AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Gundam

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-02-15, 13:47   Link #61
kiramuro
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man View Post

What I meant by the humanoid shape is it's ability to use the AMBAC (Active Mass Balance Auto Control) system. It fundamentally works by shifting weight by the use of extremeties to control speed and direction. Such examples can be seen in spinning ice skaters slowing down when their arms are out, and speeding up when they bring their arms in. Another example would be stopping your movement while swimming undrwater by throwing your limbs forward. The same principle can be used in space, and therefore would give MS their advantageous mobility. The use of AMBAC saves fuel and maneuvering time while operating in space, where by simply throwing their limbs forward, along with sheilds or other large objects, their momentum can be slowed down or stopped outright, as well as shifting their weight to turn in another direction, as opposed to other space vehicles which must use up a larger amount of propellent to turn around or stop.
The AMBAC you just described can't do anything other than affecting the rate of rotation (attitude change) when the mobile suit is already rotating. It can't actually generate the necessary torque for any attitude maneuvers. Currently there are plenty of satellites that can change their attitude without wasting propellant by using a reaction wheels system. The ISS has about four sets of reaction wheels. I assume that gundam mobile suits also have a similar system. The existence of AMBAC has no effect on that. This still doesn't explain the superiority of human form in outerspace. Assume your ultimate goal is to be able to do quick attittude maneuvers I think the presence of the arms and legs are huge obstacles since they increase the object's moment of inertia by quite a bit (at least the legs do in one axis).

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores View Post
Against multiple tanks or helicopters? I'd say an MS could use the terrain to it's advantage. I doubt tanks can outmaneuver an MS throughout canyon-like areas or forests.
This is the point when USAF would just carpet bomb the shit out of your forces in the forest or the canyon from high altitude.

Okay the helicopter can easily maneuver on top of the canopy and make its kills from there. Of course if the forest can fit the MS then hell yes it could also fit tanks. As far as canyon goes just check out some documentary on battles in North Africa and Italy during WW2.

Last edited by kiramuro; 2007-02-15 at 14:41.
kiramuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 14:33   Link #62
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
The only crutch I see is that tanks and planes exist while mobile suits do not. If the construction of a mobile suit was to be done and improved upon just like tanks and planes, then it would seem the mobile suits would have the advantage, considering that the aim of the creation of the mobile suits would be its human-like agility. I'll keep repeating that the possibilities of creating such a thing is possible. We have the necessary tools to do so.
But you are assuming that the development level of tanks/planes stays the same. Lets say the first mobile suit is going to be build in 50 years. It will be slow, bulky, barely able to move without tripping over it's own feet(The most useless thing of all on that machine), and defenseless, not to mention easily spot-able on radar and by naked eye.

We already have planes/tanks that top that now. In 50 years they would be in even more of an advantage.

A question - what could a MS do better(assuming it can even perform evenly with tanks/planes, which is assuming a lot, because it can't) than a tank/plane ? (besides being a giant bullseye)

Human-like agility ? What's it gonna do? Do acrobatics ? (if we ignore the fact that it would fall over very easily, and, most likely, is not going to get up without the help of a crane.)

Assuming that it does achieve human-like agility with the help of black magic and evil underworld gnomes... what's it gonna do with it ? Not like it brings any foreseeable advantage - unlike the utter bullcrap we see in gundam shows you won't be able to dodge Tank shells... or missiles.


Quote:
And then there's the repetative 20 meter talk about the height of the suit. Why does it have to be 20 meters? Why not 15? That size difference does have an impact in regards to its weight and ability to hide or what-not. It doesn't mean that there's not enough room to house the mechanics.
15 meters ...20 meters ... whats the difference ? I think we are under the assumption the size matters ... and hey - it does. The smaller the better, not the other way around. A 15m target is just as easy to hit with a missile as a 20m target. A 15m target is just as big of a blessing to the tank's gunner as a 20m big one is. And the Tank sees you while you might as well have no idea it is around.

And once it fires it is all over. With the ridiculously complex hydraulics and all the other systems i don't even want to start to imagine in the MS one hit would be enough to disable it more likely than not.

Quote:
But in the end, it seems this debate seems to fall upon the fact that mobile suits don't exist and therefore cannot be backed up by solid proof like the latter (tanks and planes), but theories and concepts. Or to some who percieve it, "assumptions."
It has been said multiple times - IF we have the technology to build mobile suits, we would have technology to build much better tanks/planes, due to the utter uselessness of that contraption compared to the good old tank.

It will never be able to fly properly. Why ? Because humans are not meant to fly. There is a reason why birds fly, and not humans. Aerodynamics. And the last time i checked humans are not very aerodynamic. Arms...legs...head... its all useless in air. (Heck, they are useless on ground as well). A flying rock would have better aerodynamics than a MS.

You would have to mount a spaceship engine on that contraption for it to match the speed of an airplane. Lets not even talk about maneuverability issues. Not to mention that moving arms/legs would change your flight trajectory.

And lets not forget the engine that would consume energy/fuel faster than a black hole to make that thing airborne. Imagine the costs of that thing as well....

Now imagine all the above listed disadvantages wrapped up in a 20m high tin can that goes to hell with a hit from one tank that you couldn't even see. Oh, the joy

A mobile suit brings no foreseeable advantages to the field, and only a bunch of disadvantages. I will build a couple of tanks instead of that giant pile of inefficiency and would achieve much better results, regardless of what had to be achieved.

To quote 4Tran:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
The only place I can think of where a mecha might be more effective than a similarly advanced tank is an environment where the mecha can operate, but the tank cannot. However, for the life of me, I can't imagine any such environment existing.
__________________

Last edited by Skyfall; 2007-02-15 at 15:18.
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 14:43   Link #63
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
The only crutch I see is that tanks and planes exist while mobile suits do not. If the construction of a mobile suit was to be done and improved upon just like tanks and planes, then it would seem the mobile suits would have the advantage, considering that the aim of the creation of the mobile suits would be its human-like agility.
What advantage would the mobile suits have? I don't see why the human form confers tremendous agility when flying in the sky. And in land warfare the human form suffers from being fairly tall (sure, you can lie down for cover but then you can't move very fast without getting up) and fairly complex to armour effectively, especially at the joints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
And then there's the repetative 20 meter talk about the height of the suit. Why does it have to be 20 meters? Why not 15? That size difference does have an impact in regards to its weight and ability to hide or what-not. It doesn't mean that there's not enough room to house the mechanics.
The problem is that, whether it's 20 metres, 15, 10 or even 5, it's still damned tall on a modern battlefield. Armoured vehicles are very low-profiled - the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle was criticised for being too tall, yet it's only 3.0 metres high.
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 15:55   Link #64
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
I never indicated flight in my last post. In fact, the only use of "jet packs" I see for mobile suits would be to help them with possibly "jumping." Their ability to fly can be added on later after everything else has been perfected enough. As for the human-like ability, assuming that the tanks and jets are upgraded by the time a mobile suit is created, humans are not stupid enough to create a slow-moving mobile suit with backwater technology. Don't make it sound as if it's as if tanks and jets get the higher technology while mobile suits get technology of the past. Mobile suits falling down and needing a crane for assistance? That's why I suggested that there be an automation to mobile suits that can get up just like a human being who has taken a fall. I've thrown out quite a bit of theories and concepts of what would help mobile suits to their advantage, given that some of the concepts would also apply to tanks and jets. I haven't spoken much about radars since I know I'm no expert in regards to radars. But, from what I've learned, the smaller the object, the larger of a "blip" it is on the radar. So, yes, size does matter in multiple applications. I specified 15 meters because it's still a big difference in contrast to 20 meters. I already explain a fraction of it, but another would be that it helps reduce the mobile suit's unfortunate problem of being a "big target," even if it's just a little. Complex or not, it doesn't mean that the mechanism will be weak. There's ways to reinforce it so that it wouldn't fail so easily from a single hit. Yes, I even took into consideration the damages it will recieve. I never said it would somehow dodge everything that's thrown at it, but having human-like agility will help avoid a portion of it. I don't mean that it can do backflips and will excell in gymnastics, but the ability to twist and turn and move around well enough just like a human being. It can't really be denied that it's not possible. It's already a fact that there's a cybernetic arm that can move and act just like a normal human arm. Even the fingers are ambidextrious. Although it's run through the connection of nerve impulses, it's not too far different.

And no, I'm not referring to just suits found in a Gundam series. The M6 and M9s from Full Metal Panic are examples as well, though the cloaking technology would not be included. The "fakes" from Gasaraki are another example, and not to mention they're not even two stories high. (Though I'll admit the fakes were weak.) From what I can tell, the creators even gauged the comparison in technological enhancements regarding other military vehicles like tanks and jets and helicopters.

In the end, I'll have to repeat this again: In the end, it seems this debate seems to fall upon the fact that mobile suits don't exist and therefore cannot be backed up by solid proof like the latter (tanks and planes), but theories and concepts. Or to some who percieve it, "assumptions." Technological advancements apply to both, but mobile suits have yet remained to be seen and tested to prove their true capabilities. We can debate for years about this, but it can't be proved or disproved without truly testing it outside of paper and in people's thoughts.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 19:36   Link #65
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
I'm very limited in military knowledge, but I assume that planes usually have to fly in for an attack, but have to circle around again for the next strike?
It depends on what weapons a plane would use, and the target. If it used guns, then it's likely to overfly the target. Against ground targets, then most iron bombs and guided weapons would allow a plane to release its weapons far away from it's target (Depending on the altitude of the bomber, but usually a couple of kilometers away), allowing the plane to turn away without getting anywhere near the mobile suit. A low-flying bomber can release it's load and fly directly over a target, allowing the terrain to hide it from ground fire. In all of these cases, aircraft can severely limit the amount of time that it's exposed to ground fire from a single source. This is a prime reason why air defense systems are generally composed of a large number of overlapping anti-air weapons - to generate more threats than a single plane can deal with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
Maybe an MS can block the first wave with a shield, then quickly counterattack as the fighters have to circle around and prepare for the next strike?
Shields look cool, but they're generally not a very good form of protection. Any amount of protection afforded by a shield can be applied to extra armor instead. The only time that shields are a good idea would be if there's no way to give a machine adequate armor protection; in which case a shield would be used to cover a number of points that couldn't otherwise be protected. In real life, this can be seen on the PzKpfw IVG, which had armored skirts to protect the treads against anti-tank rifles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I never indicated flight in my last post. In fact, the only use of "jet packs" I see for mobile suits would be to help them with possibly "jumping." Their ability to fly can be added on later after everything else has been perfected enough.
This is an interesting technology, but it may be more interesting if it were mounted on a tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
s for the human-like ability, assuming that the tanks and jets are upgraded by the time a mobile suit is created, humans are not stupid enough to create a slow-moving mobile suit with backwater technology. Don't make it sound as if it's as if tanks and jets get the higher technology while mobile suits get technology of the past.
It's not so much that mobile suits get lesser technology or anything like that. It's more an issue that mobile suits are necessarily more complex than an equivalent tank, and will perforce be less efficient as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I haven't spoken much about radars since I know I'm no expert in regards to radars. But, from what I've learned, the smaller the object, the larger of a "blip" it is on the radar. So, yes, size does matter in multiple applications. I specified 15 meters because it's still a big difference in contrast to 20 meters. I already explain a fraction of it, but another would be that it helps reduce the mobile suit's unfortunate problem of being a "big target," even if it's just a little.
That isn't entirely how radar works. There are two factors that determine how well anything will show up on radar systems: an object's radar cross-section, and the background "noise". Contrary to what you may have heard, the radar cross-section is generally based on size, thus the larger the object ,or rather the larger its target profile, the better it shows up on radar. Radar will bounce off the ground and other objects to generate radar "noise". This noise is relatively minor in the air, but very pronounced on land, which means that it's just about useless for detecting gound units, but very useful for detecting aerial units.

Instead, ground units rely on passive LOS detection like thermal sights, lasers, and the like. These are mostly dependent on the target profile of whatever it's detecting. A 20m tall mobile suit will present a target profile about 25x that of a tank, while a 15m tall mobile suit will still have a target profile ~18x that of a tank. As you said, it does help a little, but it still looks awful compared to a tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Complex or not, it doesn't mean that the mechanism will be weak. There's ways to reinforce it so that it wouldn't fail so easily from a single hit. Yes, I even took into consideration the damages it will recieve. I never said it would somehow dodge everything that's thrown at it, but having human-like agility will help avoid a portion of it. I don't mean that it can do backflips and will excell in gymnastics, but the ability to twist and turn and move around well enough just like a human being. It can't really be denied that it's not possible. It's already a fact that there's a cybernetic arm that can move and act just like a normal human arm. Even the fingers are ambidextrious. Although it's run through the connection of nerve impulses, it's not too far different.
Having more agility will be of no avail when it comes to avoiding ranged fire. Most fire will be in the 1000-2000m/s variety unless they are massless beams. There's no way to avoid that kind of fire. The only thing that you can do is to attempt to spoil the firer's aim. The problem is that a 15m mobile suit has a lot of target to aim at.

Why do you imply that the ability for a human-range of motion is somehow intrinsic to mecha designs? Also, can you source the statement about "cybernetic arms" that are like normal ones? As far as I can tell, we can approximate the real thing, but they're still far short of the real thing. Also your comment about it "fingers being ambidextrous" makes no sense since ambidexterity is a function of the brain, not the arm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
And no, I'm not referring to just suits found in a Gundam series. The M6 and M9s from Full Metal Panic are examples as well, though the cloaking technology would not be included. The "fakes" from Gasaraki are another example, and not to mention they're not even two stories high. (Though I'll admit the fakes were weak.) From what I can tell, the creators even gauged the comparison in technological enhancements regarding other military vehicles like tanks and jets and helicopters.
Not really. In those cases, the creators made the humanoid mecha (much) more advanced than conventional weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
In the end, I'll have to repeat this again: In the end, it seems this debate seems to fall upon the fact that mobile suits don't exist and therefore cannot be backed up by solid proof like the latter (tanks and planes), but theories and concepts. Or to some who percieve it, "assumptions." Technological advancements apply to both, but mobile suits have yet remained to be seen and tested to prove their true capabilities. We can debate for years about this, but it can't be proved or disproved without truly testing it outside of paper and in people's thoughts.
This assertion is incorrect. We're basing our arguments on what we know about mecha designs. They're not a matter of assumptions, they're physical limitations imposed by the realities of how they'd have to work. It's fallacious to claim that we have to physically have mecha before we can figure out what they can and cannot do. After all, we don't have to build unicycle tanks to know that they're a really bad idea.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 21:36   Link #66
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
This is an interesting technology, but it may be more interesting if it were mounted on a tank.
It would be, but there's a slight problem to that. Considering the tank's size at the moment, there's not enough room to house the proper mechanics for propulsion and possibly the fuel. Of course, this problem can be deal with by increasing the size of the tank, which could make it possibly above 3 meters, considering its current weight already. Although, I'd be curious as to what uses "booseters" would be used for a tank other than to maybe crossing a two separated land masses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
It's not so much that mobile suits get lesser technology or anything like that. It's more an issue that mobile suits are necessarily more complex than an equivalent tank, and will perforce be less efficient as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
This assertion is incorrect. We're basing our arguments on what we know about mecha designs. They're not a matter of assumptions, they're physical limitations imposed by the realities of how they'd have to work. It's fallacious to claim that we have to physically have mecha before we can figure out what they can and cannot do. After all, we don't have to build unicycle tanks to know that they're a really bad idea.
Well, we can't truly say that without really trying it out. There's a limit of what we can discuss on paper without testing its true performance and capabilities. All we'll have is calculations, drafts, etc. Considering my engineering background, I know out of experience that what is written and drawn on paper can be totally different from the finished product no matter how precise we have try to be. For example, if I were to draw plans to create an arm or a leg of a mobile suit, it doesn't mean everything I've got down is definate. The people I pass off the plan to who will be in charge of physically building them may have better solutions to what I've got down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
That isn't entirely how radar works. There are two factors that determine how well anything will show up on radar systems: an object's radar cross-section, and the background "noise". Contrary to what you may have heard, the radar cross-section is generally based on size, thus the larger the object ,or rather the larger its target profile, the better it shows up on radar. Radar will bounce off the ground and other objects to generate radar "noise". This noise is relatively minor in the air, but very pronounced on land, which means that it's just about useless for detecting gound units, but very useful for detecting aerial units.

Instead, ground units rely on passive LOS detection like thermal sights, lasers, and the like. These are mostly dependent on the target profile of whatever it's detecting. A 20m tall mobile suit will present a target profile about 25x that of a tank, while a 15m tall mobile suit will still have a target profile ~18x that of a tank. As you said, it does help a little, but it still looks awful compared to a tank.
Thanks. I took some aviations classes to get a private pilot's license and that's where I got the concept of the radar. Like I said, I'm no expert in radars so I didn't know there were different types of radars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Having more agility will be of no avail when it comes to avoiding ranged fire. Most fire will be in the 1000-2000m/s variety unless they are massless beams. There's no way to avoid that kind of fire. The only thing that you can do is to attempt to spoil the firer's aim. The problem is that a 15m mobile suit has a lot of target to aim at.
Actually, I've considered that if the suit is agile enough to be as manueverable as a human being, then it should be able to move well enough to jump behind something for defense. Of course, that would mean the deployment location of suits would have to be chosen wisely. Tanks unfortunately can't plow through everything all the time, but neither can mobile suits unless the pilot is that damn good like they usually depict in the animes and shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Why do you imply that the ability for a human-range of motion is somehow intrinsic to mecha designs? Also, can you source the statement about "cybernetic arms" that are like normal ones? As far as I can tell, we can approximate the real thing, but they're still far short of the real thing. Also your comment about it "fingers being ambidextrous" makes no sense since ambidexterity is a function of the brain, not the arm.
I actually watched it on the news. CNN to be exact. It was suppose to be a break through regarding lost limb replacement. They were showing one of the first arm replacements someone recieved. The patient was interviewed and they claimed that it was much better than the last one they've received since it acted like a real arm. I just wish I can remember the people responsible for such a feat in that news so I can get a better source. Either way, I looked it up in CNN's website to see if they have the information, but I'm not 100% sure that it's the right article. It's http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/sci...etics.profile/. As for the finger comment, I meant dexterity. Better finger dexterity. It seems I've crossed my words yet again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Not really. In those cases, the creators made the humanoid mecha (much) more advanced than conventional weapons.
Not from what I can gather, especially in Full Metal Panic. Mithril had jets and helicopters that were advanced along with their suits. Gasaraki on the other hand... As I thought about it, the fakes were more advanced due to the fact that a private corporation had secretly created them and introduced into conventional warfare. Of course, removing the magical (or whatever it was) aspect of the series (ie Gasaraki, itself/himself), the fakes weren't extremely advanced and from what it looked like, the internal mechanisms are something we have, minus the drugs to drive the pilots off the deep end. An adrenaline boost perhaps?
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 23:36   Link #67
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
It would be, but there's a slight problem to that. Considering the tank's size at the moment, there's not enough room to house the proper mechanics for propulsion and possibly the fuel. Of course, this problem can be deal with by increasing the size of the tank, which could make it possibly above 3 meters, considering its current weight already. Although, I'd be curious as to what uses "booseters" would be used for a tank other than to maybe crossing a two separated land masses?
You've hit on the solution. For volume, it's not that difficult to lengthen and widen a tank to hold jump jets. And if they can be mounted on a 70 ton mobile suit, then there should be sufficient mass in a 70 ton tank to do the same thing. Remember that we're not talking about modern tanks, we're talking about future ones. As for the usefulness of boosters, it would be used in the exact same way you'd imagine a mobile suit using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Well, we can't truly say that without really trying it out. There's a limit of what we can discuss on paper without testing its true performance and capabilities. All we'll have is calculations, drafts, etc. Considering my engineering background, I know out of experience that what is written and drawn on paper can be totally different from the finished product no matter how precise we have try to be. For example, if I were to draw plans to create an arm or a leg of a mobile suit, it doesn't mean everything I've got down is definate. The people I pass off the plan to who will be in charge of physically building them may have better solutions to what I've got down.
You can't figure out the limitations of a project until you actually build it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Thanks. I took some aviations classes to get a private pilot's license and that's where I got the concept of the radar. Like I said, I'm no expert in radars so I didn't know there were different types of radars.
It isn't really a case of different types of radars. All radars work in similar manners, but they're inherently better than scanning the sky than the ground. This is the reason why low-flying tactical bombers have been popular over the last couple of decades. They can hide underneath the horizon to avoid ground radar, and aerial radar have trouble picking them up from the interference caused by the ground. However, the advent of "look-down shoot-down" radar has transformed these aircraft into siting ducks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Actually, I've considered that if the suit is agile enough to be as manueverable as a human being, then it should be able to move well enough to jump behind something for defense. Of course, that would mean the deployment location of suits would have to be chosen wisely. Tanks unfortunately can't plow through everything all the time, but neither can mobile suits unless the pilot is that damn good like they usually depict in the animes and shows.
The difficulty in getting behind cover is not really a matter of agility. It's a question of finding cover tall enough to provide protection. It's a common tactic with tankers as they generally try to find a hull-down position to reduce their target profile to just their turrets. This position allows the tank to fire while maintaining very good protection. It isn't too hard for tanks to do but you're going to be very hard pressed to find cover for a 15m mecha. I would imagine that the most effective thing they could do is to think like infanty and simply go prone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Not from what I can gather, especially in Full Metal Panic. Mithril had jets and helicopters that were advanced along with their suits. Gasaraki on the other hand... As I thought about it, the fakes were more advanced due to the fact that a private corporation had secretly created them and introduced into conventional warfare. Of course, removing the magical (or whatever it was) aspect of the series (ie Gasaraki, itself/himself), the fakes weren't extremely advanced and from what it looked like, the internal mechanisms are something we have, minus the drugs to drive the pilots off the deep end. An adrenaline boost perhaps?
I haven't watched Gasaraki, so I won't comment on it, but Full Metal Panic does everything but put mecha on a pedestal. The most obvious is the use of the "Lambda Driver" equipped mecha which only the "chosen" can use, and which are all but invincible except against another "Lambda Driver". Moreover, the chosen one's combat ability is completely dependent on how badly he wants to win (I admit that this is a bit of a cheap shot since this is prevalent across entire genres of anime). Full Metal Panic's not too far off from being a super robot show masquerading in a semi-realistic setting.


Off-topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I actually watched it on the news. CNN to be exact. It was suppose to be a break through regarding lost limb replacement. They were showing one of the first arm replacements someone recieved. The patient was interviewed and they claimed that it was much better than the last one they've received since it acted like a real arm. I just wish I can remember the people responsible for such a feat in that news so I can get a better source. Either way, I looked it up in CNN's website to see if they have the information, but I'm not 100% sure that it's the right article. It's http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/sci...etics.profile/. As for the finger comment, I meant dexterity. Better finger dexterity. It seems I've crossed my words yet again.
This sounds like more mainstream media gushing about possible advances in prosthetics technology. While it's certainly true that there are a lot of very promising advances in this area, we're still a long ways away from making prosthetics as good as regular body parts.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 04:43   Link #68
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
You've hit on the solution. For volume, it's not that difficult to lengthen and widen a tank to hold jump jets. And if they can be mounted on a 70 ton mobile suit, then there should be sufficient mass in a 70 ton tank to do the same thing. Remember that we're not talking about modern tanks, we're talking about future ones. As for the usefulness of boosters, it would be used in the exact same way you'd imagine a mobile suit using it.
That still doesn't explain how that's the "solution." They'd become bigger, and would beat a mobile suit in the bulk category. Their movements wouldn't be any more improved in comparison to a mobile suit's. They would just be able to "jump around," though it would need help in several factors. One would be speed to enable it to "jump" at lengthier distances. And if you try to increase the maneuverability, you'd increase the size even more. Not to mention the field of view would be lacking as it already is. I have yet to see a tank rely on monitors to increase their field of vision like a mobile suit. At that rate, a tank would be just as big of a target. And then you'd have to somehow change the wheels to compensate for the increased maneuverability. Rollers perhaps? That would cause problems for brakes, though... In either case, adding such things would increase the size as we've already agreed on. That would make the tank a bigger target as well and pretty much catching up to the same problem mobile suits would have.

If that's the case, I would rather be in something that can move around like a human being, whether to flee or fight, and if I have to, at least be able to damage the enemy's cannon by shooting back at it or bending it (or denting it) enough to the point that it can no longer fire correctly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
You can't figure out the limitations of a project until you actually build it?
Unfortunately, that's the case with inventions. We can take an educated guess as to the limits of a project, but we won't really know the real results until it's actually tested. I'll use architects and civil engineers for example since their line of work isn't as complicated to explain. Sometimes, they build models not only to show to the client of what the intended finished building/house will look like, but to test the structural soundness of the design. Of course, even then, the real thing could be different from the model. Walls with reinforcements versus cardboard versions of the wall are often hard to gauge and takes trial and error of the real thing to get it down properly and even formulate the proper calculations and equations to get a nearly exact answer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
The difficulty in getting behind cover is not really a matter of agility. It's a question of finding cover tall enough to provide protection. It's a common tactic with tankers as they generally try to find a hull-down position to reduce their target profile to just their turrets. This position allows the tank to fire while maintaining very good protection. It isn't too hard for tanks to do but you're going to be very hard pressed to find cover for a 15m mecha. I would imagine that the most effective thing they could do is to think like infanty and simply go prone.
A valid arguement, though it overlooks the mobile suit's possible capabilities. If it can imitate human movement and also move as quickly and bend just like a human, then it should be able to take cover just like a human being. Just because it's 15 meters doesn't mean it'll remain standing. In combat training, they tend to teach soldiers to bend on one knee, take aim and fire. Say a 6 foot tall soldier was to bend his knees. By doing so, he brought himself down around 2 feet, so a 4 foot or 4.5 foot cover would suffice. It's no different for a mobile suit. 15 meters = 49.212598425 feet, right? That would be about 8 to 9 people standing on each other... Not really sky scraper level and most buildings are higher than that in a downtown district of a city. One thing I don't understand is that people tend to expect the mobile suits to be in a sitting position when they can crouch so they'd be ready for action if their cover is blown. And I'm not saying the crouching position would only be used in an urban battle scenario, but also the woods or other places that have uneven terrain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I haven't watched Gasaraki, so I won't comment on it, but Full Metal Panic does everything but put mecha on a pedestal. The most obvious is the use of the "Lambda Driver" equipped mecha which only the "chosen" can use, and which are all but invincible except against another "Lambda Driver". Moreover, the chosen one's combat ability is completely dependent on how badly he wants to win (I admit that this is a bit of a cheap shot since this is prevalent across entire genres of anime). Full Metal Panic's not too far off from being a super robot show masquerading in a semi-realistic setting.
In my first post, I indicated that the Lamdba Driver would not be something I would incorporate into the possibilities. That type of technology would be too far out into the future. That's why I preferred to refer to M6s and M9s in Full Metal Panic. And without their cloaking ability, might I add. I can refer to the Arbalest as well, but keep in mind that I always state that I'm speaking about it without the lambda driver and its cloaking ability. So, it does still apply. The technology of the jets and helicopters they had was within the same advancement level as their suits. ASs to be precise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Off-topic:

This sounds like more mainstream media gushing about possible advances in prosthetics technology. While it's certainly true that there are a lot of very promising advances in this area, we're still a long ways away from making prosthetics as good as regular body parts.
Well, it's not as off-topic as one would think. It still refers to mobile suit possibilities. If it can be done to something small scale as that, then it can be done for something bigger. I also stated that I didn't believe that was the right article in comparison to what I really saw in the news. All I can guarantee is it was in CNN and that not only did the interview patients as well as developers, but they've also displayed an example of the prosthetic/cybernetic arm's capabilities, which was moving at the same speed of a normal human arm.


And that's right. I didn't talk about radars because I've already indicated twice I didn't know much about radars. I'm happy to learn off of it, but it may seem I may need to conduct my own research either way.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 06:35   Link #69
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I haven't watched Gasaraki, so I won't comment on it, but Full Metal Panic does everything but put mecha on a pedestal.
I did watch the first couple of episodes of Gasaraki, and I just about laughed myself silly at the "tactics" being employed by conventional forces in that show. Tanks and IFVs sitting in a big, motionless herd in the desert using ridiculously close spacing, allowing the show's mecha to get in amongst them at point-blank range (despite their side enjoying total air superiority) and then - just to put the icing on the cake - refusing to allow their embarked infantry to get out, find cover and fight back.

The whole fiasco reminded me very much of what was reported about the Russians in the first Chechnya campaign, and we know how that worked out. If you're that stupid, the other side doesn't need mecha to wipe you out.

And sure, mobile suits can crouch or go prone to be less visible in the field. But it's worth noting that the M2 Bradley IFV's height of only 3 metres was criticised for making the vehicle too vulnerable in combat. Even the South African Ratel IFV seems to be considered tall, and it stands a mere 2.4 metres high. How low does a 15-metre MS have to crouch to even approach that?

Of course, you can lie down... but then you can't move quickly out of cover without exposing yourself and being unable to fire back properly while getting up. Your frontal armour, which would logically be the thickest on the mecha, is also pointing at the ground. That could be a real problem when the opposition notices they're taking fire and returns it, or simply calls in a suppressing artillery strike on the MS's position...

Last edited by Guppy; 2007-02-16 at 06:46.
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 08:02   Link #70
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
No, I've got an idea. Let's follow the idea of the prone position to its logical conclusion: if it's on its belly, it'll be easier to move if you put wheels or treads there. Hm, but then, the limbs will be useless. Take them off and just mount the gun on a turret on the suit's back. See what I'm getting at?

The arguments against mechas aren't just a matter of feasibility. Star Trek Batt'leh have been possible since antiquity. Why weren't they used? Because they're stupid weapons and there are simpler ways to commit suicide than making one and taking it to a swordfight.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 10:18   Link #71
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
That still doesn't explain how that's the "solution." They'd become bigger, and would beat a mobile suit in the bulk category. Their movements wouldn't be any more improved in comparison to a mobile suit's. They would just be able to "jump around," though it would need help in several factors. One would be speed to enable it to "jump" at lengthier distances. And if you try to increase the maneuverability, you'd increase the size even more. Not to mention the field of view would be lacking as it already is. I have yet to see a tank rely on monitors to increase their field of vision like a mobile suit. At that rate, a tank would be just as big of a target. And then you'd have to somehow change the wheels to compensate for the increased maneuverability. Rollers perhaps? That would cause problems for brakes, though... In either case, adding such things would increase the size as we've already agreed on. That would make the tank a bigger target as well and pretty much catching up to the same problem mobile suits would have.
A slight increase in length and width translates to only a marginal increase in a tank's front target aspect. It'd still only be a tiny fraction of the target that a 15m mobile suit would present. I'm less trying to paint this as a practical technology; I'm just pointing out that such a technology isn't necessarily exclusive to mobile suits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
If that's the case, I would rather be in something that can move around like a human being, whether to flee or fight, and if I have to, at least be able to damage the enemy's cannon by shooting back at it or bending it (or denting it) enough to the point that it can no longer fire correctly.
A wheeled or tracked vehicle would provide for a smoother ride and a more stable weapons platform than a legged one would. I'm not sure how a humanoid form is supposed to be more effective at defeating enemy vehicles outside of melee combat. And melee combat is silly, so nobody would engage in it except as a last resort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Unfortunately, that's the case with inventions. We can take an educated guess as to the limits of a project, but we won't really know the real results until it's actually tested. I'll use architects and civil engineers for example since their line of work isn't as complicated to explain. Sometimes, they build models not only to show to the client of what the intended finished building/house will look like, but to test the structural soundness of the design. Of course, even then, the real thing could be different from the model. Walls with reinforcements versus cardboard versions of the wall are often hard to gauge and takes trial and error of the real thing to get it down properly and even formulate the proper calculations and equations to get a nearly exact answer.
You're presenting a false dilemma between not knowing any limitations of a design and knowing all the limitations of a design. While unknowns can show up after a building is constructed, an architect would have to know about the structural limitations of his project. It'd be foolhardy for one to state that he didn't know about the limits of his design. Likewise, we can just look at a humanoid design and point out the obvious limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
A valid arguement, though it overlooks the mobile suit's possible capabilities. If it can imitate human movement and also move as quickly and bend just like a human, then it should be able to take cover just like a human being. Just because it's 15 meters doesn't mean it'll remain standing. In combat training, they tend to teach soldiers to bend on one knee, take aim and fire. Say a 6 foot tall soldier was to bend his knees. By doing so, he brought himself down around 2 feet, so a 4 foot or 4.5 foot cover would suffice. It's no different for a mobile suit. 15 meters = 49.212598425 feet, right? That would be about 8 to 9 people standing on each other... Not really sky scraper level and most buildings are higher than that in a downtown district of a city. One thing I don't understand is that people tend to expect the mobile suits to be in a sitting position when they can crouch so they'd be ready for action if their cover is blown. And I'm not saying the crouching position would only be used in an urban battle scenario, but also the woods or other places that have uneven terrain.
A crouching 15m mobile suit would still present a 10+m tall target. This would be at around ten times the target profile of a tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
In my first post, I indicated that the Lamdba Driver would not be something I would incorporate into the possibilities. That type of technology would be too far out into the future. That's why I preferred to refer to M6s and M9s in Full Metal Panic. And without their cloaking ability, might I add. I can refer to the Arbalest as well, but keep in mind that I always state that I'm speaking about it without the lambda driver and its cloaking ability. So, it does still apply. The technology of the jets and helicopters they had was within the same advancement level as their suits. ASs to be precise.
The point that I was making was that the Arm Slaves of Full Metal Panic were given access to technology that weren't similarly afforded to other machines. Therefore, the creators did not incorporate equal technology to all vehicles; they made the mecha more advanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Well, it's not as off-topic as one would think. It still refers to mobile suit possibilities. If it can be done to something small scale as that, then it can be done for something bigger. I also stated that I didn't believe that was the right article in comparison to what I really saw in the news. All I can guarantee is it was in CNN and that not only did the interview patients as well as developers, but they've also displayed an example of the prosthetic/cybernetic arm's capabilities, which was moving at the same speed of a normal human arm.
The reason it's off-topic is because no-one's claiming that it would be impossible to build humanoid mecha. The question is one of military applicability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy
I did watch the first couple of episodes of Gasaraki, and I just about laughed myself silly at the "tactics" being employed by conventional forces in that show. Tanks and IFVs sitting in a big, motionless herd in the desert using ridiculously close spacing, allowing the show's mecha to get in amongst them at point-blank range (despite their side enjoying total air superiority) and then - just to put the icing on the cake - refusing to allow their embarked infantry to get out, find cover and fight back.
Thanks. That's pretty much the kind of thing that I've heard about Gasaraki. It's just that I haven't seen it myself, and I didn't want to rely purely on hearsay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
No, I've got an idea. Let's follow the idea of the prone position to its logical conclusion: if it's on its belly, it'll be easier to move if you put wheels or treads there. Hm, but then, the limbs will be useless. Take them off and just mount the gun on a turret on the suit's back. See what I'm getting at?
Heh.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 14:00   Link #72
SoldierOfDarkness
The Dark Knight
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 28
Quote:
A slight increase in length and width translates to only a marginal increase in a tank's front target aspect. It'd still only be a tiny fraction of the target that a 15m mobile suit would present. I'm less trying to paint this as a practical technology; I'm just pointing out that such a technology isn't necessarily exclusive to mobile suits.
That's mainly my question. One of the big issues with creating humanoid machines even 9-10m you still have to deal with gravity, weight and balancing issues, especially since the pressure is being applied to two small surface areas. In combat there's going to be a lot of stress going around for the hydraulics to work. Tanks if I recall correctly displace less weight than cars do.

So the question becomes, lets say you design a anti-grav technology and weight balancing mechanisms that would make machines much lighter. Sure that would help Mechs but why not apply it to tanks or fighters? Beam cannons? PS armor? I'm pretty sure its cheaper and cost-effective to put those on tanks and fighters.

I don't find mechs impractical but more on the lines of being exoskeletons or powered armor for military applications. For civilian applications I was thinking of the mech from Aliens which ripley used to fight the queen(But in turn the machine would be for moving stuff). Or essentially turning a platoon of marines into walking tanks that are only 2-3m tall but with just as much firepower and agility.

Quote:
If that's the case, I would rather be in something that can move around like a human being, whether to flee or fight, and if I have to, at least be able to damage the enemy's cannon by shooting back at it or bending it (or denting it) enough to the point that it can no longer fire correctly.
I take it you've never played counterstrike or games like fear. When your moving and running, your accuracy goes down the drain because your bobbing up and down. If you were on a platform, the shooting is a lot easier.

Something I remembered awhile back.
Kid, "Why do you guys transform into cars?"
Autobot, "because it's better than walking/running"
SoldierOfDarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 15:02   Link #73
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
I did watch the first couple of episodes of Gasaraki, and I just about laughed myself silly at the "tactics" being employed by conventional forces in that show. Tanks and IFVs sitting in a big, motionless herd in the desert using ridiculously close spacing, allowing the show's mecha to get in amongst them at point-blank range (despite their side enjoying total air superiority) and then - just to put the icing on the cake - refusing to allow their embarked infantry to get out, find cover and fight back.

The whole fiasco reminded me very much of what was reported about the Russians in the first Chechnya campaign, and we know how that worked out. If you're that stupid, the other side doesn't need mecha to wipe you out.
That's probably how it went, battle-wise. It's been several years back since I last watched it. I don't remember them really delving too much into how battle works, but how the mechs work. I just remember how the mechs (which were called "fakes") worked and ran and I found it suitable enough to be an example for a low-tech mobile suit, though they used some kind of drug that enhanced their adrenaline and risked the pilot from getting a heart attack or something to that sort. Of course, I was referring to mobile suits that wouldn't require drugs like those.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
And sure, mobile suits can crouch or go prone to be less visible in the field. But it's worth noting that the M2 Bradley IFV's height of only 3 metres was criticised for making the vehicle too vulnerable in combat. Even the South African Ratel IFV seems to be considered tall, and it stands a mere 2.4 metres high. How low does a 15-metre MS have to crouch to even approach that?

Of course, you can lie down... but then you can't move quickly out of cover without exposing yourself and being unable to fire back properly while getting up. Your frontal armour, which would logically be the thickest on the mecha, is also pointing at the ground. That could be a real problem when the opposition notices they're taking fire and returns it, or simply calls in a suppressing artillery strike on the MS's position...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, I've got an idea. Let's follow the idea of the prone position to its logical conclusion: if it's on its belly, it'll be easier to move if you put wheels or treads there. Hm, but then, the limbs will be useless. Take them off and just mount the gun on a turret on the suit's back. See what I'm getting at?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
A crouching 15m mobile suit would still present a 10+m tall target. This would be at around ten times the target profile of a tank.
This is all under a few assumptions. Armor being thickest at the front? That's poor engineering right there. I would never agree to a design of a car or a plane with only reinforcements at the front for better protection. Even a tank wasn't designed to have the thickest armor at the front. Engineers are not stupid enough not to think of the possibilities of their invention being attacked from every possible side. Lie on it's belly? Huh? Why? It's a little less than 10 meters tall when it's on one knee and it's even a little below 9 meters when it's crouching. I've seen trees in national forests and Philippines way taller than that. In fact, they may even be high enough to cover the suit when it's standing, though that would increase the risk factor, thus I chose crouching or on one knee. To add on to that, immitating a soldier, it can possibly have a rifle for an offensive weapon. That would mean the "bullets" coming out of the barrels of those weapons would be just the same diameter (or bigger) in comparison to a tank's. And yes, I know that just like a normal weapon, the magazine has to be replaced after it's empty. The tank would have to reload as well, either way. If this were to be applied to a tank, it would increase it's size even more as well. The battle scenario could quickly be just as dangerous for the tank as it is for the mobile suit rather quickly at that point, and that's if it's only between one tank and one suit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
A slight increase in length and width translates to only a marginal increase in a tank's front target aspect. It'd still only be a tiny fraction of the target that a 15m mobile suit would present. I'm less trying to paint this as a practical technology; I'm just pointing out that such a technology isn't necessarily exclusive to mobile suits.
Indeed and I agree that it's not exclusive to a mobile suit, but even then, it would mean altering the tank to include such technology. Size would definately be affected. And by slight, you mean about at least 2 meters in terms of length, width and height, right? Yes, even height is unfortunately affected. "Boosters" are not that small, especially for a tank that heavy that would need it more than just at the back particularly. Like I said, the wheels would need to be altered as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
A wheeled or tracked vehicle would provide for a smoother ride and a more stable weapons platform than a legged one would. I'm not sure how a humanoid form is supposed to be more effective at defeating enemy vehicles outside of melee combat. And melee combat is silly, so nobody would engage in it except as a last resort.
Well, I suppose I answered this already with the rifle comment. Melee combat isn't completely silly. Depending the situation, it can either be advantagous or disadvantagous. It's a matter of the situation and the careful tactic plannings at that point. Oh, and then there's the vulcans that Gundams tend to have on their heads. From what I can tell, that's their answer to turrets. Higher speed, and smaller bullets. It's not bad, depending on where you really intend to house or mount them.

As for melee combat being a last resort in a battle, this is why I've found war to be quite meaningless at this day and age. We might as well nix the entire idea of any future weaponry and simply build robots that will do the fighting for us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
You're presenting a false dilemma between not knowing any limitations of a design and knowing all the limitations of a design. While unknowns can show up after a building is constructed, an architect would have to know about the structural limitations of his project. It'd be foolhardy for one to state that he didn't know about the limits of his design. Likewise, we can just look at a humanoid design and point out the obvious limitations.
True to a degree. Calculated limitations are thought about in a design and brought into consideration. But, like I said, simply because the limitations seem to be apparent in plans and designs, it doesn't mean there won't be answers to resolve the issue. It doesn't even have to be the designer that may come up with a solution, but the builders. Architects didn't design obscure shaped, yet beautiful, buildings that stand before us today with just looking at the limitations given to them, but also with the thought process of, "How can I make the design into a reality where it's safe and sound just like the other contemporary buildings?" In one of my drafting and design classes in college, the teacher had given us an obscure structure to work on, then told us to find a way to make it structurally sound and possible. I do understand I have to face limitations in a design, but I was also taught not to simply give up after reaching such a limitation, and find ways to solve the problem of such a limitation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
The point that I was making was that the Arm Slaves of Full Metal Panic were given access to technology that weren't similarly afforded to other machines. Therefore, the creators did not incorporate equal technology to all vehicles; they made the mecha more advanced.
I don't quite agree with that. Like I said, all the vehicles that belonged to Mithril were advanced along with the creation of the Arm Slaves. The only big difference is that at most situations, their opponents normally did not have the technology they did. Not just the Arm Slaves, but the helicopters and jets. I have yet to see them use a tank, though the submarine (I can't remember the name properly) was a mixture between a submarine and a carrier, so I can partially understand why they didn't carry tanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness View Post
That's mainly my question. One of the big issues with creating humanoid machines even 9-10m you still have to deal with gravity, weight and balancing issues, especially since the pressure is being applied to two small surface areas. In combat there's going to be a lot of stress going around for the hydraulics to work. Tanks if I recall correctly displace less weight than cars do.
I've already given a response to that in the past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness View Post
I take it you've never played counterstrike or games like fear. When your moving and running, your accuracy goes down the drain because your bobbing up and down. If you were on a platform, the shooting is a lot easier.
Actually, yes I have. I was the melee while my best friend was the sniper in Counter-Strike. I still managed headshots while moving. I never liked Source, but I adapated eventually. Of course, I still prefer 1.6 over Source. Fear, I've played, but not enough to say. All I know is that the game play is very similar to Counter-Strike. But, the games are not 100% accurate to real life. It's set on algorithms that you can follow to increase your accuracy.

Last edited by Phantom-Takaya; 2007-02-16 at 15:17.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 17:57   Link #74
kiramuro
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
True to a degree. Calculated limitations are thought about in a design and brought into consideration. But, like I said, simply because the limitations seem to be apparent in plans and designs, it doesn't mean there won't be answers to resolve the issue. It doesn't even have to be the designer that may come up with a solution, but the builders. Architects didn't design obscure shaped, yet beautiful, buildings that stand before us today with just looking at the limitations given to them, but also with the thought process of, "How can I make the design into a reality where it's safe and sound just like the other contemporary buildings?" In one of my drafting and design classes in college, the teacher had given us an obscure structure to work on, then told us to find a way to make it structurally sound and possible. I do understand I have to face limitations in a design, but I was also taught not to simply give up after reaching such a limitation, and find ways to solve the problem of such a limitation.
Whether or not you can solve the limitations is irrevelant when you can easily avoid such limitations in the first place. It has already established that the humanoid form doesn't translate well to the modern combat style in which melee fighting has been made obsolete hence why even attempt such design in the first place other than curiosity?

Archictectural engineers has to deal with a lot of artistic inputs which understandably result in the a lot of structurally unsound drawings. Most other engineers don't have to deal with that. When we design a plane we only care about the performance and stability (time/cost/politics are factors too). Ideally every design decisions that are made should be geared exclusively into improving those two areas. Plane too unstable? Well let us forget about the forward-swept wings and go with the traditional delta shape wings.
kiramuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 18:29   Link #75
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro View Post
Whether or not you can solve the limitations is irrevelant when you can easily avoid such limitations in the first place.
I agree. A suit's limitation isn't simply because of it's form, but by its design. So, what's the solution to that? A redesign, of course, without the limitations. Of course, everything has it's limits. Even tanks and planes, so I don't see how such things are entirely much better than a suit. All three excels differently from each other. A tank may be able to "handle" rougher terrain thanks to its type of wheels, but a mobile suit may be able to outrun it, and a plane would simply fly over both. That's simply one example of a few others. In fact, I'm not even sure how planes fit into this properly other than they can annihilate a tank and possibly a suit. Of course, the turrets on a tank and possibly vulcans on a suit can be used against the plane to cause quite a disruption to its attacks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro View Post
It has already established that the humanoid form doesn't translate well to the modern combat style in which melee fighting has been made obsolete hence why even attempt such design in the first place other than curiosity?
It has been established? Is this taken from a book regarding warfare? But yet, there are quite a number of us (no, I'm not referring to just the people in this forum) who yet continue to disagree with that line of thought. The humanoid form is still needed in modern combat. That's why we still have soldiers. Yet, I have always thought about the advancements of technology in regards to modern combat, and it seems it's better to simply forget this entire discussion and simply discuss how we can reduce the human risk factor by building unmanned machines that will fight the battles for us. No bloodshed in the process, though that would make fighting much more pointless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro View Post
Archictectural engineers has to deal with a lot of artistic inputs which understandably result in the a lot of structurally unsound drawings. Most other engineers don't have to deal with that. When we design a plane we only care about the performance and stability (time/cost/politics are factors too). Ideally every design decisions that are made should be geared exclusively into improving those two areas. Plane too unstable? Well let us forget about the forward-swept wings and go with the traditional delta shape wings.
Quite right. Most engineers don't have to deal with that. Performance and stability tends to be the key, or rather, the glue that holds everything together. Of course, by thinking singularly in regards to this, we fail to also consider that man also tries to improve what they have come to design and even make.

And you also hit a perfectly good reason why mobile suits won't be used any time soon, if ever. I've even said something very similar in my first post. Time, cost and politics. Although time shouldn't be too much of a problem once the actual final design is down pat, the cost may be quite high, considering experimentation and tests would have to be done for a few things. Politics simply tends to get involved in the other two.
__________________
"Even in a crowd, I was always alone." - Ernest Hemmingway
"God asks no man whether he will accept life. That is not the choice. You must take it. The only choice is how." - Henry Ward Beecher
Friend: "Evidence that you guys are made of epic win." Me: "That wasn't my goal. My goal is chaos, fear and...eggs."
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 18:33   Link #76
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness
That's mainly my question. One of the big issues with creating humanoid machines even 9-10m you still have to deal with gravity, weight and balancing issues, especially since the pressure is being applied to two small surface areas. In combat there's going to be a lot of stress going around for the hydraulics to work. Tanks if I recall correctly displace less weight than cars do.
That's correct. When it comes to ground pressure, tank treads spread their mass over a larger surface area compared to cars, so they are much less likely to get stuck (it also helps that they have much better traction).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness
I don't find mechs impractical but more on the lines of being exoskeletons or powered armor for military applications. For civilian applications I was thinking of the mech from Aliens which ripley used to fight the queen(But in turn the machine would be for moving stuff). Or essentially turning a platoon of marines into walking tanks that are only 2-3m tall but with just as much firepower and agility.
This would be a good reason precisely because armored infantry can fulfill a role that tanks would be incapable of. I'd also add that, given the same technology, a 70 ton tank would be insanely powerful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
This is all under a few assumptions. Armor being thickest at the front? That's poor engineering right there. I would never agree to a design of a car or a plane with only reinforcements at the front for better protection. Even a tank wasn't designed to have the thickest armor at the front.
You are factually incorrect. Tanks generally devote 50%+ of their mass to armor, and this armor is overwhelmingly distributed to the tank's front arc. The obvious reason for this is that the front arc is what a tank tries to present to its enemies, and it is the arc that will get hit the most. while the other arcs have some armor protection, it's usually only a fraction of what the front has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Why? It's a little less than 10 meters tall when it's on one knee and it's even a little below 9 meters when it's crouching. I've seen trees in national forests and Philippines way taller than that. In fact, they may even be high enough to cover the suit when it's standing, though that would increase the risk factor, thus I chose crouching or on one knee.
To illustrate, this is still a target the size of a house - while it's not impossible to find cover for it, it's awfully hard outside of certain (usually restrictive) environments. As I stated, it's about 10 times the size of a tank, and that much easier to hit. Couple this with inferior armor, and you will likely have a dead mobile suit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
To add on to that, immitating a soldier, it can possibly have a rifle for an offensive weapon. That would mean the "bullets" coming out of the barrels of those weapons would be just the same diameter (or bigger) in comparison to a tank's.
Incorrect. A tank is a more stable firing platform, so any gun that can be fitted on a mobile suit can also be fitted onto a tank, but the converse is not necessarily true. Generally, a mobile suit's weapon will be weaker than the tank's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Indeed and I agree that it's not exclusive to a mobile suit, but even then, it would mean altering the tank to include such technology. Size would definately be affected. And by slight, you mean about at least 2 meters in terms of length, width and height, right? Yes, even height is unfortunately affected. "Boosters" are not that small, especially for a tank that heavy that would need it more than just at the back particularly. Like I said, the wheels would need to be altered as well.
Why would jump jets have to be so big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Melee combat isn't completely silly. Depending the situation, it can either be advantagous or disadvantagous. It's a matter of the situation and the careful tactic plannings at that point. Oh, and then there's the vulcans that Gundams tend to have on their heads. From what I can tell, that's their answer to turrets. Higher speed, and smaller bullets. It's not bad, depending on where you really intend to house or mount them.
Small weapons like vulcan would either have to have either low muzzle-velocity or fire a small calibre round. In either case, while such a weapon may be effective against infantry, it would be useless anything with significant armor protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
As for melee combat being a last resort in a battle, this is why I've found war to be quite meaningless at this day and age. We might as well nix the entire idea of any future weaponry and simply build robots that will do the fighting for us.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
True to a degree. Calculated limitations are thought about in a design and brought into consideration. But, like I said, simply because the limitations seem to be apparent in plans and designs, it doesn't mean there won't be answers to resolve the issue.
This is untrue when the issue is that a humanoid shape is very poorly suited to a battlefield. Moreover, a mobile suit would occupy the exact same role as a tank, but not only does it not offer any appreciable advantages over it, but it offers many disadvantages as well.

Your analogy with architecture is not quite on the mark. It would be more accurate to presume that the architect's job was to design a fortress. There are two main design choices available: a thick-walled squat design built low to ground or a graceful tower. While it may be possible to build the fortress using the tower design, the limitations of such a shape dictates that it won't be anywhere nearly as good as the squat design could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I don't quite agree with that. Like I said, all the vehicles that belonged to Mithril were advanced along with the creation of the Arm Slaves. The only big difference is that at most situations, their opponents normally did not have the technology they did. Not just the Arm Slaves, but the helicopters and jets. I have yet to see them use a tank, though the submarine (I can't remember the name properly) was a mixture between a submarine and a carrier, so I can partially understand why they didn't carry tanks.
The key is still that while Mithril has access to other military hardware, their fancy toys are reserved for their Arm Slaves. As you say, antagonist conventional vehicles are shown as technologically backwards, so the progression is that the Arm slaves are given superior technology compared to all other vehicles (save perhaps for Tuatha De Danaan).
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 18:34   Link #77
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
This is all under a few assumptions. Armor being thickest at the front? That's poor engineering right there. I would never agree to a design of a car or a plane with only reinforcements at the front for better protection. Even a tank wasn't designed to have the thickest armor at the front. Engineers are not stupid enough not to think of the possibilities of their invention being attacked from every possible side.
Then you'd better tell every tank designer and army in the world that they've all got it completely wrong, because that is exactly how tanks are designed. The thickest armour is always found on the front of the tank.

This doesn't mean that the back or flanks of the tank are unarmoured. It's simply an acknowledgement that no vehicle, anywhere, can ever carry enough armour to be invulnerable. The designers will therefore concentrate the armour on the areas that are most likely to be hit - in an armoured vehicle that's the frontal arc, because you want to spend most of your time facing the enemy.

Last edited by Guppy; 2007-02-16 at 18:59.
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 19:31   Link #78
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
You are factually incorrect. Tanks generally devote 50%+ of their mass to armor, and this armor is overwhelmingly distributed to the tank's front arc. The obvious reason for this is that the front arc is what a tank tries to present to its enemies, and it is the arc that will get hit the most. while the other arcs have some armor protection, it's usually only a fraction of what the front has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
Then you'd better tell every tank designer and army in the world that they've all got it completely wrong, because that is exactly how tanks are designed. The thickest armour is always found on the front of the tank.

This doesn't mean that the back or flanks of the tank are unarmoured. It's simply an acknowledgement that no vehicle, anywhere, can ever carry enough armour to be invulnerable. The designers will therefore concentrate the armour on the areas that are most likely to be hit - in an armoured vehicle that's the frontal arc, because you want to spend most of your time facing the enemy.
Right, thus a suit wouldn't just have the better set of armor at just the front. Just like a soldier wear armoring for the front and back torso, possibly would a suit since the more vital points would be in those area. (ie: pilot)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
To illustrate, this is still a target the size of a house - while it's not impossible to find cover for it, it's awfully hard outside of certain (usually restrictive) environments. As I stated, it's about 10 times the size of a tank, and that much easier to hit. Couple this with inferior armor, and you will likely have a dead mobile suit.
Uh... 10 times? I'm not sure how it's 10 times if it's approximately 2.4 meters, thus it being only 4 times when the suit is crouching and 6 times when it's standing, height-wise. Length-wise, the tank would be approximately 1.5-2 times bigger. Now width-wise, the suit would be approximately 1.5-2 times wider. As for cover, I did state earlier that the suits would have to be strategically deployed carefully as well as the environments it's being deployed chosen carefully. As for the inferior armor... Inferior armor? What? I did state previous theories and concepts in which can be applied to tanks and planes as well. One was armor, so it can't be inferior if that was created. Even then, the armor wouldn't be any weaker than a tank's, if not by much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Incorrect. A tank is a more stable firing platform, so any gun that can be fitted on a mobile suit can also be fitted onto a tank, but the converse is not necessarily true. Generally, a mobile suit's weapon will be weaker than the tank's.
If you read the paragraph underneath what you quoted from me, I said that the tanks can also be fitted with the same type of weaponry, but that would mean the tank would have to be altered to fit this "upgrade." Increased size, as I had said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Why would jump jets have to be so big?
Weight. It's not that the jets have to be huge, but it would have to be able to handle the weight of the tank as well as balance the horizontal surface of the tank. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I actually think it's an interesting idea for a tank. The tank would have to be lifted off the ground a little so there would be space for the "boosters," but then it has to be spread out evenly so the tank wouldn't tip forward or backward and ruin the drivetrain in the process. On top of that, the hydraulics would need compensators for the shock from the impact of landing. I'm not sure if the military's tested what it's like to throw a tank off a one story building, but I can't even guarantee the wheels will survive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Small weapons like vulcan would either have to have either low muzzle-velocity or fire a small calibre round. In either case, while such a weapon may be effective against infantry, it would be useless anything with significant armor protection.
I'd pity the infantry getting wiped out from such a powerful weapon...but I was actually thinking more along the lines of firing at planes as well. I'm aware some jets have vulcans as a house armament.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
This is untrue when the issue is that a humanoid shape is very poorly suited to a battlefield. Moreover, a mobile suit would occupy the exact same role as a tank, but not only does it not offer any appreciable advantages over it, but it offers many disadvantages as well.

Your analogy with architecture is not quite on the mark. It would be more accurate to presume that the architect's job was to design a fortress. There are two main design choices available: a thick-walled squat design built low to ground or a graceful tower. While it may be possible to build the fortress using the tower design, the limitations of such a shape dictates that it won't be anywhere nearly as good as the squat design could be.
It was an example. I've repeated it several times and I'm getting tired of repeating it, so I'll simply state that I stand by what I've said. Now, I don't quite see how a tank and a suit have the same exact role, when I consider the tanks for long range and the suits for infantry-type. Instead of throwing soldiers out there with as much protecting we can give them and that they can carry, mobile suits can provide the adequate cover while the "foot-soldiers" deal with entering buildings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
The key is still that while Mithril has access to other military hardware, their fancy toys are reserved for their Arm Slaves. As you say, antagonist conventional vehicles are shown as technologically backwards, so the progression is that the Arm slaves are given superior technology compared to all other vehicles (save perhaps for Tuatha De Danaan).
I'll never remember the name of that ship because of the way it's spelt... I did indicate that most of Mithril's opponents are at a technological disadvantage, but I also did say the advancement of technology in Mithril's side didn't stop with the Arm Slaves. Their helicopters and jets also had technological advancements. The only problem was that they didn't get enough screen time compared to the ASs.
__________________
"Even in a crowd, I was always alone." - Ernest Hemmingway
"God asks no man whether he will accept life. That is not the choice. You must take it. The only choice is how." - Henry Ward Beecher
Friend: "Evidence that you guys are made of epic win." Me: "That wasn't my goal. My goal is chaos, fear and...eggs."
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 19:58   Link #79
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
Right, thus a suit wouldn't just have the better set of armor at just the front. Just like a soldier wear armoring for the front and back torso, possibly would a suit since the more vital points would be in those area. (ie: pilot)
Fine, but if you add more armour to the back then you'll have to subtract armour from the front. If you insist on not reducing the frontal armour while adding more back or flank armour, then the suit will be heavier and less mobile (and probably less reliable due to the added stress on the drivetrain).

Every design is a tradeoff. There are no free lunches in engineering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
As for the inferior armor... Inferior armor? What? I did state previous theories and concepts in which can be applied to tanks and planes as well. One was armor, so it can't be inferior if that was created. Even then, the armor wouldn't be any weaker than a tank's, if not by much.
But you just said that an MS needs to be armoured all over, not just mostly in the frontal arc - so the armour will be thinner when it's facing the enemy. A mobile suit would also have a lot more moving joints than a tank, and those are difficult to properly armour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
I'd pity the infantry getting wiped out from such a powerful weapon...but I was actually thinking more along the lines of firing at planes as well. I'm aware some jets have vulcans as a house armament.
20mm isn't really that powerful if the infantry are dug in - I can recall at least two publicised cases off the top of my head from Iraq and Afghanistan where 20mm fire didn't do the job against fortified infantry, and airstrikes had to be called in. As an anti-aircraft weapon Vulcans really aren't that great either. Most aircraft these days will never enter a Vulcan's range - close air support is conducted from standoff distances using smart weapons.

Most fighters generally do mount cannons, but they're considered weapons of last resort. I once read a collection of letters home from WWII-era pilot, and was struck by his observation that, even in 1944, "strafing is great fun - but avid strafers seldom grow old."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
It was an example. I've repeated it several times and I'm getting tired of repeating it, so I'll simply state that I stand by what I've said. Now, I don't quite see how a tank and a suit have the same exact role, when I consider the tanks for long range and the suits for infantry-type. Instead of throwing soldiers out there with as much protecting we can give them and that they can carry, mobile suits can provide the adequate cover while the "foot-soldiers" deal with entering buildings.
You don't see how a tank and a suit have the same role... but the role you propose for suits in urban combat is exactly the same role that tanks play now. The infantry clear buildings while the tanks provide direct cover fire.
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 22:00   Link #80
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
Fine, but if you add more armour to the back then you'll have to subtract armour from the front. If you insist on not reducing the frontal armour while adding more back or flank armour, then the suit will be heavier and less mobile (and probably less reliable due to the added stress on the drivetrain).

Every design is a tradeoff. There are no free lunches in engineering.
Unfortunately, that's the kind of thinking that has limited my peers from reaching their goals. If that's the case, then create, upgrade or rebuild the drivetrain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
But you just said that an MS needs to be armoured all over, not just mostly in the frontal arc - so the armour will be thinner when it's facing the enemy. A mobile suit would also have a lot more moving joints than a tank, and those are difficult to properly armour.
I never said that the suit has to be that thickly armored "all over." Simply on the areas that are most vital, such as the torso. And yes, I moving joints tend to cause difficulty when it comes to armor placement. One solution to that is there be a few layers of plating. No, not all of them have to be thick. Only the outer layer will be thick plating in which they would be placed at the vital points. The other plating is to provide adequate covering for the mechanisms underneath, while allowing the suit to move and bend properly. What was it that a peer called it when I was discussing it with him? "Movable armor?" I'm not too sure. It practically means that the armor platings are not one solid plating, but in pieces. Of course, one would think that since the plates are separate pieces, the areas where they meet would be their weak point. True, thus the solution of armor layering so that the layer underneath would be covering the openings between platings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
20mm isn't really that powerful if the infantry are dug in - I can recall at least two publicised cases off the top of my head from Iraq and Afghanistan where 20mm fire didn't do the job against fortified infantry, and airstrikes had to be called in. As an anti-aircraft weapon Vulcans really aren't that great either. Most aircraft these days will never enter a Vulcan's range - close air support is conducted from standoff distances using smart weapons.

Most fighters generally do mount cannons, but they're considered weapons of last resort. I once read a collection of letters home from WWII-era pilot, and was struck by his observation that, even in 1944, "strafing is great fun - but avid strafers seldom grow old."
It didn't fare against fortified infantry? Well, I can understand. That's where the suit's rifle comes in. That's what they did, didn't they? They called in for bigger guns because the ones they had weren't cutting it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
You don't see how a tank and a suit have the same role... but the role you propose for suits in urban combat is exactly the same role that tanks play now. The infantry clear buildings while the tanks provide direct cover fire.
Is that so? Well, as I see it, a tank's long range ability, yet slow movement would put it in a position where it would attack from a distance if coupled with a suit and a few soldiers on foot. While the tank provides the cover from a distance, the suit, which should be able to cover the distance faster than a tank, can proceed to the target building while transporting the soldiers. Upon the arrival at the target building, the transported soldiers will enter the building while the suits get on one knee and provide cover and any possible melee combat while the tank makes its way to the target building and take the suit's place as cover. Well, that's one strategy I was thinking of. For some reason, I was thinking of Iraq. I'm not 100% sure why, but I think I formulated that strategy from the description one of my military friends had told me about a mission he had to do.



Well, in any case, I have to withdraw from this discussion. It's not because I'm admitting defeat or anything of that sort. In fact, I still stand firm next to what I've said so far. I did enjoy this discussion (though the it appeared to be an endless cycle) and I would continue, but I unfortunately have inadequate amount of time that the discussion seems to demand. I'll continue reading the thread, and I might possibly add in once in a while. I'd like to see what others might say in my place. I'll have to say that it's not bad to see the other side's point of view and could sometimes be refreshing, but I'll stick to my line of work and not give up.
__________________
"Even in a crowd, I was always alone." - Ernest Hemmingway
"God asks no man whether he will accept life. That is not the choice. You must take it. The only choice is how." - Henry Ward Beecher
Friend: "Evidence that you guys are made of epic win." Me: "That wasn't my goal. My goal is chaos, fear and...eggs."
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.