SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 We already had that. Go back and read what most people wrote. A lot of the hate came when people tried to get dudes to defend their pro-AC arguments, especially the feasibility of a giant warbot. This Ravioli guy made a cool-headed argument though so props for that. All that jargon might as well be martian to me but the scenarios he put out made way more sense than pretty much anything else dudes in this thread wanted ACs to do. I still think their role is better served by smaller, cheaper, specialized systems but good on you for the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Well, it should have to begin with. If you are going to step forth and present a topic such as this, one should be prepared to give a full account of viability, perceived or otherwise. Not just expect people to fall in line. We already had that. Go back and read what most people wrote. A lot of the hate came when people tried to get dudes to defend their pro-AC arguments, especially the feasibility of a giant warbot. This Ravioli guy made a cool-headed argument though so props for that. All that jargon might as well be martian to me but the scenarios he put out made way more sense than pretty much anything else dudes in this thread wanted ACs to do. I still think their role is better served by smaller, cheaper, specialized systems but good on you for the effort. :-P Malleolus, means hammer Please don't refer to me as a carbohydrate :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 You are pasta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 <.< o.- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120420155817/glee/images/3/36/Santana_rolling_her_eyes.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Come now, I've attempted to bring forth a logical argument. Please reciprocate with like debate. I'm not berserker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 we did bro, read the first few pages there's really nothing left to "debate" here, and there never was, frankly the only guys with the know how for this already all said their piece (me elton and mike) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 I don't think you'll be getting that, to be honest. We have 20 pages of people laying out why the majority of us think ACs need to stick to fiction. There's not much more for us to say. Fuck you, Mike! I was typing first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 no fuck you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Don't forget the guy with real world experience with military hardware in inhospitable environments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Well, I had to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) I'll hammer down the arguments as to why big-ass walking mechs are not going to be a good idea. #1. They would require an absurd level of technology, and the existence of such technology would grant us much better options. That is to say stuff like the power plants, locomotion, etc.. etc.. that would be required to make an "AC" platform feasible. #2. They don't really offer a platform that provides ground elements with an asset they need or could use, that isn't already delivered in a much more efficient package between mechanized ground vehicles (tanks, MRAPs, IFVs, etc..) and traditional air power (helicopters, bombers, fighters, UAVs, etc..). #3. They would be extremely costly, and therefore high-value targets. Combined with their size and inability to move around in a more orthodox way (IFV's, tanks, MRAPs and such can use roads just like normal cars do), they become prime targets. #4. No amount of armor can really protect you. Even the toughest armor on M1A2 Abrams tanks can be defeated by a number of things, including home-made copper explosively formed penetrators (EPFs). And if these "mechs" had any real military value, there would be specifically designed equipment to defeat them. Anti-tank weapons exist to kill tanks, I'm sure you can follow this one. #5. The next generation of conventional warfare will be dominated by networked aerial drones, that are cheap, put no lives in danger, require no exotic technologies. Yet pack the firepower to decimate anything in/on the battlespace. This network will also provide ground elements with cohesive sensory intelligence, enabling them to do their job much more efficiently. Edited July 17, 2013 by Enganacious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Yung, you three aren't the only ones to pursue aerospace engineering as a career path. I don't make these claims out of ignorance friend. I can understand, however, being burned out by the OP on the whole topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Yung, you three aren't the only ones to pursue aerospace engineering as a career path. I don't make these claims out of ignorance friend. I can understand, however, being burned out by the OP on the whole topic. That really doesn't matter. 3 of us have degrees is the point, and we all independently came to the same conclusion. There's nothing to discuss. If you have a degree in aerospace too, that's great. Congrats that shit is hard to get. Doesn't change a thing in this awful thread, though. Oh and one other guy is ex-military, who also independently came to the same conclusion. If you don't agree with us, fine. But don't tell me I have to take this seriously or rehash it again. There's a lot of pages of us already stating it repeatedly and civilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 I'll hammer down the arguments as to why big-ass walking mechs are not going to be a good idea. #1. They would require an absurd level of technology, and the existence of such technology would grant us much better options. That is to say stuff like the power plants, locomotion, etc.. etc.. that would be required to make an "AC" platform feasible. #2. They don't really offer a platform that provides ground elements with an asset they need or could use, that isn't already delivered in a much more efficient package between mechanized ground vehicles (tanks, MRAPs, IFVs, etc..) and traditional air power (helicopters, bombers, fighters, UAVs, etc..). #3. They would be extremely costly, and therefore high-value targets. Combined with their size and inability to move around in a more orthodox way (IFV's, tanks, MRAPs and such can use roads just like normal cars do), they become prime targets. #4. No amount of armor can really protect you. Even the toughest armor on M1A2 Abrams tanks can be defeated by a number of things, including home-made copper explosively formed penetrators (EPFs). And if these "mechs" had any real military value, there would be specifically designed equipment to defeat them. Anti-tank weapons exist to kill tanks, I'm sure you can follow this one. #5. The next generation of conventional warfare will be dominated by networked aerial drones, that cheap, put no lives in danger, require no exotic technologies. Yet pack the powerful to decimate anything in/on the battlespace. This network will also provide ground elements with cohesive sensory intelligence, enabling them to do their job much more efficiently. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should be multistory behemoths riddled with weapons. I'm not talking jaegers here. The technology is present. 44k HP, what would be needed for a 65' mech, for instance, is easily obtainable with production turbines. Shock mitigation is used on all aircraft that are loaded upon landing with far greater forces than what are generated in this application and undergo large cycle requirements. Actually, the reason electromagnetic and other "unconventional" weaponry is being implemented because chemical propellants can no longer impart the required forces for anti armor projectiles to function. Also this is why most all anti tank munitions go through the painstaking processes to target the weakest points of armor, and even that isn't full proof. I can't disagree with out about drone tech taking over the combat theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Actually, the reason electromagnetic and other "unconventional" weaponry is being implemented because chemical propellants can no longer impart the required forces for anti armor projectiles to function. Also this is why most all anti tank munitions go through the painstaking processes to target the weakest points of armor, and even that isn't full proof. That's a hot load of bullshit. Electromagnetic weapons are R&D projects, there are no real-world railguns on the battlespace. They have advantages on large enough platforms, like naval vessels, because the projectiles make them cheaper versus using high-tech missiles (big naval cannons went away years and years ago). Shitty 3rd world insurgencies can't defeat American tank armor the majority of the time. But they still, every now and again, make a home-made bomb that can turn an M1 Abrams inside out. I've seen that myself. Chemical propellants are going to be around for a LONG TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Eng, relax. I'm not saying chemical propellants are getting phased out any time soon. Literally, however, armor tech is out classing counter measures. Yung, my point to you is that I came here to present my argument in a logical, respectful fashion. It was disrespectful to post the animation you did, plus stating that you have a degree and you say so is not significantly different from OP. I believe, also, that other people can speak for themselves. Ninety and Eng both at least were respectful with their opinions, save that last bit from Eng. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Yung, my point to you is that I came here to present my argument in a logical, respectful fashion. It was disrespectful to post the animation you did, plus stating that you have a degree and you say so is not significantly different from OP. I believe, also, that other people can speak for themselves. Ninety and Eng both at least were respectful with their opinions, save that last bit from Eng. One, it wasn't directed at you, and two, if you think it was and took it that way, well tough cookies. plus stating that you have a degree and you say so is not significantly different from OP except that's not what happened. We have 20 pages of proof that isn't the case. We gave as much explanation as one can expect on a forum without any real calculations or work/research shown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Eng, I mean no disrespect and am thankful for your service to me and my family. I am stating what I know from my background, that's all. All electric MBT's are being researched to have rail guns as the primary armament because of the advances in armor. Again, chemical propellants are not being replaced, but as all technology they have their limits and those have to be addressed. Also why nuclear thrust, electrical thrust, etc. Are being considered and designed for space travel over chemical propellants; outside the atmosphere and majority of earths gravity, chemical propellants can't compete with new tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 and rail guns are the only kind of big guns worth considering cuz old school cannons are just not very good anymore not just cuz of armor like that daft punk song harder better faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Yung, I'm not here to debate intra personal communication with you. I am saying that if you have no constructive critiques then let be; not post pictures of women rolling their eyes. Yes, there are twenty pages of sarcasm and repeated arguments over someone who can't stand criticism and has major superiority complex issues. I understand you disagree, but just be respectful. I went through the trouble of making that post and it's fine if your done with the whole topic, I'm just saying show some grace and let be. Stating that,"the only guys with the know how for this already all said their piece (me elton and mike)" precludes the notion that others have the legitimate right or reason to post as well. You are saying that no one else's opinion matters because of your background, whereas I also am studying aerospace engineering and have a different opinion. and rail guns are the only kind of big guns worth considering cuz old school cannons are just not very good anymore not just cuz of armor like that daft punk song harder better faster Edited July 17, 2013 by Malleolus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 nah, because you weren't in the thread before that post. I couldn't have been talking to you cuz you weren't there yet. For all I know you're Einstein reincarnated. My point still stands though. I'll make it more obvious: There's nothing left to discuss here because anything worth saying has been said already until anyone is ready to show research projects/calculations/etc. Why do you think the thread has so much sarcasm and trolling in it? Because tech talk runs into a wall really fast here, especially with our brave OP and his Greek letters. People said good stuff all through the thread. I'm also saying there was plenty of constructive critique. Just because you haven't looked, and maybe don't plan to, doesn't mean it's not there. Cmon man you keep demanding I be respectful but you can't even show me the courtesy of looking at what I (and others) had to say before? Not that I blame you much who wants to look at 20 pages of anything, still point is respect is a two way street ur right on one thing tho, this is pretty meaningless posting for the topic so we can just drop it now we're not gonna get anywhere anyways on that front "Not only rail guns, no. But they are the most readily implemented without major overhauls of platform. " I'm not sure why you said "not only rail guns" I'm not sure what ur referring to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Agreed. I tried but got flustered with the whole... mess in between real debate. I do understand your criticism, and I apologize for not making that clear. I attempted to address some of the high points because this topic is very interesting to me. I'm just saying don't spoil it for those who still have the energy to continue. I apologize again for not addressing the contributions you and others have already made, I would like for my contribution to be taken as well is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 it's cool water under the bridge btw raor whats the status on wonder armor for danger rangers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malleolus Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 I'm running different chats on the same subject, wrong channel lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.