Real life gundam

[GoldAlchemist]

Originally Posted by Tak

If StarGazer is of any indication, artificial muscles may be the answer to your concern.

I didn't watch StarGazer, but if the artificial muscles are made of mechanical parts, then it'll be the same problem all over again. If it were to be biological, that's an even larger breakthrough we're talking about.

[Tak]

Yes, it appeared to be biological.

In a fictional competitive world where robots strive to advance, one would think Gundam wouldn't fall too far behind.

- Tak

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by GoldAlchemist

I didn't watch StarGazer, but if the artificial muscles are made of mechanical parts, then it'll be the same problem all over again. If it were to be biological, that's an even larger breakthrough we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Tak

Yes, it appeared to be biological.

Stargazer's motive system may look biological, but it's more likely to be a mechanical mockup of musculature just the Battletech myomer technology. It shouldn't make too much difference either way. Intuitively, while a biological system (one based on living cells) may seem to be less prone to breakdown and failure, it's also vulnerable to all sorts of things that don't hamper regular machinery. Moreover, there'd be all sorts of maintenance issues that will require specialized equipment and expertise to handle.

[Tak]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Intuitively, while a biological system (one based on living cells) may seem to be less prone to breakdown and failure, it's also vulnerable to all sorts of things that don't hamper regular machinery. Moreover, there'd be all sorts of maintenance issues that will require specialized equipment and expertise to handle.

Does not mean it cannot be improved upon. Matter of fact, we don't know how bio-technology in the future will evolve into. So I will keep my fingers crossed for the time being.

Although its worth noting that cockroaches do not get sick, and they are almost immune to a nuclear fallout and subsequent radiation.

- Tak

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Tak

Does not mean it cannot be improved upon. Matter of fact, we don't know how bio-technology in the future will evolve into. So I will keep my fingers crossed for the time being.

Organic technologies have been improved upon - that's why we don't use them as extensively as we used to. Biotechnological constructs require cellular activity, and thus have built-in limitations in terms of structural strength. Since the former will always exist, the latter is going to be a big problem. And then there's all the ways that cells can die - life is fragile, hence it's not well suited for most high-energy / high-stress applications.

Originally Posted by Tak

Although its worth noting that cockroaches do not get sick, and they are almost immune to a nuclear fallout and subsequent radiation.

The same goes for a piece of steel, except that you don't have to worry about it dying, or scurrying away; better yet, you don't have to feed it.

[Tak]

It doesn't have to be living. If we can achieve it to mimic certain aspects of life, then maybe we'd have something more practical.

As for steel vs. cells, I think the primary subject matter in question is that steel is inflexible, something that could be fixed through artificial biological materials.

- Tak

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Tak

It doesn't have to be living. If we can achieve it to mimic certain aspects of life, then maybe we'd have something more practical.

In that case, what advantage would it possibly confer? Especially when the orginal question was on wear and tear?

Originally Posted by Tak

As for steel vs. cells, I think the primary subject matter in question is that steel is inflexible, something that could be fixed through artificial biological materials.

Why would inflexibility (otherwise known as "sturctural strength") be considered a disadvantage?

[Tak]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why would inflexibility (otherwise known as "sturctural strength") be considered a disadvantage?

Because I toy with the idea of dragon-scale (light as feather, harder than steel) in modern-day and/or futuristic science.

- Tak

[Shinji103]

Gunota

Defense Technology Symposium 2007

Ascii.jp and CNET Japan got some photos of the unveiling of the Advanced Personal Equipment System at the Defense Technology Symposium held today.


Caaaaaaan't say I'm too surprised. I may have been one of the first people to go "WTF??!!", but I didn't really expect a Gundam to come from this. It was still a horrible joke to play on the otaku community, nonetheless.

[Tak]

Pfft, see, told ya'll shouldn't be all worked up by this.

As for our poor otaku friends overseas? I pity for them. Would be far less surprising if some of them committed suicide after realizing what project Gundam is.

- Tak

[Dan the Man]

I probably should've posted this in the "Gundam in real life combat" thread, but I just thought about something...

Say you have a mobile suit like a GM Sniper, a suit designed to be used from long distances, wielding a weapon like a long range beam rifle, or even a modern variant of the Magella Top Cannon. The magella top cannon is just the main gun on a Magella tank refitted to be held by a MS, so say we took a modern tank, did the same to it's gun, and put it on a MS. Do you think it would add a bit of functionality to the suit?

Also, don't respond with the basic reply of "Just keep the gun on the tank".

Furthermore, what do you think about Guntanks being in combat? Maybe shrink it down a bit, but keep the two cannons, and the two arm machine gun/rocket/missile launcher things.

Just a couple of thoughts I'd throw out there.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

Say you have a mobile suit like a GM Sniper, a suit designed to be used from long distances, wielding a weapon like a long range beam rifle, or even a modern variant of the Magella Top Cannon. The magella top cannon is just the main gun on a Magella tank refitted to be held by a MS, so say we took a modern tank, did the same to it's gun, and put it on a MS. Do you think it would add a bit of functionality to the suit?

In any realistic tank-sized mecha, I'd already assume that such a gun would be the nominal loadout. No other weapon loadout would make much sense since mecha of that size would have to fulfill a tank-equivalent role, and a single large weapon is the most effective design as long as the offensive/defensive technology relationship is similar to today's.

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

Furthermore, what do you think about Guntanks being in combat? Maybe shrink it down a bit, but keep the two cannons, and the two arm machine gun/rocket/missile launcher things.

Besides the overly tall profile, the Guntank arrangement of a pair of main guns isn't a very good concept. If the torso didn't articulate, then it'd have major problems with hitting its target, and if it did (thus effectively becoming a turret), it runs into the problems of an offset gun's recoil producing too much torque. Furthermore, unless offensive technologies far outstripped defensive ones, a single large gun is almost always superior to two smaller ones (one of the very few exceptions to this is the Coalition SV). The Soviets experimented with multiple-weapon tanks (T-35) like the Guntank's arm weapons, but their limitations don't justify their costs. The main reason for having multiple high-RoF guns is to engage targets where one only has a very small window of hitting a target (like when engaging aircraft) so that it's important to score as many hits in as short a time as possible. This role is incompatible with taking on armor, so it's not a very useful design for that purpose. It'd probably be a much better idea for taking on infantry.

[supperrfreek]

really the idea is in the testing stages so if there were a problem it would be found and addressed, or the project would be put in the nation's "back pocket"
really putting too many weapons on a tank and stacking them like on the t35, and the M3 medium tank "lee" or "Grant" really affects the mobility of the weapons on the frame, therefore the tank wouldn't be able to use all its weapons to attack a large group of targets unless it were facing the target (t35) but if the lee and grant's configurations were used, in order to have a good shot with the 75mm gun the tank would have to move. in the t35 the want to add more guns left less room for larger weapons therefore it had an underpowered 45mm gun (weak for its time). This is why these tanks were phased out they couldn't engage multiple targets much more effectively than their single weapon counterparts. and even when the largest gunned member of this tank family the char 2c is compared it was a slow moving large target, great for dive bombers to get target practice on.

[Pride]

*Plays the Char theme music*
LOL

[SilentGhost]

The creation of mobile suits in Gundam made sense in the scheme of that world. Colony repair craft -> humanoid robots for war. If we were to create something like that in reality we would need the basic concept of a humaniod mechanical frame for a human to operate. From there we can go two separate ways; Build it up or build it down.

Building Up would be making the frame into something like a MS ect... and we'd need some pretty advanced tech to make that feasible. Any large robot would have to be very fast, very durable, and very precise to out class any simpler current machine. As much as I'd love to see the world wage war on a G Gundam level, Building up will make showpiece mecha like Dai-Guard (minus the Heterodynes ;D)

Building Down would be turning equipment like a combat frame into an enhanced soldier. This creates cyborgs ect... The most realistic example of this I can think of is Master Chief from Halo. The book series even mentions that Chief's Mjolnir armor descended from bulky mechanical frames. In 50~100 years, I think I can safely say the Spartan to Gundam ratio would highly favor the guys in green.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

The creation of mobile suits in Gundam made sense in the scheme of that world. Colony repair craft -> humanoid robots for war. If we were to create something like that in reality we would need the basic concept of a humaniod mechanical frame for a human to operate. From there we can go two separate ways; Build it up or build it down.

The problem here is that legged drivetrains are horribly inefficient for any industrial purpose, so it unlikely for us to ever develop humanoid robots for commercial roles. Likewise, humanoid arms, torsos and heads are inferior to alternative designs. Of these, arms are by far the most useful, but even so, our industrial mechanical arms only bear a slight resemblance to human ones.

The most likely humanoid designs to be fielded in combat are probably going to be powered armor, which would in turn be an evolution of infantry armor kits.

[Papaya]

I dunno, legs are good for climbing and stuff! Granted, they're definitely not the most efficient at anything other than climbing :O

I guess another big problem with Gundams having legs is that the bigger something is, the more mass it'll have, and therefore the bigger the legs would proportionally have to be to support something of that mass. The Zeon mobile suits actually look like they might stand though!

[SilentGhost]

I still dunno, bipedal legs should be able to boast a few advantages over treads. I would think legs would have a greater agility than treads, being able to sidestep, turn quickly, and the possibility of jumping (actual jumping, not boosters). Impractical in the middle of a warzone but effective in a proper situation. (We could also go the Aestavalis route where we have treads *on* the legs and thus have the best of both lol).

For a practical rl purpose I could see a small sized MS being used in combat as an urban suppression unit. Fly a carrier over a city, drop ms, and then it goes to town. Immune to small arms fire and agile enough to step over cars/rubble, it could capture and hold a target point quickly, breaking down any resistance from within. A squad of soldiers in Powered armor, deployed in the same situation, aren't quite as secure as an armored machine. Being overwhelmed, crushed under falling debris/building, detoured by obstructions, ect..

[Dan the Man]

The only conclusion I've ever worked out is that legged mechs are useful only if your enemies have pyramid shaped forts or behind giant staircases, and the base is full of idiots who gawk at the giant robot instead of shooting at it. That's about all I've ever come up with, along with possible intimidation tactics. Other than that, you've got bupkis.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Papaya

I dunno, legs are good for climbing and stuff! Granted, they're definitely not the most efficient at anything other than climbing :O

More accurately, legs are good at climbing stairs. But that's hardly surprising given the reason we designed stairs.

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

I still dunno, bipedal legs should be able to boast a few advantages over treads. I would think legs would have a greater agility than treads, being able to sidestep, turn quickly, and the possibility of jumping (actual jumping, not boosters). Impractical in the middle of a warzone but effective in a proper situation. (We could also go the Aestavalis route where we have treads *on* the legs and thus have the best of both lol).

While legs do have small advantages in terms of sidestepping and the like, but these advantages decrease as the mass of the vehicle goes up. Moreover, you have to balance these advantages with the much more pervasive disadvantages of legged drivetrains.

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

For a practical rl purpose I could see a small sized MS being used in combat as an urban suppression unit. Fly a carrier over a city, drop ms, and then it goes to town. Immune to small arms fire and agile enough to step over cars/rubble, it could capture and hold a target point quickly, breaking down any resistance from within. A squad of soldiers in Powered armor, deployed in the same situation, aren't quite as secure as an armored machine. Being overwhelmed, crushed under falling debris/building, detoured by obstructions, ect..

I'm not sure how small you're talking about, or what you mean by "urban suppression", but there are basically two combat roles for urban combat. A human-sized role, and something larger for taking out strongpoints. Power armor is useful because it's not significantly larger than a man, and we use tanks for direct fire support. So what kind of role are you proposing for your small mobile suit?