Real life gundam

[Patriot's Blade]

LOL sounds like innovators.

[willyvereb]

More like Ghost in the Shell...
But it's a little bizt OT. Not to mention that i think it'll take centuries to things like that actually happen to the entire populance.

[Patriot's Blade]

but i prefer using a mech than being a mech myself, cuz i'm afraid that we will lose our feelings of a living being.

[JanthraX^]

Actuators have been used in a season of formula 1, banned quickly after,
by keeping the main body of the vehicle level air flow can be better controlled.

They can work but i dont see how they are much less complicated than the current power generation in modern tanks.
Linear actuators use electric motors, for different speeds on the actuators we will still need a gearbox for the electric motor. Then what will provide the electricity for the motors, this problem can be overcome by advancements in battery technology, but by that time we may have developed EMP weaponary and shutting down the mechs systems could be quite easy.

Hydraulic actuators are horribly unreliable and arent very good for fast movements.

could you specifiy what will provide power for your actuators Tri-Ring

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by JanthraX^

Actuators have been used in a season of formula 1, banned quickly after,
by keeping the main body of the vehicle level air flow can be better controlled.

They can work but i dont see how they are much less complicated than the current power generation in modern tanks.
Linear actuators use electric motors, for different speeds on the actuators we will still need a gearbox for the electric motor. Then what will provide the electricity for the motors, this problem can be overcome by advancements in battery technology, but by that time we may have developed EMP weaponary and shutting down the mechs systems could be quite easy.

Hydraulic actuators are horribly unreliable and arent very good for fast movements.

could you specifiy what will provide power for your actuators Tri-Ring

I realy do not understand why you need a gear box to change gears for actuators.
In any case I already wrote the outline for powering the actuators which is a internal combustion engine hooked to a battery and capacitors.
Linear actuators have been in use in alot of modernday machines such as industrial robots, amusument park rides, and so on.
Hydraulic actuators can be moved fast depending on circumference of the actuator and the pump it is hooked. Acuracy can be achieved by selecting fluid to be used as medium for transfering power.

[JanthraX^]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I realy do not understand why you need a gear box to change gears for actuators.
In any case I already wrote the outline for powering the actuators which is a internal combustion engine hooked to a battery and capacitors.

i see, so the removal of the gearbox makes it much more simpler and reliable than the powerplant and drivetrain required to move a tank
ty for clearing that up
now im just wondering what armour should be used,

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by JanthraX^

i see, so the removal of the gearbox makes it much more simpler and reliable than the powerplant and drivetrain required to move a tank
ty for clearing that up
now im just wondering what armour should be used,

Probably an aluminum shell with ceramic, carbon fiber composite and ballistic resistant fiber sandwiched together.
The empty cavity between the actuators will probably be filled with ballistic resistant fiber for added protection.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's not going to make a significant difference for the same reasons that it doesn't work to make vehicles bulletproof. Moreover, vehicles can have more of the stuff thicker over a smaller area, so the mech is still going to have the exact same armor ratio problems as always.

[Dan the Man]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Probably an aluminum shell with ceramic, carbon fiber composite and ballistic resistant fiber sandwiched together.
The empty cavity between the actuators will probably be filled with ballistic resistant fiber for added protection.

What about the joints?

Powerful armor is one thing, but it can't cover the entire length of the mech. You can't have much armor in joints or you reduce the unit's mobility and flexibility. Those would make prime targets for anyone with a rocket launcher.

Also, how strong is the frame of the mech in question? Something able to withstand rigorous movement, hold heavy weapons, house numerous actuators and still resist the physical impact of heavy fire would have to be made of some incredibly strong stuff.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

What about the joints?

Powerful armor is one thing, but it can't cover the entire length of the mech. You can't have much armor in joints or you reduce the unit's mobility and flexibility. Those would make prime targets for anyone with a rocket launcher.

Also, how strong is the frame of the mech in question? Something able to withstand rigorous movement, hold heavy weapons, house numerous actuators and still resist the physical impact of heavy fire would have to be made of some incredibly strong stuff.

First the shape of the vehicle will consist of various contours which will offsets focus of HEAT projectile blast.
Second at joints, usage of detachable knee and ankle gaurd like attachement creating a 10~20cm bubble like cavity filled with heat resistant fiber acting as spaced armor between the carbon composite surface and actual joints.

The frame should mainly be made of carbon composite pipes at the leg part and a complete carbon composite armored shell which will also act as the frame for torso. Spacer walls within torso should be made of reinforced honeycomb boards.

[Dean_the_Young]

Contours alone won't be enough, and it's been stressed numerous times by all sides that this mech isn't going to have tank-strength armor anyway; anti-tank weapons, IE weapons designed to take out tank-strength armored vehicles, will still be more than enough.

Carbon isn't a miracle ingredient; it's about as over-hyped today steel was as the invicible metal a century ago.

While spacer walls are a good idea, they tend to be wasted on light-armored vehicles, which you've made clear repeatedly you invision your mech to be equivalent to.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Contours alone won't be enough, and it's been stressed numerous times by all sides that this mech isn't going to have tank-strength armor anyway; anti-tank weapons, IE weapons designed to take out tank-strength armored vehicles, will still be more than enough.

Carbon isn't a miracle ingredient; it's about as over-hyped today steel was as the invicible metal a century ago.

While spacer walls are a good idea, they tend to be wasted on light-armored vehicles, which you've made clear repeatedly you invision your mech to be equivalent to.

Try studying how HEAT projectiles, which are current portable anti armor weapon, works before posting because I am getting tied of your baseless ranting.
Carbon composite material has superior heat resistant characteristics then metal.
Ceramic is also the key component for Chobham armour.
Contour shaping also helps offset focusing of Neumann effect which is the basis of how HEAT projectiles works.
The design of the vehicle does not take in kinetic energy penetrators into consideration because due to the characteristics of this vehicle mainly operating in jungle and the fact that it is improbable that handheld kinetic energy penetrators weapons would be developed due to the projectile's fundemental principle.
Weaponry of this vehicle is also based on operating enviorment where soft target will be primary and the need to target hard targets will be limited.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Try studying how HEAT projectiles, which are current portable anti armor weapon, works before posting because I am getting tied of your baseless ranting.
Carbon composite material has superior heat resistant characteristics then metal.
Ceramic is also the key component for Chobham armour.
Contour shaping also helps offset focusing of Neumann effect which is the basis of how HEAT projectiles works.
The design of the vehicle does not take in kinetic energy penetrators into consideration because due to the characteristics of this vehicle mainly operating in jungle and the fact that it is improbable that handheld kinetic energy penetrators weapons would be developed due to the projectile's fundemental principle.
Weaponry of this vehicle is also based on operating enviorment where soft target will be primary and the need to target hard targets will be limited.

Problem #1: You still need considerable amounts of armor in order to reliably stop modern HEAT rounds even if you have sloped and/or angled surfaces on your vehicle.
Problem #2: A humanoid robot will have problems mounting with mounting sufficiently thick armor and armor layout.
Problem #3: At 6m x 2.5m x 2.5m, your mecha's too big to operate in a jungle.

P.S.
I'd like to congratulate you for dodging a lot of the valid points raised in your detractors' (myself included) previous posts.

[Tri-ring]

I really do not take baseless personal opinions written as if fact much consideration.

[Keio]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I really do not take baseless personal opinions written as if fact much consideration.

I like this guy. It's as if he's been developing mechas his whole life and all points his detractors make are just "baseless personal opinions".

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by JanthraX^

i see, so the removal of the gearbox makes it much more simpler and reliable than the powerplant and drivetrain required to move a tank
ty for clearing that up

It seems to be a bit of a ludicrous claim to say that the proposed actuator system is going to be either simpler or more reliable than a standard tracked/wheeled drivetrain and gearbox. We've been using the latter for decades now because these systems are simple and efficient. Actuators as described would require both a lot of precise computer control, and the use of multiple kinds of material, and extreme variations between action and inaction. This kind of system would not only be very difficult to design and build, but it would also be very complicated and prone to many points of failure. Add to that the built-in inefficiencies of legged locomotion, and you start seeing the difficulties involved.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Try studying how HEAT projectiles, which are current portable anti armor weapon, works before posting because I am getting tied of your baseless ranting.
Carbon composite material has superior heat resistant characteristics then metal.
Ceramic is also the key component for Chobham armour.
Contour shaping also helps offset focusing of Neumann effect which is the basis of how HEAT projectiles works.
The design of the vehicle does not take in kinetic energy penetrators into consideration because due to the characteristics of this vehicle mainly operating in jungle and the fact that it is improbable that handheld kinetic energy penetrators weapons would be developed due to the projectile's fundemental principle.
Weaponry of this vehicle is also based on operating enviorment where soft target will be primary and the need to target hard targets will be limited.

Please stop trying to paint anyone with the least bit of criticisms as being naive. Modern AFVs already use all of the innovations that you're talking of, and they simply don't work all that well for lighter vehicles. Moreover, HEAT and other kinds of anti-tank weapons are designed with precisely this kind of defenses in mind. The standard problems of armor distribution can't be handwaved away. Topping it off with the fact that humanoid mecha can't slope their armor the way that standard ground vehicles can only exacerbates the problem.

Originally Posted by mechabao

Problem #3: At 6m x 2.5m x 2.5m, your mecha's too big to operate in a jungle.

That isn't quite true. There's all manner of jungle that's not impossible to traverse, but as a general rule of thumb, if a mecha can go there, chances are that a smaller tracked vehicle can as well.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I really do not take baseless personal opinions written as if fact much consideration.

That's great and all, but it's awfully hard to take your arguments seriously when you don't make a modicum of effort to address other people's points. If they're really all that baseless, then they should be a breeze to counter as well n'est-ce pas?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

It seems to be a bit of a ludicrous claim to say that the proposed actuator system is going to be either simpler or more reliable than a standard tracked/wheeled drivetrain and gearbox. We've been using the latter for decades now because these systems are simple and efficient. Actuators as described would require both a lot of precise computer control, and the use of multiple kinds of material, and extreme variations between action and inaction. This kind of system would not only be very difficult to design and build, but it would also be very complicated and prone to many points of failure. Add to that the built-in inefficiencies of legged locomotion, and you start seeing the difficulties involved.

You can design it quite easily using CAD thank you very much.
Again making sweeping remakes like "it has may points of failure" without pointing out one is called a personal opinion. I at least pointed out how wheeled vehicle transmit motion and the points that could go wrong and I will say it again a singular actuator failure will not imobilize a bipedal vehicle. On the otherhand a wheel vehicle will become imobilized with any of the components I had pointed out fails. The timing of for each actuators are done through electronic relay, not gears so unless all the processors(main and back-up) goes out the chances of movement going out of scync is small.
The other valnurable point would be the motion sensors and inclination sensors but it is easy to place back-up systems for these components as well.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Please stop trying to paint anyone with the least bit of criticisms as being naive. Modern AFVs already use all of the innovations that you're talking of, and they simply don't work all that well for lighter vehicles. Moreover, HEAT and other kinds of anti-tank weapons are designed with precisely this kind of defenses in mind. The standard problems of armor distribution can't be handwaved away. Topping it off with the fact that humanoid mecha can't slope their armor the way that standard ground vehicles can only exacerbates the problem.

No actually HEAT projectiles are not designed to penetrate Chobham armour. It's the other way around where Chobham armour was designed to defeat HEAT projectiles.
As for AFV;

The reason for the ineffectiveness of HEAT-munitions against modern main battle tanks can be attributed in part to the use of new types of armor. The jet created by the explosion of the HEAT-round must have a certain distance from the target and must not be deflected. Reactive armor attempts to defeat this with an outward directed explosion under the impact point, causing the jet to deform and so penetration power is greatly reduced. Alternatively, composite armor featuring ceramics erode the liner jet more quickly than rolled homogeneous armor steel, the then preferred material in the construction of armored fighting vehicles.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

That isn't quite true. There's all manner of jungle that's not impossible to traverse, but as a general rule of thumb, if a mecha can go there, chances are that a smaller tracked vehicle can as well.

Making a sweeping statement against another sweeping statement is meaningless.
Wheeled vehicles requires a relatively flat surface with obstacles smaller than it's ground clearance hieght.
Observe picture;

The ground clearance for the above vehicle is about 40Cm, a log, a medium size rock etc. hidden along the path may damage any of the vital component installed underneath rendering the vehicle useless.
Wheeled and tracked vehicles also have problem climbing high incline ratio(10% or more) severly limiting it's speed(5Km or less).

Originally Posted by 4Tran

That's great and all, but it's awfully hard to take your arguments seriously when you don't make a modicum of effort to address other people's points. If they're really all that baseless, then they should be a breeze to counter as well n'est-ce pas?

I don't make arguements when basis is not specified since it is meaningless at the end.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

You can design it quite easily using CAD thank you very much.

You can design all manner of object using CAD; that doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be easy to build so that it actually works properly.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Again making sweeping remakes like "it has may points of failure" without pointing out one is called a personal opinion. I at least pointed out how wheeled vehicle transmit motion and the points that could go wrong and I will say it again a singular actuator failure will not imobilize a bipedal vehicle. On the otherhand a wheel vehicle will become imobilized with any of the components I had pointed out fails. The timing of for each actuators are done through electronic relay, not gears so unless all the processors(main and back-up) goes out the chances of movement going out of scync is small.
The other valnurable point would be the motion sensors and inclination sensors but it is easy to place back-up systems for these components as well.

I'm mostly thinking of all of the moving components that have to bear the stress of a multi-ton vehicle coming down every time a mecha moves. There's no way to make any of those components redundant, and any failure is going to involve either a recovery vehicle or a lot of limping.

On top of that, your design would still have some sort of engine, a massive capacitor bank, and then all of the actuator equipment, and the electronic governance system, and the limb balancing system, and so on. There's no way in hell that this entire ensemble is going to be either lighter or less complicated than drivetrains that we've been using for a century. Or more accurately, it's a far-fetched claim, and as a far-fetched claim, it's going to require a lot of evidence before it's the least bit convincing.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

No actually HEAT projectiles are not designed to penetrate Chobham armour. It's the other way around where Chobham armour was designed to defeat HEAT projectiles.

Who cares about Chobham? Your mecha would be mounting 6mm-9mm of armor in the front facing, so there's no way that it's going to be mounting it.

As for AFV;

The reason for the ineffectiveness of HEAT-munitions against modern main battle tanks can be attributed in part to the use of new types of armor. The jet created by the explosion of the HEAT-round must have a certain distance from the target and must not be deflected. Reactive armor attempts to defeat this with an outward directed explosion under the impact point, causing the jet to deform and so penetration power is greatly reduced. Alternatively, composite armor featuring ceramics erode the liner jet more quickly than rolled homogeneous armor steel, the then preferred material in the construction of armored fighting vehicles.

Yes, more exotic armors degrade the penetrative capability of HEAT rounds. No one is debating this point. However, you haven't shown how much this degradation is, and how this is going to give 9mm armor some sort of magical survivability.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Making a sweeping statement against another sweeping statement is meaningless.
Wheeled vehicles requires a relatively flat surface with obstacles smaller than it's ground clearance hieght.
Observe picture;

The ground clearance for the above vehicle is about 40Cm, a log, a medium size rock etc. hidden along the path may damage any of the vital component installed underneath rendering the vehicle useless.
Wheeled and tracked vehicles also have problem climbing high incline ratio(10% or more) severly limiting it's speed(5Km or less).

Congratulations! You found a picture of a wheeled vehicle when I was specifically wrote "That isn't quite true. There's all manner of jungle that's not impossible to traverse, but as a general rule of thumb, if a mecha can go there, chances are that a smaller tracked vehicle can as well." It's especially egregious because it's obvious that tracked vehicles are the ones that are designed for any sort of difficult terrain. I'll also have you know that tanks like the T-72 can handle 30° inclines as well; not the dinky little inclines that you're talking about.

Now there's no denying that there will be some obstacles that legged mecha will be able to navigate easier than tracked vehicles - giant stairs and tank traps come to mind. However, the converse goes as well, and of the terrains that mecha would be able to handle better, jungles are not a member.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I don't make arguements when basis is not specified since it is meaningless at the end.

You've been ignoring perfectly legitimate arguments, so how does this apply?

[Keio]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Again making sweeping remakes like "it has may points of failure" without pointing out one is called a personal opinion. I at least pointed out how wheeled vehicle transmit motion and the points that could go wrong and I will say it again a singular actuator failure will not imobilize a bipedal vehicle. On the otherhand a wheel vehicle will become imobilized with any of the components I had pointed out fails. The timing of for each actuators are done through electronic relay, not gears so unless all the processors(main and back-up) goes out the chances of movement going out of scync is small.
The other valnurable point would be the motion sensors and inclination sensors but it is easy to place back-up systems for these components as well.

Where/What is your basis for these? A tiny experimental robot?

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Wheeled vehicles requires a relatively flat surface with obstacles smaller than it's ground clearance hieght.
*snip*
The ground clearance for the above vehicle is about 40Cm, a log, a medium size rock etc. hidden along the path may damage any of the vital component installed underneath rendering the vehicle useless.
Wheeled and tracked vehicles also have problem climbing high incline ratio(10% or more) severly limiting it's speed(5Km or less).

Hmmmmm....
From http://www.gdls.com/programs/abrams.html

PERFORMANCE @ GVW

Maximum speed
42 mph (governed)
Cross country
30 mph
10% slope
17 mph
60% slope
4.1 mph
Acceleration (0 to 20 mph)
7.2 seconds
Cruising range
265 miles
Maximum trench crossing
9 feet

Vertical Obstacle
42 inches
Power to weight ratio
21.6hp/ton

At a 10% slope, the 70 ton M1 Abrams tank still moves FASTER than your mecha, which if I remember correctly does 12.5mph (20 kph) at top speed.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I don't make arguements when basis is not specified since it is meaningless at the end.

Really? How about this?

Originally Posted by Keio

You are missing the point. Did you even look at the M242 Bushmaster link I gave you? It fires at around 100-200 rounds per minute. So even carrying 420 rounds, it can fire for more than 2 minutes straight. The minigun on the mecha fires at ~3000 RPM and has 3,000 rounds. And remember the caliber of the weapons you are comparing. 7.62mm compared to 25mm is like comparing a the impact of a motorcycle versus a truck. The 25mm caliber round is heavier yet offers more penetration, impact energy, and has a lot of cartridge types to choose from, from high-explosive anti infantry to armor piercing anti material. The 7.62mm is a rifle sized cartridge that is much lighter, therefore you can carry more, but is way, way weaker and does not do much but damage light vehicles (such as cars and technicals) and kill infantry with a direct hit. 420 rounds of 25mm will do more damage and *gasp* can be even used to stop armored vehicles while your 7.62mm is having a hard time penetrating even the engine block of a car.

Also comparing the ammunition requirements of a minigun that fires thousands of rounds per minute to a machine gun that barely hits 1000 rpm is stupid.

I highly suggest reading the links I gave before commenting.


I remember that it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the mecha can be parachuted from transport planes, so I'm going to compare it with a "mini tank" (actually an "Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle") that has already been used previously by the US Army. Let's compare, shall we?

M551 Sheridan Tank
Wikipedia link
Global Security link
- Can be airdropped
- Aluminum armor thin enough to be penetrated by machine gun fire
- Weighs 15.2 metric tons
- L: 6.3m W: 2.8m H: 2.3m
- Armament: M81E1 Rifled 152 mm Gun/Launcher with 20 rounds, 9 MGM-51 Shillelagh missiles, 7.62mm M73/M219/M240C machine gun with 3000 rounds, .50cal M2HB machine gun with 1000 rounds
- Top speed is 70 kph (43 mph), operational range is 560 km (348 mi)
- Equipped with NBC protection for the crew of four
- Used in Vietnam (jungle warfare)

Proposed mecha:
- Can be airdropped
- Aluminum armor thin enough to be penetrated by machine gun fire
- Weighs 7-12 metric tons
- L: 2.5m W: 2.5m H: 6m
- Armament: M134 7.62mm minigun with 3000 rounds, 10 or more AT missiles
- Top speed 20 kph
- NBC protection was not mentioned (or I missed it)
- Designed to be used for jungle warfare

The tank design is still superior in terms of armament and speed, with only a difference of 3-8 tonnes. The Sheridan is praised for its mobility and speed while the proposed mecha design lacks both.

Even if you tried adding armor to improve the mecha's survivability so the mecha also weighs 15 metric tons, you will have to change the mecha's propulsion system because if it moves at 20 kph at 12 metric tons, it would move a hell of a lot slower because of the added weight.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm mostly thinking of all of the moving components that have to bear the stress of a multi-ton vehicle coming down every time a mecha moves. There's no way to make any of those components redundant, and any failure is going to involve either a recovery vehicle or a lot of limping.

I still do not understand which part you are talking about.
Unless you are implying that the bipedal vehicle steps on itself, the weight of a multi-ton vehicle does not come crashing down on itself.
Now which parts?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

On top of that, your design would still have some sort of engine, a massive capacitor bank, and then all of the actuator equipment, and the electronic governance system, and the limb balancing system, and so on. There's no way in hell that this entire ensemble is going to be either lighter or less complicated than drivetrains that we've been using for a century. Or more accurately, it's a far-fetched claim, and as a far-fetched claim, it's going to require a lot of evidence before it's the least bit convincing.

Massive capacitor bank?How big do you think it will be?
The size will probably be smaller than a cooler box and the transfer will probably be no bigger then a ATX PC case with present day heavy electronics technology.
Actuators will be mounted to the frame. Electronic systems will be stored in the torso with redundant system and relays. Limb balance is done by the actuators with electronic sensors.
I don't see why you can't accept the fact that wheeled vehicles are driven by a heavy drivetrain system. Try studying car mechanics more.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Who cares about Chobham? Your mecha would be mounting 6mm-9mm of armor in the front facing, so there's no way that it's going to be mounting it.

Who said so?
What is your basis?
Again baseless opinion stated as fact.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

As for AFV;
Yes, more exotic armors degrade the penetrative capability of HEAT rounds. No one is debating this point. However, you haven't shown how much this degradation is, and how this is going to give 9mm armor some sort of magical survivability.

Why fixated on 9mm?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Congratulations! You found a picture of a wheeled vehicle when I was specifically wrote "That isn't quite true. There's all manner of jungle that's not impossible to traverse, but as a general rule of thumb, if a mecha can go there, chances are that a smaller tracked vehicle can as well." It's especially egregious because it's obvious that tracked vehicles are the ones that are designed for any sort of difficult terrain. I'll also have you know that tanks like the T-72 can handle 30° inclines as well; not the dinky little inclines that you're talking about.

T-72
Weight 41.5 tonnes (45.7 short tons)
Length 9.53 m (31 ft 3 in)
Width 3.59 m (11 ft 9 in)
Height 2.23 m (7 ft 4 in)
Now only if you can bring in a 40 tonne tank into the jungle and I will be impressed.

Tanks also have ground clearance and any obstacle larger and the tank need to evade completely or choose a path(if there is one) so that atleast one of it's tracks will ride over that obstacle or the tank will hit the obstacle with it's underbelly.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You've been ignoring perfectly legitimate arguments, so how does this apply?

Legitimate arguements?
LOL.