NOMAD wrote:saint of m wrote:3 Questions.
1. With Current bombs such as the MOAB (if the typical bomb that is dropped is the size of a refrigerator, this is the size of a large truck) which have all the destructive power of a nuclear warhead one could want without any of the radiation, is it likely that nuclear armaments would be none existent save for a few relics here and there?
Considering we have MOABS today, I can think of something much deadlier will have come by a century and a half by now.
Saint, given the time involved ( 150+ years), most of the nukes we have now will have been converted to reactor fuel rods or used of other purposes (IE asteroid mining), besides why have nukes when compared to Anti-matter bases ( or similar matter-to-matter annihilator reactions) nukes are a smaller class of explosives. in terms of relic their are probable non-radiological warheads ( ie no UR-235) in museums as replicas, or originals. MOAB are powerfully but their is still chemical base weapons, for a similar future developed explosives are that limit. You could do Kinetic bombardment (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment ) as it does have potential as a cluster weapons or precision strike on non-moving targets. But with plasma-type ( energy) weapons in Outsider, MOAB, nuke or KE weapons are outclass ( but I different to the master in these case)
Nukes are more likely than AM for the TCA, due to the fact that the TCA doesn't use AM annihilation as the power source for their drives yet. AM may sound neat, but the conventional stuff that we have currently is both touchy (should it ever touch the sides of it's containment chamber, it'll explode), and it actually isn't as good an explosive as you might think (several particles are produced that have limited interactions with normal matter, thus siphoning off some of the power that would otherwise go into photons). In contrast, the Loroi and Umiak both use non-conventional AM forms that either don't react with normal matter at all, or do so less thoroughly than e.g. anti-hydrogen, thereby lowering the consequences of the AM material coming into contact with it's containment chamber, thereby making it easier to contain. It's reactions presumably also have a more convenient emissions set.
Thus, yeah, AM makes sense for the Umiak & Loroi. Terrans, in comparison, are probably still using nukes for their high-damage torpedoes and missiles. Either MIGHT also have a small suite of chemical-fueled systems for a handful of cases (e.g. the Umiak may have some gunboats that carry dedicated anti-fighter missiles too small for AM containment), but that's not guaranteed.
NOMAD wrote:saint of m wrote: 2. You didn't think power armor would be likely. Are you thinking more on the lines of large mecha like in Gundam and Robo Tech, or a smaller scale such as with Star Ship Troopers or Warhammer 40,000 Terminator armor?
ah this old topic, pls see this quote from the Outsider Extra's Ground war section
A few ground-based Loroi army units use armor that's heavy enough to require hydraulic/power assist in the legs to ease movement, but there are no examples of "powered armor" in the sense of Starship Troopers style battlesuits. The Loroi do use combat robots, primarily as self-propelled squad heavy weapons, but I don't see any advantage to these robots being humanoid.
besides, Gundam type robots are buildable but compact power sources are a problem ( yes this is universe where ground vehicle hover with needed/require heavy power output drivers), but their cost is not beneficial.
Better to credit this to power losses due to applying reciprocating forces to the legs, lower armor thicknesses due to the greater surface area, lower speeds due to the power losses in the legs, and higher vulnerability due to the increased height than to blame it on equipment costs, especially since any Gundam setting is a inherently unreliable source of hard data.
NOMAD wrote:( For example in Gundam 00, season 1, even the three biggest nation blocks could only field about 1000+ MS suits for a limited time and the Loroi/Umaik conflict has lasted decades). To use a modern terms, in WW2 50,000+ Sherman tanks were built in near total ( IE conventional ground vehicles in outsiders), in comparison to less thank a 1000 king tiger tanks ( IE large mecha).
The Sherman was produced by America, the Tiger series were produced by Germany. To give you an impression of what the production scales were like, it's worth noting that in the beginning of the current recession the US economy
contracted by an amount close to the
total size of the German economy. If the US had been building King Tigers then there would have been a
lot more of them. The Sherman is so famous partly because it was so numerous, but largely because it was one of the newest in the US arsenal (the US also produced some other, medium tanks, which followed a now-abandoned design scheme). The only reason the US didn't field a heavy tank in WW2 is because some general or another interfered with the development of such, the main US tank of the Korean war was a heavy tank intended for WW2.
NOMAD wrote:its about the scale of production. I know that their have been many discussion in this form about which vehicle would be better (choff T-34). as for veritech ( Robo tech), similar discussion, why have a transformation tech in yor fighter where a none transformable fighter could serve better ( and cheaper). ( note Halloween image a loroi vertitech fighters
It's worth noting that in the original Macross/Robotech series the transformable fighters did somewhat make sense, given that they were worried about fighting giants that used armor that they themselves might not be able to pierce without taking weapons from said enemy. In contrast, I don't know if they ever
tried to explain why they continued to use that style of vehicle after they'd taken over the production facilities.
Jakelope13 wrote:Ah, by 'power armor,' I meant something more like the power armor from the Fallout series of games or the Mjolnir armor from the Halo franchise, effectively heavier armor with a built-in exoskeletal system that can handle a large amount of weight, allowing troopers wearing power armor to wield weapons that troopers in unpowered armor cannot wield, like a turret-mounted machine guns, a grenade launcher firing bunker-busting munitions, and other such heavy weapons.
I think such armor more likely than Arioch does (if Arioch's point was relevant, then infantry ground combat would be almost entirely dominated by such robots due to higher chances of mission-survival, resulting in either little armor use in general, or almost non-existent flesh-and-blood infantry). Regardless, it's important to remember that there are actually somewhat limited uses for such. This sort of thing is actually more useful in maintenance units than in conventional combat units, since most heavy weapons will have enough kick to make them unusable in such a situation anyways (remember: WH40k Space Marines are not only encased in powered armor: they're also twice the height of the average soldier; they have a lot more mass unarmored than a current soldier is likely to have
with armor). As far as weapons that would justify powered armor go, you'll be looking at missiles and recoilless rifles rather than heavy machine guns. You might convert a two or three man weapon to a one or two man (depending on whether a spotter is needed), and you could field larger weapons as squad equipment, but for combat it's actually rather limited.
Still, some
powered-assist will certainly enter real-world militaries in the next twenty years as standard infantry equipment, but not for the reason you mentioned. The real reason is that heat and the weight of supplies are the biggest reducers of infantry endurance, so by reducing weight and/or reducing temperature you can get much more effectiveness out of your troops. The Canadians apparently actually fielded a heat-control system around the time of the invasion of Iraq, so while I'm not sure if any are actually field-ready right now, I can say that it's only a matter of time.
Jakelope13 wrote:Not to mention being able to drop troops from orbit directly onto an enemy position without putting transports in unnecessary danger
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
If you're really worried about this, then you're better off with some derivative of WH40k's drop pods idea. Build a thick armor-walled "bunker" release it as close as you can justify to the surface of the planet, and have the soldiers self-deploy (presumably in mid-air) on a timer. Increases their armor protection on the way down, reduces the required deceleration force, keeps your vulnerable transports at a safer distance.
Though honestly, you might be better off just having a heavily-armored drop ship design, since you could justify sticking weaponry on such a thing.
saint of m wrote:Although, this might lead to another question: how would they handle waste of any sort? If I had to guess they can recycle some of it, but that can only go so far I presume.
Depends on what the waste is. Bodily wastes will either be dumped overboard, or used as nutrients for a biologically based environmental control system (which, optionally, could provide a limited amount of fresh food). Packaging waste will presumably be either dumped overboard, or recycled for assorted minor purposes onboard (e.g. replacing a damaged switch cover with one made from a day or two worth of recycled metal foil).
Arioch wrote:Jakelope13 wrote:Ah, by 'power armor,' I meant something more like the power armor from the Fallout series of games or the Mjolnir armor from the Halo franchise, effectively heavier armor with a built-in exoskeletal system that can handle a large amount of weight, allowing troopers wearing power armor to wield weapons that troopers in unpowered armor cannot wield, like a turret-mounted machine guns, a grenade launcher firing bunker-busting munitions, and other such heavy weapons.
That's what most people mean, but I don't think battlesuits of
any size will ever be a viable weapons system... at least until you get into the realm of ultra-tech. If you decide you need a powered robotic framework (for heavy weapons or whatever), fine... but there's no need to complicate such a system by trying to cram a fragile human body into the middle of it. If you're like the Umiak and have no qualms about lopping off most of a person's body parts you could make some great combat cyborgs, but otherwise such things are much more effective as autonomous or remotely-controlled units.
A model-T would be a pathetic APC, but use it to haul around a recoilless rifle and you can suddenly kill small tanks with it. Force multipliers don't always have to increase the actual application of force; increasing range, endurance, or speed (all three of which inter-play for infantry) can do the job quite well. The main trick is keeping your goals realistic: I think that to get WH40k performance without implausible power supplies would require something like a HeavyGear mecha, and that in turn would presumably only work right in in combat if you're in jungle or heavy forest. A Gundam would probably only work as a tourist attraction (which is a completely
different kind of war), or on a "Redwood" covered planet like Endor.