(Any gundam) Bipeds VS conventional weaponry

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by srb

True, but the arm pretty much functions as a turret with a target lock, and a mech in space would have a larger "combat radius" around itself when compared to a regular fighter.

True about it functioning as a turret in itself, but a turrent is far simpler to construct and maintain than an arm, which consequently can allow the turret more room to be built with greater durability or turning speed, since the simpler construction can allow more allowances.

I dunno what you mean by combat radius. Do you mean coverage? If coverage is the problem, just build turrets around the fighter so that it's got 360 coverage with its weapons.

The limbs are used for maneuvering and can be used to turn the mobile suit without using valuable fuel (as said in a technical manual), and the legs are used as a sort of thrust vectoring. When you take transforming mechas like the Z into account (not very realistic but still) you have both a fighter mode for high-speed combat and a MS mode for regular combat to use as required.

Pfft!!


How are you gonna turn around in weightless and airless space by flailing your arms around?

You need thrusters on those arms if you're gonna turn anything in space. If the thing can turn in space without using thrusters, then they probably have some kind of alternate propulsion method. Gravitic thrust? And if that were the case, the same tech could be installed aboard fighters.

True, but versatility within combined arms can also be useful when lacking one or the other and since mechs are supposed to be general support units for basically everything I don't see a problem.

You can't have a all-purpose general use unit, cause you have to accomodate all functions and purposes and space and tech are still concrete restrictions. You will have to make sacrifices to each function in order for all of them to operate smoothly at all.

Combined arms is an army of specialists, not general purpose units. If you're going into a mission where multiple types of units can be needed, then instead of sending general-purpose units, why not just send multiple types of specialist units instead? Each can do its particular function better than a general-purpose unit, and together the specialized force can theoretically do an equal amount of work as the general-purpose one.

An artillery mobile suit with high-mounted arcing guns would have a longer range than an ordinary artillery piece with the same guns due to elevation wouldn't it? I'm no master of physics but that's true isn't it?

True except for one thing. Recoil.

You want to fire a huge ballistic artillery shell? You had better have a good base to rest on while firing that huge thing. An extremely high-power artillery gun could mess up the balance of a mecha, even if it does brace with its feet.

A stationary artillery piece has more solid grounding and thus, physics-wise allow for a larger, longer-ranged gun, so the elevation advantage offered by the mecha is nullified anyhow.


http://img59.exs.cx/img59/6565/recoil.jpg


I think this cheap Paint picture explains.

Well, the legs aren't flimsy from what I've seen and in the case of a Zaku for example the recoil is absorbed by the arm when firing its weapons.

Still, think about it. A turret settled low on the ground would still have a greater bracing against the ground than just a simple arm. That would allow for a bigger gun.


And the may SEEM sturdy. But take a theoretical weapon that fires a theoretical shell strong enough to knock a mecha or tank over. The tank's gonna need a greater force to knock it onto its side. Not to mention the entire weight of the mecha is being beared by something with a miniscule surface area on the bottom than compared to the tank. You can understand that, right?

Of course, you see how the Sky Grasper for example has a beam turret as well as some rather extreme maneuverability but I've yet to see a tank with beam weapons.

The reason why you wouldn't see any tank with a beam weapon is cause they never thought to build a tank with a beam weapon or the show creators simply neglected them in favor of glorifying their mecha centerpieces. Conceivably a tank can mount a beam weapon.

There, now I've responded to the comments aimed at me as well as a couple I was a part of.

Cool. At least we seem to understand each other.

[JohnSilver]

Recoil control is extremely simple even today, you have to realize most mecha designers are actually quite good at tactical weapon positioning... Most heavy, artillery canons mounted on mechas are shoulder mountedin an attempt to control the recoil generated by firing their heavy weapons. It is also far easier to accomodate the recoil of a arm mounted weapon than a turret mounted weapon, due to the fact you can move your arm backward to absorb the shock.

As for beam weapon equipped tanks... In Heavy Gear, a large variety of hovertanks carry particule or rail weaponry, and even there they were fought back by standard gears (whom are FAR less powerful than Gundams). Even if they were superior in term of firepower, it was the lack of mobility and their weakness to precise strikes (and to pinpoint artillery fire directed by scout Gears). Maybe the environment was also to blame in this case, but the Earth Army hovertanks and bioengineered soldiers were FAR superior to both the North and the South weapon technology at that time...

[Komataguri]

To base off of Universal Century, because that is the base for all Gundam and the is the only one to have a clear, concise reason for having humanoid mobile fighting units.


Basicly, the only point to a bipedal warfare is the fact that, at the time of its inception, Long range battles with Guided weapons, tanks, ect ect, were rendered null because of interferance that totally jammed nearly all radio based equipment.

For this, one faction created a humanoid battle fighter that was able to deliever massive firepower, but have the mobility and the ability of the human body. So they would not have to rely on a ground army, when a single mobile suit can do the damage of an entire platoon of ground soldiers.

THen, of course, like the Tank...one side gets it, then they have this enormous advantage, So the other side researches and begins construction, then you have both sides with the same weapons, ect ect.


Tanks are far less affective in a time when their long range capabiliies are neutered, Because most modern tanks engage in out of visual range bombardment and fire. In a time when tanks loose this long range ability, they are rendered little more then useless stationary fortifications.

Basicly, The advantage to a humanoid bot compared to a tank when long range abilities have been rendered useless? A humanoid can out manuver a tank, It can hide behind a rock, and stick the gun out from behind it and fire with the scope, leaving itself imune from the tanks fire. a tank can not fire like that, it must be exposed.

Did I make any sense?

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by JohnSilver

Recoil control is extremely simple even today, you have to realize most mecha designers are actually quite good at tactical weapon positioning... Most heavy, artillery canons mounted on mechas are shoulder mountedin an attempt to control the recoil generated by firing their heavy weapons. It is also far easier to accomodate the recoil of a arm mounted weapon than a turret mounted weapon, due to the fact you can move your arm backward to absorb the shock.

Simple question:


Take a high-powered rifle. Fire it standing up. Then fire it while prone. Which is easier to handle recoil with?


Same principle applies for mecha and tanks.

Even if they were superior in term of firepower, it was the lack of mobility and their weakness to precise strikes (and to pinpoint artillery fire directed by scout Gears).

Everything's weak to precise strikes. A mecha actually has more weak points due to its limbs. Like I said above, take a leg out and you cripple its movement and hinder its ability to fire. Blow out the treads of a tank and it can still swing its gun around to shoot back.


And sufficiently powerful artillery will annihilate ANYTHING, regardless of what it is.

Tanks are far less affective in a time when their long range capabiliies are neutered, Because most modern tanks engage in out of visual range bombardment and fire.

I assume by visual range you mean line of sight?

If so, incorrect on your assumption. Tanks have never fought in out of LOS engagements. Their purpose is to aim their gun straight at an enemy and fire a hypervelocity shell straight at it. They never used arcing ballistic weapons.


Your second point, about what happens if it becomes a really close-up engagement:

A humanoid can out manuver a tank, It can hide behind a rock,

No reason why a tank can't drive up to behind a rock either. And rocks make poor cover even with modern weapons anyway.

and stick the gun out from behind it and fire with the scope

You do have a point about sticking an arm around the cover to fire. However, assuming both pilots have fast reaction times, the tank operator could equally fire a shot at said arm as it peeks around the rock and shoot at it.


Or the tank could just drive around and shoot the mecha anyway. You didn't assume the tank would just be sitting there in one place, did you?



Anyway, I found a link where similar discussions are being held:


http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...137&highlight=

[srb]

Originally Posted by Shinova

True about it functioning as a turret in itself, but a turrent is far simpler to construct and maintain than an arm, which consequently can allow the turret more room to be built with greater durability or turning speed, since the simpler construction can allow more allowances.

I dunno what you mean by combat radius. Do you mean coverage? If coverage is the problem, just build turrets around the fighter so that it's got 360 coverage with its weapons.

Also true, but I would think that only two turrets would be needed, one on the top and one on the bottom - it's going to maneuver around anyways.

The mech, however, can do the same thing.

Pfft!!

How are you gonna turn around in weightless and airless space by flailing your arms around?

You need thrusters on those arms if you're gonna turn anything in space. If the thing can turn in space without using thrusters, then they probably have some kind of alternate propulsion method. Gravitic thrust? And if that were the case, the same tech could be installed aboard fighters.

I think you misunderstood me - I wasn't talking about making crazy maneuvers without thrusters, I merely talked about changing the direction you face and such without using your thrusters. In a combat situation you'd better use them.

I know this is present in Gundam since I read about it but I can't find the source now, but you do see how the Mk II doesn't use its thrusters while turning around in Gundam Evolve #2. You do however see it use them when it needs to turn around fast as well as stabilize itself.

You can't have a all-purpose general use unit, cause you have to accomodate all functions and purposes and space and tech are still concrete restrictions. You will have to make sacrifices to each function in order for all of them to operate smoothly at all.

Combined arms is an army of specialists, not general purpose units. If you're going into a mission where multiple types of units can be needed, then instead of sending general-purpose units, why not just send multiple types of specialist units instead? Each can do its particular function better than a general-purpose unit, and together the specialized force can theoretically do an equal amount of work as the general-purpose one.

True, but since I'm Swedish I also believe in versatibility. Since we're a small country we can't afford to use completely dedicated weaponry and instead make our weapons jacks of all trades to compensate for each other, but a general-purpose unit that acts as support to specialist combined arms is a sound idea at least to me

True except for one thing. Recoil.

Yes, I understand that and I did say that I thought that artillery mecha would be a waste of resources :P

The reason why you wouldn't see any tank with a beam weapon is cause they never thought to build a tank with a beam weapon or the show creators simply neglected them in favor of glorifying their mecha centerpieces. Conceivably a tank can mount a beam weapon.

If a small fighter like the Sky Grasper can mount a beam turret then a tank can mount an even larger beam turret. I want beam tanks!

Cool. At least we seem to understand each other.

Yeah, please don't take it the wrong way or anything, I'm not trying to argue for argument's sake and I've no intention to turn it into a flame war, I just want to read

[Komataguri]

Originally Posted by Shinova

Simple question:
I assume by visual range you mean line of sight?

If so, incorrect on your assumption. Tanks have never fought in out of LOS engagements. Their purpose is to aim their gun straight at an enemy and fire a hypervelocity shell straight at it. They never used arcing ballistic weapons.

No, I mean out of visual range, as in beyond what the human eye can percieve.


its still line of sight, however targets are aquired with radar and high zoom scopes.

[JohnSilver]

Originally Posted by Shinova

Or the tank could just drive around and shoot the mecha anyway. You didn't assume the tank would just be sitting there in one place, did you?

The M1 Abrams is probably the only tank that can move and shoot while keeping a "minor" degree of precision (read: only hits static targets with a 50% accuracy), due to the Abrams advanced firing control system. When moving (especially in rough terrain), a tank loses much of it's accuracy due to the fact its canon cannot be correctly pointed toward a target in a short amount of time, and even there, the recoil generated by the shot would have chances of toppling the tank...

Tanks usually fire from static position, people, they're not rapid moving pieces of artillery that can shoot on the run... Most tanks need to be properly grounded to fire, unlike the Mobile Suit, that can easily brace itself while moving, and use it's size to absorb a part of the recoil.

And to all of you Beam tank lovers out there, I have a bad news... Try fitting a powerplant capable of suplying power to a particule weapon in a small, manoeuvrable, well-armoured tank. And if you manage to do it, where will you put the crew, or the armour? And even there, when you'll manage, the production cost of such a machine would skyrocket...

[Komataguri]

Originally Posted by JohnSilver

The M1 Abrams is probably the only tank that can move and shoot while keeping a "minor" degree of precision (read: only hits static targets with a 50% accuracy), due to the Abrams advanced firing control system. When moving (especially in rough terrain), a tank loses much of it's accuracy due to the fact its canon cannot be correctly pointed toward a target in a short amount of time, and even there, the recoil generated by the shot would have chances of toppling the tank...

Tanks usually fire from static position, people, they're not rapid moving pieces of artillery that can shoot on the run... Most tanks need to be properly grounded to fire, unlike the Mobile Suit, that can easily brace itself while moving, and use it's size to absorb a part of the recoil.

And to all of you Beam tank lovers out there, I have a bad news... Try fitting a powerplant capable of suplying power to a particule weapon in a small, manoeuvrable, well-armoured tank. And if you manage to do it, where will you put the crew, or the armour? And even there, when you'll manage, the production cost of such a machine would skyrocket...

Electricity isn't the only way to generate power for a beam [i.e. photonic/light] weapon.

Chemicals can be used to generate excited photons [ light ] which can be compressed and directed in a focused fire.

Chemistry escapes me at the moment, but it involves Iodine IIRC.

[Flying Dagger]

Originally Posted by JohnSilver

The M1 Abrams is probably the only tank that can move and shoot while keeping a "minor" degree of precision (read: only hits static targets with a 50% accuracy), due to the Abrams advanced firing control system. When moving (especially in rough terrain), a tank loses much of it's accuracy due to the fact its canon cannot be correctly pointed toward a target in a short amount of time, and even there, the recoil generated by the shot would have chances of toppling the tank...

If a MS has the power to move its body and its arm quickly, why not the torrent of a tank?
Unless the MS's arm is completely locked onto its body when it shoots, it will suffer from the same recoil as tanks. Since a tank has better balancing and higher cofficient of friction (thanks to its tracks compared to the feet of a MS), the tank will suffer less recoil and according to your theory, tanks will have high accuracy. Rough terrains only increases frictional force between the tracks and the ground, it doesn't make the tank any slower. Ballastic nowadays already take recoils into account and will aim relatively to the ground and not the tank.

Originally Posted by JohnSilver

Tanks usually fire from static position, people, they're not rapid moving pieces of artillery that can shoot on the run... Most tanks need to be properly grounded to fire, unlike the Mobile Suit, that can easily brace itself while moving, and use it's size to absorb a part of the recoil.

A MS require complex balancing algorithm to absorb the recoil, unless the arm absorbs part of the normal force, but that will result in inaccurate aimming. And who says a tank cannot fire while its moving? Being inefficient in energy conservation, the energy required for a MS to run at let's say... 100km/h will allow a tank to travel at 150km/h. Just because a tank is big and heavy does NOT mean it move slow.

Originally Posted by JohnSilver

And to all of you Beam tank lovers out there, I have a bad news... Try fitting a powerplant capable of suplying power to a particule weapon in a small, manoeuvrable, well-armoured tank. And if you manage to do it, where will you put the crew, or the armour? And even there, when you'll manage, the production cost of such a machine would skyrocket...

I wonder how MS gets powered... geez, that big bulky body must be one huge battery. Being big only = increasing the chances of being hit. Of course it will never hurt to add two extra battery packs at the side of the tank. With the PS technology, tanks are rather invincible (don't worry about PS chewing up the power, the surface area of a MS is far greater than a tank, which rroughly take the shape of a rectangular block, and a cube is the most SA vs Volume efficient shape)

[srb]

And to all of you Beam tank lovers out there, I have a bad news... Try fitting a powerplant capable of suplying power to a particule weapon in a small, manoeuvrable, well-armoured tank. And if you manage to do it, where will you put the crew, or the armour? And even there, when you'll manage, the production cost of such a machine would skyrocket...

The Sky Grasper has a beam turret and it's smaller than a tank. The new Mobile Armor used by Neo in Destiny has two beam cannons as well as beam gun pods.

A battery can fit into a Strike mission pack.

[JohnSilver]

Originally Posted by srb

The Sky Grasper has a beam turret and it's smaller than a tank. The new Mobile Armor used by Neo in Destiny has two beam cannons as well as beam gun pods.

A battery can fit into a Strike mission pack.

The strike mission pack is about the size of a tank, if you remember right... And the Strike power converter for it's weapon are internal (even if the supply is external), so is the unit heat sinks (VERY important when using any form of beam weaponry...). And if you're using the sky grasper as a reference, remember that a fighter is different from a tank since the power generator of a fighter plane takes a large amount of space (think of how much space is required for the turbines on a F-14...). Beam weaponry requires not only a huge amount of power to operate conrrectly, but you also need cooling (easily supplied with a fighter flying at mach 1 or 2).

And in response to Komataguri, no it is impossible to generate a particule beam out of a chemical reaction (as of present, REALISTIC, technology, of course). To generate a particule ray (what you would call a beam), you require to accelerate the particules in a ring-like device (called Tokomak or something like that, I can't remember how it's spelled) and then release the accelerated particules in order to create an impact shock (while most show uses beams to MELT things, the impact of hydrogen particules propulsed at near lightspeed would deal far more damage...). And how does a tokomak work? You use electrical current in order to stimulate the particules...

Of course, in case of a laser based weapon, you don't need a tokomak, but please remember that laser damage is strictly heat-based, which is not very efficient against modern composite materials.

[Komataguri]

No, your wrong.

You CAN Generate a beam with a chemical reaction. It has already been done, and its being tested for fitting into aircraft by the American Military as an anti-ICBM system.


http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Factsheets/coil.html
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...les/laser5.htm

[Flying Dagger]

Just as chemical can be used to generate heat, with the proper solution you can generate very powerful light/particle beam which can be focused onto a point.

The GENESIS is an example of such weapons. The beam of energy is generated from solid nuclear fuel through nuclear rxn.

With highly desity fuel, the energy output wll outwhelm anything a battery can do.

[Paiser]

This thread is so off now :P

[Daigo]

People...... it's common knowledge that humanoid mecha aren't practical in any situation. They are a huge target, they are upright instead of horizontal which exacerbates their already enormous size. They rely on legs to move.... what's the point? Treads are better. A huge 100 ton mech that focuses it's weight on just two small points (it's feet) will sink into soft and soggy ground instantly. Treads spread the weight out over a large area so it won't sink.

A robot's body has too many vunerable parts which aren't necessary. A vunerable head that's lightly armored? Vunerable arms that can easily be shot off? Legs that if you just shoot one off, the whole mech is screwed?

As for that whole flying robot nonsense, if a robot can fly, why not a tank? Trust me, those dinky things on the back of Freedom's back would not generate lift in real life. If we suspend disbelief and say we create some technology that lets anything fly without using air pressure (wings), then the best shape for a mobile weapons platform would be either a sphere or a disk shaped craft. Flying saucers anyone?

In terms of armor, there's no good reason why they keep armoring mechs with that incredibly strong gundanium and not tanks. The only reason why tanks perform worse than the mechs in the anime is because the animators want them to.


The closest thing to mechs that we will see in real life maybe, is a powered armor suit. Such a device would make a lot of sense. Makes an infantry man, stronger so he can carry heavier weapons and more ammo, lets him run and move faster (jump jets maybe?), armored to take a beating, more intelligence, etc.. But a huge mech just isn't practical.

[chibikit]

Originally Posted by Daigo

They are a huge target, they are upright instead of horizontal which exacerbates their already enormous size. They rely on legs to move.... what's the point? Treads are better. A huge 100 ton mech that focuses it's weight on just two small points (it's feet) will sink into soft and soggy ground instantly. Treads spread the weight out over a large area so it won't sink.

Actually, it depends on what your intended theater of combat is like. Tanks and other treaded vehicles actually have a lot of problems on soft ground; they just can't get the traction required to move. Legs, on the other hand, will sink into a firmer strata and push off that to provide a motive force. Think about cars getting stuck in a muddy dirt road; that doesn't happen to you, even though you get your feet soaked up to your knees with gunk, right?

Treads and wheels are also less maneuverable in tight spaces than legs are, which is a primary concern in current warfare. Strategists and tacticians are expecting an increase in urban warzones over the traditional open field or jungle warfare (which is actually a direct result in the increase of weapons technology's ability to wipe out anything that's in the open in miliseconds). This is a situation that legged MS are particularly well-suited for.

With fixed wheels or treads, you're also pretty much stuck to a certain profile, which may be ideal for stealth but poor for ranged fire when you need it. A tank can't increase its height a little to get its gun over the top of whatever cover it's behind; a legged mecha can crouch behind a small amount of cover when it needs to.

Additionally, consider the issue of a toppled over tank versus a toppled over MS. There's not many options or ways for the tank to right itself, which would make it a sitting duck in that situation.

As you can see, legged mecha aren't as impractical as you think.

That being said, I agree that legged mecha are very vulnerable to damage, but that's alright. The primary advantage an armoured MS has over a tank is maneuverability; it would be able to get out of the way of potentially damaging fire the way a tank couldn't. Thus, we aren't going to see any legged battle mecha until said mecha can be given that level of maneuverability, which isn't cost-effective with today's technology.

In terms of armor, there's no good reason why they keep armoring mechs with that incredibly strong gundanium and not tanks. The only reason why tanks perform worse than the mechs in the anime is because the animators want them to.

Tanks tend to have weak bottom and top armour to keep their weight down. The logic behind this is that most of the threats to the tank will be coming from the sides (ground fire). This is why the A-10 Thunderbolt is so effective against their prey; the cannons on those planes just rip through the weak top armour of the tank. This is also the same reason why Gundam MS can kill tanks with ease.

What kind of role is left for the tank in Gundam, then? Anti-infantry and long-range fire support. For those kinds of missions, the tanks will only have to worry about fire from weak weapons, so Gundanium is pretty much overkill on 'em.

Anyway, my opinion is that any future legged MS we may see is likely to be small (one to two storeys high maximum) in order to maximize battle potential in urban warzones. We're not likely to see them soon, though, because legged vehicles are still very much an untested technology. They're not going to be Mechwarrior-style or Gundam-style (sure as hell not EVA- or FSS-style); I'd expect something more along the lines of Patlabor, Votoms or Heavy Gear.

[Daigo]

To be honest, tanks in general will become obsolete if we ever get powered armor in infantry. Just give them a tactical nuke, and say bye bye to an entire platoon of tanks.

With that said, a huge mech, even just 2 stories high would be obsolete as well. Anything big, slow, and stands out is nothing more than a target. What good is all that armor to a tactical nuke? As for your points,


>>>>>>> Tanks and other treaded vehicles actually have a lot of problems on soft ground; they just can't get the traction required to move. Legs, on the other hand, will sink into a firmer strata and push off that to provide a motive force. Think about cars getting stuck in a muddy dirt road; that doesn't happen to you, even though you get your feet soaked up to your knees with gunk, right?<<<<<<<<<

Wheels get stuck easily, treads don't. If you want to point out the best method to traverse rough terrain, human legs are not one of them. First of all, if you want to look in nature for a good way to negotiate rough terrain, look no further than the caterpillar. A caterpillar like drive system could easily travel over rough terrain. A tanks treads are already similar to a caterpillar, only difference is the body can't bend and mold around obstacles like a caterpillar.

But to be honest, this is all over kill, why bother stick to the ground and mess around with all the ground clutter when you can just hover over it? We already have decent vertical thrust abilities, look at the harrier. The only draw back is the immense drain on fuel, and that can be solved with a mini cold fusion reactor. Developing a new power source to allow low flying hovering craft is a lot easier than researching this whole mech thing. Heck, we already have hovering, and low flying craft in the form of attack helicopters and as you pointed out, the A-10. Both of which literally slaughter tanks, the only problem is they can't fly into dense areas like thick jungles.


>>>>>>>>Tanks tend to have weak bottom and top armour to keep their weight down. The logic behind this is that most of the threats to the tank will be coming from the sides (ground fire).<<<<<<<<

Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to heavily armor the top of a tank (there's no point in armoring the bottom of it).


>>>>>>>Anyway, my opinion is that any future legged MS we may see is likely to be small (one to two storeys high maximum) in order to maximize battle potential in urban warzones.<<<<<<<

Why even bother with one story high? A powered suit that you just wear makes a lot more sense. You don't have to bother with complicated gyros, and leg drive systems. The natural human ability to stand up straight, and remain balanced negates the need for such things. And as a extra bonus, you are small as hell, thus making you harder to hit.

[Komataguri]

No one will EVER use a Tactical nuke.

You know why? If nukes are once more brought to the battle field, You won't have to worry about anything.

Because once 1 nuke launches, the whole world will know, and every nuclear power in the world will launch their nukes.

Its MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Which is why you don't see anything related to nuclear detonation in modern battle fields. Because, if just one person pulls out a nuke and uses it, The world as we know it, and most likely all life in this world, would cease to be in a rain of nuclear apocalypse followed by Nuclear winter that would cloud the skys over for decades and darken the planet to where no crops could grow, It would also lower the temputure of the planet tremendously and send it into another ice age.


So, your tactical nuke childishness has been nullified. You don't have to worry about nukes. Because, no matter what, if a nuke is brought to the table, the world is gone.



and theres no point of armoring the bottom of a tank? Anti-Tank mines? Bazooka infantry waiting ofr a tank to come over a ridge for a shot at its tender underbelly?

[Daigo]

Do you know what a tactical nuke is? It's a very small nuke, maybe 1/2 kiloton - 1 kiloton or so, with tamper and squeeze methods to eliminate radioactive debris. Such a weapon doesn't exist yet, but it will. In any case, it's just a method to deliver a reasonably large force, on a small tactical scale. It's by no means a full nuclear strike, such a notion is foolish.

As for MAD, that depends. If the enemy has nukes or not, and if they get easily offended by the fact that we are using small tactical nukes, and go crazy by retailiating with full scale strategic nukes.

But lets be real for a second, if we were dumb enough to fight a ground war with a country that has nukes, they will use nukes anyway especially if they are on the verge of losing. Notice, we never have fought a direct war with any country that has nukes, we didn't fight the soviets, we fought in nam, and korea.


>>>>>>>The world as we know it, and most likely all life in this world, would cease to be in a rain of nuclear apocalypse followed by Nuclear winter that would cloud the skys over for decades and darken the planet to where no crops could grow, It would also lower the temputure of the planet tremendously and send it into another ice age.<<<<<<<

Nuclear winter similar to a cosmic winter cause by an asteroid perhaps? Not likely. Even if every nuke in existence was launched, there isn't sufficient force to send that much debris into the atmosphere to create a nuclear winter. Antimatter weapons on the other hand are a different story....


>>>>>>So, your tactical nuke childishness has been nullified. You don't have to worry about nukes. Because, no matter what, if a nuke is brought to the table, the world is gone.<<<<<<<

It's not exactly childish, it's a reality. They are trying to make nukes as small as possible, rather than as big as possible, for tactical purposes. As for the world being gone, if a nuke war occured, we may be gone, but the world would still be here. The surface may be ruined, but the planet itself would be mostly unharmed, and life would find a way. Believe it or not, oxygen was once toxic to early life forms on this planet, but then life evolved to actually depend on it. We would be gone, but then it would be some other lifeform's turn to rule the world. Hey, maybe they would even find some remains of our civilization and wonder what we were like?

[chibikit]

Wheels get stuck easily, treads don't.

No, they don't, because they're heavier than wheels and tend to sink into deeper, more stable strata. However, the depth they can sink is far more limited, plus treads require a lot more friction to generate movement. That's why tanks are really very much limited to firm, relatively flat ground.

If you want to point out the best method to traverse rough terrain, human legs are not one of them.

No, they're not. Insectoid legs are far more promising because of the greater amount of joints. They'd be able to find footing in more awkwardly positioned crevasses, etc. Note, by the way, that I was talking about legged mecha in general, not just bipedal ones.

First of all, if you want to look in nature for a good way to negotiate rough terrain, look no further than the caterpillar. A caterpillar like drive system could easily travel over rough terrain.

It is, however, very very inefficient, which is why you don't see caterpillars zipping around like cheetahs on speed. Maneuverability is no better than a tank, thus limiting the types of evasive maneuvers available to anything equipped with this sort of locomotive drive (a Gundam example would be the Scale system on CE ground battleships like Andy Bultfield's Lesseps).

But to be honest, this is all over kill, why bother stick to the ground and mess around with all the ground clutter when you can just hover over it?

Because a hover platform lacks stability. This goes back to the recoil point already covered previously in this thread.

A hovering platform won't be able to fire a high-caliber cannon while on the move because it would have to compensate a lot more for the recoil. This is a problem also suffered by a legged mecha, especially bipedal ones. A tank, however, is relatively free of this problem, only suffering from an accuracy loss.

Additionally, to hold territory requires ground troops. If you're relying on aerial units complete for war, you can't maintain control of areas already cleared of enemy units. That's why Macross' Valkyrie is one of the best designs if it can be made in the real world; an aerial superiority unit with the capability to hold ground if needed would be a strategist's wet dream.

We already have decent vertical thrust abilities, look at the harrier. The only draw back is the immense drain on fuel, and that can be solved with a mini cold fusion reactor.

It's not as simple as that. Another problem that needs to be overcome is the overheating of the vertical thrust engines during prolonged hovers. Jet engines are cooled primarily by the air that moves around it during operation, something that is not present when the vehicle is not moving at all. Consequently, the Harrier's hover time is limited greatly by the amount of cooling water it can carry; once it runs out of it, it can only hover for very very small amounts of time.

And then you have ground blowback. This is the tendency for a hovering engine doing its thing close to the ground to intake the hot gasses it vents instead of fresh, cool air. This compounds the heating problem already created by the lack of movement.

It's not just the Harrier that suffers from this, though. Both JSF hover prototypes had to deal with this problem. It's not really something you can throw away just by using a better fuel source.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to heavily armor the top of a tank (there's no point in armoring the bottom of it).

No, it isn't, but again, what's the point? You'll weigh down an already heavy tank, making it less maneuverable and thus more exposed to aerial fire. Something that may have been able to scramble away for cover from the A-10 is now a sitting duck for it. :P

Why even bother with one story high?

Because a power suit is limited in the amount of protection it can provide and the armament it can carry. Ignore the coolness of Robotech/Mospeada's Cyclone power armour; the number one problem with them is that if you get hit in an unarmoured portion of the unit, you're not only buggered for movement but you'll be bleeding to death. A legged mecha that loses its leg, however, is something the pilot will still be able to escape from. Same thing with a tank, for that matter.

Additionally, the way a power suit is expected to work, it's going to be severely limited by human capabilities. It will only augment normal human strength (allow you to run a little bit faster for longer, carry more weapons without feeling tired, atc), but not by that much.

You're right in saying that its major advantage is that it does all this without making the soldier a bigger target than he already is, but when he does get hit - and he will - the amount of armour on him will last a lot less longer than on an actual vehicle.

In any case, it's just a method to deliver a reasonably large force, on a small tactical scale. It's by no means a full nuclear strike, such a notion is foolish.

No, it isn't, but it won't be considered as such. You know that as well as everyone else. Bring a nuke onto the battlefield and all bets are off, regardless of who you're using it against. I'd expect the same thing with any anti-matter explosive device that may come along in the future.

Even if every nuke in existence was launched, there isn't sufficient force to send that much debris into the atmosphere to create a nuclear winter.

It depends on who you ask.

Your words are in line with a recent group of scientists who are disputing the original nuclear winter calculations. Me, I would prefer to err on the side of caution, but see if the US government will listen to a guy from an upstart backwater nation like mine.

Nuclear winter or no, launching all the nukes in the world would be enough to at least wipe out damn near everyone on the planet and make the world inhospitable for life as we know it. Any survivors will soon die from either starvation or disease brought about by radiation or rotting corpses. It might not be a complete blackout, but it sure as hell won't be any less bad.

It's not exactly childish, it's a reality.

It's reality, but using it to negate the advantage of mecha over P.A. without even considering that the kind of firepower it would have is enough to wipe out a battalion of P.A. too is kind of weak.

Any nuke will wipe out anything in short order: battleships, tanks, Madcats, Gundams, Gears, Labours, Humvees, powered armour (especially powered armour, which would be the weakest of the lot) on a direct hit, and if you want to talk about how fast a PA could get away from the scene, remember that mecha would have far more powerful powerplants than the human heart plus battery and would get away a whole of a lot quicker.

Infantry-deployed tactical nukes are really effective only against stationary hard targets or in ambush situations against moving ones (as mines or booby traps or rockets fired from a not-so-distant location). Larger tac-nukes, on the other hand, will be the purvey of more conventional units. If the P.A. division fires and doesn't kill off the whole squad of tanks, MS, whatever, they're pretty much screwed because they'll be having a more powerful weapon with a larger area of effect aimed towards them.

No, my friend, you do not want to bring tac-nukes into this because a P.A. with one wouldn't stand a chance against even a Jeep with one.

We would be gone, but then it would be some other lifeform's turn to rule the world. Hey, maybe they would even find some remains of our civilization and wonder what we were like?

They'd probably go "Ah, so these are the stupid buggers who wrecked the world and made it so harsh." ^_~

and theres no point of armoring the bottom of a tank? Anti-Tank mines? Bazooka infantry waiting ofr a tank to come over a ridge for a shot at its tender underbelly?

Precisely. Remember that these, along with hitting the tank from above, are common tactics in modern warfare, which shows that tank designers know how bad things would be if a tank were completely encased in armour at the cost of being too heavy to move fast.