Practicality of Mechs

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2002-10-25 02:32pm

WHOO Renegade Legion Tanks are nasty a medium one ways in at well the old addy went 275 tons of molecuarly alligned crystaline titanium wedderd to a ceramic ablastive shield it also had force fields ...weapons include two 10 gigawatt laser cannons a 200m railgun a sml fire and forget not missle launcher a vulcan 4 point defense system plus other weapons life expectancy oin combat was less than two minutes

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-25 02:49pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Wait, I think I used the wrong term for 'wire-guided' missiles way back on page 2-3 concerning Gundam. Are you guys reffering to the modern 'fly-by-wire, radio and computer-controlled missiles? 'Cause the ones in Mobile Suit Gundam aren't (and technically can't; Minovsky jamming would screw them up in almost all combat). I used the term 'wire' in the sense that the missiles are physically tethered to the launchers, and have to be guided via this cable.

Just thought i'd clear up what I was talking about. It isn't very relevant at this point.

That’s how a modern wired guided missile works.

The launcher's fire control computer spots a tracking flare on the back of the missile and sends commands via one or two tiny wires to move the missile into alignment with where the sight is pointing. Early wired guided missiles didn't have the computer and so a person with a joystick had to control it.

Such systems can be jammed BTW; infrared emitters on a tank can blank out the tracking flare in a sheet of energy resulting in incorrect signals going to the missile, even though the gunner may be on target.

That’s what Russia's Shorta-1 does, or rather the two reddish box's on the tanks turret.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-25 02:56pm

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:When you face an army using significant amount of tanks use large dollops of A-10s and Mavericks followed by MILAN, APILAS and BILL to plug the gap, while applying liberal helpings of AH-64. Baste lightly in a napalm shower and you have Massacre of Tank Assault in Seconds.

And what are these mines that take down helicopters? Are they like mega-fragmentation devices or what?

No.

They're cylindrical, with a flexible pivot below, and supported
by four flat "legs" that lay out about 1-2 feet, with acoustic sensors at
the tips. Here's how they work:

1) Acoustic sensors detect a helicopter at up to 250 meters.
2) That sensor triggers an infrared sensor, which distinguishes the target
from the surroundings.
3) Detonator launches a copper, cylinder-shaped, 1 pound projectile.
4) Kinetic energy projectile strikes the helicopter at about 1700 meters
per second, shattering its surface.

There offered for sale by a couple companies but still in somewhat in development. Beside the several thousand dollar cost, the real problem is they currently must be hand emplaced. However the production will be air droppable, so a single Black Hawk or Mi-17 could lay a string over a couple miles. The sensors can be set only to attack certain helicopter types, so your won aircraft wont be at risk, and they wont try to shoot at fixed wing they could never hit.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-25 02:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:When you face an army using significant amount of tanks use large dollops of A-10s and Mavericks followed by MILAN, APILAS and BILL to plug the gap, while applying liberal helpings of AH-64. Baste lightly in a napalm shower and you have Massacre of Tank Assault in Seconds.

And what are these mines that take down helicopters? Are they like mega-fragmentation devices or what?
No.

They're cylindrical, with a flexible pivot below, and supported
by four flat "legs" that lay out about 1-2 feet, with acoustic sensors at
the tips. Here's how they work:

1) Acoustic sensors detect a helicopter at up to 250 meters.
2) That sensor triggers an infrared sensor, which distinguishes the target
from the surroundings.
3) Detonator launches a copper, cylinder-shaped, 1 pound projectile.
4) Kinetic energy projectile strikes the helicopter at about 1700 meters
per second, shattering its surface.

There offered for sale by a couple companies but still in somewhat in development. Beside the several thousand dollar cost, the real problem is they currently must be hand emplaced. However the production will be air droppable, so a single Black Hawk or Mi-17 could lay a string over a couple miles. The sensors can be set only to attack certain helicopter types, so your won aircraft wont be at risk, and they wont try to shoot at fixed wing they could never hit.

Forgot to add, the idea is to force attacking aircraft to fly high, rather then NOE. That makes even heavy duty attack birds fairly easy prey for SAM's and triple A.

Laying a string on the reverse slope of a ridge line near an important site you want to defend would be very useful, you would not have to worry about aircraft poping up and firing at you then masking again before counter fire can reach them.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 06:48pm

My design-

Suit powered by small fuel cell "burning" H2 formed from bonding H1 molecules together for extra energy. (Can said H1 be burned without converting to H2 with the said energy increase?)

Has backpack accessory containing extra fuel and jetpack.

Fullerene fuel tanks, with H1 being compressed and stored in an absorbant material.

1 caseless ammo gun, firing 20mm rounds (One is sufficient to mow down infantry), with 1500 rounds of armor piercing ammo.

1 inch thick titanium/ceramic armor.

1 RPG with 6 rounds of antitank warheads.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 06:50pm

Actually you do not have to convert the monoatomic hydrogen to H2. Simply burning it releases 4 times as much energy as regular diatomic hydrogen.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 06:52pm

THe problem is that you cannot store it at pressure, so you will have to absorb it in something or liquefy (is that possible?)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 06:54pm

Just looked it up.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-27 07:21pm

With one inch of armor, 12.7mm fire or high caliber shrapnal will kill it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-27 07:22pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:With one inch of armor, 12.7mm fire or high caliber shrapnal will kill it.

Forgot to add, with discarding sabot AP ammo, 5.56 will also be effective.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-27 07:41pm

H1 will spontaneously bond with another H1 molecule to form H2. That is a much more stable configuration.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-10-27 08:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:With one inch of armor, 12.7mm fire or high caliber shrapnal will kill it.
Forgot to add, with discarding sabot AP ammo, 5.56 will also be effective.

Are modern small arms rounds THAT powerful? It is one inch of titanium, after all, however impracical it may be.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:05pm

Forgot to add, with discarding sabot AP ammo, 5.56 will also be effective.

Oh damn. What about making it in layers about .5mm thick for each layer with alternating layers of tungsten and titanium, so that it would be hard, but not too brittle? Of course then you got weight problems, since tungsten is dense, right? The armor only needs to be think enough to protect against antipersonal weapons. The jetpack be useful required for anti-tank duty. Also, this would probably be so expensive it is only issued to elite troops. What about reactive armor with little panels?

Oh and about the Hydrogen, just looking it up a few seconds ago, that would be a large problem. Perhaps absorbing it in something or freezing it under low pressure. Of course you would have to have uber cryo equipment. Eh just fuel it with regular hydrogen then. Problem is powering the suit, since it has to have power to carry all that armor. Maybe in the future they will have a non-chemical uber power source.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:08pm

Does'nt the A-10 have titanium armor?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-27 08:09pm

There are many very strong materials out there, much stronger than standard armour plate. Unfortunately, the question of cost and manufacturability then comes into play.

For example, let's suppose you've devised an atomic vapour-deposition system for producing thinly layered materials of great strength (don't snicker; we can use vapour-deposition methods today with nickel). Great, except that the stuff will "grow" so slowly that it costs a fortune and is totally unsuitable for mass production.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-27 08:10pm

BTW, re: titanium. It's a bitch to work with, it's expensive as hell, it's more pyrophoric than steel, and it's brittle. Not a great choice IMHO.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-27 08:25pm

Pu-239 wrote:Oh and about the Hydrogen, just looking it up a few seconds ago, that would be a large problem. Perhaps absorbing it in something or freezing it under low pressure. Of course you would have to have uber cryo equipment.

That won't work either. If you must use hydrogen, you might as well use H2.

Eh just fuel it with regular hydrogen then. Problem is powering the suit, since it has to have power to carry all that armor.

Another disadvantage is that hydrogen has a low energy density. You may want to take that into consideration as well.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:29pm

hmm cost and time would be a problem in making thin layers of tungsten.

Oh and sorry I thought titanium had good tensile strength and was not brittle and was soft. My mistake, forgot to look that up too.

Anyways it only needs to be able to stop standard assault rifle bullets. AP rounds aren't standard. The enemy isn't going to equip all their troops with AP bullets just to hunt down a couple mechs, right? Oh and is AP less effective then hollowpoint against infantry (yea I know hollowpoint is illegal in war, but the US never signed on to that treaty, did it?

)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:33pm

eh ok lets use gas or kerosene. I've been thinking like a trekkie. Oh how much power can a small pile of decaying Sr-90+thermopile produce? Assuming you can shield properly? And what about blowing it up in a last ditch scenario?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-27 08:37pm

You're still thinking too much like a trekkie. Use a conventional power source and be done with it.

The US didn't sign that particular convention, but generally abides by it. US troops do not use hollowpoint rounds. And there are enough Javelin teams to kill your mechs anyways.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:37pm

Actually scratch the cost problem. Lets use slave labor under a military gov't

. Fuel cells can work with hydrocarbons, right. I mean screw the environment. However can these fuel cells fit in a back-pack sized space?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-27 08:45pm

There is a fundamental disconnect between the idea of power-suits and reality IMHO.

Power-suits would be more expensive than conventional vehicles, because of the increased mechanical complexity. For any amount of armour and/or weapons, you would get more bang for the buck with a conventional vehicle than a power-suit.

If a power-suit is not big enough, its armour will be totally inadequate to stop enemy fire. A .50cal anti-material gun should do it in, and the enemy would simply alter its standard small-arms to suit the new requirements over time. If it has huge armour, then it will cost a fortune and be heavy as hell, thus causing more problems in design and construction (not to mention ground pressure). It won't be able to go into buildings, and it will be a bigger target.

The spot for the motor will be a big problem for a mech, since a bipedal structure can't have a centre of gravity which is too far off-balance. And if a bipedal vehicle takes damage, it is far less suitable than a conventional vehicle to limping back home. Its ability to walk and maintain balance would be far too easily disrupted by any kind of moderate system damage, because it's far more difficult to walk than to roll.

Honestly, mecha are nothing more than a childish sci-fi fanboy fetish of becoming superman via technology. It's like Iron Man from the Marvel Comics.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:46pm

ok lets use diesel, and remove most of the armor, leaving a powered suit period.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:48pm

ok mechs are stupid. However they helped inflate my post counts

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-10-27 08:49pm

ok mechs are stupid. However they helped inflate my post counts