quote:
OtakuPenguin had this to say about Captain Planet:
Ya know what?Fine. You win.
He won an hour ago.
quote:
Naimah painfully thought these words up:
He won a long time ago.
Snoota said that nine minutes ago.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Zaza gently hums:
Dude, open your mind a bit, we all know you're just rambling "scientific" bullshit, or maybe basing your argument solely on the studies that speak in your argument's favor. We all know it's possible to find a study to prove or disprove anything. The advantages of the easter bunny are fucking awesome. Seriously, it's a bunny that manages to place eggs all over the world in a single night. Can we say, "New postal system"?. Or hell, if you want to put it in a military context, think "Resupplying the front lines"! You have to see the possibilities here. Be a bit less negative!
Reminds me of transporters--what an awesome weapon. But it was never used as one. I mean, really: how many times did the good guys dress up and transport of to bad-guy land when all they had to do was put a nuke on the transporter instead?
Zaza wins the thread!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Reminds me of transporters--what an awesome weapon. But it was never used as one. I mean, really: how many times did the good guys dress up and transport of to bad-guy land when all they had to do was put a nuke on the transporter instead?Zaza wins the thread!
Are you suggesting that people... in war... would not fight fair???
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Azizza wrote:
That is until they see one fall down and act like a turle placed on his back.
You idiot. Haven't you played the MechWarrior series? If one falls over, just press a button and it'll stand itself back up! 
quote:
Pesco enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Pesco launches an attack from the comfort of his missle silo thousands of miles away.
Hah! OP's mecha turns into an UNDERGROUND BUNKER. You are thwarted.
Have you ever wondered why Bloodsage has never shared any of his stories about fighting in Iraq? Sworn to secrecy? Bullshit. He doesn't want you to know how much of a pitiful coward he is.
He, or anyone else, never saw any combat. The war machines were never used; they never HAVE been used since WWII. Nay, prepare to have your mind blown, because the way the wars were won can be summed up in four precious words:
Grizzly. Bears. With. Jetpacks.
I rest my case.
quote:
Koosh Man's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
I want to see a bipedal mecha tested some day while I'm still alive, because I want to see it get knocked flat on its ass by an AT round. The look on the developers' faces would be priceless.
Would probably blow right through it, never could mount that much armor on a mech, but if it was made right, it wouldn't matter cause the ten other Mecha right next to it would blow the tank away 
Mecha would have to replace the Infantry, so that means they got to be cheap, easy to pilot and mass produced. the concept is not so much to protect the guy inside, but to give the guy the ability to carry bigger guns, probably make them less having the pilot actually shoot and steer the thing but tell the thing what to shoot and were to go. But probably won't see any real interest in them till we get some Buck Roger's guns.
And Bloodsage, not doubting what you say, but dont dismiss the idea cause of the engineering aspects, we think of new shit every day. Pretty sure they told Verne his idea of an underwater going boats was impossible cause you could never get power to it, or keep air and so on, but it was all nice for fiction.
Actually, a Mech would be most likely be slow as hell. A tank would be capable of achieving much faster speeds in a much shorter time then a mech would. Mechs would be limited to the same rules we are.... legs can only move so fast, while wheels or treads have far less limitations on them and also more ability to handle the added wieght of an armored combat vehicle. Also, while not as big of a deal, mechs would be limited in distances they can move at any given point. Tanks have the ability to "inch" into places, while mechs would be for the most part would be restricted to their stride. Also, differences in terrain would effectively destroy a Mech. The only really situation I could see a Mech working well in is urban conflict, where for the most part the ground is level and solid. Mech pilots would have to watch where they are going in fear of hitting that one pot hole or hill that causes them to get stuck or trip. While a tank can easily navigate over the same. Another thing... Tanks cant trip.
There is a million more reasons why Mechs would effectively suck in combat. Hell, you can watch any movie involving some form of Mech unit and you can see how easily they are disabled in theory.
And that is my 2 cents.
A mech in human form would be possible, but to do so its systems would have to mimic some of the human body's functions. Mechs can be tripped, and they could fall as humans can. However, with sophisticated computers and advanced actuator technology a Mech could easily get back up just as a human gets up from being tripped. Just as the human brain makes millions of adjustments to the muscles in the feet and legs to keep the human body upright, advanced computer and mechanical technology would do the same.
Aiming your weapons in a mech would be quicker in a mech than in a tank, and mechs have the advantage of being able to change direction quickly, just as the human body can. In a one on one battle a mech would blast a tank apart before it could move its turret enough to blast the mech.
There are weaknesses to using human shaped mechs. Even though the actuator technology (used to move the mech's arms and legs) is advanced, there's only so much weight you can pile up on a mech. Make a mech too heavy, and it'll sink into the ground. A human shaped mech would have almost all the mechanical weaknesses that the human body probably has (all I can think of at the moment is that the joints would be the best target hit in order to stop one). [ 09-06-2003: Message edited by: Kennatsu ]
quote:
Kennatsu impressed everyone with:
Aiming your weapons in a mech would be quicker in a mech than in a tank, and mechs have the advantage of being able to change direction quickly, just as the human body can. In a one on one battle a mech would blast a tank apart before it could move its turret enough to blast the mech.
No.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Kennatsu thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I suck at debates and anyone could blow holes through my argument, but I'll put in my opinion anyway.A mech in human form would be possible, but to do so its systems would have to mimic some of the human body's functions. Mechs can be tripped, and they could fall as humans can. However, with sophisticated computers and advanced actuator technology a Mech could easily get back up just as a human gets up from being tripped. Just as the human brain makes millions of adjustments to the muscles in the feet and legs to keep the human body upright, advanced computer and mechanical technology would do the same.
Aiming your weapons in a mech would be quicker in a mech than in a tank, and mechs have the advantage of being able to change direction quickly, just as the human body can.
There are weaknesses to using human shaped mechs. Even though the actuator technology (used to move the mech's arms and legs) is advanced, there's only so much weight you can pile up on a mech. Make a mech too heavy, and it'll sink into the ground. A human shaped mech would have almost all the mechanical weaknesses that the human body probably has (all I can think of at the moment is that the joints would be the best target hit in order to stop one).
You forget the simple fact that those things wouldn't be economical at all. You want things that are robust thus not overly complex. Yes the human body can turn fast but it's so easy to disable a human it's not even funny, not just the joint, a hit basically anywhere would make it incapable of moving (since as you said it would require an immensely complex system just so it doesn't trip over while moving on a straight road). Also think of the maintinance those things would require.
The 'aiming quicker' thing wouldn't really be a problem, if you have the technology to make a mech walk you can buld a tank on a hovercraft or just a really fast spinning turret.
The one application for 'mechs' I can see in the really really really distant future is for human sized ones to storm bunkers, facilities and other things you want captured intact instead of putting human soldiers at risk. Afaik robots are already used to defuse mines and I think the CIA recently took out an Al-Kaida officer with a remote-controlled armed drone.
The point is that bipedal weapons platforms are far less efficient than a tank with a fast turning turret / good targeting mechanism and tracks, trading slightly lower turn speed for far better stability, easier maintinance, lower cost, less visibility and various other benefits.
quote:
From the book of OtakuPenguin, chapter 3, verse 16:
I oughta write up a flameball post about how much I hate that fucking smiley.
God I hate that fucking thing 
quote:
Liam thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I oughta write up a flameball post about how much I hate that fucking smiley.God I hate that fucking thing
I support this.
.png)
But there is one thing 'Sage forgot... an entire generation of out of touch anime geeks wanting to build this crap just because it is cool 
lol
we should totally build mechs. ghidra was off the hook!
quote:
Liam said this about your mom:
I oughta write up a flameball post about how much I hate that fucking smiley.God I hate that fucking thing
Yeah, that smilie sucks.
It's that smilie for when you want to tell the world, "I dismiss everything you say! Instead you get to watch me roll my eyes indiscriminately! 
4eva!"
Think of it this way: Back in the 1700s, the only accepted way of waging war was a bunch of guys lining up on a field and shooting each other until they marched into one another and started gutting the other side.
The "premade bullet" kinda fucked this whole idea. I mean, give me one M-16, and I could wipe out Napoleon's army with one swipe.
Likewise, you're assuming that a mech would have to propell a shell in order to hit a target.
Ever heard of lasers? 
There's this wonderful thing called light that doesn't exert much of a force on you, but can burn big holes through stuff. Go figure!
I'm not defending OP, I'm just saying that given current warefare tactics and technology, mechs and stuff would be HORRIBLY owned. But back when, people thought one guy couldn't kill more then one a second at a distance.. So.. hey.
Still wanna pilot a mech. Or maybe even the suit Ripley pilots in Alien(s).
But looking at the history of horribly overengineered stupid ideas, you have to wonder...
quote:
Led wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Lasers are going to be a total bitch to maintain, though. It will most likely be a long long time until they are mounted anywhere except fixed installations, ships, and maybe a few top of the line MBTs.But looking at the history of horribly overengineered stupid ideas, you have to wonder...
I actually saw a gatling gun demonstrated on Mail Call one time. They could pump out an assload of bullets (For it's time) and could even do a continuous stream of 'em just by doing a special superthing with the loading mechanism (Which I thought was cool).
Of course, it was all propelled by black powder, which meant a hellacious amount of smoke.
Besides, why mount lasers on battleships and crap that can be obscured by a crappy mirror when you can mount it on a sattelite for about 10x the cost, and have it vaporize anything in it's way?
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about dark elf butts:
I actually saw a gatling gun demonstrated on Mail Call one time. They could pump out an assload of bullets (For it's time) and could even do a continuous stream of 'em just by doing a special superthing with the loading mechanism (Which I thought was cool).Of course, it was all propelled by black powder, which meant a hellacious amount of smoke.
Besides, why mount lasers on battleships and crap that can be obscured by a crappy mirror when you can mount it on a sattelite for about 10x the cost, and have it vaporize anything in it's way?
Because Mirror Brigades would be so much fun!!
Imagine soldiers lugging around GIANT mirrors =p
quote:
OtakuPenguin had this to say about John Romero:
Because Mirror Brigades would be so much fun!!Imagine soldiers lugging around GIANT mirrors =p
Imagine Nazy Seals carrying around giant fully automatic machine guns
quote:
Verily, Delphi Aegis doth proclaim:
blah blah blah
This doesn't mean anything since physics was still growing when those inventions took place. I wouldn't say we know all we ever will but we know enough to rule mechs out. [ 09-07-2003: Message edited by: Where's Waisz? ]
1. We're already mounting a laser on an aircraft known, oddly enough, as the Airborne Laser. That's the "good" news.
2. Lasers from orbit are not likely to happen any century soon. Lasers are affecting by diffusion and refraction as well as the elementary reflection already mentioned--shooting through the entire volume of the atmosphere is a near-insoluble physicas problem.
3. Contrary to SF stories, lasers require fuel. Hazardous fuel. The airborne laser is mounted on a 747, and only gets a couple of shot due to fuel restrictions.
4. Smoke generators are cheap, and render lasers totally ineffective.
5. Lasers, frankly, don't do much damage. The current generation is effective only as range finders and against missiles in flight--only because missile skins are extremely thin and the fuel extremely volatile. A cheap ablative material would probably be an absolute defense against laser energy.
6. Et cetera.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Led gently hums:
Well, I admit, it would take some pretty serious advances and a shift in tactics to make them really viable in modern combat... but hell, they would have plenty 'o uses in the civilian world.But there is one thing 'Sage forgot... an entire generation of out of touch anime geeks wanting to build this crap just because it is cool
lol
I'm a huge fan of mech games, and my friends know me as the toymaster because I have all the cool electronic gadgets.
But, neat as they are in cartoons and videogames, there are much more efficient and effective ways to wage war in the near- and mid-term future.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Delphi Aegis gently hums:
OP had a point (Though a shot full of holes one at that) that warfare tactics can change dramatically.Think of it this way: Back in the 1700s, the only accepted way of waging war was a bunch of guys lining up on a field and shooting each other until they marched into one another and started gutting the other side.
The "premade bullet" kinda fucked this whole idea. I mean, give me one M-16, and I could wipe out Napoleon's army with one swipe.
Likewise, you're assuming that a mech would have to propell a shell in order to hit a target.
Ever heard of lasers?There's this wonderful thing called light that doesn't exert much of a force on you, but can burn big holes through stuff. Go figure!
I'm not defending OP, I'm just saying that given current warefare tactics and technology, mechs and stuff would be HORRIBLY owned. But back when, people thought one guy couldn't kill more then one a second at a distance.. So.. hey.
Still wanna pilot a mech. Or maybe even the suit Ripley pilots in Alien(s).
Actually, it wasn't breach loading weapons or brass cartridges so much as it was a change in tactics during the American Revolution. Those damned Americans took a lesson from the Indians and said, "Hey! Why stand exposed in a field when you can hide behind a tree?"
Repeating weapons really didn't come into their own until WWI. There, the machine gun turned the traditional battlefield into a killing ground.
In WWII, armor and aircraft turned the tide and introduced mobility back into warfare.
In generally, advances in firepower tend to bolster the defense, as in WWI, and advances in mobility reassert the offense, as in WWII.
And it's starting to bug me that no one seems to know the difference between tactics and technology. Tactics is how you fight with what you have. New gadgets may or may not change tactics, and few inventions throughout history have radically changed how war is fought.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Parcelan absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
So...grizzly bears with jetpacks would fall under what? Tactics or technology?
The anonymous men in dark suits will be there shortly; speak to no one in the meantime.
What bears?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
2. Lasers from orbit are not likely to happen any century soon. Lasers are affecting by diffusion and refraction as well as the elementary reflection already mentioned--shooting through the entire volume of the atmosphere is a near-insoluble physicas problem.3. Contrary to SF stories, lasers require fuel. Hazardous fuel. The airborne laser is mounted on a 747, and only gets a couple of shot due to fuel restrictions.
Would multiple leading lasers not work? They would burn a path through the atmosphere, letting the big one cruise through with minimal diffusion, in theory.
Really? Fuel? Is the fuel used to generate the electricity required to discharge the device or is the process something more exotic?
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Bloodsage said:
I'm a huge fan of mech games, and my friends know me as the toymaster because I have all the cool electronic gadgets.But, neat as they are in cartoons and videogames, there are much more efficient and effective ways to wage war in the near- and mid-term future.
So, do you have steel battalion yet? 
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Led gently hums:
Would multiple leading lasers not work? They would burn a path through the atmosphere, letting the big one cruise through with minimal diffusion, in theory.Really? Fuel? Is the fuel used to generate the electricity required to discharge the device or is the process something more exotic?
The atmosphere is a fluid--burning a hole through it wouldn't work. Diffusion and refraction are the problems.
The atmosphere isn't uniform density, either, complicating the problem of shooting a laser through it.
On your second question, it's a combination of the exotic and simple power requirements. I'm not up on all the technical details, though.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
