AnimeSuki Forums

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

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-02-27, 00:05   Link #41
teachopvutru
Urusai~Urusai~Urusai~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Location
Age: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by grey_moon View Post
Actually if going on about size, wouldn't smaller be better? Me thinks of attack nanobots ripping ppl apart on the microscopic level.
Yea, nanobots that work like virus that has code to identify a specific group of enemies. It can travel through all sort of matters, including air, so a person is "infected" as soon as he/she breathes. Then, only one is required to kill the person--it will take over the cell, duplicates itself rapidly and takes out other cells, then designed to self-explode. The whole process takes several seconds to a minute. But a nanobot can kill a person by simply keep duplicating itself inside that person, but it takes a lot longer, although in that sense, a human enemy can be used as a host to produce even more nanobots; it's like killing two birds with one stone. But what I'm thinking of is a robot scaled down to an extremely small size.

I don't want to ever think of any possibilities of something like that being existed, though.

Back to topic, I would prefer a mecha like the AS in Full Metal Panic, with Lambda Driver build-in and stuffs.
__________________

"FOUND YOU!" ~Taiga
teachopvutru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 00:12   Link #42
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiachopvutru View Post
Back to topic, I would prefer a mecha like the AS in Full Metal Panic, with Lambda Driver build-in and stuffs.
Good point, I'd totally forgotten about Bonta-kun. Now that is the ultimate mech type armour
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 00:21   Link #43
Nenkitsune
Ive been MikuCaramellized
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to Nenkitsune Send a message via Yahoo to Nenkitsune
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiachopvutru View Post
Yea, nanobots that work like virus that has code to identify a specific group of enemies. It can travel through all sort of matters, including air, so a person is "infected" as soon as he/she breathes. Then, only one is required to kill the person--it will take over the cell, duplicates itself rapidly and takes out other cells, then designed to self-explode. The whole process takes several seconds to a minute. But a nanobot can kill a person by simply keep duplicating itself inside that person, but it takes a lot longer, although in that sense, a human enemy can be used as a host to produce even more nanobots; it's like killing two birds with one stone. But what I'm thinking of is a robot scaled down to an extremely small size.

I don't want to ever think of any possibilities of something like that being existed, though.

Back to topic, I would prefer a mecha like the AS in Full Metal Panic, with Lambda Driver build-in and stuffs.
if the nanobot was programed in a way for it to collect and multiply without causing damage until a certian time is reached, the amount of chaos would be crazy. It could wait inside the human host, then as soon as that time is up, it can go TICK and say, sever every nerve in the human body, killing the person instantly. the entire body would just shut down.

or if you want to go for minimalistic, the nanobot's could be programed to cut certian nerves, and do it in a non-lethal way. Say, target nerve groups A, B and C, when it cuts them, the person becomes paralized either partially or fully, or at least to the extent that they no longer are a threat.
__________________

もいちど。。。
Nenkitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 00:41   Link #44
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
So far there has been no arguments in favour of gundam type mecha in warfare. Even if gundam like reflexes and mobility was available, the humanoid shape also restricts the attack zone to the front of the suit. The spider shape posted about earlier is far more suited to missile combat as you would want a better all around vision. Actually in terms of mobility and senses a floating sphere with sensors and weapons all around it would be the best thing.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 02:14   Link #45
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by grey_moon View Post
Actually in terms of mobility and senses a floating sphere with sensors and weapons all around it would be the best thing.
A hover tank basically ? That poses one problem: where does the recoil from the main turret go ? Sure, you would have good mobility, but it wouldn't make for a very stable firing platform. Of course i am just hypothesizing, but i can imagine a hovering weapons platform having trouble with larger caliber weaponry.
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 03:15   Link #46
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall View Post
A hover tank basically ? That poses one problem: where does the recoil from the main turret go ? Sure, you would have good mobility, but it wouldn't make for a very stable firing platform. Of course i am just hypothesizing, but i can imagine a hovering weapons platform having trouble with larger caliber weaponry.
Well if it was in Gundam tech levels then it would be beam weapons and missiles so recoil wouldn't be an issue. I was thinking of no main gun instead covered in weapon ports kinda like the lenses in Aim for the Top's ships.

With a hover tank unless they make it turreted top and bottom sides they would have blind spots.

But your earlier point (I think it was yours) about so many vital spots is the greatest argument against humanoid mecha in combat.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 04:19   Link #47
Nenkitsune
Ive been MikuCaramellized
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to Nenkitsune Send a message via Yahoo to Nenkitsune
I can see spider like vehicles having a place as mobile turrets. The legs would act as both a solid base AND as a shock absorber, and the legs would ALSO allow it to move in places previously unsuitable for wheeled based turrets.
__________________

もいちど。。。
Nenkitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 04:20   Link #48
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
I suppose the future lies in unmanned, remote controlled weapon platforms. Or weapon platforms with a small human crew.
Weapons and platforms today are often mission specific or play a certain role in warfare, they usually are not well on its own. E.g., lets take infantry as example, machine guns for curtain fire against human enemies - makes them search for cover instead of rushing through, assault rifles for targetting specific human targets, sniper rifles for long range spec ops... SAMs for low/slow flying targets, (un)guided armor piercing weapons of all kinds against armored vehicles.... each weapon alone has its weak points, but well orchestrated use of all the weapons makes for a good defense/attack ability.

In warfare the used system should not be too complex, since complexity is often bad for universatility and reliability.
E.g., IEDs are very very simple devices, yet highly effective against more complex devices like armored vehicles. Especially in asymetric warfare, complex devices prove to be rather unreliable or costly when hit by simple devices. Of course technical superiority in land, sea and air warfare will increase the effectiveness of forces, but it will also raise the costs for maintenance and supply.

That makes me assume, that there is no need for human shaped mechas in modern warfare. Like it was several times mentioned before in the thread, human shaped vehicles are not really good weapon platforms for modern weapons. I don't want to repeat all the given reasons. Though the most hindering aspect is imo size and complexity of such a weapons platform (if all the other technical problems, e.g. balancing, wear off of parts, speed... are assumed to be solved).
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 05:06   Link #49
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenkitsune View Post
I can see spider like vehicles having a place as mobile turrets. The legs would act as both a solid base AND as a shock absorber, and the legs would ALSO allow it to move in places previously unsuitable for wheeled based turrets.
and have hollow tubes in a couple of them allowing the pilots to suck up gold and women Baku style

Shirow is the god of futuristic weapon design, even his mech suits makes far more sense then a lot of the others out there and the notes in the back made a darn good read too.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 05:20   Link #50
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenkitsune View Post
I can see spider like vehicles having a place as mobile turrets. The legs would act as both a solid base AND as a shock absorber, and the legs would ALSO allow it to move in places previously unsuitable for wheeled based turrets.
Now this is definitely a more workable idea than a humanoid mecha, though still not without drawbacks. The legs would still be vulnerable to attack, and disabling one you would disable the mecha. Plus it would likely have a slow movement speed. While it might have access to areas where a tank could not go, i am wondering what swamps of critical importance enough to bring in heavy advanced weaponry you want it to scale that couldn't be simply bombed to oblivion by artillery and air support
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 06:09   Link #51
Furuno
Fuwaaa~~~
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indonesia
Age: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to Furuno
Wow, this thread growth unexpectedly fast (growth? um..). I'm also think that mecha won't be suitable for real life combat unless it's something like gundam...

Forget about being low armored or slow, you can easily get a mobility kill by destroying those leg. Then it falls, and cannot get up again. Weapons that mounted in the arms become useless as it cannot move the arm. Get another firepower kill.

However, it can move very freely like human, it would be very good. Imagine, a mecha can shoot from corners from safety by just letting the arm out (well, you know what i mean)... Or maybe even, crawl... But this will lead to another problem, control. I bet theres a hell lot of button and sticks or whatever to control that kind of movement.

Anyway for offensive power, i think it can be "realistically" comparable to those of tanks, or maybe even better. Here, equip each arm with cannon in the grip and short ranged missile or rocket. Of course it should not have to look like weapons that people usually carry. Reloading will be seems impossible if so. Imagine, how would you reload a magazine containing 50 120mm ammunition?. Maybe the rather than "normal" arm, it should be "weapon" arm.
__________________

Check my Blog / Thread / Twitter for some random stuffs...
Furuno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 06:41   Link #52
hobbes_fan
You could say.....
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
a bipedal shape is horrible in terms of design. There's too much stress on the the hips, knees and legs. This is 200-300 ton machine running, jumping using conventional tech would see the legs buckle under the strain. How would you power it? Liquid fuel is out of the question, the amount of power required would pretty much guarantee this thing would have a very short operational time. nuclear fission? Probably not a good idea in something designed to get up close and personal? Solar? Last time I checked Minovsky/GN particles didn't exist.

You're more likely to see cheaper versions of hardsuits like in bubblegum crisis, crysis and tekkaman for infantry. Which is a natural progression for the US Landwarrior program - considering its design goals of improved survival, improved killing potential and improved communication.

And why would you bother with a gundam? Build a nuke, failing that if your country can't afford it, BC weapons. All you have to do is build a delivery vehicle - a missile guidance system and its a far superior weapon in the brinkmanship stakes. For the cost of a Gundam around 1 billion you would of tripled your offensive firepower with nukes/bc weapons. A mech in terms of destructive capability can do what? one or two battalions of tanks using 8th MS team standards. Pfft with a press of a button I could destroy all the enemy infrastructure with 3-4 ICBM's
__________________
Before you ask "How do I convert fansubs to...." see the following
MP4 - http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=47693
Convert AVI/MKV/MP4 to DVD
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=26308
hobbes_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 06:44   Link #53
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall View Post
Now this is definitely a more workable idea than a humanoid mecha, though still not without drawbacks. The legs would still be vulnerable to attack, and disabling one you would disable the mecha. Plus it would likely have a slow movement speed. While it might have access to areas where a tank could not go, i am wondering what swamps of critical importance enough to bring in heavy advanced weaponry you want it to scale that couldn't be simply bombed to oblivion by artillery and air support
Reference: Empire Strikes Back and them buggers have 4 legs. Super powerful mobile troop carriers with shield generators taken down with a harpoon, some cable and a lot of GGGGGGGGGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 06:48   Link #54
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes_fan View Post
And why would you bother with a gundam? Build a nuke, failing that if your country can't afford it, BC weapons. All you have to do is build a delivery vehicle - a missile guidance system and its a far superior weapon in the brinkmanship stakes. For the cost of a Gundam around 1 billion you would of tripled your offensive firepower with nukes/bc weapons. A mech in terms of destructive capability can do what? one or two battalions of tanks using 8th MS team standards. Pfft with a press of a button I could destroy all the enemy infrastructure with 3-4 ICBM's
You know, i highly doubt the purpose of a mech would be to take out the enemy ... along with its infrastructure, civilians, local flora, fauna, landscape and anything else that happened to be in he way. This isn't about the fastest road to total annihilation.
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 07:13   Link #55
hobbes_fan
You could say.....
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
It's a war machine, it's job is to win wars. How do you win wars? by killing- simple as that. The fastest way to win a war with least amount of casualties on your side? And remembering your responsibility is to your troops, not the opposing civilians not the opposing soldiers. destroy the logistical support of the defending force. BC weapons as vicious as they are, leaves infrastructure intact. If you wanted to get really namby pamby about it germ warfare is an option. As a threat they are far superior to a mech. And for even more finesse launch a cruise missile strike using conventional payloads. It's cheaper and you could launch hundreds if not thousands at a time and literally pound an armed force into submission. Have a look at where most military installations are. Very rarely are they in the middle of metropolitan centres. If they are well tough shit, its war its a legitimate target. Destroying supply routes, munitions caches, motor pools have always been valid military tactics and accepted conventional tactics. Now I've yet to see a convincing argument that says a mech can do this any better than a missile strike. A mech rampaging through a metropolitan centre will harm civilians, whether it's one or ten thousand collateral damage is still collateral damage.

And personally I'm of the opinion if you choose to go to war the total annihilation of your enemies is the only real victory. Why would you want to leave a festering sore breeding ground of insurgents who will only come back and bite you in the ass at a later stage. The quick annihilation of your enemies means your troops don't get massacred. War machines are designed for improved killing efficiency, otherwise there's no point to developing them. Humans went from fists to spears to bows and arrows to missiles etc etc for the sheer fact that each step was improved killing technique. They offered a quick a quick and decisive victory. The were all implemented with the thought of the total annihilation of the enemy. So it is about the quickest way to the total obliteration of your enemies. After all it is a war machine - if a Gundam offers no improvement in killing efficiency over existing tech then why bother? Just stick to tanks and planes
__________________
Before you ask "How do I convert fansubs to...." see the following
MP4 - http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=47693
Convert AVI/MKV/MP4 to DVD
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=26308

Last edited by hobbes_fan; 2008-02-27 at 07:44.
hobbes_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 07:27   Link #56
Blizzer
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Age: 24
I think using a mecha for warfare is out of the question, it would be an incredibly expensive piece of machinery (so it wouldn't be cost-effective to make an army of them), it would'nt be highly manouverable (a tank would outperform it), it would be an incredibly huge sitting duck - not to mention the human form is not the most effective choice of combat machine.

The only thing I can think of atm they would be good for is construction and lifting.
Blizzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 07:53   Link #57
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes_fan
And personally I'm of the opinion if you choose to go to war the total annihilation of your enemies is the only real victory. Why would you want to leave a festering sore breeding ground of insurgents who will only come back and bite you in the ass at a later stage. The quick annihilation of your enemies means your troops don't get massacred.
That sounds strangely familiar. I believe a certain administration called it "shock and awe". It was certainly very flashy, but last I checked, we're still seeing a lot of insurgency in Iraq.

Similarly, the idea of turning your enemy, and their civilians, into glowing green goo flies against every military doctrine developed since WWII. Any country that attempts to fight a war that way would make more enemies than it could kill. Not an effective way to fight a war in the long run, I'd wager.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall
The legs would still be vulnerable to attack, and disabling one you would disable the mecha.
Actually, a tank is equally vulnerable in the same respect. Take out the tank tracks, and you have a sitting duck waiting for a coup de grace. Tanks are espeically vulnerable especially in built-up areas. Plenty of places for "piddly" infantry to hide. And they would be armed with anti-tank weapons to take out the supposedly well-armoured tanks.

Supposing that exoskeleton "mechs" become possible, I can see how they would greatly enhance the combat effectiveness of armoured infantry in future warfare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto
Weapons and platforms today are often mission specific or play a certain role in warfare, they usually are not well on its own.
Yes, conventional wars today are fought with combined arms operations. Infantry screen tanks against opposing infantry, while the tanks provide close fire support. Ideally, you'd have air support as well, which are in turn protected against enemy aircraft by air superiority fighters and interceptors.

Whatever the system, whatever the technology, whatever the tactics deployed, in the end however, it's still down to the poor bloody infantry soldier to hold and defend ground. So, enhancing infantry combat power with human-sized "mecha" might not be so far-fetched an idea.

I'm not sure why people think mechas (if they ever become feasible) would never replace tanks as the "ultimate" weapons of land warfare. When tanks were first introduced, they looked like this. They suffered from horrible mobility, piddly firepower, and were highly prone to get stuck in the muddy trenches of the Western Front. No one at the time would have imagined that an ungainly machine such as that could become a decisive weapon of war. Who's to say "mechas" can't become feasible one day as well?
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 08:03   Link #58
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Actually, a tank is equally vulnerable in the same respect. Take out the tank tracks, and you have a sitting duck waiting for a coup de grace. Tanks are espeically vulnerable especially in built-up areas. Plenty of places for "piddly" infantry to hide. And they would be armed with anti-tank weapons to take out the supposedly well-armoured tanks.
Yes indeed, though i can still imagine a tank with disabled tracks being capable of causing harm It is still there and most likely can still fire. A spider like mecha , i assume, would likely tumble over to one side that is no longer supported by one of the legs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
Supposing that exoskeleton "mechs" become possible, I can see how they could greatly enhance the combat effectiveness of armoured infantry in future warfare.
That is actually the best place where i can imagine "mecha" being used - as an infantry enhancing addition, not a wannabe replacement for ...tanks ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
I'm not sure why people think mechas (if they ever become feasible) would never replace tanks as the "ultimate" weapons of land warfare. When tanks were first introduced, they looked like this. They suffered from horrible mobility, piddly firepower, and were highly prone to get stuck in the muddy trenches of the Western Front. No one at the time would have imagined that an ungainly machine such as that could become a decisive weapon of war. Who's to say "mechas" can't become feasible one day as well?
Cost and efficiency. It won't be better armed than a tank, the production costs will be stupid, and so will be the maintenance costs. What does a mecha offer that a tank doesn't, besides being a more fragile target practice ? If i want an armored high firepower vehicle, why would i want to take a mecha instead of the 10 tanks i could built in its place, that is unlikely to be as effective as even one of them ?
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 08:05   Link #59
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exoskeletons would only be good if we continue to put humans at risk. As soon as remote control or AI becomes viable then the shape of the unit would be dependant on the job instead of the wearer.

The best way to win a war is to conquer with no damage to the resources you want. So if you want the lands then some form of bio weapon then has some form of timeout. If the people are a resource that you wish to grab then it becomes a bit more difficult. People as a resource includes the idea of heart and minds. For example if you are at war to liberate the civilians of the opponents you can't just nuke them.

@Skyfall - I was thinking of the same thing too. If a humanoid mech lands face down it might be totally worthless.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-27, 08:12   Link #60
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall
Cost and efficiency. It won't be better armed than a tank, the production costs will be stupid, and so will be the maintenance costs. What does a mecha offer that a tank doesn't, besides being a more fragile target practice ?
Actually, I agree.

But then again, there were probably British commanders during WWI who insisted that it was more cost-effective to raise and equip a cavalry division than to develop costly, ineffective metal monsters that got stuck in mud. It's hard to predict how necessity could change the course of military history sometimes.

Furthermore, the limited effectiveness of tanks in many conventional operations today have led military strategists to wonder why they should bother with heavy armour. If you think about the wars that countries are likely to fight today, lightly armoured, highly mobile units packed with heavy firepower would be far more desirable than a squadron of tanks.

The days of massive tank battles, such as those we've seen in WWII and in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War are long gone. Armies will still keep tanks around, to be sure, but in smaller numbers. It's all done in the name of cost-effectiveness as well.
TinyRedLeaf 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 05:30.


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