145 replies to this topic

[The Wandering Jew]

tskasa1, on 10 Sep 2008, 0:40, said:

...
P.S.: Please don't bring up RPGs as any self-respecting mech would have enough armor to take barrage after barrage of them, or at least a defense system, save maybe a recon one, but then again, they would just run away from the men with grenades on poles.

No. As long as vehicles evolve, so does anti-vehicles, and that includes RPGs. Simple law of Darwinian Natural Selection.

[Sasori_Zero]

Quote

Uhm... Ahm... do you honestly think that the militaries of the world give a flying fruitcake about the environment other than what its changes might mean for their mission statement? The reason they're looking for new ways to fuel vehicles is because petrol and diesel (all oil-derived products for that matter) are becoming more expensive and most of all harder to secure a supply of. Thus the U.S. Air Force's recent change to slightly more environmentally-friendly 'green fuels' - to alleviate a bit their utter dependence on the Middle East. If you can make something run reliably and cheaply, no-one in the military really cares whether it runs cleanly or not. And any technology that can propel a mech (by generating impressive amounts of electrical power, one would assume; it's not exactly going to use clockwork gears to make the legs move after all) can also power an electric engine in a tank. Tweaking a tank to include batteries instead of fuel tanks and an electric engine would be an awful lot easier to do than building a mech to use such a system from the ground up. I just don't understand this mindset you have when it comes to technology - the tank is not an inflexible piece of equipment, and can be used in almost every ground combat environment in one role or another, albeit with varying levels of success; but it comes down to this.
The tank has evolved with the progress of technology over the past 95-odd years since it was invented. There is no reason to assume it will not do the same as long as it still has a valid role to play on the battlefield, and it has been stated again and again why this is the case. A simple design, long-ranged firepower, a low target profile, stability, the ability to cover many types of soft terrain, battle-proven effectiveness, the lack of research and development costs and the ability to be heavily armoured across virtually its entire surface are all advantages it has that a mech does not; combined with the technology that would make a mech possible, it retains them.
Mechs are possible. But they're not feasible as battle units.

CommanderJB I brought up clean fuels because; sure the military doesn't have to give a damn about clean fuel. But what happens when the Government that controls that military banns fossil fuels? or better yet the parts driving your tanks or vehicles then what? The military will care

Quote

Internal Batteries or Clean Fuel?

Where would the source of the internal batteries come from? Fossil Fuels. You WILL need electricity generated FROM fossil fuels to get that "internal battery".

Clean fuel? Heh, biomass or something?

And where would that battery power's electricity originate from? FOSSIL FUELS.


As many others have stated, pneumatics and hydraulics. What, your "assault rifle" ran out of ammo and you need to reload? Grab a magazine from somewhere and stick it back up to the rifle?


I can assure you, a sniper team can render that mech unoperable. (A single sniper is enough to render an entire airbase inoperable, btw.)


And of course, you burn fossils TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY. Electricity makes tanks work. Aircraft. Ships. I did I mention tanks?

There are other ways to retrieve electric power than burn fossil fuels. There is a BY PRODUCT FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. With 7 different ways to retrieve electricity to charge that battery, i'm sure we could use a different one than burn gasoline.

On a side note I did mention a type of metal pack that can be fitted on mechs to carry ammunition, weaponry and other tools.

Quote

Its like 8 vs 1, and we still can't convince him of the infeasiblility of combat mechs

No its not just Bipedal Mechs the eight neigh Sayers believe that no mech is possible. Regardless how many reasonings or corrections made. But then again all world changing inventions are met with disbelief.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 11 September 2008 - 00:40.

[TWPC920]

sigh... this thread has taken up too much of my time... i'm out guys >.>

[Sasori_Zero]

Reasoning is becoming too much of a headache for me also so just say what ever you think about the idea. I believe what I believe no need to change it.

[CommanderJB]

Sasori_Zero, on 11 Sep 2008, 10:39, said:

CommanderJB I brought up clean fuels because; sure the military doesn't have to give a damn about clean fuel. But what happens when the Government that controls that military banns fossil fuels? or better yet the parts driving your tanks or vehicles then what? The military will care

If a government ever tried to ban petrol and combustion engines, do you know what would happen? That government would fall overnight. Oil and its derivatives underlie the entire global economy. They are part of virtually every single thing we do. Our entire civilisation depends utterly on oil to survive. We use it to transport food, make plastics, fuel vehicles, make everything for perfume to heating fuel and back again. Not only would a government never ban oil, they wouldn't want to - they rely on it more than anyone else, with plane flights, goods and services, construction and everything else being powered by it. To remove ban oil from society would quite literally mean banning your citizens from eating - how exactly are they going to stock the supermarkets if the farms are hundreds of kilometres away without a petrol-powered truck? How are you even going to keep the lights on? No single technology ever can or will replace the utter dependence on the convenience of oil and oil derivatives, especially for transport, possessed by our society. In order to remove our civilisation's dependence on oil, we first need to change one of its very base platforms. So the military has absolutely nothing to worry about; as long as they can ensure a supply as cheaply as possible, the government will happily pay for it because there is no other option for powering the current generation, and the next and probably the one after that, of military technology. Nothing can ever match the sheer convenience of oil; any of its replacements will inevitably be large, complicated, expensive or infeasible, and probably all four.

Edited by CommanderJB, 11 September 2008 - 02:37.

[TWPC920]

CommanderJB, on 11 Sep 2008, 2:34, said:

Sasori_Zero, on 11 Sep 2008, 10:39, said:

CommanderJB I brought up clean fuels because; sure the military doesn't have to give a damn about clean fuel. But what happens when the Government that controls that military banns fossil fuels? or better yet the parts driving your tanks or vehicles then what? The military will care

If a government ever tried to ban petrol and combustion engines, do you know what would happen? That government would fall overnight. Oil and its derivatives underlie the entire global economy. They are part of virtually every single thing we do. Our entire civilization depends utterly on oil to survive. We use it to transport food, make plastics, fuel vehicles, make everything for perfume to heating fuel and back again. Not only would a government never ban oil, they wouldn't want to - they rely on it more than anyone else, with plane flights, goods and services, construction and everything else being powered by it. To remove ban oil from society would quite literally mean banning your citizens from eating - how exactly are they going to stock the supermarkets if the farms are hundreds of kilometres away without a petrol-powered truck? How are you even going to keep the lights on? No single technology ever can or will replace the utter dependence on the convenience of oil and oil derivatives, especially for transport, possessed by our society. In order to remove our civilisation's dependence on oil, we first need to change one of its very base platforms. So the military has absolutely nothing to worry about; as long as they can ensure a supply as cheaply as possible, the government will happily pay for it because there is no other option for powering the current generation, and the next and probably the one after that, of military technology. Nothing can ever match the sheer convenience of oil; any of its replacements will inevitably be large, complicated, expensive or infeasible, and probably all four.

fix'd

[Pav:3d]

TWPC920, on 11 Sep 2008, 5:23, said:

CommanderJB, on 11 Sep 2008, 2:34, said:

Sasori_Zero, on 11 Sep 2008, 10:39, said:

CommanderJB I brought up clean fuels because; sure the military doesn't have to give a damn about clean fuel. But what happens when the Government that controls that military banns fossil fuels? or better yet the parts driving your tanks or vehicles then what? The military will care

civilization

fix'd

That "s-to-z" fix depends on where in the world he is typing from, and I think in Australia they use the s

anyways! as they were saying...

[TWPC920]

hum, my bad Commander JB, i never knew australians used a diff spelling >.<

OT, i also believe that it will take a long time before oil will be replaced

[Dr. Strangelove]

Really the only place I see bipedal robotic vehicles being useful is in warehouses, where they may provide a much more maneuverable replacement for the forklift. Also factories and any sort of place were heavy lifting and moving are involved.

[Destiny]

Civilian-use Bipedal Walking Meches are possible are...at least feasible.


Military-use Bipedal Militarized Weaponized Walking Jumping Ducking Flying Hopping Tumbling Meches? Not.

[Lucid]

Zero, the reasons that people keep saying no to your idea is because mechs are too vulnerable, large and heavy, complex, expensive, and above all REDUNDANT. i will review these points one by one.

1. vulnerability-mechs will not have heavier armor than tanks. the reason is because of the joints. the joints can only hold so much weight. you can't armor said joints or else they can't move. take out the leg joints, and the mech WILL fall. you can't say "well, mechs will have heavier armor then tanks." No they will not. tanks will use this special armor of yours before mechs will. also, they can't put more armor on because it would screw up the balance.

2.Size/weight-hitting your mech is literally like hitting a barn door. it is too tall to be concealed effectively, and has very large blind spots. as for weight, tanks are already heavy enough, but your proposed mech would be even heavier. so heavy that they will sink into the mud, or crush roadways. tanks don't sink into the mud or crush roads because of their tracks. these tracks are very large in terms of surface area, thus distributing that weight. look at it this way, when you walk through snow with snowshoes (the tank treads) you don't sink. when you take off the shoes like the mech, you would sink.

3.complexity-for this explanation, i will look at an actual time in history, WW2. The Allies (in this example, allies refers to US,UK basically) used the M4 sherman tank, while the Germans used the Tiger tank. The Tiger was a much more powerful tank, but was extremely complex. the Sherman was very reliable, and was built in HUGE numbers. Because of the Tigers complexity, very few were built. so in a 1 on 1 fight, the Tiger would win. it was rarely one-on-one though. most of the time it was 4-on-one. as a result, the Tiger might take out 3 of the 4 tanks, but all it takes is one shell from behind, and POW! no more big-bad tiger.

4.cost-In addition to the price of building ONE mech, you also pay for R&D for the mech, R&D for the weapons, building the weapons, building the equipment needed to build the mech and weapons, delivering the weapons, AMMO, training the crew, ect.

5.redundancy-honestly, what point is there to have a mech that can do everything? as Dauth said, "Jack of all trades, master of none." also, the tank already is GOOD ENOUGH. I have the same opinion about the F-22, but that's another thread.

in conclusion, the military WILL NOT spend all this money on improving an already good weapon. (hopefully)






also, how do you know that tanks won't be using batteries in the future?



edit-correction
edit2-Ninja'd for grammar and spelling

Edited by Viper, 15 September 2008 - 00:17.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Viper, on 11 Sep 2008, 22:03, said:

3.complexity-for this explanation, i will look at an actual time in history, WW2. The Allies (in this example, allies refers to US,UK basically) used the M4 sherman tank, while the Germans used the Tiger tank. The Tiger was a much more powerful tank, but was extremly complex. the Sherman was very reliable, and was built in HUGE numbers. Because of the Tigers complexity, very few were built. so in a 1 on 1 fight, the Tiger would win. it was rarly one-on-one though. most of the time it was 4-on-one. as a result, the Tiger might take out 3 of the 4 tanks, but all it takes is one shell from behind, and POW! no more big-bad tiger.

The Sherman was a rolling deathtrap!

[Sasori_Zero]

On top of that I made more than enough explanation referring to the weight distribution and all that good stuff. Also with the tank you don't have to pay the tank R&D or did I miss something? lol .

[Dr. Strangelove]

Don't even get me started on the software and processing power required to operate the legs.

[Sicarius]

Sasori_Zero, on 11 Sep 2008, 19:25, said:

On top of that I made more than enough explanation referring to the weight distribution and all that good stuff. Also with the tank you don't have to pay the tank R&D or did I miss something? lol .

Maybe that we've been using tanks for 90-ish years....?
The R&D is paid for....?

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 12 September 2008 - 03:28.

[The Wandering Jew]

CommanderJB, on 11 Sep 2008, 10:34, said:

...If a government ever tried to ban petrol and combustion engines, do you know what would happen? That government would fall overnight. Oil and its derivatives underlie the entire global economy. They are part of virtually every single thing we do. Our entire civilisation depends utterly on oil to survive. We use it to transport food, make plastics, fuel vehicles, make everything for perfume to heating fuel and back again. Not only would a government never ban oil, they wouldn't want to - they rely on it more than anyone else, with plane flights, goods and services, construction and everything else being powered by it. ...

Or maybe we can have an example for this scenario. Tiberium-lobbying by Kane himself. Or Fuels of War. Or even perhaps Tom Clancy's: End War.

As stated out (again), mechs are cool for games, not in real scenarios.

[Lucid]

Quote

On top of that I made more than enough explanation referring to the weight distribution and all that good stuff. Also with the tank you don't have to pay the tank R&D or did I miss something? lol

you did? proof NAO.
as for R&D, the tank pretty much is researched. now the only major changes are the design. nowhere near the massive undertaking needed for a mech

[Sasori_Zero]

Read all my posts on page 1 and like the first 4 on page 2.

[Lucid]

okay then. i did and you never mentioned ANYTHING about how it wouldn't sink.

pretty much all you are doing is coming up with technologies that *MIGHT* be available in the future.
by that logic, i can say
"Well, i built a mech that has every modern weapon made, armor that is invincible to anything, untripable, and weighs one ton, can fly and can do anything a tank can, and costs five dollars"

Edited by Viper, 15 September 2008 - 00:22.

[Sicarius]

Hey guys, I found a dead horse! let's beat it with sticks!!

Seriously, Sasori_Zero, you are just grasping at straws. I would like to see a real mech just as much as you (I've even designed my own), but it's just not gonna happen. There is nothing that a mech can do that a tank can't.

[Wizard]

~Doomsday~, on 13 Sep 2008, 19:47, said:

Hey guys, I found a dead horse! let's beat it with sticks!!

Seriously, Sasori_Zero, you are just grasping at straws. I would like to see a real mech just as much as you (I've even designed my own), but it's just not gonna happen. There is nothing that a mech can do that a tank can't.

I think it's almost time for the /argument quote. Seriously Sasori_Zero you aren't getting anywhere here and there is not enough hard proof that it can be achieved. Let's leave this one alone now.