Force Sub Winter 1941, Russian Front Tanks vs Mechs

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-26 02:22am

Vympel wrote: Tanks haven't used pure steel as armor for DECADES. Ever since the T-64A was introduced in 1969 tanks have been equipped with composite armor- the ultimate example being the M1.

Don't forget Depleted Uranium Mesh....the ultimate in anti-KE material

Dendrobius · Post by **Dendrobius** » 2002-11-26 02:25am

Lord Wong:

The Magella top is an escape device. It was never designed to fly and fire at the same time! This tank fights on the ground, just like a normal tank. And even the escape device only flies for minutes before needing to land!

And Lord Wong, you are an engineer. I'm an aspiring one. Obviously you know as well as I that materials play a strong role in this. You're assuming that the armor material of Gundams are equivalent to RHA.

I'm saying that perhaps the fluff which says that it's "Super High Tensile Steel" may be steel with no microcracks, flaws, intersticies etc, which means for the same weight it has an obscenely higher Young's Modulus, Ultimate Stress, stiffness, etc.

And this material is feasible given that this is set in the far future. And would explain almost everything about weapon power in favour of Gundams.

With regards to recoil, can I get back to you on that one?

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2002-11-26 02:26am

These argmuments are not based on circular reasoning, they are based on conservation of momentum. The reason why the 150mm can't be high velocity is that a high-velocity high-caliber full-auto firearm would knock the Gundam down from the recoil. Try standing up while firing a jackhammer (full-auto shotgun) and you'll see what I mean.

Similarly, the attachment between the tank's turret and body is too delicate to support a high-velocity gun. If you will review your secondary source, you will see that the sabots use rocket assist. One of the reasons why someone might try that is to reduce recoil. The rocket would start in midflight and add the needed velocity. One of the problems with using such an arrangement is that it doesn't work at close range.

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2002-11-26 02:29am

Dendrobius wrote: I'm saying that perhaps the fluff which says that it's "Super High Tensile Steel" may be steel with no microcracks, flaws, intersticies etc, which means for the same weight it has an obscenely higher Young's Modulus, Ultimate Stress, stiffness, etc.

True, but missing the point. Such a material would also be incredibly brittle. Those microflaws are what give steel its toughness. Without them the metal would shatter on impact like a crystal.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-26 02:30am

Dendrobius wrote:Lord Wong:
The Magella top is an escape device. It was never designed to fly and fire at the same time! This tank fights on the ground, just like a normal tank. And even the escape device only flies for minutes before needing to land!

CANONICAL evidence shows that the turret ring of the Magella is fucking
tiny, meaning it cannot have a significant amount of recoil, therefore
it is a low velocity 175mm round.

And Lord Wong, you are an engineer. I'm an aspiring one. Obviously you know as well as I that materials play a strong role in this. You're assuming that the armor material of Gundams are equivalent to RHA.

Oh great. I'm not using anything fucking DESIGNED by you, you fucking
asstard. With people like you wanting to get in, no wonder the Engineering
profession is suffering from a decline in standards.

With regards to recoil, can I get back to you on that one?

Which means you have no fucking calcs or shit to back your assertations up asstard.

So......

[img]http://supreme_sheridan.tripod.com/images/giving.txt[/img]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 02:30am

Dendrobius wrote:Materials:

Fluff says they use Super Tensile Steel.

Wow, such a technically meaningful term

A 'real life' equivalent could be steel that has no microcracks, interstices, or flaws as what steel we currently use now.

Be warned: I have very little patience for pseudoscience abusers.

Your attempt to misuse materials science terminology pisses me off. Go and LEARN WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, DUMB-ASS.

Interstitial impurities and lattice imperfections make steel STRONGER, not weaker, you pseudoscience-spouting dumb-fuck. And microcracks are only important in relation to fatigue crack propagation, not catastrophic failure from overloading. Where the fuck did you learn materials science? Sally Struthers' correspondence school?

Theory says that this material will be THOUSANDS of times stronger than present flawed steel, as failure in currently used metals is usually due to these. Tearing apart atomic bonds is VERY hard.

What theory? The one you made up while wanking off to your mecha cartoons? Stop spouting bullshit. Those kinds of moronic first-principles derivations of materials strength are exactly the sort of thing that idiot technomasturbatory fanboys do, and then try to slyly attribute to legitimate materials scientists.

Did it ever occur to you that empirical testing disproves 100% of your bullshit? I would very much like to see your theory which proves that a microstructurally pure piece of steel would be thousands of times stronger than a 1 GPa piece of heat-treated high-strength alloy. That would give it tensile strength of 1000 GPa, right? Please, by all means, enlighten us on how you derived these fucking bullshit figures.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 02:32am

Dendrobius, if you're seriously planning to become an engineer, you should learn more respect for empiricism. I don't know where the hell you got that theory of microstructurally pure steel being stronger, because it's completely ass-backwards. Take this as a piece of potentially useful advice: take Internet research with a grain of salt. It is often difficult to differentiate between real information and bullshit.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-26 02:35am

Raxmei wrote: True, but missing the point. Such a material would also be incredibly brittle. Those microflaws are what give steel its toughness. Without them the metal would shatter on impact like a crystal.

......like most of the armor in Gundam, according to Yosemite Bear!

Dendrobius · Post by **Dendrobius** » 2002-11-26 02:39am

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 02:40am

Raxmei wrote:
Dendrobius wrote:I'm saying that perhaps the fluff which says that it's "Super High Tensile Steel" may be steel with no microcracks, flaws, intersticies etc, which means for the same weight it has an obscenely higher Young's Modulus, Ultimate Stress, stiffness, etc.
True, but missing the point. Such a material would also be incredibly brittle. Those microflaws are what give steel its toughness. Without them the metal would shatter on impact like a crystal.

Actually, it's the opposite. A microstructurally pure steel with no interstitial flaws or dislocations or impurities is very soft.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-26 02:41am

Darth Wong wrote: Actually, it's the opposite. A microstructurally pure steel with no interstitial flaws or dislocations or impurities is very soft.

And wouldn't be able to resist a 1.8 km/sec DU round slamming into it...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 02:42am

And wouldn't be able to resist a 1.8 km/sec DU round slamming into it...

Not by a long shot.

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2002-11-26 02:43am

Darth Wong wrote:
Raxmei wrote:
Dendrobius wrote:I'm saying that perhaps the fluff which says that it's "Super High Tensile Steel" may be steel with no microcracks, flaws, intersticies etc, which means for the same weight it has an obscenely higher Young's Modulus, Ultimate Stress, stiffness, etc.
True, but missing the point. Such a material would also be incredibly brittle. Those microflaws are what give steel its toughness. Without them the metal would shatter on impact like a crystal.
Actually, it's the opposite. A microstructurally pure steel with no interstitial flaws or dislocations or impurities is very soft.

Oops. At least it still sucks as armor. Thanks for the correction.

Damaramu · Post by **Damaramu** » 2002-11-26 02:55am

Have you guys seen this site?

http://mechaps.com

These company wants to build the first anime style bipedal "mech".

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-26 03:00am

What the hell for is my question ....

Dendrobius · Post by **Dendrobius** » 2002-11-26 03:02am

Lord Wong:

Sorry, I definitely got this one very wrong. Covalent bonding with it's very large intrinsic lattice resistance per unit length of dislocation is what makes diamonds strong, and I thought it applied to steels as well.

I forgot that steels have very low lattice resistances.

Man, I screwed up this one.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 03:09am

Dendrobius wrote:Lord Wong:

Sorry, I definitely got this one very wrong. Covalent bonding with it's very large intrinsic lattice resistance per unit length of dislocation is what makes diamonds strong, and I thought it applied to steels as well.

I forgot that steels have very low lattice resistances.

Man, I screwed up this one.

Oh well, no serious harm done. Sorry I cooked off on you there; I can have a quick trigger-finger at times.

Dendrobius · Post by **Dendrobius** » 2002-11-26 03:12am

Nah, that deserved a cooking off. My Materials lecturer would fry my ass if he knew this.

Although this does explain the 'rubber armor' effect of the Gundams REALLY well...the ability to contort themselves into positions their armour plates dictate that they should not be able to. So it was bendable armour after all!

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-11-26 03:30am

Well, this is all a bit sobering for someone like me. Didn't realize the official stats were that screwy, (that's early '80s model makers for ya), not to mention all the design issues besides the typical mech cost/complexity issues. Thankfully, I never thought too highly of mobile suits' actual combat capabilities, so I don't think It will kill me or anything (I'm still working on that online comic).

I'll have to take alot of notes on this stuff, so I know what to keep track of when designing my own stuff in my game deisgns (Checking the list of significant instances, that's one game with 2.5-4m tall powersuits, one with alien-designed semi-humanoid crafts, and another with 2m tall mechs). Sure, it's for an industry that accepts the fact that mushrooms make you big, but I can still try to be technical. If only I didn't have that goddamn philosophy paper due, I'd post a synopsis or two, instead of shameless plugs untill winter break.

Since the title implies that this is about mechs in general (and not just mobile suits, which greatly depend on their environment), can we discuss Vertical Tanks of Steel Batallion? Sure, they're still inherenly more expensive and complicated (especially for such a scrawny mech), but hell, the day I get that game, I might not ever go outside again.

http://www.game-revolution.com/previews ... talion.htm
Yum!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-26 05:14am

Dendrobius wrote:I'm not saying that this tank is anything uber, but what I am saying is that Mobile Suits have demonstrated that it can take tank fire.

As for calcs for the tank, I can't. There just isn't any evidence I can use from the series, you don't see tanks in action very often. I'm blindly assuming that a tank designed almost a hundred years into the future is at least equal to a present day tank, at least in terms of armament. Not more advanced, just equal.

Or are you going to tell me that the tanks in Gundam are made weak just to make the Mobile Suits look good?

Yes, and so does just about every other, Anime robot series, except when you look at the thickness of the armour, notice the lack of sonic booms, and see how poorly watered down tanks are in a Mecha verse. a world war I tank could kill a Mecha verse tank. They must be made out of aluminium foil.

In Gundam, the primary arment of Zeon, appears to be an oversized grenade launcher. Rapid fire, it's characteristics are not that of a ballistic weapon, (Too, inaccurate, tends to make explosions etc)

The power ratios are bad

The size of the armour in scale, is too thin.

you have to be talking some pretty wimpy weapons not to damage it.

Damaramu · Post by **Damaramu** » 2002-11-26 06:54am

Have you guys played the Gungriffon games for the Sega Saturn and PS2?

The mecha in those games are essentially walking tanks. Alot of times, you face a mixture of mecha and mbt's. The regular tanks will eat you alive if you're not careful.

http://www.gamearts.co.jp/downloads/ima ... _1024b.jpg
http://www.gamearts.co.jp/downloads/ima ... _1024a.jpg

[/url]

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-26 08:19am

To celebrate the tank's defeat of the Zeon mechs, I'd like to present a bit more idiocy from IRL mecha fanboys:

'T-90? What series is that from? Who pilots it? Which faction built it?'

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-26 08:33am

Cyril wrote:To celebrate the tank's defeat of the Zeon mechs, I'd like to present a bit more idiocy from IRL mecha fanboys:

'T-90? What series is that from? Who pilots it? Which faction built it?'

Are you serious?!

To humor their idiocy: the T-90 is piloted by a crew of three Russian tankists (tanker is a Western term), is from the series called Real Life(TM), and is built at the Uralvagonzavod works at Nizhniy Tagil.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2002-11-26 01:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SAMAS wrote:"Nuclear weapons were specitically banned by the Antactic treaty, after the first week of the war wiped out half the population of the Earth Sphere. Entire Sides(clusters of Space Colonies stationed at the LaGrange points in orbit) were reduced to floating masses of debris by nuclear exchanges, and whole colonies were depopulated by gas attacks."
OK, so you have a quote alluding to nuclear weapons being very dangerous. Do you have any other stunning pieces of breakthruogh news for us? Perhaps you will discover that the sky is blue. But in the meantime, it is obvious from your own quote that nuclear weapons are VASTLY more powerful than anything normally unleashed on the battlefield in this particular sci-fi universe, so stop trying to introduce yet another red-herring in your desperate attempt to avoid dealing with mech vs tank straight-up.

Well excuse me for being thourough. You claimed that the GMs must have had nuclear weapons on board, and I explained exactly why they didn't.

As stated, there was the prerequisite fireball.
Again, I seriously doubt it. How long did the fireball last? How close were they to the blast? You DO realize that a fireball which lasts for a few seconds isn't even megaton-class, right? As for this incident, you would obviously like to use it to prove that the mech's onboard reactor is some kind of enormously powerful system, but all you've proven is that it carries an unnecessarily large fuel supply and it's designed like shit.

I just managed to upload some screenshots, so let me spell it out to you:

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%201.jpg
B The first appearance of the blast.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%202.jpg
I It expands.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%203.jpg
G From a distance.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%204.jpg
B It closes on the 08th Team.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%205.jpg
L They brace themselves for the blast, protecting the Hover Truck.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%206.jpg
A The shockwave hits, sending massive boulders past them.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%207.jpg
S The blast fades, showing the distance from the team.

T And the final result.

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%209.jpg
! And at the end of the episode, one last shot.

I'm not trying to say that Mobile Suit reactors are obcenely powerful(okay, so the Aspsalus III is, but that's a Mobile Armor, and it used the reactors of three Mobile Suits). I'm trying to say that the official numbers given are in error. The Apsalus III is an extreme example, and one that I know exceeds the numbers given.

Niether side has naval power in this case.
Good. Then stop trying to introduce your floating 240m long battleships into the equation. If we're comparing mechs to tanks, you shouldn't need to introduce all manner of backup to save your toys.

Right, so only the tanks are allowed new toys. Gotcha.

((For those of you who forgot, or haven't bothered to check, the original post of this thread had the German forced replace their tanks with Zeon Mobile Suits, while the Russians replaced theirs with modern T-90 tanks, and added modern Infanty weapons, and Hind Gunships.))

Yosmite allowed the use of Zeon aircfaft, and that's what it entails. True, that's not what he had in mind, but that's the consequence, and I even admitted to running with it.
You should obviously be using craft similar in size to the Stukas. If I were asked to compare Imperial ground-support aircraft to Russian ground-support aircraft, I would be looking at Republic gunships, not Acclamators hovering at low-altitude. You're just looking for semantic loopholes now; not exactly a testament to the quality of your debating tactics.

And didn't you just try to get after me for stating the obvious or already said at the beginning of this post?

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2002-11-26 01:48pm

And in case you can't see that one pic:

http://samas.freehosting.net/Blast%208.jpg