Mech stuff

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by xtothez

Isn't it suspended from the ceiling whilst doing so? I seem to remember to oddly positioned wires in the video.

probably not. most of those tend to be the power cables, hence the need for portable fusion reactors.

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

by the time they get that far with motive technology, I suspect that AI will be far more sophisticated and quite frankly pap all over any human contribution to battles. AI aircraft will be able to withstand far higher G-forces than they do currently since one won't have to worry about bloodflow to the brain, vehicles will be able to deal with multiple targets in a wide range of optical frequencies with far more rapid tracking and targetting. About the only use I see of humans will be up close stuff and assassinations (and even then, one time dispasable devices will probably be able to do these jobs too) mechs are all well and good in cartoons, but I think they will stay there.

The aircraft thing is a good point considering we've already got drones flying around. Funny that we can teach them to fly before we can teach them to walk.

[Luckeh!!!!]

flying is alot easier than walking i reckon

[wu_trax]

who needs mechs or AI-aircrafts if you can have mini-nukes?

[Vermillion]

Assume for a moment that we actually could pull this off. Assume for a moment that we had the technology to make mech-type vehicles that did not fall over when they walked, that could navigate broken ground, that could not be tipped over by a simple push, that we had the ability to power such a machine, keep it functional, deliver it places, pilot it and construct it without it collapsing on itself, that we could arm it effectively: lets assume for a moment we had the technology to do this (which we do not):

Why the hell would we want to?

This modern Palmerson’s folly would be awkward, slow even over open ground, impossible to armour, vulnerable to a dozen kinds of attack, easily impeded (its called a hole), it would be absurdly expensive, have limited traverse/visibility, exceptionally visible and impossible to hide, unable to cross barriers and obstacles, terrible in snow/mud/sand/soft earth, and generally an astonishingly stupid idea.

Tanks are fast (100 kph on open ground) durable, easy to armour (a box), low to the ground and easy to conceal/ dig in, capable of carrying a large weapon with 180 degree traverse, good on all grounds, and in every way FAR superior. And despite all that, the world is rapidly moving away from the era of heavy armour.

Following the inevitable sign-wave of history, anti-tank weapons have become too numerous, too effective and too portable (infantry or air versions) and tanks are quickly becoming obsolete. Rather than going for heavier armour, the world military is moving to lighter, more mobile armour, capable of speed and infantry support. Heavy armour is going the way of the Dodo, and this ‘mech’ concept is in every measurable way inferior to the heavy armour.

So I ask again, I would love to hear just one decent military reason why on earth we would develop such a stupid thing?

[Phang]

because OMG I LIEK ANIME ONE ONE ONE?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

because OMG I LIEK ANIME ONE ONE ONE?

The only reason they're used in anime appears to be that mechs are immune to all attacks from anything but other mechs.

[Baron Morte]

Vermilion made a good Point. Rpgs, arttilhery and heavy armor piercing devices are becoming ludiscrously more eficcient than building heavy expensive tanks.
mrl said that the bigger the mech, the bigger the complications.

What if dog-sized mechs with a regular assault rifle were to be built instead of regular infantry?
You can make them only skeletal, to make it cheaper and faster and also harder to hit. Also it could have 6 legs and the rifle would be on its back, with auto-aim. They could be built in platoons of 6, where just the Alpha-dog is controled by a Human by far away. The others would follow its rules of engagement. If the alpha dog is destroyed, than transmission is automatically shifted to the next dog, following the same rules.
The only problem is to power these things. I presume that they could be extremely agile and fast, and be able to go on any terrain. I would say that it could run as fast as 100kmp. A 4-legged dog runs up to 60kpm (i think). This dog could be powered either by hidrogen cells (the dream of any electrical car) and they would last reasonably I presume.
If well used, even powerfull engines, with the proper architeture, could move these ones. Like the one that powers the new Yamaha r-1. The whole bike weights 180kg, and has a power of 180HP. The engine and its systems weights no more than 90kg.
I digress =/

[Mad cat]

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks and i really dont think a shell can punch through about a meter of armour unless you can get shells to go much faster than they do now ie. develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

and while yes the bigger the thing the easier it is to hit, the bigger it is the more armour it has the larger the feet are and so on. then the weapons, how much power does a Co2 laser require? not much, what can you do with one? cut a building in half in seconds, lighting it on fire as well, then you could cover the thing with such weaponry and things like mass drivers and railguns, missile launchers, although ammo could be problem fairly quickly.

[Crackmonkey]

You forgot the part where current technology comes into that

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

you're either trolling or are very very stupid

I'd like to append 'or has yet to discover the difference between fantasy and reality' to the options.
Think I'll go play MW4: Mercs now...

[Phang]

he's - an - Rper - option - 3 - is - a - certainty

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks and i really dont think a shell can punch through about a meter of armour unless you can get shells to go much faster than they do now ie. develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

Heh for thinking that ANYTHING has a meter of armour. Underground bunkers, maybe. If we're looking at vehicles that are required to MOVE, we're talking more like inches at most.

In addition, who said anything about artillery? Antitank rockets do very well against tanks, HENCE THE NAME.

Originally Posted by Mad cat

then the weapons, how much power does a Co2 laser require? not much, what can you do with one?

If you want to cut through anything more substantial than paper, at any range over a few feet, you're really wanting the output of a large nuclear power station. These tend to be about 20 stories high and weigh quite a bit

Originally Posted by Mad cat

cut a building in half in seconds, lighting it on fire as well

I can categorically state that no laser has ever been used to cut through a building.

Originally Posted by Mad cat

then you could cover the thing with such weaponry and things like mass drivers and railguns, missile launchers, although ammo could be problem fairly quickly.

I think making a railgun into a viable weapon would be a problem fairly quickly too. Also, mass drivers ARE railguns, which rather makes the 'mass drivers and railguns' part redundent.

Originally Posted by xtothez

I'd like to append 'or has yet to discover the difference between fantasy and reality' to the options.

This is probably true, but can be filed under 'stupidity'

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks and i really dont think a shell can punch through about a meter of armour unless you can get shells to go much faster than they do now ie. develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

and while yes the bigger the thing the easier it is to hit, the bigger it is the more armour it has the larger the feet are and so on. then the weapons, how much power does a Co2 laser require? not much, what can you do with one? cut a building in half in seconds, lighting it on fire as well, then you could cover the thing with such weaponry and things like mass drivers and railguns, missile launchers, although ammo could be problem fairly quickly.

God, you RP'ers really have lost touch with reality haven't you?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks and i really dont think a shell can punch through about a meter of armour unless you can get shells to go much faster than they do now ie. develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

and while yes the bigger the thing the easier it is to hit, the bigger it is the more armour it has the larger the feet are and so on. then the weapons, how much power does a Co2 laser require? not much, what can you do with one? cut a building in half in seconds, lighting it on fire as well, then you could cover the thing with such weaponry and things like mass drivers and railguns, missile launchers, although ammo could be problem fairly quickly.

Ok, so when exactly did this absolutely leave the realm of reality? Where to begin...

1 meter thick armour? Are you insane? The largest battleship ever built has maximum external armour thickness of 12.3 inches, or 27 cm. Thats a battleship, 900 feet long. And you want a mech with triple that protection?

So how does this thing stand up? how does it move? What kind of hydrolics would lift the leg of such a beast, and when the leg bends, how would you shift its weight enough to be able to lift the foot? With the weight shifted, how would one leg support the remaining weight?

How do the limbs bend? A meter of armour is fine on flat surfaces, but your mech has articulated limbs. How do they bend? They cannot have a meter of armour over them, so they are instantly vulnerable.

How do you power this beast? This thing will have the weight of a destroyer, but a destroyer's engines take up several huge engine compartments. Speaking of power, you are planning on mounting lasers on it that can cut through a building in seconds. (which dont exist, by the way) so the power cost will be vast just for that.

How does it turn around? how does this monster track a moving target? Each time it moves its arms it is moving dozens of tons of metal, incapable of rapid reaction time and with a huge inertial load.

How does it navigate broken ground? It would sink into earth or mud, even hard ground. It would destroy roads and bridges at that weight, and once sunk even a little it would be unable to lift its feet out, due to all that weight.

What is its top speed? Even ignoring the fact that it sinks into ground with every step, how quickly can it move? 2 or 3 miles an hour?

So now you have this useless thing, and all I need to completely destroy it is to dig a hole in theground and cover it with leaves and branches.

So not only are you talking about imposible technology, but even WITH all that hypothetical technology you still have not given a reason why this thing is better than an equivalent technology tank, which would cost a tiny fraction and be 100 times more useful.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks.

Sorry, there was so much wrong with your post that I was unable to adress it all in my last message.

Actually, Artillery is excellent against armour, capable of destroying or disabling it with a hit or near miss without much difficulty. Hits from shells and such also have an impact effect, which is no big deal when you are a tank, but anything with a high centre of gravity would be knocked over, and like a knight in maximillian plate, would be completely unable to stand up again.

develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

Even if we had this technology, why not ust put it on a tank? What benefit could there be to sticking it on some big walking thing?

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The only reason they're used in anime appears to be that mechs are immune to all attacks from anything but other mechs.

you missed one: they look cool. tanks look positively boring compared to an ARX-7 Arbalest. and they can jump around, and they have needlessly large guns.

personally I think that bionics and cyborgs would be far more useful since they are small and potentially far more agile and powerful and resilient to being shot. quite who would want their brains taking out and putting into a shell though I don't know. even if they did get to do so in a very large factory with creepy background music.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

the armour point is interesting, but like i said these are basically walking fortresses, and quite honestly artillery is very inefective against tanks and i really dont think a shell can punch through about a meter of armour unless you can get shells to go much faster than they do now ie. develop better railguns that fit on a tank, hmf! the gauss rifles are just big mass drivers, heh.

and while yes the bigger the thing the easier it is to hit, the bigger it is the more armour it has the larger the feet are and so on. then the weapons, how much power does a Co2 laser require? not much, what can you do with one? cut a building in half in seconds, lighting it on fire as well, then you could cover the thing with such weaponry and things like mass drivers and railguns, missile launchers, although ammo could be problem fairly quickly.

you are thining along the lines of the Krogoth in Command and Conquer... silly idea. far better would be to make numerous small, fast, efficient devices that swamp your opponents. All I would have to do is get a lump of explosive into a joint and your mech would be fubar..... not to mention all the other points that people have made.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

This modern Palmerson’s folly

palmerson's folly?

[Work_Child]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

So I ask again, I would love to hear just one decent military reason why on earth we would develop such a stupid thing?

because it would take some serious balls to face off against something the size of the 3 story building armed with only a piddly wee rocket in a tube.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Work_Child

because it would take some serious balls to face off against something the size of the 3 story building armed with only a piddly wee rocket in a tube.

Safe in the knowledge that the rocket could easily kill it, and you could easily outmanouver it?

Seriously, one of these things is about as mobile as a building, and not the ones at the start of The Meaning of Life.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

palmerson's folly?

A reference to the Lord Sir Henry Palmerson, who in 1357 attempted to breed men that were 15 feet tall, and then encase them in plate mail a meter thick.

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Krogoth in Command and Conquer

In TA.

Although that game is even more unrealistic than M3chwarrior, which further goes to proving the point. Can someone explain to our friend that these games are meant to be fun, not actually achieveble. Otherwise I fear for any goverment genetics lab where the scientists have played Mario.

edit: what the **** is the point in censoring m3chwarrior? M3chwars isnt even running, let alone any good.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by xtothez

In TA.

Although that game is even more unrealistic than *******rior, which further goes to proving the point. Can someone explain to our friend that these games are meant to be fun, not actually achieveble. Otherwise I fear for any goverment genetics lab where the scientists have played Mario.

Methinks that future has already been fortold in Deus Ex.

'I want my base protected by SHARKS!'

'But sir, the base is three hundred miles inland...'

'Then give them legs you dunderhead! And I want chickens! Chickens that SPIT ACID! AND PAINT THEM GREEN!'

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

'

That sounds more like Austin Powers to me. Although I'm not a Deus Ex fan.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by xtothez

That sounds more like Austin Powers to me. Although I'm not a Deus Ex fan.

Bob Page's base is protected by Greasels (which spit acid, and look like chickens painted green) and Karkians (which are sharks. But with legs.).

The above conversation is the only plausable explanation.

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

you missed one: they look cool. tanks look positively boring compared to an ARX-7 Arbalest. and they can jump around, and they have needlessly large guns.

personally I think that bionics and cyborgs would be far more useful since they are small and potentially far more agile and powerful and resilient to being shot. quite who would want their brains taking out and putting into a shell though I don't know. even if they did get to do so in a very large factory with creepy background music.

who wouldn't

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A reference to the Lord Sir Henry Palmerson, who in 1357 attempted to breed men that were 15 feet tall, and then encase them in plate mail a meter thick.

did it work?

[Crackmonkey]

It probably would be easier to breed 15 foot tall people than it would be to build a manuverable mech that could cut through buildings in seconds and has armor a meter thick.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Crackmonkey

It probably would be easier to breed 15 foot tall people than it would be to build a manuverable mech that could cut through buildings in seconds and has armor a meter thick.

we'd better get cracking then.

[Luckeh!!!!]

Originally Posted by Crackmonkey

It probably would be easier to breed 15 foot tall people than it would be to build a manuverable mech that could cut through buildings in seconds and has armor a meter thick.

1 meter of conventional armour, but it isn't that thick with armour in the future

[roadrunner_0]

i cant believe how ridiculous this thread is getting, that mad cat guy is on crack, i swear to god.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by xtothez

Isn't it suspended from the ceiling whilst doing so? I seem to remember to oddly positioned wires in the video.

from what I could see on Discovery it was walking down a regular outdoors stone stair.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

you missed one: they look cool. tanks look positively boring compared to an ARX-7 Arbalest. and they can jump around, and they have needlessly large guns.

I meant in series context.

'Why would they build mechs in, say, Trouble! Dual Parallel Adventure! (an unbelieveably silly name), if they didn't have some kind of tactical advantage?'

[I'm Not Grimble]

This thread needs more Mech on Mech erotic fanfiction

[pablissimo]

INSERT GIRDER

[Ninja_spammer]

Powered battle armour.

Light,fast,high weapons load,tough and still cool looking.

More feasible than mechs but still more Fi than Sci.

[I'm Not Grimble]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

INSERT GIRDER

i love you

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

INSERT GIRDER

And you try and claim you're not a bender...

[Mad cat]

you ppl obviously think that the entire concept is ****ed up and impossible but iv heard several theories that are even worse, that you people would probably defend.

now, tell me just how impossible this thing would be
http://www.kent.net/robotech/mecha/rdf/macii.gif
when you look at it for about three seconds you realise that this thing is impossible to knock over and that it must have incredible firepower

"If you want to cut through anything more substantial than paper, at any range over a few feet, you're really wanting the output of a large nuclear power station. These tend to be about 20 stories high and weigh quite a bit" MrL you are a DUMBSOD co2 lasers are used for chopping up very large sections of metal, cutting diamons although that has little or no relavance, and to have one you must first have an industrial licence, so i really really do not believe that it couldnt cut paper, and i didnt say that someone HAD cut a builing in half i said that it could be done easily. and no you do NOT need to devote an entire nuclear powerplant to powering one of these things, where the **** did you get that idea?!? plus mass drivers and railguns are two very different things that simply follow the same basic principal of propelling a slug with a powerfull magnetic field a mass driver aka coilgun uses the same electro magnets that we all made in elementary school, just larger more powerful and without the nail. a railgun like the name implies uses two rails the slug and a fair bit of power to create the feild

[pablissimo]

Impossible to knock over... with all that weight up top...

Christ didn't you kids do any physics at school?


Low-profile semi-autonomous armoured vehicles is where it's at, baby.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I meant in series context.

'Why would they build mechs in, say, Trouble! Dual Parallel Adventure! (an unbelieveably silly name), if they didn't have some kind of tactical advantage?'

perhaps the mysterious aliens/unknown entities (Evangelion/full metal panic/Gasaraki) who gave them the technology haven't discovered the wheel yet.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm nominating this thread for an award right now.

[Phang]

please IPban mad cat as he has befouled these forums for too long.

[SbOlly]

Looking at your picture, and ignoring the fact that IT DOESN'T EXIST THEREFORE CAN'T BE USED IN AN ARGUEMENT AS A POINT OF FACT, I'd sneak up on it and shoot it in the back of the legs in those unarmoured pistons it seems to use.

1 RocketMan > Your ultimate Mech.

Also, yes co2 lasers are very fancy. But the power needed to make them a viable weapon (read HAVE ANY RANGE WHATSOEVER) would as MrLJ said (I thought he quit?) take a nuclear power station.

God I hate you for making me write this post.

[pablissimo]

I've already claimed we're being trolled but apparently noone agrees =(

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by SbOlly

IT DOESN'T EXIST THEREFORE CAN'T BE USED IN AN ARGUEMENT AS A POINT OF FACT

Stop repressing his freedom of speech plz.








That actually made me laugh out loud :)

[Phang]

you aren't. search his posts. he's ACTUALLY THIS RETARDED.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

"If you want to cut through anything more substantial than paper, at any range over a few feet, you're really wanting the output of a large nuclear power station. These tend to be about 20 stories high and weigh quite a bit" MrL you are a DUMBSOD co2 lasers are used for chopping up very large sections of metal, cutting diamons although that has little or no relavance, and to have one you must first have an industrial licence, so i really really do not believe that it couldnt cut paper, and i didnt say that someone HAD cut a builing in half i said that it could be done easily.

ok, here goes: Engage Lase Physicist mode.

fist of all, CO2 Lasers are mostly Infra Red Lasers, and while they could in principle be used for this sort of thing, it is not very practical for a number of reasons. First of all the laser itself is highly delicate, the actual C02 has to be pumped round the laser from a large reservior at supersonic speeds in even the most poweful lasers currently available, and this reduces the beam quality substantially, leading to an awful lot of wasted light. notice how the laser head in industrial cutters is very close to the metal, and not several hundred metres away, this is why. It would be an immense task to continually dump enough energy into a laser and keep the thing cool, that building/tank chopping devices, as cool as they are, are completely impractical, since in the same room you could store several million AT rounds and a very large gun of the conventional vatiety, or even, if you were feeling hi tec, a mass driver of some sort. Laser weaponrz really has limited prectical use for this sort of thing, and is only really practical for destroying soft things such as retinas (easily done, heh) or extremely critical targets such as ICBMs and other assorted WOMD (*assuming that your tracking system is good enough) Even then, as in the US's recent missile blasting aircraft, they still had to be relatively close, and iirc it was a chemical laser, which means the laser had to be pumped out on each shot. I don't think they actually used it though.

over a long distance as well you would have a real problem with attentuation, diffraction, scattering and so on.

and no you do NOT need to devote an entire nuclear powerplant to powering one of these things, where the **** did you get that idea?!?

from someone like me. they don't call them megawatt lasers for nothing, though granted the laser would probably be a pulse laser, still it would still be a real hassle. you would need an awful lot of power to run all the various components, the gas pump, the coolants, the laser pumps and so on.

Be careful you don't smash it (there is alot of glass) or you would feel like a right twonk.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Phang

please IPban mad cat as he has befouled these forums for too long.

he might be wrong.

he might be shit.

but at least he is an interesting wrong shit.

[SbOlly]

True, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Even those with RETARDED opinions. Opinions never the less.