New Age Weapons and Warfare

[adamark]

Originally Posted by Ih8stupidppl

Sorry I'm late. I've been reading over the various posts, and most of the futuristic technology that's being discussed seems pretty dubious in it's practicality, save one...

The troop exoskeleton, or just armor. The part of a soldier that gets upgraded and changed more than anything is his basic gear. Clothing, armor, rations, so on and so forth. An exoskeleton, or advanced suit of armor would simplify and consolidate everything the soldier needs. It would also be possible for it to amplify his strength, speed and very easily his targeting capabilities. We're not talking Mechwarrior here...think Starship Troopers, think Starcraft marines. Just a suit of armor designed to monitor bodily functions, administer first-aid, provide a simple targeting computer...not that far in the future at all.

Just my two bits.

Hey I agree with you. All this talk about mechs has me wasted. Sure, Gundam is a good fantasy, but come on... right? Heh.

About Starship Troopers. Are you referring to the film or the novel?

[Aerozord]

once again dante you miss the point. If you can touch it you can kill it. If you stood next to a tank and avoided getting run over then it cant hurt you. Give a mech arms and it can simply crush the person. And with a tanks huge blind spot its simple.

I can hull down, its called the prone position. Besides these weapons exist to be mobile. Take that away and an artillery cannon is better.

You also need to consider shock value. When the tank, jet, and sub were first used they were unstoppable because it was a new weapon the enemy couldn't adapt to.

You are comparing mechs to specialized weapons. Of cource they are better. Its like saying a jet can out run a tank. Point is a mech can be used in a more varied sence, space, air, water, ground. Try landing a tank squad on an occupied beach head, then try it with an amphibous craft. Tell me whats easier.

[Dante]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

once again dante you miss the point. If you can touch it you can kill it. If you stood next to a tank and avoided getting run over then it cant hurt you. Give a mech arms and it can simply crush the person. And with a tanks huge blind spot its simple.

If you can touch it. Your mech is hardly going to be maneuverable enough to catch the little man dodging in between its legs while the MILAN teams behind him sodomize your mech with missiles.

I can hull down, its called the prone position. Besides these weapons exist to be mobile. Take that away and an artillery cannon is better.

In your prone position your visibility is worse than a tank's, your mobility is worse than a tank's, the preparation for your hull down would take far longer than a tank's and you'd take much longer to move into position than a tank.

You also need to consider shock value. When the tank, jet, and sub were first used they were unstoppable because it was a new weapon the enemy couldn't adapt to.

If I saw a mech, I wouldn't run in terror - I'd call a fucking 100x100m artillery bombardment down on it while letting him eat multiple MILAN and Carl Gustav rounds.

You are comparing mechs to specialized weapons. Of cource they are better.

Concession accepted.

Its like saying a jet can out run a tank. Point is a mech can be used in a more varied sence, space, air, water, ground.

No, a mech can only be used where there is a solid surface. And in any situation with earth-like gravity, a tank is superior in terms of mobility, protection, and ability to lay low.

Try landing a tank squad on an occupied beach head, then try it with an amphibous craft. Tell me whats easier.

You land tanks with an amphibious craft. I don't know what army you think of pushes tanks overboards and lets them crawl to shore.

In summary, these are my points regarding why mechs are inferior to tanks -

1) Mobility. Treads are faster than legs, and if you scaled your legs up until they could rival treads, you'd need a power-to weight ratio a mech could never achieve.

2) Firepower - a tank mounts one big weapon which is accurate out to 3000m, which is mobile, which is relatively easily hidden. A mech would either need built in weapons (which would tear itself off unless given a completely impractical degree of balancing and support) or hand carried weapons (which have all the drawbacks of the above, plus the physics of such a device are simply... eh.)

3) Cost - A mech would cost FAR more than a tank, even without counting R&D, prototyping, maintenance, etc. etc. etc. A mech is more complex than a tank and therefore costs more.

4) Survivability - because of the power-to-weight ratio problems mechs have, you can't mount as much armor. A mech is also a much bigger target than a tank on the battlefield.

5) Visibility issues - If the pilot has a tiny slit to see through, he'll hardly have better vision than a tank. This is bad, because a tank is much more stable than a mech, and a mech pilot therefore needs to know ehere he's going, otherwise he'll fall down.

So you can either a) enlarge the slits, which makes you extremely vulnerable to AT weapons (pilot kills) or b) use external cameras (which is what modern tanks do anyway)

ih8stupidppl - I like the exoskeleton too. Very helpful for the infantryman.

[Zweihander]

I think he's referring to the novel, in which case, he's got the most practical application of the technology, in normal grav situations. My friend, who at least works around tanks when he's called up, referenced the books when I told him about the walking suit thing I linked to earily.

I doubt that mechs would ever be implemented, except far, FAR into the future. It costs an assload of money to fund the soldiers we have now, I'd hate to see the bill that a Gundam would ring up. At least with simple exoskeletons, its smaller and easier to transport.

Aero, just drop it. First off, I'm amazed that you believed that a tank's armor was constructed the same way as 12th century plate armor. Those things got NO chinks in them. The only way a sniper rifle can disable a tank is if its crew is taking a nap outside it. And if you're thinking of one of those big, honking anti-tank rifles, then you're a fool. Those things are too big and heavy to be effectively deployed in the field. A bazooka (or LOW or whatever its was Dante mentioned) is lightweight, and well-proven in combat. And I'd just LOVE to see a mech get up from a prone position.

Which brings me to my next point: who here's seen "The Empire Strikes Back"? Remember those AT-ATs? Remember those towing cables? Even in light grav, you still need to move your legs. Anything as top-heavy as a Mechwarrior or Gundam mech wouldn't stand a chance against a giant bola. A frickin' BOLA, invented by what, South American natives? I forget. Point is, even if you repositioned the weight so that it wouldn't fall over, it still can't move, or turn.

[Dante]

Although to be fair, piano wire at neck height is horrendously effective at killing people in fast-moving open vehicles.

[Thaumaturge]

Ah, NARG, I missed some of the really good stuff.

I agree that any large-scale 'mech is insanely impractical in normal grav. I hadn't though of the low-grav applications, though - well thought, Sith!

I'll take a spider-mech over a biped any day, if I were a "space Marine" attacking another ship

I'm glad that someone brought up my personal favourite design - the spiderbot (I don't know why I didn't think to bring it up myself).

Sith, you suggested using EMP against autonomous machines. Firstly, as has been mentioned, even a bipedal 'mech would rely on computers, and so would be similarly vulnerable to EMP. The other thing is that a machine can be hardened against EMP, so the spiderbot could be protected this way. As you yourself said, very powerful armour is coming, so armouring a spiderbot (especially one with a curved body) against weapons fire shouldn't be a problem.

On the legs: while insect- or arachnid- like legs might seem complex, they are not as bad as they seem. As well as this, multiple legs have far fewer balance issues than two legs, and balance is far harder than leg motion. This is the reason that all of the serious legged robot designs for the near future are multi-legged (often six).

My design for a spiderbot: Small (one or two centimetres wide body) to medium (standing perhaps at nearly half human height). Eight identical legs, around a circular body with a curved profile (much like a UFO shape). "Eyes" at even spacings all around the body, either low or high (dependant on the leg design - legs held high, which are quite likely - it's very efficient to hold - would mean that the eyes would need to be higher to minimise the view being obscured by the legs). Similarly, audio sensors (microphones) placed around the body. This would give the spiderbot 360 degree vision, and enough eyes could take over for each other if one was damaged or obscured, since their fileds of view would overlap. As well as this, it would have directional hearing (and adding a second row of mic's would allow elevation to be calculated). The spiderbot would be autonomous, or remotely controlled. The legs would be equipped with three to five grasping fingers, as well as gecko pads (which allow for wall crawling - and yes, these are currently being developed, with a prototype having been made).

Small spiders would have few and weak weapons, if at all, and would primarily be spies (employing camouflage colouring, perhaps even adaptive colouring, based on a visual sensor underneath the 'bot) or repair 'bots. These would be able to access out of the way nooks and crannies, and pass relatively unnoticed.

Larger models could be soldiers, carrying rifles, and possibly sniper equipment. Ammunition would be stored in the body, and delivered to the mounted weapons. The weapons would be modular, allowing for the 'bot to be equipped appropriately for the mission. The centre of the 'bot would have a hole, in which could be fitted a small engine to facilitate large jumps, or a bomb for suicide missions.

Spiderbots would be very suitable for both space and land, due to their manouvreability.

I will certainly concede that larger, possibly 'mech-like machines would be better for heavy assaults, as the armaments on the spiders are comparable with infantry arms.

That said, since the spiders would be identical (within their size class) and modular, they would be ideal candidate for mass production, and as such could be fielded as swarms.

Yes, I've thought this one through.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by adamark

About Starship Troopers. Are you referring to the film or the novel?

There is no Starship Troopers movie.

[Dante]

Thaum, I'd favor spidermechs/bots/what have you as scout units. Sorta like autonomous cameras, maybe with a built in weapon for an extra-special surprise in case they get spotted. Your design is interesting... though I'd rather go with the exoskeleton/power suit for infantry level advancements.

I would actually suggest eyestalks - allows for periscopic vision and vision around corners.

[Thaumaturge]

On the other hand, while humans in exoskeletons would almost certainly make for better fighters, I would prefer that the machines did the fighting, and the humans stayed on the sidelines, controlling their mechanical minions.

I like the eyestalks idea! My only concern is that stalks might be a little fragile. Perhaps if they telescoped out of their sockets for those occasions on which such would be useful, instead of being permanently on stalks.

[adamark]

Originally Posted by Ih8stupidppl

There is no Starship Troopers movie.

There isn't? (Actually, consider yourself lucky not to have seen the movie. Unfortunately, they are making a Starship Troopers 2 title... *smacks forehead*)

That said, since the spiders would be identical (within their size class) and modular, they would be ideal candidate for mass production, and as such could be fielded as swarms.

Not to mention the psychological advantage a spider bot would have if it *were* implemented in the infantry level. People are terrified of spiders, especially BIG ones. :p