buildings and fortifications out of fairly solid stuff to make up for it, so defensively we're okay, and offensively it mostly depends on whether or not he's using it as well.
What? Can you imagine the government setting a mandate that all homes and offices have to upgrade their stairs to let supersoldiers use them?
-
I actually cant imagine highly advanced armies caring that much about cities in this context. If you are fighting enemies that are wearing nuke proof plating then you aren't really going to notice concrete structures or whatever.
-
Hell NO! Spelling ####! <Smile>. Do not play the validate your argument by a spelling/grammar test, I am not playing that game (because I will lose, I am terrible at spelling and grammar, but not bad at everything else <smile>. I found your posts to others opinions to be condescending (happy) that is what got me fired up. But calmer now.
I wasn't invalidating your argument based on bad spelling. I just found the malpropism amusing.
I am sorry, but I think the greatest combat weapon platform, is a bipedal, AKA the human being. Now if you give that human being an armour exoskeleton, to protect it from small arms and a weapon that is capable of engagement range and that human being witht he same fluid of movement as human does without the suit. Then IMHO it would be better than a tank as a weapons platform, the articulation and view and movement responsiveness to acquire and engage a target would be far faster then a metal box with a rotating turret.
That's actually a really good insight into the mind of the meca believer, but I don't think it holds up. Big things are slow because they are big, and it's really hard to make them move fast and fluidly. Tank turrets slew at the rate they do because it's the best mechanical compromise. If you get better mechanisms for your mecha, I can put them in my tank, too.
Now the size of that armour exoskeleton, may only be double that of a human to deploy a weapon system capable of knocking out that coffin box.
Have you ever heard of the Javelin missile? You don't need an armored exoskeleton to deploy that, and yet it hasn't made the tank obsolete.
If that platform has the ability to climb, step over objects, crawl, surprise and flip over your turtle tank, in close combat, grab the turret gun in urban combat and bend it.
The last two are really big asks. Look at armored recovery vehicles. They're not small and dainty. This mech shrinks or grows as needed for your argument. Sketch one size, and we can do actual work on it.
yeah you may have straight speed and possible range on the mech, but put that into a urban or close quarters environment. My money is on the Mech you can have your turtle.
I'll gladly take that bet. You can have your awkward vehicles.
This whole bogging thing, thinking a mech would be worse in a bog is incorrect
What can a Mech do that a tank cannot, it can lay down and still get forward momentum by using it arms and feet, much like a human . So it may sink then it would hit a form of solid ground at some point. When that solid ground is too deep so it will fall forward, and then use arms and legs to extract itself. What will a tracked do when it get bogged oh yeah wait for it recovery vehicle to pull it out.
I'm having trouble seeing how this would work. People work on a rather different scale from your proposed mechs. And a mech that's mired in mud is a really good target for anyone with an ATGM. So's a bogged tank, but I would generally try to avoid such places.
I am really not sure what your mech looks like in your head or the ground clearance it has over a tank, but I am imagine mine to have more ground clearance then a track vehicle. Even swamp at some point has a hard bottom, also extracting a foot out of the ground to move forward after hitting solid ground, take less effort then a tracked tank.
And that's why it's easy to move through waist-deep mud. Oh, wait. It isn't.
There's a reason why swamps are generally not militarily useful terrain for anybody. It's too hard for infantry to move through them, much less vehicles. We have made vehicles which work better than people in swamps, but they didn't see much use.
Let look at the War or the World mechs, they hard three legs, are you telling me that it would get bogged, with those narrow spindly legs, imo that the type of mech I would be sending to a swamp world not tanks.
No, you don't get to praise bipedal mechs in one post, then switch to tripedals in the next. Pick one.
I know this was a joke, but let call humans those 38 million mech that died in the mud in WW1 they were at the hands of other million of mechs, tracked or wheeled due to numbers did cause many deaths. Also those mechs aka human traversed the grounds where those tracked/wheeled could not go. My money still on the mech in wet/mud terrain. So I felt it was not a good point for tanks.
You are aware that the earliest tanks were explicitly built for the exact terrain in question, right? Yes, they did sometimes bog, but they were still tremendously useful. I can't see a scaled bipedal form working better.
I figure power armour in real life is going to be used less for making the infantryman protected like a tank and more like making him armed like one.
That's a point I've never seen brought up. That said, there's a big gap between modern infantry and tanks.
Armour-wise, I don't imagine power armour (if actually genuinely trialled today) would give that much protection over the armour that infantry usually wear aside from having greater coverage.
Actually, the problem appears even when you limit it to armor equivalent to that worn by soldiers today. I did my scaling from existing armor plates.
One big benefit though is that you can use the exoskeleton to put far heavier guns on the guy, and the optics to successfully engage targets with them without need for a second man to spot for you.
The advantage to the second man is that he's another pair of eyes hooked up to another brain.
With stairs though, it really depends. If I'm going to be using powered armour I'm going to probably make all of my buildings and fortifications out of fairly solid stuff to make up for it, so defensively we're okay, and offensively it mostly depends on whether or not he's using it as well.
But why would you bother? The other side loads up with slightly heavier weapons, rendering all the money you spent on improved armor useless.
What? Can you imagine the government setting a mandate that all homes and offices have to upgrade their stairs to let supersoldiers use them?
:D
I actually cant imagine highly advanced armies caring that much about cities in this context. If you are fighting enemies that are wearing nuke proof plating then you aren't really going to notice concrete structures or whatever.
How would that even work?
-
What? Can you imagine the government setting a mandate that all homes and offices have to upgrade their stairs to let supersoldiers use them?
I can imagine that no problem at all. It is not that different from all the other mandates that a government sets.
In general, I think people dont understand what a tank is designed to do. A tank (or rather, a tracked vehicle) is basicly a gun delivery platform made for off-road usage. A tank is incredibly wasteful on any surface that can support things such as wheels. So places such as swamps are actually a tanks home ground since what you need to do to traverse the area is what the tank does naturally ie spread its weight as much as possible.
A human, in contrast, is designed to be able to do a decent speed at an incredibly low energy cost. A fit human can jog for days with little rest. We are the only specie that can hunt by following the prey until it is to exhausted to defend itself. Something that, imo, is rather awesome (in all the meanings of the word).
If you can copy this in a mech you could have a force that is capable of independent action for a lot longer then a tank will ever be as long as the ground can support it. Heck, if you then give that mech a bicycle (another thing that has insanely good efficiency) and you would have speed as well.
Also, you can, today, with present tech, build a mech as long as it has more then 6 legs.
I actually cant imagine highly advanced armies caring that much about cities in this context. If you are fighting enemies that are wearing nuke proof plating then you aren't really going to notice concrete structures or whatever.
You care about the infrastructure, the ability to move and shelter men and supplies.
-
Wait, are you really suggestin a mech on a bicycle?
-
No but the principles of movement and economy.
And yes, the entire point of a tank is to be a gun platform that is decently well protected. It's also not meant to operate on its own but as part of a combined arms force - as is every other branch of the armed forces. Also, a tank can hide in terrain, a Mech can't. Well, it can but it becomes way more difficult when you're that tall.
-
And yes, the entire point of a tank is to be a gun platform that is decently well protected. It's also not meant to operate on its own but as part of a combined arms force - as is every other branch of the armed forces. Also, a tank can hide in terrain, a Mech can't. Well, it can but it becomes way more difficult when you're that tall.
Have you not seen the fancy armor they are testing now? Just slap some optical camouflage (something else being worked on now) on that and you won't see that until its too late. Now put that on a mech, how hard would that be?
I've seen a better video of this somewhere where it turned into a family van on thermals as it drove around
-
Wait, are you really suggestin a mech on a bicycle?
Rule of cool, hell yeah. Practically? Just give it wheels from the start instead. Though then you turn it into a wheeled tank instead.
Have you not seen the fancy armor they are testing now? Just slap some optical camouflage (something else being worked on now) on that and you won't see that until its too late. Now put that on a mech, how hard would that be?
I've seen a better video of this somewhere where it turned into a family van on thermals as it drove around
About as hard as putting it on a tank. Thing is, everything else being equal, it is easier to hide a small thing then a big thing.
-
In general, I think people dont understand what a tank is designed to do. A tank (or rather, a tracked vehicle) is basicly a gun delivery platform made for off-road usage. A tank is incredibly wasteful on any surface that can support things such as wheels. So places such as swamps are actually a tanks home ground since what you need to do to traverse the area is what the tank does naturally ie spread its weight as much as possible.
Sort of. Most tanks/tracked AFVs aren't that mobile in serious swamps. I'm not sure I'd call them incredibly wasteful. Yes, if you're only going to be fighting in areas with reasonably stable ground, you're better off using wheels, but military operations tend to involve a lot of mud. Tracked vehicles tend to be a bit less mobile than people over soft ground, but much better than wheels. There are exceptions where tracks are better than people (M29 Weasel), but they're rare.
A human, in contrast, is designed to be able to do a decent speed at an incredibly low energy cost. A fit human can jog for days with little rest. We are the only specie that can hunt by following the prey until it is to exhausted to defend itself. Something that, imo, is rather awesome (in all the meanings of the word).
"Incredibly low energy cost" is taking things a bit too far. Yes, humans are pursuit hunters, and we have good endurance, but that's different from 'low energy cost'. The basic efficiency of human locomotion isn't, IIRC, that different from, say, horses or other running animals. Evolution wants efficient locomotion, because that means you need less food.
If you can copy this in a mech you could have a force that is capable of independent action for a lot longer then a tank will ever be as long as the ground can support it. Heck, if you then give that mech a bicycle (another thing that has insanely good efficiency) and you would have speed as well.
Actually, the bicycle is the disproof of this point. A human on a bicycle is much more efficient than a human walking. Something like a factor of 4, IIRC. (Interestingly, this is about the difference in efficiency between a human swimming and paddling a canoe, too.) A tracked vehicle is going to fall somewhere in the middle.
Also, you can, today, with present tech, build a mech as long as it has more then 6 legs.
And yet nobody bothers. I wonder why...
Have you not seen the fancy armor they are testing now? Just slap some optical camouflage (something else being worked on now) on that and you won't see that until its too late. Now put that on a mech, how hard would that be?
I'm not sure that would work very well. Thermo says you have to get rid of the engine's waste heat somehow. It's basically impossible to hide that in all cases for long periods. Yes, if you're standing in a river it can be done, but it doesn't help when you're in a desert. Or the arctic.
-
Sort of. Most tanks/tracked AFVs aren't that mobile in serious swamps. I'm not sure I'd call them incredibly wasteful. Yes, if you're only going to be fighting in areas with reasonably stable ground, you're better off using wheels, but military operations tend to involve a lot of mud. Tracked vehicles tend to be a bit less mobile than people over soft ground, but much better than wheels. There are exceptions where tracks are better than people (M29 Weasel), but they're rare.
I think we are talking about different things, or using different definitions of the word. I did my military service in northern sweden and there is plenty of marshes and swamps around that we had to move through. And to move through that in full gear on foot is incredibly slow and tedious while the different tracked vehicles hardly noticed as long as the driver was not stupid.
"Incredibly low energy cost" is taking things a bit too far. Yes, humans are pursuit hunters, and we have good endurance, but that's different from 'low energy cost'. The basic efficiency of human locomotion isn't, IIRC, that different from, say, horses or other running animals. Evolution wants efficient locomotion, because that means you need less food.
Actually, the bicycle is the disproof of this point. A human on a bicycle is much more efficient than a human walking. Something like a factor of 4, IIRC. (Interestingly, this is about the difference in efficiency between a human swimming and paddling a canoe, too.) A tracked vehicle is going to fall somewhere in the middle.
Actually we are, as long as you are comparing walking up to a slow jog. Since most other mammals are set up for efficient running.
But I seriously doubt that a track is going to fall in the middle of those two.
-
I think we are talking about different things, or using different definitions of the word. I did my military service in northern sweden and there is plenty of marshes and swamps around that we had to move through. And to move through that in full gear on foot is incredibly slow and tedious while the different tracked vehicles hardly noticed as long as the driver was not stupid.
I think those are the specialty vehicles I was referring to. I used the M29 as an example because I'm not all that familiar with Swedish military vehicles. Did you do it with tanks?
Actually we are, as long as you are comparing walking up to a slow jog. Since most other mammals are set up for efficient running.
I'm not an expert in biomechanics, and I'm working from memory of one book I glanced through a couple times, so it's quite possible you're right. In any case, I'm not sure how much of this efficiency is in the basic bipedal locomotion, and how much is in the finer physiological details, which aren't relevant to the case at hand because I'm positive that the best solution for a mech of any size is not the same as for a human.
But I seriously doubt that a track is going to fall in the middle of those two.
You doubt a tracked vehicle is going to be more efficient than a person walking? Right. Time for some math. According to wiki, a 68 kg person walking at 4 km/hr gets the energy equivalent of 360 mpg, which we can then normalize to 24,480 mpg*kg. (Yes, I know I'm mixing imperial and metric units, but I just don't care. We're interested in relative magnitudes here.) The Abrams (also wiki) has a fuel capacity of 500 gallons, an operational range of 265 miles, and weighs 61,676 kg. So we get 0.53 mpg, and 32,688 mpg*kg. This is 33.5% better than the person, at significantly higher speed. And I believe that 'operational range' isn't really a good metric for the same sort of conditions that the person is in, namely good ground and an economical speed.
So the bottom line is that if you really care about the environment, you'll take a tank instead of walking, because it's more energy-efficient. ;D
-
I think those are the specialty vehicles I was referring to. I used the M29 as an example because I'm not all that familiar with Swedish military vehicles. Did you do it with tanks?
I was in the signal corp and mostly drove one of these (BV 206) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206) loaded with communication equipment around. A quick google says that they are similar to your example. Other units in the company used MT-LB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB) and CV90 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90) as well as some terrain cars and trucks. Sadly I never got to drive anything but my 206 but from what I saw during basic driving training they had no problem.
As for tanks, we had Leo 2s but mostly for the bigger exercises and we never had any basic training together. Only really saw them when we where both in for rest or supplies and since the exercises only really happen during winter, well they can handle snow at least. Those I talked to said that you had to be a bit careful but as long as you dont stop it is probably fine.
-
I was in the signal corp and mostly drove one of these (BV 206) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206) loaded with communication equipment around. A quick google says that they are similar to your example. Other units in the company used MT-LB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB) and CV90 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90) as well as some terrain cars and trucks. Sadly I never got to drive anything but my 206 but from what I saw during basic driving training they had no problem.
As for tanks, we had Leo 2s but mostly for the bigger exercises and we never had any basic training together. Only really saw them when we where both in for rest or supplies and since the exercises only really happen during winter, well they can handle snow at least. Those I talked to said that you had to be a bit careful but as long as you dont stop it is probably fine.
Interesting. The BV 206 is exactly what I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember the name (or that it was originally Swedish). I'm not sure I'd want to take a Leo 2 (or an M1) into a swamp, but it looks like I underestimated their mobility there. I may poke around and see if I can find documents on this.
-
Bv-206 and it's improved Finnish borthers, Nasu-110 and Nasu-140, are amazing pieces of tech because they don't have to plow through snow, they hardly sink in it as they are so light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Nasu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Nasu)
But you cannot get the same low ground pressure with an actual tank. However, modern tanks are pretty reliable and go through most rough terrain. Swamp is not a problem unless it's very deep - as long as engine is not flooded, the tank will just plow through soft ground. Soft sand is actually a bigger hazard, as it can pile up between the track and the hull, eventually pushing the track off. I've seen it happen, not a pretty sight.
-
Of course there is a solution that resolves everyone's issues at the same time. You have a tank to start with, but allow the weapon systems to be mounted on folding supports so if needed it could for example lift a weapon above the height of a building and still fire while in cover. Then just take that a stage further and build in articulated supports that can fold out to lift the entire vehicle off the ground in cases where needed, say like crossing a river when it is too deep for tracks and you do not have time to wait for a bridge, or simply crossing terrain that has undulations far to uneven for tracks to cope with (something like a boulder field).
Problem solved since what you actually have is now a mech, that also is a tank and can perform the roles of both. If we had the metallurgy technology and ability to create speed and agility of movement then I could see it as a natural evolution of a tank as they would no longer need to ask for things like bridges or airlift support for most tasks. Yet keep all the functions of a tank with it's inherit benefits.