| |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:49:59PM +0000, David Rabadan wrote:
> Hello everyone. I was checking out
> <http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=35752 Ryan Wood's Jade Empire Hong
> Hovertank post> and he mentions that we have seen little in ground
> combat vehicles other than <http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-
> bin/gallery.cgi?f=83811a power suit>. That got me thinking, when you
> have Power Suits available, should tanks be used / are they really
> needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
>
> As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and
> do a better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of
> weapons; they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access
> areas that tanks may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with
> less collateral damage. What do you think?
I think tanks will still remain useful as siege weapons, spearheading
assaults, and general heavy battle. Power armor might be very useful for
surgical strikes, and urban warfare. But in an open field, or over long
distance, I think tanks will remain the weapons of choice.
Besides, tanks are inherently cooler :)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan
Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have seen little
in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That got
me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used / are
they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons; they
are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks may
not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral damage. What
do you think?
David Rabadan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
|
I think so. Since a tank (I’m talking about real life MBTs, not hovertanks) is
firmly situated on the ground, it is a more stable firing platform.
Also, even if powersuits are eventually developed, I doubt that they will be
able to carry the weaponry, ammunition, and armour that a tank does. A powersuit
I would figure would be built with more thought given to making it light and
compact.
The M1 Abram’s which weighs around 60 tons yet can still go ~40 mph. A powersuit
carrying that kind of weaponry, ammo, and armour would probably move very slow
or not at all.
I guess a tank would still be needed for sheer “presence” & firepower that it
brings to the battlefield.
Mladen Pejic
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
|
Those are all powerful advantages but I think that tanks are more efficient at
providing an armored and enclosed area because they’re closer to a spherical
shape than a power suit, and because they get mass fraction advantages.
Anecdotally: Playing MechWarrior this weekend suggests that tanks may well
continue forward. Could be a flaw in that rules system, of course but my tank
and squad decimated the opposing force of mechs and hoverbikes...
Personally I think it’s an expendability question, are you willing to expend
soldiers or not? unarmored guys with RPGs and flamethrowers are a lot cheaper
way to get firepower than multimillion dollar tanks or multihundredthousand
dollar powersuits. As long as you have a good supply of them anyway.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
|
Another thought is maintainability and cost. Consider that WWII Germany was
able to produce several tank destroyers for the cost of a single tank, simply
because the expense of the turret went away. As the end of WWII approached and
money became exceedingly tight, production of full tanks dropped off and that of
tank destoyers climbed. It follows that for a comparable armament, a less
specialized platform (i.e. tank) will be much cheaper.
I’d also much rather be the bloke in charge of replacing treads on a tank or
overhauling a tank transmission, as opposed to the one who has the sorry job of
fiddling with a couple dozen high-precision symbiotically-actuated
hydroelectronic pneumatically controlled joints. If dust is rough on a
modern-day tank, picture it on wreaking havoc on every point of power suit
articulation.
Technological hurdles aside, I can’t imagine power suits ever entirely replacing
tanks - at least, not as long as bean counters are involved.
-s
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Shaun Sullivan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that
tanks may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
|
Another thought is maintainability and cost. Consider that WWII Germany was
able to produce several tank destroyers for the cost of a single tank, simply
because the expense of the turret went away. As the end of WWII approached
and money became exceedingly tight, production of full tanks dropped off and
that of tank destoyers climbed. It follows that for a comparable armament, a
less specialized platform (i.e. tank) will be much cheaper.
I’d also much rather be the bloke in charge of replacing treads on a tank or
overhauling a tank transmission, as opposed to the one who has the sorry job
of fiddling with a couple dozen high-precision symbiotically-actuated
hydroelectronic pneumatically controlled joints. If dust is rough on a
modern-day tank, picture it on wreaking havoc on every point of power suit
articulation.
Technological hurdles aside, I can’t imagine power suits ever entirely
replacing tanks - at least, not as long as bean counters are involved.
-s
|
In the storyline I’ve been “working up” for twenty years now (!!), in fact, I do
use both. Part of the reason is that I tend to think that bipedal combat
machines would have to develop very high levels of flexibility and survivability
before they would be able to supplant “conventional” armor.
If you look at most mecha, well, it’s a disaster area of shot-traps, multiple
centers of mass, and sophisticated subsystems that, if disabled, can cause any
number of weird problems. Compare that with the center of gravity on a tank;
compare too the silhouette of the two. A bipedal unit also has a great
liability in the extraneous mass and size; most armor is designed for mobility
and cannon; the body of the vehicle is simply there to protect the equipment and
the crew. When the crew is smaller in stature (see the armor of the JSDF, for
example, which takes into account the smaller average size of Japanese armor
crews), the vehicle can be made smaller. Not quite the same with mecha, which
tend to have one pilot and dwarf that individual.
This is part of the reason I like Mladen’s stuff so much; it tends towards
multiple pairs of legs (which I do see as a viable platform at relatively low
tech). The bipedal “samurai warrior” type of mecha, I find much less
compelling. I do use bipedal machines in my own “universe,” but they tend to be
highly specialized alien machines, or else role-specific weapons platforms. The
really heavy artillery and main-battle roles are still done by tanks (gravtanks,
sure, but still tanks), which at lower levels of technology survive the vagaries
of combat much better and can operate with enormous levels of damage.
all best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
David Rabadan
|
That entirely depends on what technology you want to speculate on. Power armor
would require an incredibly powerful and small power source. I suppose that is
a given if you are saying that power armor would exist.
The problem with power armor would be how long they could go in combat (or
perhaps how long their operator could “hold it” g). They would not be able to
carry as much ammo, or would seriously tax their power unit assuming
power-dependent weapons. They would also be more prone to handheld anti-armor
weapons from clasic infantry than a tank: an expensive piece of machinery and
training taken out by a cheap hand-held rocket. Their weapons would be
inherently less powerful than those that a tank could carry simply for reasons
of size, weight, balance, and recoil. Unless the weapons they carry are strong
enough to take out an equally up-teched tank as easy as another tank could, then
they can’t really replace a tank. And if their weapons are that strong, then
cheap infantry can probably do the same to the power armor.
My suspicion would be that power armor would have its uses, but by itself
wouldn’t obsolete tanks. (Jumping around high in the sky a la Heinlein would
just make juicy targets).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
|
I used to think that bipedal war machines had absolutely no advantages over
their tank-al equivalents beyond “wow” factor (and face it, getting your enemy
to say, “wow, that’s cool that they can do that,” just before he blows you to
kingdom come is a pretty lame consolation for the fact that you just got
pasted). More recently, someone posted a link somewhere on LUGNET (can’t even
remember which group it got posted to, but maybe O-T.geek?) to an article that
detailed why legged walkers are actually more energy efficient in motion than
wheeled vehicles. So, that’s one practical and one frivolous reason for using
walkers over tanks.
Now, on the flip side, anything that’ll be able to walk back out of a combat
zone (after all, a blind, three-legged dog with a monkey perched on its back can
walk in, but Vegas would probably give some really long odds on both of them
making it back out afterwards) is going to cost an arm and a leg, and any
military that can afford to shell out that kind of bucks is probably the same
sort of military that can afford to fuel their mail trucks with jet fuel because
it helps to streamline the supply lines and reduces the chances that your jet
fighters won’t be able to get off the ground because all you’ve got left to fuel
them with is 87 Octane. Cost not being an issue pretty much kills any obvious
strategic advantages that could be gained by switching to walkers.
On the tank side of things, you present a dramatically smaller target (which
also reduces the chances of you being spotted before you’re ready to “announce”
yourself...with a barrage of depleted uranium spikes), your motive mechanisms
are both smaller in quantity and less complicated to keep working (KISS
principle in action, aka Scotty’s Law), you can have your treads completely
blown off and still be in a position to defend yourself against attack (as
compared to falling flat on what’s left of your back), if your enemy doesn’t
have weapons that can penetrate your armor they won’t be able to take you down
with a magnetic tow cable, you don’t have to worry about tripping on stuff, you
can be air-dropped from a cargo plane and get right to business without “some
assembly required”, you can get in and out of your vehicle safely in the field
(as compared to needing elevated gantries to reach the cockpit), and it’s “at
rest” position doesn’t require any powered systems to keep it balanced in an
upright position. Tanks are quite simply more suited for enduring sustained
combat without having constant access to reliable high-tech repair facilities.
They just don’t have quite the same visual appeal as bipedal machines beating
the tar out of each other with fists and swords.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
David Rabadan
|
I don’t know jack about real-world tank design and specifications, and haven’t
given much thought to potential powersuit concepts, but this has been a very
cool discussion to read all day. I certainly see a place for tanks in the
future, as they’ve proven their worth in wars since their creation. When hover
technology is improved in the future, I’m not sure we’ll see tanks floating
above the ground, since I imagine the recoil of weaponry would send them flying
backwards for some distance. Maybe there’s some kind of braking involved for
hover vehicles?
--Ry
|
|
| |
Very interesting discussion everyone.
In my opinion, MBT’s will always have the advantage over powersuits in terms of
cross country mobility, firepower and protection. There are a few situations
where a single man powersuit would have significant advantages over a MBT one of
which would be MOUT actions (Military Operations in Urban Terrain for those not
familar with clunky mil-speak). With powersuits, you could send a few to clear
alleyways or other restricted spaces, while a MBT could do little more than
flatten the surrounding buildings (which may be a valid military tactic as long
as “winning hearts and minds” is not a stated goal).
I also don’t think that we will ever see hovertanks in any armed capacity.
Lower is better with armored combat, and a hovertank by definition would be
higher than an equivalent traditional tank. If anything I think you may see
hover-type craft utilized as armored vehicle transporters not unlike the
USN/USMC’s LCAC hovercraft in current service.
From a building standpoint I think that there so many hovertank mocs built
because LEGO treads are a bit expensive and somewhat of a headache to work with.
Of course these are all just practical considerations, and so not take into
account the inherent cool factor of bipedal powersuits or swift hover vehicles.
Bryce Rollins
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
David Rabadan
|
Since power suits are near future sci-fi and we are talking about tanks everyone
should check out Keith Laumer’s Bolo series. It concerns a really cool (and
scary in many dimensions) future military developement idea: Bolo’s Giant tanks
run by self aware AI’s
Lester
|
|
| |
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:29:08PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Ryan Wood wrote:
> > I certainly see a place for tanks in the future, as they've proven
> > their worth in wars since their creation. When hover technology is
> > improved in the future, I'm not sure we'll see tanks floating above
> > the ground, since I imagine the recoil of weaponry would send them
> > flying backwards for some distance. Maybe there's some kind of
> > braking involved for hover vehicles?
That's not that different than today's tanks shooting while on the move
- the recoil is taken into effect, but it's not nearly as powerful as
the drive. Also, don't forget that the mass of a round is minute
compared to the mass of the tank. For 155m (m109 paladin/doher)
artillary (which I have to admit I'm more familiar than tanks), a round
weight about 40kg, and the gun about 30tons. At a muzzle velocity of
533 m/s, the recoil is only 0.7 m/s - easily overcome by advanced hover
technology :) Tanks are both heavier than mobile guns, and their shells
are lighter.
> Either that or they'd use recoilless weapons (venting exhaust gasses
> from projectile weapons, or energy weapons of some sort, or whatever)
Could always be a hybrid, though that would work better for artillary
than tanks. Hover quickly to your position, then "dig-in", "anchor", or
something along those line. Very similar to the way today's mobile guns
work.
> However I think there's still the billiard ball effect... when struck
> with a projectile, they would tend to move more than something
> anchored... unless, as you suggest, there was a braking device of
> some sort.
Assuming projectile weapons would still be used, and not totaly replaced
by energy. Maybe forcefield technology would be used as the main
protection, meaning the projectile's energy would be dissipated, and not
actually get trasfered to the tank.
As someone else mentioned in the thread, if you're into futuristic
tanks, the Bolo series is a very good read :)
Very interesting thread! :)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Ryan Wood wrote:
| |
I don’t know jack about real-world tank design and specifications, and
haven’t given much thought to potential powersuit concepts, but this
has been a very cool discussion to read all day.
|
I agree!
| |
I certainly see a place for tanks in the future, as they’ve proven
their worth in wars since their creation. When hover technology is
improved in the future, I’m not sure we’ll see tanks floating above the
ground, since I imagine the recoil of weaponry would send them flying
backwards for some distance. Maybe there’s some kind of braking involved
for hover vehicles?
|
Either that or they’d use recoilless weapons (venting exhaust gasses from
projectile weapons, or energy weapons of some sort, or whatever)
However I think there’s still the billiard ball effect. When struck with a
projectile, they would tend to move more than something anchored. Unless, as you
suggest, there was a braking device of some sort.
|
|
| |
Great discussions and some good physics mentioned on these posts! As far as AI
is concerned in the military, we get scarilly closer to this all the time. Read
articles on Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs) like those that Boeing is building,
among other companies. The future may well be robotic or ground operated
unmanned vehicles in the military. It wouldn’t be a stretch to see UGVs, that
is, Unmanned Ground Vehicles.
Bill
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
David Rabadan
|
This is an interesting discussion that I’ve seen before in other places, but
never commented on before, so I figured I’d add my own $.02.
Most of the time, it seems that the comparison is made between future power
armor systems and current tanks, but we need to consider the fact that as the
technology for power armor advances, so will tank technology. This brings us
back to looking at which system is inherently better for the task.
A tank is a relatively simple machine optimized to be a tough, stable,
relatively quick, and powerful weapons platform. A mecha is a much more complex
system that may have an advantage in traversing some obstacles like large steps
or narrow passages, but is much less efficient at performing the basic tasks a
tank has traditionally been used for. Mecha type machines using the same
technologies as tanks would be more prone to failure because of increased
complexity, more vulnerable to attack, more expensive to produce, slower, and
because of their upright posture, would present a larger target to other ground
units. Also, large separate weapons would be unwieldy, and if the weapons were
smaller, they would be less powerful. Not to mention the fact that unattached
weapons could be lost.
For these reasons, I don’t really think that mecha are going to replace tanks,
but I do believe that power suits in some form may fill a different niche. Small
personal powersuits like the ones DARPA is researching may be very useful in
enhancing the abilities of infantry if the technology can be made to work well
enough.
I personally think that robots are very cool and I guess if the role of future
tanks drastically changes, battles on relatively open areas are no longer the
standard, and some of the versatility that a mecha design offers is required,
someone may build something mecha-like. I believe that tanks of one kind or
another will continue to be the choice of militaries, though, not because they
can do something that power armor can’t, but because they are a lot more
efficient at what they do.
-James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Bill Pfund wrote:
| |
Great discussions and some good physics mentioned on these posts! As far as
AI is concerned in the military, we get scarilly closer to this all the time.
Read articles on Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs) like those that Boeing is
building, among other companies. The future may well be robotic or ground
operated unmanned vehicles in the military. It wouldn’t be a stretch to see
UGVs, that is, Unmanned Ground Vehicles.
|
I know that police are already using various types of UGVs on the basis that
it’s a lot more pleasent to attempt to justify to the public why they should be
willing to shell out the bucks for a really expensive glorified RC car to
replace the one that just got blowed up than it is to attempt to justify why you
didn’t spend that money to the spouse and kids of the cop who they’re holding a
funeral for. If the military isn’t already, yeah, they’re probably not far
behind. They probably won’t see as much use in the military as they do with
police forces, but that’s to be expected since police are centrally located and
military actions usually aren’t.
|
|
| |
To offer a different POV, I believe that power armor should be used in space as
an asset to ship-to-ship combat operations as commandos or raiders It could also
be used in a repair role where dexterity is needed but the area is too dangerous
for a man in space suit. In this application the problems of dust and lack of
power are nullified.
-Joseph
P.S. Can you imagine a tank in space? snicker
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Anecdotally: Playing MechWarrior this weekend suggests that tanks may well
continue forward. Could be a flaw in that rules system, of course but my tank
and squad decimated the opposing force of mechs and hoverbikes...
|
I’d have to agree, at least based on what I’ve experienced playing BattleTech.
A friend of mine always used to use tanks to go up against Mechs and Elementals
(I think that’s what the power-armor was called in BattleTech. It’s been a few
years.), and he almost always won quickly. The tanks were cheaper, so he could
have more of them, they were quicker, and they were more difficult to wipe out.
On the other hand, a squad of Elementals, while being cheap, where somewhat
slow, since they walked, and easy to wipe out since they were small and less
armored.
On the other other hand (?), I once saw a game where one guy spent all his
points buying tons of un-armed Elementals. He pit them against a couple lances
of Mechs, and won by swarming them, tearing their armor off one piece at a
time, and ripping out their inner components. It was pretty funny watching the
other player try to figure out how to shoot Elementals off from his own mechs
without causing any more damage.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Elroy Davis wrote:
| |
On the other other hand (?), I once saw a game where one guy spent all his
points buying tons of un-armed Elementals. He pit them against a couple
lances of Mechs, and won by swarming them, tearing their armor off one piece
at a time, and ripping out their inner components. It was pretty funny
watching the other player try to figure out how to shoot Elementals off from
his own mechs without causing any more damage.
|
I’d think it would have been more funny catching his reaction when he switched
from smug dismissal of the unarmed opponents to realizing just how deep he’d
stepped into it. It sounds about on par with the British forces who lost a
fortified position to spear-wielding Zulu warriors because they didn’t have
enough screwdrivers to open up the ammo crates fast enough to keep up with their
rate of fire.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Joseph Sibilia-Young wrote:
| |
To offer a different POV, I believe that power armor should be used in space
as an asset to ship-to-ship combat operations as commandos or raiders It
could also be used in a repair role where dexterity is needed but the area is
too dangerous for a man in space suit. In this application the problems of
dust and lack of power are nullified.
|
Navigation in space is hair-raising enough as it is. I shudder to think of how
much more complicated this would become if you start needing to account for body
stance when using thrusters. I could maybe see the idea of using humanoid
load-lifter suits for NASA-type operations (since they’ve only ever been
concerned with meeting military specs when forced to by idiots who have the
ability to kill their funding).
| |
P.S. Can you imagine a tank in space? snicker
|
No, I think the B5 Starfuries are pretty much the optimum platform to start from
(as evidenced by the fact that NASA did actually approach JMS about using his
design as a starting point for a real orbital vehicle of some sort). Besides,
if tank treads are useless in outer space, what’s so great about having legs?
Ender pretty much proved that they’re most useful when used as shielding for the
more important parts of the body.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Navigation in space is hair-raising enough as it is. I shudder to think of
how much more complicated this would become if you start needing to account
for body stance when using thrusters.
|
I was thinking these would be more for clambering around and inside capital
ships, not so much for zero-g combat as you imply. The suits would reach their
targets in projectile pods (ala Heinlein) or use “point-n-shoot” thrusters
attached centrally to their torsos to jump distances (ibid).
| |
| |
P.S. Can you imagine a tank in space? snicker
|
No, I think the B5 Starfuries are pretty much the optimum platform to start
from (as evidenced by the fact that NASA did actually approach JMS about
using his design as a starting point for a real orbital vehicle of some
sort).
|
I intended to say that it would be pretty funny to see one of todays tanks
zooming around in space taking fire from warships.
| |
Besides, if tank treads are useless in outer space, what’s so great
about having legs? Ender pretty much proved that they’re most useful when
used as shielding for the more important parts of the body.
|
Point taken.
-Joseph
|
|
| |
| |
When hover technology is improved in the future, I’m not sure we’ll see
tanks floating above the ground, since I imagine the recoil of weaponry would
send them flying backwards for some distance. Maybe there’s some kind of
braking involved for hover vehicles?
--Ry
|
When I think of what happens when a hover tank fires, i remember a little scene
from star wars a phantom menace, the entire tank kinda glides back from kickback
and the barrel has telesoping action to help in the kick back
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Joseph Sibilia-Young wrote:
| |
I was thinking these would be more for clambering around and inside capital
ships, not so much for zero-g combat as you imply. The suits would reach
their targets in projectile pods (ala Heinlein) or use “point-n-shoot”
thrusters attached centrally to their torsos to jump distances (ibid).
|
I guess I could see that. I’m not sure a true humanoid shape would be the
optimal way to go, given how tall it’d have to be to accomodate a human pilot,
but a walker of some sort could have the advantage of being able to claw its way
around, reducing the likelihood that unexpected manouvers would cause it to
crash into stuff.
Of course, the main point of engaging the enemy within their own ship would
theoretically be to capture the ship, so anything that can’t fit through the
constricted passageways that are likely to be used in a space combat vessel
could end up damaging the ship beyond the point where it’s worth even trying to
salvage parts, much less the whole ship. As likely as not, in-ship combat would
probably be carried out by some equivalent of Space Marines, wearing what would
essentially be armored spacesuits, and being inserted with small ships that
would latch onto the exterior hull and blow holes through the hull for the
troops to go through.
| |
I intended to say that it would be pretty funny to see one of todays tanks
zooming around in space taking fire from warships.
|
Yeah, I understood what you were saying, but it’s most closely related to aerial
combat. It’s only fair to compare military advantage with tanks when dealing
with ground-based combat. Fighter jets are better suited for aerial combat than
tanks, and tanks are better suited for ground combat than fighter jets. A
completely different combat platform would be required for space-based combat,
as tanks wouldn’t have ground to drive on and aircraft wouldn’t have air to
steer with.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
| |
If you look at most mecha, well, it’s a disaster area of shot-traps, multiple
centers of mass, and sophisticated subsystems that, if disabled, can cause
any number of weird problems. Compare that with the center of gravity on a
tank; compare too the silhouette of the two. A bipedal unit also has a great
liability in the extraneous mass and size; most armor is designed for
mobility and cannon; the body of the vehicle is simply there to protect the
equipment and the crew. When the crew is smaller in stature (see the armor
of the JSDF, for example, which takes into account the smaller average size
of Japanese armor crews), the vehicle can be made smaller. Not quite the
same with mecha, which tend to have one pilot and dwarf that individual.
|
Of course you are correct. Plausible or not though, they are much more fun to
build out of lego. I’ve never felt the need for realism to dictate any
limitations on my models, but that’s just the .SPACE in me :)
| |
This is part of the reason I like Mladen’s stuff so much; it tends towards
multiple pairs of legs (which I do see as a viable platform at relatively low
tech). The bipedal “samurai warrior” type of mecha, I find much less
compelling. I do use bipedal machines in my own “universe,” but they tend to
be highly specialized alien machines, or else role-specific weapons
platforms. The really heavy artillery and main-battle roles are still done
by tanks (gravtanks, sure, but still tanks), which at lower levels of
technology survive the vagaries of combat much better and can operate with
enormous levels of damage.
|
If realism, or even plausibility is your bag, then more power to you, but from a
Lego building perspective, the sculptural and engineering challenges in bipedal
mecha are far more interesting to me than a traditional tank design, or even a
hover tank. Whether or not power armour or mecha have a viable future in real
life is irrelevant - they are fun and challenging to build, and that’s what
counts to me.
Cheers,
Allister
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
Of course you are correct. Plausible or not though, they are much more fun to
build out of lego. I’ve never felt the need for realism to dictate any
limitations on my models, but that’s just the .SPACE in me :)
|
Fair enough, but we do all make certain levels of “realism”
necessary in our creations, be they space suits for all little
spacemen, enclosed cockpits, engines, or even making sure there
are wings on our Galaxy Enforcers. :D
| |
If realism, or even plausibility is your bag, then more power to you, but
from a Lego building perspective, the sculptural and engineering challenges
in bipedal mecha are far more interesting to me than a traditional tank
design, or even a hover tank. Whether or not power armour or mecha have a
viable future in real life is irrelevant - they are fun and challenging to
build, and that’s what counts to me.
|
Well, fair enough. It also is important, even for the “realists,” to understand
that just because raw Darwinian calculations of idealized combat efficiency is
currently the rage in modern human militaries predicated on the idea of
knock-down, drag-out WWII style combat, that doesn’t mean that all civilizations
(human or alien) must prioritize the way we do. They may have religious,
cultural, historical, or simple aesthetic reasons for preferring bipedal
walkers, or tripods, or giant samurai warriors on bicycles. Who knows what
factors will go into future and non-human militaries, or even that combat will
involve a dedicated military? That’s half the fun to me--devising the little
quirks and seemingly strange choices that make their own sense in an alternate
reading of the universe.
regards
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
| |
Fair enough, but we do all make certain levels of “realism”
necessary in our creations, be they space suits for all little
spacemen, enclosed cockpits, engines, or even making sure there
are wings on our Galaxy Enforcers. :D
|
That’s more or less what I was saying. Any creation, no matter how implausible
or unrealistic, must have a certain internal consistency as it were. There will
be rules that apply to that creation to make it ‘real’ enough, whatever that may
mean, but I have no compunction in breaking them or creating an entire new set
of rules for the next one. I somewhat ease the burden in creating all these
multiple universes by avoiding any attempt at back story for my models.
| |
Well, fair enough. It also is important, even for the “realists,” to
understand that just because raw Darwinian calculations of idealized combat
efficiency is currently the rage in modern human militaries predicated on
the idea of knock-down, drag-out WWII style combat, that doesn’t mean that
all civilizations (human or alien) must prioritize the way we do. They may
have religious, cultural, historical, or simple aesthetic reasons for
preferring bipedal walkers, or tripods, or giant samurai warriors on
bicycles. Who knows what factors will go into future and non-human
militaries, or even that combat will involve a dedicated military? That’s
half the fun to me--devising the little quirks and seemingly strange choices
that make their own sense in an alternate reading of the universe.
|
In other words: build whatever you want, no matter how fantastic. You can always
think up a compelling backstory later. Is that what your saying? I agree. But
we’re getting away from realism now, in terms of what we are actually likely to
see, and into fiction, which while it must conform to it’s own set of rules, it
doesn’t necessarily have to conform to reality.
Either way, it’s all good to me, and bipedal mechs, viable or not, are a
worthwhile building challenge to take up.
Allister
|
|
| |
I’m surprised no one so far has answered the “tanks or power armor” question by
saying, “missiles!” As information, positioning, sensor, and guidance
technology continues to improve, it gets easier and easier to hit a ground-based
target from long range with a missile or smart bomb. Aren’t Tomohawks, at about
$7 million per shot, the most expensive missile we’ve got? Aren’t main battle
tanks more expensive than that? If you use a big enough missile, there’s no way
a tank can survive a hit.
Anti-missile technology is an option, but I think you get back to the basic
truth that it’s way easier to throw a spear than to catch one. The Navy has
batteries of mini-guns on their ships that they shoot at incoming missiles
(called CWS for “close-in weapon system”, pronounced “sea-whiz”--I’m not
kidding), but the Navy guy I know never felt much safer because of them.
I think the Pentagon is not planning a successor to the Abrams, because it’s
just too big a target. The escalation starts by bringing a sword to a
hand-to-hand combat. Then you need armor to shield yourself from your
opponent’s sword, then you need bigger, heavier weapons to penetrate the other
guy’s armor. You alternate increasing the amount of your armor and increasing
the power of your weapons until you have a massive tank or mech that can barely
move and that presents an enormous target.
Step one in the process of killing tanks (or mechs for that matter) is to
establish air superiority. After that, your ground attack aircraft can pick
them off with impunity. Reminds me of the old joke that the difference between
aerospace engineers and civil engineers is that one designs weapons and the
other designs targets.
All that notwithstanding, I’ll still build mechs because I think they’re
sweeeeeeet.
|
|
| |
While the cost of precision guided munitions is indeed going down (wittness the
the USN’s new “Tactical Tomahawk” with a price tag of around $575,000, about
half the cost of current Toms) using cost efficiency to justify the use of PGM
as a tank killer/replacement fails to take into account several other factors.
Firstly, any missile needs a firing platform (be it aircraft, ship or ground
vehicle) that needs to be factored into the equation. Secondly, if a truely
long range weapon is to be used it will most likely require additional targeting
information from local ground troops, a foreward air controller or a man in the
loop directly controlling the weapon. Botton line is that a $28 million
aircraft (F/A-18 as per USN Fact Files) firing a $180,000 missile (AGM-65
Maverick as per USN Fact File) will always be more costly than a $4.3 million
dollar M1A1 (USMC fact file) firing a APFSDS round (which the US army spent $5.3
million in 2004 for a year’s supply for a per unit cost of a coupla hundred
dollars).
The Pentagon is not planning a replacement for the Abrams because the current
design, with upgrades of course, will foreseeably be able to meet the current
and future threat levels for some time to come. Additionally, the Abrams set
the standard for tank mobility, and most modern tanks can hardly be described as
barely mobile massive targets.
Your sword and armor analogy is a valid one but it would apply to missile
technology as well. In the Yom Kippur war the Israeli Air Force suffered heavy
losses from SAMs until proper electronic jamming equipment became available.
While Air superiority is the mastercard of modern combat (“don’t leave home
without it”), one Iraqi commander after Desert Storm said something to the
effect that after 4 weeks of bombing he had lost 1/5th of his tanks and that he
lost the rest after 15 minutes of tank to tank fighting with M1A1s.
Still you hit the nail on the head by saying that mechs have a greater cool
factor than regular armored vehicles
Bryce Rollins
|
|
| |
I’m supprised about this too, but from a little different standingpoint: I don’t
think humans have any future on the battlefield, because everything will happen
so much faster than today:
Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t demand
space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what it’s told to
without moral considerations...
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you need
humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions, but they’ll
need heavy space, air and drone-support.
What about tanks and powerarmor then? Well the infantry’s gotta get around
relatively protected in hover-APC’s, and they may need some light hovertanks for
support, but unless some serious cloaking technology becomes availible that can
protect them against rockets, the main offensive weapons will stay airborne or
spacebased (orbital bombardment).
A lot of people has been questioning why
tanks need to hover for various reasons, but in my opinion, hovering is needed
to be able to respond on a global scale, and infantry, (tracked) tanks, PA, mecs
(and whatever you call them) isn’t any good if the beachead is on the OTHER side
of the planet!
Historically, the reason why D-day succeded were because most of
the German material were too far away on the eastfront...
Tecnically there’s a
maximum limit of how fast wheeled or tracked vehicles can move - they just
barely managed to reach mach 1 recently in one of the flattest areas in the
world: I wouldn’t like to drive a MBT through rugged terrain at that speed (or
higher)!
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation as well as the need to avoid
enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging, I think that that pretty much sums
up why tanks need to hover (and with beamweapons or rockets, recoil wouldn’t be
a problem).
Concerning the powerarmor (or mech), many has already pointed out the many
problems caused by the complexity and stature of such a machine (and I don’t
believe that it’ll be more energy efficient than wheels or tracks), and if the
| |
incredibly powerful and small power source
|
that Bruce Schlickbernd mentioned, came into being, there would be no reason not
to put it into a tank with a 10 times better result.
I don’t think that PA’s would have any use at all: The standard protection would
always be the simplest possible spacesuit with addition of armor or zero-g
propulsion after the circumstances, perhaps an exoskeleton for planets with high
gravity (but why would you whish to invade such a place?): If you whish to
invade a planet and hold it you need milions of soldiers with the cheapest
equipment possible (but after Iraq you might consider if diplomacy, scorched
earth politics or Tarkin Doctrine wasn’t a better sollution).
But most of the time a swarm of drones would be preferred to infantry,
ESPECIALLY when fighting in confined spaces like bunkers, spaceships and urban
warfare; where humans is totally unfit, wearing PA might help a bit, but
considering the PA’s seen around here, that would be countered by their sheer
size that makes them too easy to hit and unable to get around: Think of clearing
houses with a giant three times (+) human size!
All in all I think that instead of a weapons/armour-race, we will se a
accuracy/size,speed&maneuverability-race and here drones take the place of
humans - and we haven’t even discussed nanoscale warfare yet!
-NB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
I’m supprised about this too, but from a little different standingpoint: I
don’t think humans have any future on the battlefield, because everything
will happen so much faster than today:
Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t
demand space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what
it’s told to without moral considerations...
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you
need humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions, but
they’ll need heavy space, air and drone-support.
|
I agree with this part...
| |
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation as well as the need to avoid
enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging, I think that that pretty much
sums up why tanks need to hover (and with beamweapons or rockets, recoil
wouldn’t be a problem).
|
I am assuming that a tank would not go from its rear area yard/base (on another
continent) to the combat zone under its own power, even a hovertank. So I guess
I don’t see why tanks need to hover. As someone elsethread said, hover == higher
== easier to hit == soft underbelly == easier to knock out
Tank TRANSPORTERs though... ??? Sure! Short range transporters could well use
hover tech to get from the local basing area to close in to the front. But the
tanks themselves I expect will be brought in by ship (with good air cover) if
there is time or C5A if there isn’t, to that basing area...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
I’m supprised about this too, but from a little different standingpoint: I
don’t think humans have any future on the battlefield, because everything
will happen so much faster than today:
Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t
demand space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what
it’s told to without moral considerations...
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you
need humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions,
but they’ll need heavy space, air and drone-support.
|
I agree with this part...
| |
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation as well as the need to
avoid enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging, I think that that pretty
much sums up why tanks need to hover (and with beamweapons or rockets,
recoil wouldn’t be a problem).
|
I am assuming that a tank would not go from its rear area yard/base (on
another continent) to the combat zone under its own power, even a hovertank.
So I guess I don’t see why tanks need to hover. As someone elsethread said,
hover == higher == easier to hit == soft underbelly == easier to knock out
Tank TRANSPORTERs though... ??? Sure! Short range transporters could well use
hover tech to get from the local basing area to close in to the front. But
the tanks themselves I expect will be brought in by ship (with good air
cover) if there is time or C5A if there isn’t, to that basing area...
|
I think this would depend on the efficacy of the hover mechanism. Depending on
the technology involved, it could be faster then a tank with treads running on
the same sort of power source would be (there’s alot of mass in tank treads, and
therefore alot of inertia). Also, hover tanks should, in theory, be immune to
land mines, which would allow for faster overall advancement of a fighting line.
Theoretically, a hover tank could be made to maintain a distance from the ground
less than or equal to that occupied by the wheels on a normal tank, so that it
would not be higher in the air. Also, while I don’t think that oceans or
mountains make a compelling argument for hover tank desirabilty, rivers, and
bridge destruction do.
-Dan Rubin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
I’m supprised about this too, but from a little different standingpoint: I
don’t think humans have any future on the battlefield, because everything
will happen so much faster than today:
|
Humans will always have a place on the battlefield, if for only two reasons.
Aircraft have proven capable of instigating conflict and presenting a solid
first wave of defense, but the only way to hold territory is to maintain
pressence there. That means people on the ground. The other reason is that the
speed at which combat is fought is always limited by the ability to react to
changing circumstances. Machines currently need preprogrammed reaction logic,
so they can’t reliably react to unexpected events in the way that well-trained
soldiers can. The only way to make them capable of doing so is to develop true
AI, and Asimov’s literary history shows that this might not be a safe thing even
in terms of civilian bots, much less bots with guns strapped on them.
| |
Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t
demand space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what
it’s told to without moral considerations...
|
Think about this. You’ve got to develop a military AI that has no objections to
killing, but won’t go on a killing spree when it gets home. You’ve got to give
them enough deduction capability to figure out who to shoot and who to not
shoot, but expect them to not turn around and go Swiss on you. And you’ve got
to develop their reactionary capabilities beyond those possessed by humans, who
still don’t really understand how the brain works.
| |
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you
need humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions, but
they’ll need heavy space, air and drone-support.
|
Drones with off-site human control are already here, but I wouldn’t want to bank
on the idea of drones that require no human input once you send them on the
mission.
| |
What about tanks and powerarmor then? Well the infantry’s gotta get around
relatively protected in hover-APC’s, and they may need some light hovertanks
for support, but unless some serious cloaking technology becomes availible
that can protect them against rockets, the main offensive weapons will stay
airborne or spacebased (orbital bombardment).
|
I have a feeling that orbital bombardment will have a very short period of use
before it becomes illegal by international treaty.
| |
Tecnically there’s a maximum limit of how fast wheeled or tracked vehicles
can move - they just barely managed to reach mach 1 recently in one of the
flattest areas in the world: I wouldn’t like to drive a MBT through rugged
terrain at that speed (or higher)!
|
Speed is also constrained by the driver’s ability to not smack into buildings,
trees, and the occassional cow. Fighter jets have the advantage that there’s
not much in the way of obstacles once you get a few thousand feet into the air,
but SW:ROTJ should show you how treacherous it is to exceed safe travel speeds
during combat on unfamiliar terrain.
| |
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation
|
Mountains? That’s what aircraft are for. Tanks, hover or not, have no business
trying to hop over the Himalayas.
| |
as well as the need to avoid enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging,
|
Dodging is probably never going to be a real option. Fighter jets don’t dodge
missiles, but rather out-manouver them, or misdirect them. Hover tanks will
likely end up in the same scrap pile as mundane tanks when jets scream over at
Mach 2+ and unleash cluster smart-bombs like they were doing in Iraq.
| |
I think that that pretty much sums up why tanks need to hover (and with
beamweapons or rockets, recoil wouldn’t be a problem).
|
Rockets are more bulky compared to the depleted uranium darts that we (the US)
currently use. In order to equal the destructive capabilities, they’d need to
be huge, so you’d have a very limited ammo capacity. Depleted uranium rounds
will punch through pretty much any armor plating out there (including that which
is used for the Abrams), but they’re probably not much bigger than the RPGs that
weren’t even much of a threat to our Humvees, and were just bouncing off our
Abrams tanks. And without currently existing beamweapon capability to back up
the hover tank argument, there’s no way of guaranteeing that the two
technologies would become available at the same time.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Daniel Rubin wrote:
| |
I think this would depend on the efficacy of the hover mechanism. Depending
on the technology involved, it could be faster then a tank with treads
running on the same sort of power source would be (there’s alot of mass in
tank treads, and therefore alot of inertia). Also, hover tanks should, in
theory, be immune to land mines, which would allow for faster overall
advancement of a fighting line.
|
If military history has shown us anything, it’s that nothing is immune to
landmines if it moves. It’s just a matter of developing a landmine that’s
capable of being triggered by a hover tank (and trust me, if hover tanks happen,
someone will figure out how to make a landmine to match it). There have been
some absolutely freaky mines developed, including one that is triggered by boats
that travel over it, but only if they go fast. The idea there was that
attacking boats would want to get in, pop open a can of Cream of Medieval soup,
and either get the heck out of Dodge, or plant the flag on captured territory.
Friendly boats, on the other hand, could leisurely putter into the harbor,
unafraid of getting blown away by defensive artillery. Assuming the hover
technology that makes hover tanks feasible doesn’t cause a downward pressure
effect that’ll set off the current leading mines, it’s still only a matter of
time before someone could figure out a way to catch them, be it a magnetic
trigger that picks up on any iron content passing over it, some exotic trigger
that detects the energy used to make the tank hover, or even converting the
radar capsule from explosive shells for use in a landmine. Of course, since
set-them-and-forget-them mines are now banned by international treaty, IIRC, it
should be a null issue anyways.
| |
Theoretically, a hover tank could be made to maintain a distance from the
ground less than or equal to that occupied by the wheels on a normal tank,
so that it would not be higher in the air.
|
Without actually developing the requisite hover technology, there’s no way of
putting forth an educated guess as to whether hover tanks would need extra
height to house the hover-tech, or if they could sit even lower because the
technology would require less height than what conventional tanks require in the
underbelly.
| |
Also, while I don’t think that oceans or mountains make a compelling
argument for hover tank desirabilty,
|
Oceans don’t, but beaches do. Being able to launch a hover tank assault from
international waters would go a long ways towards eliminating the need for
specialized beach assault boats, though to completely get rid of them we’d still
need hover Humvees, hover APCs, and hover artillery.
| |
rivers, and bridge destruction do.
|
It would certainly be more convenient, but we’ve got bridge-laying technology,
so it would still be a matter of whether the hover-tech would be durable enough
to warrant using hover tanks instead of or in combination with treaded tanks.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Also, while I don’t think that oceans or mountains make a compelling
argument for hover tank desirabilty,
|
|
They do. It’s called AAAV-7. Done with a AFV already. Not Hover, but SES on
the water, tracks on land.
| |
| |
rivers, and bridge destruction do.
|
It would certainly be more convenient, but we’ve got bridge-laying
technology, so it would still be a matter of whether the hover-tech would be
durable enough to warrant using hover tanks instead of or in combination with
treaded tanks.
|
I’d suggest reading “Hammers Slammers” by David Drake. He’s ex armor, has lots
of neat ideas and cool fighting scenes. Imagine hover tanks, using fusion
bottles for power, with a LOS cannon system based on a cartridge based system.
They don’t float. A 170 ton item takes a critical surface pressure to
support...regardless of how it is supported on the surface, it still weighs 170
tons.
ACE has been used for exceptionally heavy haulage vehicles in the past. In one
of my heavy haulage books, there is some photos of the kit being used in the UK
for moving transformers. It still doesn’t alleviate the problem of weak
bridges, but it works well every where else.
James Powell
|
|
| |
| |
I think the Pentagon is not planning a successor to the Abrams, because it’s
just too big a target. The escalation starts by bringing a sword to a
hand-to-hand combat.
|
A mecha would have a very hard time getting close enough to make hand-to-hand
relevant. A M1A1’s turret can do a 360 and stop on a dime from a dead start in 1
second. It’s not the most comfortable thing to do for the crew inside but it
does allow them a tremendous advantage when in comes to the firing arc.
| |
All that notwithstanding, I’ll still build mechs because I think they’re
sweeeeeeet.
|
Agreed, they may not be practical for real world use but they are still cool
looking.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
I believe that tanks will stay in service, but will eventually face competition
from PA.
Many people have justified that the size of MECHA will keep tanks in service,
bypassing the issue that even the modern PA is still roughly human sized. While
a mecha is a HUGE target compared to a tank, the same is true for a tank
compared to a human. A squad of five of six PA’s would still be roughly the
same size as a tank, and with focused, squad based maneuvers and tactics, would
be harder to hit and juat as destructive. Add in things like rockets, jetpacks,
and speed articulators, you also have a faster, more versatile strike force.
This is why you often see squads of troops on foot in Iraq, they’re much harder
to take out.
Now, on that tank side, they’ll stay in service simply becaue they’re cheaper,
and a decent strike platform. Their weakness is in guerrilla tactics, but in a
full force strike there’s very little that can compare to a tank battallion.
That’s why we built so many during the cold war. Eatern Europe and the USSR
wasn’t our concern. It was understood that we’d get torn to shreds by
guerrillas (see the Iraq war), so the target switched to the Asiads and Russia.
Most of Russia looks verry simmilar to Kansas. Flat, ofen, and grassy. If you
couls get decent sized strike force through China and Indo China, you’re in.
No Napoleanic mistakes. There are probably still French- and German-sicles
somewhere in Russia.
Tanks and PA’s serve very similar purposes, but in different roles. You really
can never outmod a versatile and powerful infantry, just as a calvery (tank
battalions) will also always be needed.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Rabadan wrote:
| |
Hello everyone. I was checking out Ryan Wood’s Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post and he mentions that we have
seen little in ground combat vehicles other than
power suit. That
got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should tanks be used /
are they really needed? Can tanks add anything that power armor cannot?
As a power armor fan myself I believe that they can replace tanks and do a
better job than mechanized armor. They can carry a diversity of weapons;
they are a bipedal weapons platform system. They can access areas that tanks
may not. They can perform “surgical” strikes and with less collateral
damage. What do you think?
David Rabadan
|
None of these statements about Power Armor can be considered factual as none are
in existance, nor are they being used by ANY military for tests or used in
actual combat.
You’d be amazed at how powerful REAL LIFE weapons can be. Ever thought that
those hydraulic legs from those Mechas can be shot out by HEAT rounds, punctured
by penetrator rounds and etc. from tanks? Lets face it, offensive power of
modern weaponry is becoming so strong that even bunkers are considered useless.
Daisy Cutter anyone? :-P
Ground forces are more for holding terrain and occupation than the ones
providing the real punch. Air craft with their bombs, and missiles are the real
offensive power in today’s military.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
A mecha would have a very hard time getting close enough to make hand-to-hand
relevant. A M1A1’s turret can do a 360 and stop on a dime from a dead start
in 1 second. It’s not the most comfortable thing to do for the crew inside
but it does allow them a tremendous advantage when in comes to the firing
arc.
|
Well, the driver ought to be fine...assuming the turret crew doesn’t
collectively puke all over him, that is... (hmm, imagine them spinning around
like that at full speed with the governor removed) But yeah, if a mecha/PA
tries advancing on an Abrams, it better have some good stealth technology built
in (including nice padded shoes so it doesn’t make big stompy sounds when it
walks). The only current ballistic weapon that’s supposed to be able to punch
through an Abrams is the same type of round that’s fired by an Abrams (something
to do with the fact that they’re clad in depleted uranium armor), according to
Howstuffworks.com.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, John T. Jensen wrote:
| |
Add in things like ... jetpacks,
|
Okay, now you’re just fantasizing. A human-sized PA would probably weigh at
least half a ton, so it’d need a huge boost to get off the ground. To get
enough boost for airlift that doesn’t look sluggish, you’re probably looking at
having to strip the engine off the SS1, and figuring out how to modify it so it
can fire in short controlled bursts.
| |
This is why you often see squads of troops on foot in Iraq, they’re much
harder to take out.
|
The’re also much cheaper to outfit, and they can enter buildings without having
to make their own doorways. And a tank is somewhat overpowered for taking out
some teenager who runs into the street with a small automatic rifle intending to
“make a statement” or somesuch.
| |
Their weakness is in guerrilla tactics, but in a full force strike there’s
very little that can compare to a tank battallion.
|
Offensively, yes, they are pretty much out of their element when dealing with
guerilla warfare (but then again, they’re really not designed for dedicated
anti-infantry use), but defensively they’ve got enough armor that they should be
able to shrug off anything that a person can carry short of a suitcase nuke.
|
|
| |
Dude, one ton? I’m not even considdering using enough armor to withstand an
artillery or missle barrage. That’s way to inconcieveable. That kind of PA
wouldn’t be woth the trouble. Lightweight, durable materials like carbon fiber,
magnesium alloys, and delrin would be perfect for building lightweight, small
PA’s. Small, high torque motors in berring mounts would privide flexability ,
strength, and ease of maintenence. The largest single component would be the
battery. I’m in no way saying that this is at all possible now, or even within
a few years. As I said, the tank would still remain, simply because it’s the
most durable, stable, and powerful platform. However, given the turn in warfare
in the last fifty years, PA would deffinately be a boon, and start to replace
tanks in some facets, but they wouild never be able to replace them. And, if
we’re assuming that tanks will eventually move to hover versions, and it’s
fairly certain that we’d need to improove on the fan and skirt design, why can’t
this tecnology be applied to smaller, personal means?
The whole problem we’re hitting, is so much is dependent upon theory, scientific
and millitary, neither of which is set in stone. One hundered years ago, we
were still using tactics that had been used in the revolutionary war. After
WWI, the rules needed to change, so tactics were altered. After Vietnam,
another lesson was learned, tactics changed. Modern warfare is defined by
smaller, guerrilla tactics. We aren’t so much worried that the enemies are
going to launch a flyover bombing run as we are that they have snipers in that
building over there, or if that man is the one with ten pounds of explosives
strapped to his stomach. Who’s to say what will happen in ten more years, or
twenty, or one hundred?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, John T. Jensen wrote:
Half of that. 1000 pounds. Think “compact car”, or 1/10th of a Hummer, if you
prefer. Consider the various systems that would have to be strapped onto the
pilot. You start out with a frame designed to fit around a human body. You’d
need armaments beyond what a normal human could carry, or you’d be much better
off just handing out kevlar body armor and M-16’s. You’d need servo
articulation so it would be possible for a human to move in this thing. You’d
probably want some sort of stabilization system so your soldiers don’t go out
and perform their impression of what it’s like to be an upside-down turtle for
the enemy. You’d need a battery to power all of this (and batteries are pretty
heavy), and you’d want some sort of armor to protect everything. All of that
weight adds up, especially the battery.
| |
I’m not even considdering using enough armor to withstand an artillery or
missle barrage.
|
There’s not much you could do to protect yourself against heavy artillery, but
it’d be nice if it could withstand an RPG, at least. If they ever set foot on
the battleground, these things would have “TARGET” painted on them in
flourescent pink, blinking, glow-in-the-dark letters with a loudspeaker
announcing it for good measure, and as we’ve seen through recent history,
guerilla fighters have a fondness for popping out of the woodwork with an RPG
launcher ready to go.
| |
I’m in no way saying that this is at all possible now, or even within a few
years.
|
If we really wanted to make one, we’ve probably got the technology available to
cobble something together. Of course, if we really wanted to, we could still be
sending people to the moon. However, my “fantasizing” comment was strictly in
terms of strapping jetpacks onto power armor, not to the idea of making power
armor in the first place.
| |
And, if we’re assuming that tanks will eventually move to hover versions,
and it’s fairly certain that we’d need to improove on the fan and skirt
design, why can’t this tecnology be applied to smaller, personal means?
|
Without having any working theories on any upcoming generations of hover-tech,
we’re fishing in the dark here, but I’d say that there are two big concerns that
we’ve been unable to adequately meet so far in terms of converting them to
personal use. The first is power capacity, both in terms of total usage and raw
thrust. Yes, someone built a working jetpack, but it was pretty clunky and
cumbersome, and carried enough fuel to last all of about 90 seconds, IIRC (and
that was for lifting a lightly-clothed human). The second is geometry required
for lift capability. Conventional hovercraft work, but their hover-tech is
wholy unsuited for conversion to power armor, and the same holds true for
“ground effect” airplanes. Rotors would probably be the most functional means
of upwards thrust, but I’m not sure they have any business being attached to
something that’s theoretically intended for use inside of buildings.
| |
The whole problem we’re hitting, is so much is dependent upon theory,
scientific and millitary, neither of which is set in stone. One hundered
years ago, we were still using tactics that had been used in the
revolutionary war. After WWI, the rules needed to change, so tactics were
altered.
|
Tactics and technology are not mutually dependant. They can both change
considerably without affecting each other very much.
BTW, one drawback that noone seems to have thought of so far is that power
armor, if it’s designed to be roughly human-sized (which seems to be one of the
favored criteria as it would allow them to enter buildings), the pilot’s legs
will have to be tucked into the PA legs. That means the pilot will either have
to be running as a means of directing the movement of the PA, or his legs will
have to be yanked along with the PA legs. Either way, it’s going to be a rough
ride, so PA would essentially be a short-range unit, much like foot soldiers.
The added problem here is that foot soldiers can hop into other vehicles to get
a break from hoofing it on their own. PA would put a serious pinch on the
weight capacity of ground vehicles, and it would be bulky enough that you
wouldn’t be able to just hop in the front seat of a Humvee.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, John T. Jensen wrote:
| |
Dude, one ton? I’m not even considdering using enough armor to withstand an
artillery or missle barrage. That’s way to inconcieveable. That kind of PA
wouldn’t be woth the trouble. Lightweight, durable materials like carbon
fiber, magnesium alloys, and delrin would be perfect for building
lightweight, small PA’s. Small, high torque motors in berring mounts would
privide flexability , strength, and ease of maintenence. The largest single
component would be the battery. I’m in no way saying that this is at all
possible now, or even within a few years.
|
We’re working on it:
BLEEX Project
The current powered exos in the lab weigh about 100 lb apiece and can carry a
payload of over 70 lbs, but mobility is still rather limited.
--Bram
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
| |
We’re working on it:
BLEEX Project
The current powered exos in the lab weigh about 100 lb apiece and can carry a
payload of over 70 lbs, but mobility is still rather limited.
|
I think I saw that briefly on Scientific American Frontiers a while back.
Still, even if you were wearing full combat body armor with that strapped on
top, all it would take was one shot to the battery to render it useless (and if
they’re able to shoot the battery, you’re pretty much screwed if you can’t pop
those legs loose in a matter of seconds. I got the impression that it was
designed more for load-lifting capabilities than as a true “power armor” (i.e.
weaponized exoskeleton), though the control system is certainly a much-needed
stepping stone for any eventual power armor.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
I am assuming that a tank would not go from its rear area yard/base (on
another continent) to the combat zone under its own power, even a hovertank.
So I guess I don’t see why tanks need to hover. As someone elsethread said,
hover == higher == easier to hit == soft underbelly == easier to knock out
Tank TRANSPORTERs though... ??? Sure! Short range transporters could well use
hover tech to get from the local basing area to close in to the front. But
the tanks themselves I expect will be brought in by ship (with good air
cover) if there is time or C5A if there isn’t, to that basing area...
|
Yup and that’s the difference of perspective, I talked about: You can’t expect
to have that kind of airsuperiority as it is now (unless you’re an American),
and if we’re talking about aliens, well, space superiorty pretty much eats
airsupport...
I was talking about invasion of a unified planet (which I think will be most
probable in an age of space colonization; at least in the colonies): Once the
invader is able to land troops, he’s probably destroyed most spacedefences, and
then all groundtargets is under heavy threat by ultra precise battleship-scale
weapons, and thus needs agility more than armor to survive (the
accuracy/agility-race i talked about)
-NB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Humans will always have a place on the battlefield, if for only two reasons.
Aircraft have proven capable of instigating conflict and presenting a solid
first wave of defense, but the only way to hold territory is to maintain
pressence there.
|
With a particular hostile environment like a planet uninhabitable by humans,
infested with nanorobots designed to gnaw off skinn or armour (or other
ABCN-weapons), or swarms of assasinationdrones, in urban theaters, think
Mogadisho. I don’t think humans will be very usefull, unless heavily protected
and supported by both (and as it seems like we agree that PA’s not an option,
many times infanty won’t be either).
There’s a lot of nasty ways you can control a planet (unless you just want
eliminate it as a threat), you don’t even have to invade (if you bring a stick
that’s big enough):
Like making some good diplomatic deals, demanding a huge
tribute or favorable taxation or trading deals, and move on to the next planet.
| |
That means people on the ground. The other reason is that
the speed at which combat is fought is always limited by the ability to react
to changing circumstances. Machines currently need preprogrammed reaction
logic, so they can’t reliably react to unexpected events in the way that
well-trained soldiers can.
|
Regarding the possibility of creating AI, the jury is still out on that one (and
SF MOC’s is much more interesting with people in), but do I believe that by the
time the “glorious SF-era” has manifested itself, the computers and storage will
be advanced enough to hold a sufficiently advanced target systems (just learn
them how friendly and neutrals look like and make them attack everything else).
| |
The only way to make them capable of doing so is
to develop true AI, and Asimov’s literary history shows that this might not
be a safe thing even in terms of civilian bots, much less bots with guns
strapped on them.
| |
Why should you use something as demanding and confused as a human, when
inserting intelligence in military units? AI are much better: It doesn’t
demand space, lifesupport or rest, is way faster and smaller, and do what
it’s told to without moral considerations...
|
Think about this. You’ve got to develop a military AI that has no objections
to killing, but won’t go on a killing spree when it gets home. You’ve got to
give them enough deduction capability to figure out who to shoot and who to
not shoot, but expect them to not turn around and go Swiss on you. And
you’ve got to develop their reactionary capabilities beyond those possessed
by humans, who still don’t really understand how the brain works.
|
Accidents will happen, they always do, but unlike GMO’s it’ll a lot easier to
turn them off and put them back inside Pandora’s box, and GMO’s is spread
carelessly in the environment already: Hopefully we become more wise in the
future (when we see how bad it can go), but what if you faced alien invasion and
possible extermination?
| |
| |
Rockets are fine and is here to stay, but drones are the future. Still, you
need humans for humane stuff like peacekeeping and heart & mind missions,
but they’ll need heavy space, air and drone-support.
|
Drones with off-site human control are already here, but I wouldn’t want to
bank on the idea of drones that require no human input once you send them on
the mission.
| |
What about tanks and powerarmor then? Well the infantry’s gotta get around
relatively protected in hover-APC’s, and they may need some light hovertanks
for support, but unless some serious cloaking technology becomes availible
that can protect them against rockets, the main offensive weapons will stay
airborne or spacebased (orbital bombardment).
|
I have a feeling that orbital bombardment will have a very short period of
use before it becomes illegal by international treaty.
|
You mean like the banning of mines? You don’t have to care about “International
treaties” unless you have signed it, invading aliens probably haven’t, and a lot
of code of conduct is based on culture, like not “living off the land” by eating
your opponents and the like.
And orbital bombardment doesn’t have to cause that much collateral damage
(unless the groundforces hides under civillian areas which is banned too, tell
that to guerillas and the ones that desperatly fights for survival).
| |
| |
Tecnically there’s a maximum limit of how fast wheeled or tracked vehicles
can move - they just barely managed to reach mach 1 recently in one of the
flattest areas in the world: I wouldn’t like to drive a MBT through rugged
terrain at that speed (or higher)!
|
Speed is also constrained by the driver’s ability to not smack into
buildings, trees, and the occassional cow. Fighter jets have the advantage
that there’s not much in the way of obstacles once you get a few thousand
feet into the air, but SW:ROTJ should show you how treacherous it is to
exceed safe travel speeds during combat on unfamiliar terrain.
| |
When you add oceans and mountain to the equation
|
Mountains? That’s what aircraft are for. Tanks, hover or not, have no
business trying to hop over the Himalayas.
|
A good forward repulsor “bumper” should repel the craft from most obstacles (see
the snowspeeders in SW ESB :-p), but sensorsystems and anticollision will
probably be a lot more advanced in the future, and if you really need it, there
shouldnt be any problems in climbing to safer altitudes with zero-g or
repulsorlift technology.
| |
| |
as well as the need to avoid enemy smartbombs by moving around or dodging,
|
Dodging is probably never going to be a real option. Fighter jets don’t
dodge missiles, but rather out-manouver them, or misdirect them. Hover tanks
will likely end up in the same scrap pile as mundane tanks when jets scream
over at Mach 2+ and unleash cluster smart-bombs like they were doing in Iraq.
| |
I think that that pretty much sums up why tanks need to hover (and with
beamweapons or rockets, recoil wouldn’t be a problem).
|
Rockets are more bulky compared to the depleted uranium darts that we (the
US) currently use. In order to equal the destructive capabilities, they’d
need to be huge, so you’d have a very limited ammo capacity. Depleted
uranium rounds will punch through pretty much any armor plating out there
(including that which is used for the Abrams), but they’re probably not much
bigger than the RPGs that weren’t even much of a threat to our Humvees, and
were just bouncing off our Abrams tanks. And without currently existing
beamweapon capability to back up the hover tank argument, there’s no way of
guaranteeing that the two technologies would become available at the same
time.
|
The dodging were actually a joke, but no armour can survive that kind of attack
(or space bombardment) so speed (in the mach’s), and not being where the enemy
expects is the key to surviving.
| |
| |
I think that that pretty much sums up why tanks need to hover
|
|
:-P
-NB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Laswell wrote:
| |
If military history has shown us anything, it’s that nothing is immune to
landmines if it moves. It’s just a matter of developing a landmine that’s
capable of being triggered by a hover tank (and trust me, if hover tanks
happen, someone will figure out how to make a landmine to match it). There
have been some absolutely freaky mines developed, including one that is
triggered by boats that travel over it, but only if they go fast. The idea
there was that attacking boats would want to get in, pop open a can of Cream
of Medieval soup, and either get the heck out of Dodge, or plant the flag on
captured territory. Friendly boats, on the other hand, could leisurely putter
into the harbor, unafraid of getting blown away by defensive artillery.
Assuming the hover technology that makes hover tanks feasible doesn’t cause a
downward pressure effect that’ll set off the current leading mines, it’s
still only a matter of time before someone could figure out a way to catch
them, be it a magnetic trigger that picks up on any iron content passing over
it, some exotic trigger that detects the energy used to make the tank hover,
or even converting the radar capsule from explosive shells for use in a
landmine. Of course, since set-them-and-forget-them mines are now banned by
international treaty, IIRC, it should be a null issue anyways.
|
I agree on the fact that, no groundforces are immune to mines, but regarding
treaties, they only survive as long as politicians back them up and with
regarding the mines, sorry, the bad guys still have them and won’t sign any
treaty so they’re here to stay, and BTW, looking at how things are run now, I’m
not even sure that there will be any other treatise left to break the future.
| |
| |
Also, while I don’t think that oceans or mountains make a compelling
argument for hover tank desirabilty,
|
Oceans don’t, but beaches do. Being able to launch a hover tank assault from
international waters would go a long ways towards eliminating the need for
specialized beach assault boats, though to completely get rid of them we’d
still need hover Humvees, hover APCs, and hover artillery.
|
The Americans is already able to perform that kind of attack, calling it
something like over the horizont... something (I read it in one of my brother’s
books and was foolish enough to give it back to him ;-)), because your fleet can
hide from radar behind the horizont, and the crafts sneak in under, from the
distance of up untill a 1000 nm or so, I don’t think the jump is that great to
trans-ocean or global movement. And the hovertechnology I’m talking about is far
away in the future (zero-g or repulsorlift, zero-g would eliminate the 170 ton):
As I wrote to Larry, you can’t expect to have air superiorty, so the tanks can
end up pretty much on their own (just think of the Iraqi tanks), speed will be
the essence, not armour.
-NB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
I agree on the fact that, no groundforces are immune to mines, but regarding
treaties, they only survive as long as politicians back them up and with
regarding the mines, sorry, the bad guys still have them and won’t sign any
treaty so they’re here to stay
|
Well, the nations that are most likely to be able to develop hover tanks are
also the nations that are most likely to be able to develop anti-HT mines.
Generally, they’re also the same countries that will sign arms reduction
treaties. Granted, it’s a little easier to be “gracious” about giving up
weapons technologies when you’ve got one of the dozen or so most powerful
militaries, or when you’re a few decades behind the technology curve. But yeah,
treaties are only as valuable as the signees hold them to be.
| |
The Americans is already able to perform that kind of attack, calling it
something like over the horizont...
|
Modern tanks being unable to swim, however, means that you need to send them in
on special landing craft. The advantage you’d get with hover tanks is that
they’d be able to perform their own “landing” without need for additional
specialized vessels.
| |
As I wrote to Larry, you can’t expect to have air superiorty, so the tanks
can end up pretty much on their own (just think of the Iraqi tanks), speed
will be the essence, not armour.
|
As long as you’re fighting people who have weapons, the armor is always
important. Speed only completely supercedes it if you can guarantee that you
can outrun or dodge all enemy fire, and if they end up being used in defensive
actions, that’s pretty much ruled out.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
| |
We’re working on it:
BLEEX Project
The current powered exos in the lab weigh about 100 lb apiece and can carry
a payload of over 70 lbs, but mobility is still rather limited.
|
all it would take was one shot to the battery to render it useless
|
A shot to the head will do pretty much the same thing ;-) But seriously, it
still need some powersource and a lot of logistics, I read somewhere that in
Operation Iraqi Liberation, one of the problems were the to acquire enough
batteries for the new laptops (needed for all the new advanced stuff), and to
get them distributed. A lot of units had to communicate by radio the
oldfashioned way. That may be just be a first time error and because much of the
logistics is outsourced, but it pretty much shows how vunerable advanced
technology is to even small delays in logistics.
That kind of baby needs a lot more power than a laptop and it’s a lot of
equipment to abandon for the enemy or carry away... (especially when the armor
plates and heavy weapons is strapped on).
I first saw a short note about it in a magazine a couple of weeks ago, but
disregarded it as useless at the battlefield because of above mentioned
logistical considerations, price, and weight: I wouldn’t like to cross a swamp
in that outfit or even meadows or muddy roads, because the weight is so
concentrated. But it might work in urban (paved) areas with a lot of electric
sockets around... and if the enemy didn’t come from behind, because seriously,
how fast can such turn in such a thingie?
It seems much better at moving crates in a warehouse!
-NB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
I agree on the fact that, no groundforces are immune to mines, but regarding
treaties, they only survive as long as politicians back them up and with
regarding the mines, sorry, the bad guys still have them and won’t sign any
treaty so they’re here to stay
|
Well, the nations that are most likely to be able to develop hover tanks are
also the nations that are most likely to be able to develop anti-HT mines.
Generally, they’re also the same countries that will sign arms reduction
treaties. Granted, it’s a little easier to be “gracious” about giving up
weapons technologies when you’ve got one of the dozen or so most powerful
militaries, or when you’re a few decades behind the technology curve. But
yeah, treaties are only as valuable as the signees hold them to be.
|
As far as “the dozen or so most powerful militaries” today, it is them that have
all (or most of) the ABC-weapons and mines, and the only treaties I’m awere of
has been ones designed to prevent others from getting them, or scrapping
outdated weaponry... (like after the worldwars and outdated nuclear weapons
during the cold war). Nothing “gracious” about that.
| |
Modern tanks being unable to swim, however, means that you need to send them
in on special landing craft. The advantage you’d get with hover tanks is
that they’d be able to perform their own “landing” without need for
additional specialized vessels.
|
You forget the speed you can achieve when you’re not stuck on the ground.
| |
| |
As I wrote to Larry, you can’t expect to have air superiorty, so the tanks
can end up pretty much on their own (just think of the Iraqi tanks), speed
will be the essence, not armour.
|
As long as you’re fighting people who have weapons, the armor is always
important.
|
Of course it is and I wasn’t talking about “no armor”, but light armour + speed.
| |
Speed only completely supercedes it if you can guarantee that you
can outrun or dodge all enemy fire, and if they end up being used in
defensive actions, that’s pretty much ruled out.
|
Nothing can survive todays offensive weapons under direct fire, which can get be
pretty hard to avoid like the two wars in Iraq demonstrates. Tanks are not
intended as defensive weapons (thats up to the infantry as you earlier has
pointed out, but in my opinion this role will be increasingly transferred to
drones and nanoweapons), but tanks may still play a role in an active defense
from small skirmishes to full scale counteroffensive (maneuverability again).
Survivability under direct attack (defensive) depends mainly on having enough
individual units that’s too hard to take out to justify the deployment of
expensive precision weapons: I would rather be an ordinary Iraqi soldier that
one inside a tank! But of course it’s an armsrace where the weapons get faster
and more accurate, and the defensive units has to shrink accordingly: That’s
here the drones and nanoweapons comes in. And then in turn, infantry gets
outdated as well (unless heavily supported by drone and nanoweapons).
Regarding the risk of AI, it doesn’t have to be that advanced: The nations most
likely to be able to produce hovertech, will probably be advanced enough to make
sufficiently advanced target recognition systems without AI, just because of
higher processor capacity and storage: You just have to tell it how neutrals and
friendly forces look like: If you already have a good big brother society with
biometrical recognition, you’re a long way towards that goal, because the
individual unit just can log on to the system (like the police versions of the
same units).
Errors will happen, but drones and nanoweapons will always be a lot easier to
turn off and put back into Pandora’s box than the GMO’s that is already spread
carelessly in the environment today.
BTW It seems like a reply I wrote to your post
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/geek/?n=4840 got lost in the mail, I’ll try
to resend it now...
|
|
|
