2012-12-04, 15:38 | Link #1461 | |
Dictadere~!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
|
Quote:
In any case, a bank of missile launchers is nothing special, and hovering wouldn't change many things I offered the mecha would be capable of.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-04, 16:08 | Link #1462 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Large powered infantry. Would get around the power cel problems of the human sided Power Armor suits.
I am more inclided to head the Arm Slave route than anything else. (though the novel version are shorter than the anime versions).
__________________
|
2012-12-04, 16:14 | Link #1463 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
His point is that, while 30th century mecha would beat 20th century tank, it wouldn't beat 30th century tank. At equal technology level and equal weight, a humanoid mecha is just a bigger, weaker target than a tank. And no more likely to dodge anti-tank weaponry than a flesh and blood human is to dodge bullets. (Both happen in anime. I don't think you'll see a lot of either IRL.) |
|
2012-12-04, 16:28 | Link #1464 | |
Dictadere~!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
|
Quote:
I understand a future tank would beat a future mecha, but the mere definition of a tank ensures limits as to what it can do, and I again point to some of the things a mech could potentially do as opposed to a tank.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-04, 16:31 | Link #1465 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the viability of a military weapons platform cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, their capabilities must be compared to their contemporaries. There's little point in saying a mech has all these advantages with these future techs when you compare it to a modern day tank. Quote:
As for hovering, it would massively increase the maneuverability of the armored vehicle, and give it even more capable at crossing terrains than ground based platforms. That being said, it's also a "magic" tech, so there's little point in debating how it'd perform against other "magic" techs. I would love to see a real mech as much as the next guy (GIMME MAH TIMBERWOLF!!!), but in the context of this discussion (or at least what I thought is the context), practical limitations of the platform cannot be magicked away. |
|||
2012-12-04, 16:45 | Link #1466 | |||
Dictadere~!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, you can... The only reason we consider a mecha is to see what it offers us in comparison to a tank. We would attempt to build one because it is being compared to a potentially inferior tank. And to even say a mecha is totally and utterly implausible today seems a bit silly either way; consider when we got to the moon. We still have trouble launching rockets into space and the 1960's managed to send men to the moon. Looking at other forms of technology doesn't necessarily inhibit our ability to make completely new things at the same time. Quote:
Yes, hovering would be grand, but in all honesty, I find it even more implausible than a mecha.
__________________
|
|||
2012-12-04, 17:20 | Link #1467 |
Banned
|
Voyager 1 probe leaving solar system reaches "magnetic highway" exit
http://news.yahoo.com/voyager-1-prob...023825204.html Actually guys.. though it's just a device.... I think it'll be sad travelling alone out there.... |
2012-12-04, 17:46 | Link #1469 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-04, 18:57 | Link #1474 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
You know I can stomach some fanboy-ism. But please don't try to reason it. For example you were talking about dodging rockets. Well let me tell you that rockets today are much more of a challenge for the supposed future technology mech then you might think. Dodging guided rockets with pattern recognition based seekers that fly not straight at you, but in a curve, so they can attack from above (top attack - because thats typically the weakest part on armored weapon platforms) is not exactly something you are going to dodge with dexterous moves. These rockets will become even more sophisticated using future technology. Armored weapon platforms today use different means to "dodge" rockets (aka counter measures provided by APS - active protection systems). For example smoke grenades. When the target is covered in smoke a seeker has some difficulty finding it. Since the modern rocket tries to attack from above, it will just fly over the armored weapons platform which cannot be identified in the smoke (a soft kill counter measure). Should the rocket be "intelligent" enough to aim for a point that corresponds to the targets position before the smoke screen was created or simply is faster approaching than the smoke can enclose the armored weapon platform, then there could be a hard kill counter measure in place to destroy the rocket physically (these things work better then every dodge movement you can possibly imagine your mech would be doing). Here is an example of a hard kill APS in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92aQ7rfC2IU (20m is a typical attack range in urban warfare - now imagine you wanna dodge something that hits you in a few milliseconds - the g-forces of the resulting dodging move would tear apart any presently known material - in fact, the dodging would actually cause 1000-fold more damage than the incoming threat).
__________________
|
|
2012-12-04, 19:18 | Link #1476 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Well there is that. Voyager 1 is currently the fastest object we have since the otehr deep space probes will not have the double gravity boost of Saturn and Titan to help shove it out of the system (it is going something near 3.6 AU a year).
And of course it could be Voyager 2 that hits the wormhole.
__________________
|
2012-12-04, 20:57 | Link #1477 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Pretty much what you said, I think often times in these type of discussions people invariably start to neglect (or never quite understood) the situations and evolving demands and challenges of a real battlefield, which is the most important driver behind whether a particular weapon platform is practical or obsolete.
Quote:
For starters, material. We simply have nothing with which to build a mech, at least one with the kind of mobility you're envisioning. To put it into perspective, assuming the mech weights only 30 tons (rather lightweight, barely half of a M1 MBT), this means each leg would be subject to well over 100 tons of force individually when simply running in a straight line, and that's before you even try to attempt more forceful moves such as jumping/dodging etc. The amount of force the joints would have to withstand would be immense, and far beyond the capability of the materials we currently have. And this is without going into the equally challenging issues with power generation/storage, drive-train etc. We're a VERY long way from building a practical mech, if indeed we ever will. |
|
2012-12-04, 21:06 | Link #1478 | |
Dictadere~!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-05, 09:28 | Link #1480 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|