View Full Version : real irl warbies!!
check this out (http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/)
its awesome.. especially the truck stopping vid
check this out (http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/)
its awesome.. especially the truck stopping vid
I'd love to see this site, but i fucking hate quicktime....
Fuck me.... that truck stopping video is awesome. Well... seems like the closest I've ever seen to a mech so far. Now only if that thing could be piloted.
shodanjr_gr
11-04-04, 15:07
Not sure if these videos are real, but if they are then im really impressed.
Prankster26193
11-04-04, 15:10
Sweeeeeeeet
Just hope they arent used for the dome :P
No way is that car stopping thing real.
Looks impressive though. o_O
If that is indeed real, and was done by that one guy, it really makes me wonder what kind of shit the military can do..
car stopping looks cool, tho the shadow dont seem to be right with the cars' shadow
This is what I posted in this post :http://forum.neocron.com/showthread.php?p=1334623#post1334623
Quote: from my self.
_______________________________________________________________
When it is a Battle Tech Meck then I'll call it a Mech.
The BT Mechs seem like they would work in real life, why don't they just copy them?
In reality mechs are not needed. other wise they would actualy be made by now.
_______________________________________________________________
See, I new it.
I'd love to see this site, but i fucking hate quicktime....
I agree I saw the car video once and now, none of the other video works.
This guy is not going any ware with this QuickTime crap.
Well.... That's a nice model, too bad it was put into lame fraud videos instead of some cool game.
great strength, dexterity
He obviously needs to play Neocron as a tank.
Crackitakk
11-04-04, 16:40
if this is real its amazing but its really hard to beleve......they should make em pilotable and then i would get one and walk to school in it
If that shit is real man, imagine a war in 10 years time....
Peeps will buy Warbot designs off them ^_^
for all you skeptics out there, this is 100% genuine bot.....
Crackitakk
11-04-04, 16:50
u serious cytaur? how do u know that?
cornelius5
11-04-04, 17:00
lol i hope that is sarcasm cytaur, its obviously fake . like said earlier watch the shadows in that truck vid. ima look for the link to the volkswagon beetle that turns into a mech, it has better quality video.
shodanjr_gr
11-04-04, 18:54
Care to elaborate on that statement Cytaur?
Looks like a transformer. :D
Looks like a transformer. :D
I wanna see the mech cornelius is referring to, now THAT's a transformer. :D
looks fake tbh.
but still enjoyable
I don't get why everyone's so obsessed with 'Mechs TBH. In games, yeah they're cool, but IRL, no thanks. A Tank is a far more stable platform, can be more heavily armored, is plainly more reliable, and is just a tad hard to knock over. A 'Mech would either have to be extremely slow due to serioulsy thick leg armor, or the leg armor would be extremely weak. One nice tank shell in the foot and your lovely 'Mech is completely useless. Not to mention the joints...
Yeah, your right Scikar. Imagine what a landmine would do to a mech.
Infact, wouldn't a helicopter be much more versitile than a mech?
Yeah... but they are damn cool. :D
I know that they wouldn't really be any use in modern day warfare or anything like that. But you have to admit, they are fucking cool. :p
Helicopter rotors are still weak, pretty much anything that flies is consigned to support on account of the fact that again you can't put much armor on it.
'Mechs are still cool, the intro to MechWarrior 3 is one of my favourite game intros ever.
But I'd rather have a hovertank :)
Awesome stuff :D
Looks pretty real to me, even if it's not, looks amazingly cool.
:)
Yeah, your right Scikar. Imagine what a landmine would do to a mech.
Normally, tank armor is softest on the underside as the treads provide a good enough defense on the sides normally. A landmine can fuck a tank up just as easily, the problem is actually getting it to the underside.
A mecha can quickly sidestep through a minefield, while the tank being wide can't really do much. It could also go underwater or be in flight if versatile enough...and when we get further along into the future anyway.
Of course, this is only simulational examples and cannot easily be replicated in real life situations. :D
After looking at it, its an obvious fake.
As for the minefield, it would be more for shock tactics. Imagine an army of Mechs coming at you.
I live pretty near to where this was made so I might look into it a bit, see if I can't get to see it. Check the interviews and stuff, this guy knows his shit, I do think this is for real.
I just posted this on another forum, apparently they are fakes - a weird marketing attempt by BMW from a while ago. Ah well, coulda fooled me. Did, in fact :lol:
It looks fake to me, Probably done in 3ds or Maia.
-------------
Edit :
Why, if you have the technology to build a super advanced ultra percise super robot would you build it out of a mini?
What purpose would rotating tires on the shoulders provide? (hint : None)
Even better, Why do the shadows come from a differant direction on the robot then on the other things in the room? Why becuase it was done in a 3d suit kthx bye.
I don't get why everyone's so obsessed with 'Mechs TBH. In games, yeah they're cool, but IRL, no thanks. A Tank is a far more stable platform, can be more heavily armored, is plainly more reliable, and is just a tad hard to knock over. A 'Mech would either have to be extremely slow due to serioulsy thick leg armor, or the leg armor would be extremely weak. One nice tank shell in the foot and your lovely 'Mech is completely useless. Not to mention the joints...
who the hell says you have to take a mech to war??? They could do wonders I think on speeding up certain building jobs. Everything is going robotic in some ways.
But if you must think war. a mech could be good for protection and not infiltration I think. guarding the base. I think it would certainly be better than a person without a mech standing around guarding as it's sensors can pick up movement, automatically switch on and off from night vision. and be able to carry multi weapons that a normal solider wouldnt' be able to.
anyhow the closest thing i've seen out so far wasn't even bipedal. It was a tree haverster that had 6 legs instead of wheels so it could walk up uneven slopes in forest areas. Looked sorta like a grasshopper. Big back area and then the control compartment in the front. Would grab a tree somewhat a bit above the base where a saw could cut it completely through. Then was the tree was falling to the right side gears would turn and pull the treee through the clasped part, breaking off branches and limbs on the way. then it would cut it into even logs and move along. I'd show the site but I forgot where it was ;)
Well that tree cutting process was only shown in a simulation that operators were working to complete. But they did show clips of it walking through the forest .lol
You can make an autonomous vehicle with wheels too, it doesn't have to be bipedal. The difference being, you hit a mech with a rocket and not only do you easily penetrate its weak armor, it falls over, you hit a tank with a rocket and there's a much better chance of the tank surviving, even if it is slim. If you want a mech with really thick armor to protect against missiles, then you may as well build a turret because there isn't going to be much difference.
Outside of military applications yes, there are things like the Lifter thing in Aliens, but TBH there's not a great deal it can do that a forklift truck can't, with the difference being that the forklift is considerably more stable and capable of carrying heavier loads.
Not to mention the speed of course. A 'Mech is always going to be slow, unless it really is paper thin and weighs nothing. And then what use is it?
you have no vision! :lol:
We'll have to wait and see what advances in science happen. If we go by what technically we can do now then we wouldn't advance. The goal is to overcome those obstacles.
What about mechs in space??
What about them? There aren't really all that many advantages to having legs when there's nothing to walk on.
Robots will be very valuable in space, Legs have many advantages over wheeles.
Robots will be very valuable in space, Legs have many advantages over wheeles.
heh. I was speaking of mechs on planet travel. I repeat
You HAVE no vision!
now stop this or we'll go on and on with speculation :P
I want an automated device that pipes out Mc Hammer on repeat all day long..........oh wait that's my pc.
Scikar, question...
I know this probably makes the mecha a technical tank anyway, but why not just give it treads at first and the overall armor a tank has?
I'm not following you. If it's a mech, that means it has legs, so where are you going to put the treads?
Why does a mech require legs? I'm uninformed on that part.
But at any rate...retractable treads and legs so you can switch modes?
Q`alooaith
12-04-04, 01:49
Walking type support in the milatary come's into it's own when you drop out of open field's and into dense cover..
I mean, a tank in a city is just stupid, it's easy to spot, the turret gun is limited so much you can't hit anyone on the roof top's, which is more painfull when you note that tank's have less armor on the top than on the front..
Now let's head in to a wooded hillside, there are road's but they are sure to be mined, and there's so many tree's that chopper's can't get visual sightings..
Tank's are far from the best designed fighting vehical, they are just simple and quick to produce, I mean it's a proven tech..
Autonomus or remote controled walking mech's would be far more usfull than modern tank's, use them to draw fire, or scout out ahead.. mech's don't have to be 50' tall to be mech's, a ten foot tall mech would be usfull for urban combat, able to go down back allys and duck into shop window's for some cover, able to carry heavyer weapon's than anyone on foot..
Now out of the milatary for a second..
Who said forklift's are stable? If you don't load em properly forklift's will tip forward when lifting things, you need to place weight's at the back to ballence for heavy load's, and take them off when you put to load down because your front wheel's are lifting up. Take a corner a little too fast with a load too high and you'll tip over sideways, and chances are you'll break a bone or more as the forklift land's on you.
If properly designed a walker could be much more stable than a forklift, more aglie (able to take tighter turns), and with proper programing would not need any extra weight's for heavery load's..
We're not far from remote controled worker robots, they might not look terible humanoid though.. I mean factory's already have robotic arm's that weild, they also can move pretty quickly, and are very precise..
for all you skeptics out there, this is 100% genuine bot.....Yep - totally.
P.S. Wanna buy my bridge ? :D
http://www.azwildbirds.com/az-highways/london-bridge/bridge4.jpg
http://http://www.virtualguidebooks.com/Arizona/LowerColorado/LakeHavasu/LondonBridgeL.html
I'm with Scikar on this one in a combat saituation a mech is...... well lame, too many areas of weakness, but in construction etc etc i see potential....along patlabour lines^^
Yep - totally.
P.S. Wanna buy my bridge ? :D
http://www.azwildbirds.com/az-highways/london-bridge/bridge4.jpg
http://http://www.virtualguidebooks.com/Arizona/LowerColorado/LakeHavasu/LondonBridgeL.html
no, I already bought the brooklyn bridge, I can sell you mine for half the price it's really worth
looks fake to me, but when you consider the latest stealth bomber was actually designed in 1969 and the massive advances in computing and materials technology since then, it does kind of make you think what they actually have tucked away that they are working on
JackScratch
12-04-04, 18:28
Yeah, Jack calls bullshit. Good cgi, but cgi none the less.
How about a MECH in a Tank? That takes care ah all oh yas.
Heavyporker
12-04-04, 21:17
um. no. mech tank is essentially pointless.
and a mech could have just as good protection as a tank - kevlar, lexan, and all that, plus angling the exterior faces to make direct impacts harder. Legs and joints can be armored (look at imperial AT-STs and AT-ATs [those are mechs too!} and with their comparative thinness, a hell lot of harder to hit.
metal sweepers can be inserted into the feet of mechs, when they know they're in a minefield, they can walk more slowly to give their feet time to analyze point-of-contacts to step on.
Point of mechs ("conventional" ones, anyway, not like mechwarrior or gundam or whatever you guys are talking about) is enhancing individual soliders or small teams - an all-in-one package tailored to a situation, that can give excellent support to a full ground team.
shodanjr_gr
12-04-04, 21:25
Point of mechs ("conventional" ones, anyway, not like mechwarrior or gundam or whatever you guys are talking about) is enhancing individual soliders or small teams - an all-in-one package tailored to a situation, that can give excellent support to a full ground team.
What he said...
Dribble Joy
12-04-04, 21:38
Only real advantages of mechs is ability to climb/cross terrain that wheeled/tracked vehicles cannot.
Other than that they have little use.
Even with all the increases in technology, basic engineering and physical rules and limits will prevent it from being superior to a 'flat' vehicles.
Take the role of current MBTs in contempory conflicts.
The reason tanks are being 'phased out' is not because they are irrelevant military weapons, but because they cannot be deployed quickly enough to an area. It would be fantastic if you could sling a Challenger II under a chinook, but a CII weighs 63 tons.
Would a mech be any different?
Sure it could cross terrain that tanks may not be able to, but can it get to a theatre of war any faster?.
It is doubtfull a mech could realistically carry the same weapons, have the same armour capacity, the same speed and be lighter (though maybe more space efficient, MAYBEE) than a tank.
Not to mention cost, both R&D, building and most of all maintaining them.
Most military vehicles are designed to be simple and easily fixed, not to mention tough as a brick shit house to begin with.
A mech full of delicate hydralics/servos/pneumatics/gyros close to the surface would be almost impossible to fix on the battle field.
A british army landrover an be fixed by a 3rd world blacksmith, could the same be said of a mech.
A CII is what? 9 feet tall, how big would a similar sized mech be? 20 feet?
From so many perspectives, military application of mechs is poopoo.
Civilian applications is another matter though.
Q`alooaith
12-04-04, 23:56
DJ, you thinking of large "mechs"
Smaller squad support mech's don't have to weight more than a jeep or jeep and a half..
This is where mech's come in, if you build em light enough you can deploy them quickly enough to not need to be heavly armored.
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 00:05
A man sized or a little larger mech would only be usefull if the AI was INSANELY well advanced, to the point of human conscience.
The the only advantage would be it's resistance to small arms fire and shrapnel/concussive blasts.
It would be better and cheaper to focus on improving standard gear for the soldier. Half-mech exosceletons to support thinker armour and increase speed/range, targetting and vision enhancement systems, load capacity and other augmentations.
Errr... correct me if I'm wrong but Mechs don't have AI do they? They are piloted I though.
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 00:09
well... the thread was originally about an autonomous robot. I think the word mech crept in there at some point, we mean robots afaik.
Well FUCK me that was ausome.................I want one
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 00:26
THe ONLY mechs Ive seen being realistic are from Heavy gear (yes, I am a heavygear freak, and heres why)
"Gears" as in there universe, where designed as a IFV or Infantry fighting vehicle, designed with a soldiers flexablility , and the firepower of an armored vehicle.
The gears on average stand from about the smallest(about 2.5) to the tallest (5 meters) tall, depending on the varrent. and because of size differences, different varrients serve different purposes.
these gears are ment to be maintainable by the soldier itself if maintenence is needed.
While agree able about how tanks can outperform a "mech" in most cases, that is probably due to the "type" of mech we are discussing. Currently, I think the type thats all going through everyone mind is the normal, 4 story tall walking artillary platform. Now I can say from allot of mech game play, that these arnt that practicle, the most besides large amounts of fire power, would be sheer shock value, like mentioned previously.
But with more practicle "gears" which act as almost infantry, which can be deployed in a much easier manner, due to there size and wieght (the weight of a hunter[a general purpose gear] was at 6627kg(14,612.535 pounds)). Even the currently fictional engine it uses, the V-engine is a internal combustion engine that is easy to repair and produce, that runs efficiently on a number of different fuels.
Gears in the form of a "heavy infintry" would serve a much better roll as far as support goes, as for direct assault, they could also serve very well. One must remember that almost no assault goes in with just one type of unit, there are many other unit types usually supporting the other (IE air support, combined with tank and troop support)
one GIANT mech would be too costly to use and maintain, and the cost of loosing one of the field would be too much, not to mention the material cost of the mech itself.
Using a smaller infantry type would be much more cost effective as well.
As for avoiding mines and such, People must remember, not only do mechs face this threat, but all land based vehicles (and troops) of course there must be some sort of precation for watching for mines, as the "Foot mine sensor" suggested by Heavy poker, was actually close to what is being developed for tanks, or so I have heard.
In closing, It all depends on what kind of mech is built, some mechs in the real world would suit the military of today, and some would not. thats life i guess. as to if those videos of that "transformer car-Thingy" was real, id say it was CGI, and a damn fine job at it by the way. heavy gears would be the most efficient by far.... IMO :D
Fiction like Heavy Gear overlooks a miriad of practical issues though. For one, what about heat? You want to make a mech about the size of a car, it's going to be chock full of mechanical systems and hydraulics, plus an engine to run it all from, plus all the electronics just to keep it standing up, let alone moving. To make all that work in that kind of size is going to need extreme cooling. And that means low reliability. Also the main thing I don't like about Heavy Gear is that they don't have built in or even modular weapons systems, they have hands and use guns. That alone is enough to show that they're clearly not considered from a practical point of view. Hands are inefficient, they are very adaptable but you don't need that flexibility, you want reliability and performance.
Which is going to be more practical, a human soldier, perhaps encased in an armored exoskeleton but which acts as more servo assisted armor than anything else, or your full blown mech with a pilot and chock full of hydraulics etc. For one, the exoskeleton is more reliable, two it's cheaper, and yet you can get all the same functionality out of it.
Besides, I think the point is proved since exoskeletal systems are already being developed. There's a leg enforcement system in production which makes carrying a heavy pack almost effortles. Whereas there are no apparent, practical mech developments.
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 00:53
Scikar- One point you have overlooked about hands and "fixed" weapons are the fact that if a fixed weapon is damaged, it is much harder to replace/fix. a with an inter-change-able (IE using hands) you are capable of changing to suit the needs of a current situation. With a fixed weapon, this limits you to what you have at the exact moment, and changing is not a possibility without a "mech hanger" or proper facilities.
The benefits of "hands" on a mech allow the pilot to interact with the surroundings as needed for certain situations.
as for a Gear, yes it DOES have a "fixed" weapon, most of which are ether, shoulder mounted such as missle packs (dumb fire and "wire guided") or "pack" mounted weapons, such as morter, anti personell gernade launchers and light field guns or also waist mounted light machine guns.
As for cooling, the has a self contained coolent systeme that works quite well, although inm having trouble locating the source as of this moment.
Please note that I forgot to mention there were also kinds of gears ment for civilian, and construction use. which realistically, would probably be more usefull than war, since im against war, but ironicly an analyst of different kinds of war machines of games :p
Hmmmm.... Tau battlesuits are cool. :D
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 01:19
Tau rock, shame they are a bunch of commies :p.
Mechs dont seem to have much use unless they are really big, or really small
A really big mech can carry insane armor, run *relatively* fast simply due to its size (larger stride) and carry a plethora of weaponry, but even then its far better to have 50 guns on 50 machines than 'put all your eggs in one basket' and load the mech with all of them. Large mechs would however be functional for much much larger applications (i.e the Military Laser, and the Rail Gun, both of which are totally impratical atm because of thier huge size, but are devastating weapons systems.)
A really small (infantry) sized mech would simply be a tougher soldier, more offence, more defence (especially immune to chemical agents)
The mid sized mech is easy to knock over, cant carry enough armor, and cant really outdamage anything currently available,
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 01:29
Wow, someones on my side for once, thanks leebzie.
Thanks! :D
I think that currently with our current reliance on combustion engines and (relatively) low-capacity batteries, mechs and robots simply aren't going to be viable regardless.
Also, I bring up Unreal 2 for the heavy marines. Basically it's a full armored exoskeleton, similar (albeit far more advanced) than the current leg exo prototype. I could definately see that happenning as battery and engine technology improves (not to mention the exos themselves).
--Stryfe
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 01:31
Tbh, railguns are a novelty, the damage they actually inflict is pathetic for the energy and size of the weapon. Unless you can miniturise the power source into a tank sized vehicle and with the same number of shots as a standard cannon, there is no point what so ever in them.
They cause huge EM waves (despite the fact the top of the line MBTs are EMP proof), these will fuck up communications, knock out unprotected electrical aplliances (eg radios, GPS, vision assistants) and stick out like a sore thumb on any passive monitoring system.
HE and anti armour misslie and shells will allways be more effective.
SEX J00 ALL!!!!
3000 spams.
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 01:54
StryfeX- As I said, its not completly implausable to use combustion engines as well as said energy egines on smaller types of mechs, as I have mentioned. if an abram MBT runs on a combustion engine, whats to say a smaller , say gear, could also run on a combustion engine?
cornelius5
13-04-04, 02:30
volkswagon transformer (http://www.nexus-point.net/video/vw-transformer.avi)
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 02:32
StryfeX- As I said, its not completly implausable to use combustion engines as well as said energy egines on smaller types of mechs, as I have mentioned. if an abram MBT runs on a combustion engine, whats to say a smaller , say gear, could also run on a combustion engine?
Combustion engine's don't need to be linked to the drive system's directly to provide power..
They also don't need to be used as generator's for electrical power..
It's a magic thing, called hydrolics, you use the engine to power the compressor and you can have all kind's of movment..
Hey, I also agreed on small mech's..
I'd like to point out, you don't need a super smart AI for a remote, semi autonomus support walker.. All you need is somthing that can tell when it's fallen over, see movment in the area around it, even if it's moving itself (little tricky but not too hard) with feedback system's so the squad it's supporting can see what it see's, and order it to fire at movment and such..
BTW, Tau battlesuits are pretty nice, but the new farsight enclave toy's are just as fun... heheheh...
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 02:36
Support mech no, it don't have to be that smart, but a battle version would.
Anyway, an infantry mech (of any kind), would be useless, it would make far too much noise. You could never take it on a recce patrol, and it would show up on passive and active sensors like mad.
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 03:03
Support mech no, it don't have to be that smart, but a battle version would.
Anyway, an infantry mech (of any kind), would be useless, it would make far too much noise. You could never take it on a recce patrol, and it would show up on passive and active sensors like mad.
So would most vehical's, that's why you don't take them on recce unless your going to park far away, and more recce is done by para drop than by other insetion meathods
Battle version's don't need to be any smarter than support, as they will play backburner to everything else, much like tank's are not the top dog's in a battle, they are important yes, but one placed anti tank round, or even a mine will take them out of action, you don't need to destroy a tank to take it out of a fight, just bust the relativly weak track's and it's just a pillbox, or deathtrap.
You take a remote semi autonomus walker to a battle, it's more aglie as in it can slink down allys and such, where tank's can not go.
It don't need to be smart, it just has to be smart enough to know when to report to the operator that there's a possible target, or other such..
Let's take a modern street battle, high rises on the south side of the street, tripple lane road down the middle, public park at the east end of the street highway on/off ramp's at the west, low rise and comnunity housing to the north..
You'd not take a tank in there untill you've cleared the area out mosty, mainly to combat other armor in the area, chopper's are of limited use as the high rises and park provides plenty of cover, so does the highway in many places.. General bombardment is a big no no and destruction of building has to be kept down for the sake of the media, hungry for anything to show the interantional comunty the invaders are "evil"..
You can't fit a tank though the maze of allys that make up the cominuty housing.. So your left with infantry, in a built up area that might contain a great number of hostiles, possibly well armed with anti air and tank weaponry..
You can say anything you like about mech's and walking support vehicals, just as long as you rember there are places where they would be far far more usfull than a battalion of tanks.
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 03:06
Q`alooaith- youve just about hit the nail on the head for how a gears power system works, the V-engine provides power to hydrolics and the computers, life support, and cooling systems onboard the gear.
Dribble Joy- Its true, that it WOULD show up on different sensores, but like I posted befor, there were MANY different varrents, including gears outfitted with armor that is passive to most radar (much like how a stealth bombers design and plating is done) its also possible of fitting EMC moduals to a mech to further prevent detection.
Q'alooaith, you know your stuff heh good work, btw Highrises are prime realastate for snipers BTW :D
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 03:12
Yes, 'open' urban combat (ie not inside buildings) seems the best place for mechs, but tbh you would still be better off (imo) with a light armoured vehicle such as the British Army Warrior. Fast, manouverable, can carry a section (bit of a squeeze), 30mm cannon and a GPMG, decent armour.
Peasy to fix and modify.
A military unit like a mech would be just far too speciallised to be a viable asset (imo).
Edit:
@ Clive,
Modding a (limbed!!) ground unit for radar stealth is nigh on impossible.
A mech would produce as much ambient energy as a soldier if not more, EMC? Not entirely familiar with the term. You mean electromagnetic camoflage?
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 03:45
honistly most radar system's point up, not down.
And yes they would be huge radar blip's because of all the joint's and part's, aircraft stealth relys of
n not absobsion so much more as controled deflection, coupled with absorbsion.. though stealth airframes show up as "holes" on a certan other detection system..
stealth is not about being unseen, but being unoticed..
The ideal mech for street combat is roughly 50% larger than a human, running off instruction's from a controler who work's with the team the mech is supporting, now it's not piloted in the same sence as a "true" mech, but remotely prompted on it's actions, with autonomy on where it should place it's feet to get where it's going, and what area's to observe while it's moving.
The bonus of this sort of scale is you can use heavy infantry weapon's for the mech, adapted properly.. You chain feed a heavy machine gun, slap an auto loader on an anti tank rocket launcher... You've just got to think about loading it out less as a marksman, but more as a close supression tool.
properly implmented a small mech could provide enough firepower to be more usfull than a tank..
look at tank warfar for a guide, yea they can be great, but if you don't use them right your better off without them.
Same as grenades, used on the open field they are far less effective, throw into a room before entry and they are far more effective.
There are no current tactics worked out properly for combined arm's involving higly mobile walking support platforms, so best to look at them as heavy infantry in term's of uses, then when there's some real world results talk about other uses for them..
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 03:57
Well of course a tank is useless in some situations.
Personally ( and tbh we can't really guage how any mech will perform as of yet), I think that mechs will be of too little use to be viable military units un till they are virtually at the level where they are just highly sophisticated robots to replace the human soldier. By then though personal battle systems/exo-skeletons/visuals/etc. will be advanced enough to load the ordinary man with the weapons and equipment of the mech anyway.
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 04:09
The tech is there to make it happen..
It's the nay sayer's that are keeping it back, the pessimists who see mech's as big slow noisy clanky thing's that are easy to tip over and do little on the battle..
If you look at mech's though, not as gaint robots with lot's of gun's, but as small robot's, compairble to a person in size, but able to carry much more ammo and much heavyer weapons, you'd see the advantages.
Why are human's hard to push over backwards?
Because when you push somone in the chest they take a step back and then push back.
Mech's don't have to be unstable, they don't need huge footprint's to make them stable either.
I can't show you anything to convince you, but I can tell you it's possible walking machines will see light on a battlefield..
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 04:20
Dude, I don't think they will be clumsy, slow or anything., I can see the advantages.
Stronger, longer range, don't sleep, no morale, heavier weapons.
I just think that by the time they are advanced enough to be usefull, advancements in other areas will make them unnessicary.
Also (imo) for the job you described as thier main focus (urban fighting), they would be inapropriate, heavy machineguns aren't allways your best choice.
My military experience/career is limited/just starting so you probably know more about urban fighting than I do, but from an engineering (and specifically a mechanical engineering perspective (my uni course)) they are just not viable. Cost again is a prime concern, unlike the US, we cannot aford to spend billions on what is tbh a glorified soldier.
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 04:42
You did stop the Don't sleep factor..
You just missed how effective that could be, you need to guard an area, you set a standard watch with on of these around to keep a constant eye out too, not only is it a set of never blinking eye's (or motion trackers as the case may be) it's also an armed support able to open fire as soon as you know there's somthing to shoot at..
You do not need to build super AI or anything of the sort for it to be usfull..
Heavy machine gun's are usfull in urban setting's where you need to pull back from an ambush, or break out, maybe simply to supress some dug in troops while the unit sneak's round the back...
Heavy rock, anti tank type weapon's are alway's usfull to carry, in case you run into armor..
Though an RPG might be better suited in close warfare..
What is a mech though, well it's a soilder who can carry more and heavy gear and weapons, and who is not disutrbed by small arm's fire much.
No we don't have cash to waste on the milatary, so devloping the tech and not using it is a waste..
It's all well and good drawing up lot'#s of fancy plans, but look at the starwars defence project, all they did was draw up plans.
Prototyping is the best was forward, scaled down prototypes, I'm sure you've covered them by now, thing's that prove the tech either way.. And they don't have to cost a bomb to make, there are many off the self part's that could be used in mech construction already.. Take a modern car factory, the robotic arm's used are not uncommon, and spare part's for the one's in use so getting the bit's off the self..
Just borrow a second set of eye's and look for the part's you'd need, less the armor and armament, fitting it togther is more a challenge, but still doable..
Dribble Joy
13-04-04, 04:55
With regards to AI, it doesn't have to be particuarly smart (are we still talking fully autonomous, or still being under partial control here?), but the identification decicion making and apropriate action systems have to be at least on par with humans, other wise as a guard (or any other situation for that matter), it could fuck up spectacuarly.
From and engineering point of view (irrespective of it's battlefield effectiveness), I doubt they will be usefull/worth the effort and reasources, to complex, too costly.
That in no way means we should abandon the concept of mechs/robots but for that particular application they (in my mind) are extremely limited in thier usefullness.
Q`alooaith
13-04-04, 05:01
They'd not be much more than a tank to build once into full production, maybe less even..
We're talking semi autonmus, AI does not even have to have FF identification, you just make it report to control and then challenge the movment.
So they'd basicaly be like watchdog's, stop anyone and bark loudly untill told what to do..
One thing mechs would be is demoralising for untrained troops, can you imagine one of those iraqi insurgents soiling himself when a 7 foot tall heavily armed robot comes clucking aroun the corner with a 5 barrel general electric minigun spining up on each arm.
Clive tombstone
13-04-04, 18:46
Id Pay thousands to see that lol
how bout sod the wepons on it and just have a mech style vehicle ? that'd be phat! heh /me strolls down street in mech suit and stomps on nxt door neibours cat.... (whos gunna argue?) mwahahaha...
on another note... lol DJ I'm listening to NWA - fuck the police and your dancing cats are stepping in time bahahaha made me giggle :lol:
Heavyporker
13-04-04, 20:58
you know guys... I think you'e missing the point deriding and putting down autonomou mechs and robots.
You're forgetting that once they come into their full effectiveness... NO ONE is going to want to go bodily into potential physical harm. Hence - weapons that can haul themselves around and shoot who has to go down.
RuriHoshino
13-04-04, 21:52
For possible urban applications of mechs, please see the anime "Gasaraki". Ignore the pseudo-science that makes them run, I'm just speaking of the uses of a 150%-200% human sized mech.
Wow this is kewl it's not warbot tho it's transformer OptimusPrime lol
i used to love teh toons :D
Crackitakk
21-04-04, 06:02
i once saw a movie that started out with this.....judgement day is coming, on that day, the ai will take over :eek:
One thing mechs would be is demoralising for untrained troops, can you imagine one of those iraqi insurgents soiling himself when a 7 foot tall heavily armed robot comes clucking aroun the corner with a 5 barrel general electric minigun spining up on each arm.
Shame that the time needed to spin up the minigun, turn around, and point the gun at a target isn't enough to stop him firing an RPG straight into the mech. Bye bye thinly armored hydraulics.
@Q: If it's not heavy and clumsy, then it's because its armor is paper thin, and if it has reasonable armor, then it's going to be heavy and clumsy. No way around it. If you want it autonomous you've got years of very expensive R&D, computers find it hard enough just to even recognise a person as it is, let alone apply IFF to what it sees. Your 'guard' would effectively be firing its miniguns at literally everything that moves unless its carrying an IFF device. For the cost of a tank, I'd say a tank is considerably more effective.
With regard to knocking the mech over, it's fairly simple. First, it is taller than a tank, and the engine can't be in the legs, so it's going to have a much higher centre of gravity. Second, when you want to knock a human over, all it takes is a reasonable shove to the chest and he'll fall. The only way he doesn't is if he braces himself for it. It's a bit late for the mech to react when it's just been hit.
The only real advantage a mech has over a tank is that it can cross terrain which a tank cannot. A mech the size of a man would not have much of an advantage here, there are several situations which come to mind involving obstacles such as rubble where the tank would experience far less difficulty traversing the terrain.
e you, but I can tell you it's possible walking machines will see light on a battlefield..
the balancing wheelchairs. Is a good example of possible mechs. Ever seen them climb stairs. Very impressive.
wont be for another 20 years before robots will be in the sight of your average citizen. Simply because we dont have AI dont packed yet. Besides that robot is a fake, its been poven that its more of a advertisement (website owned by a BMW advertising company). 8|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.