NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a few odds and ends inspired by the modern vs future tech thread and a few other recent ones.
I play moderrn and future tech players will be essentially ignored. However, I thought it might be fun to brainstorm potential future vs future and modern vs future tactics. So, for this thread, please, please, please leave the bickering about tech at the door. Let us not argue about it here, but stick to the topic of possible tactics. :)

I*ll do mecha (aka mechs) first. Feel free to discuss power armor, ortillery, energy weapons, etc.

Any comments or additions are welcome.

Mecha: Personally, I do not belive mecha will ever be seen on a battlefield. They would be too expensive, to difficult to maintain, and too easy to kill. However, mecha may possibly have their proper place on the future battlefield. I won*t reject as impossible, merely as improbable. That being said, they will absolutely not be the incredible machines envisioned by so many anime.

Strengths: A tall mecha will command an artificial high point on the battle field. Mecha will also be quite fast. They may also be capable of flight. Maybe. They may be able to carry heavier armor and weapons. Mecha will provide a controlled environment for the pilot, safe from radiation, gas, etc.

Weaknesses: Locomotion, height, and technological complexity will be the mecha*s main weakpoints. Mecha are usually seen as having 2 legs, an inherently unstable set up. Remember, human walking is simply an directed and controlled fall. Observe how difficult it is to make a walking robot now. The technology to make a walking mecha will be extraordinarily complex, easily much more so that a jet engine. Humanoid arms, especially those mounting weapons, will be exponentially more complex. And those mounting a grasping hand even more so.

Design: Mecha should be very fast. If they are not, they will be worse than tanks. They should have the ability to crouch fairly low and small, to take advantage of terrain (this will increase complexity greatly, but will improve survivability). Mecha will absolutely require high tech command and control systems, meaning lots of computers, sensors, and other electronics. Finally do not make BS mecha that cannot be killed except by a tank. Such a device would be so nearly immoblie as to be worthless.
Oh, and there will never, ever, ever be a stealth mecha. No way, no how.

Mecha tactics: Use the terrain to your advantage. Do not fight in dense, rough, or built up areas. Use combined arms. Have tank, artillery, aviation, and infantry support the mecha. Infantry will especially be needed. Pay attention to the defects that the defenders should be concentrating on.
Do not, do, not, do not forget the tech support. In addition to the ordinary support units (intelligence, logistics, engineering, etc.) mecha units will require heavy duty maintanance units. each mecha should have it*s own ground crew, as a fighter jet. Probably it will be larger, due to the even greater complexity of the mecha*s locomotive units.

Defending against mecha:
*Once you know how, hunting tanks can be fun and easy.* USMC anti-armor training.
Remember these simple rules, and hunting mecha can be just as fun and easy. :D
1) Kill off the infantry support (if any). Doing this allows you to set anti-mecha ambushes.
2) Ambush from in close and attack from behind with heavy anti-armor weapons.
3) Fight in dense or rough terrain. Jungles, urban centers, and mountains are places no reasonable mecha pilot will take his mecha into, once you start setting those anti-mecha ambushes with infantry in dense or rough terrain.
4) Remember the USMC*s other rule for anti-armor warfare: *What you can see, you can hit. What you can hit, you can kill.*
5) Just as with tanks, land mines are a mecha*s worst enemy. Blowing off a tanks tread will imobilize the tank. Blowing off a mecha*s leg will be much, much worse.
6) Aim for the joints. Hit the knees and take out the legs. Try tripping (a la Luke Skywalker vs the At-Ats).
7) If the mecha mount arms, hit those.
8 ) Use fire weapons (napalm, thermite, WP) against mecha. Even if the pilot is protected, these should give the heat sensitive equipment (like computers, sensors, other electronics, and weapons) lots of trouble. It is also good for killing off infantry support.
9) Use fouling agents. A good dose of super glue or fine grit should cause mobility kills easily on such complicated devices, especially if applied to joints.
10) Use the pulse. Use directed or area EMP devices to attack mecha electronics.

All that can be boiled down to: take mecha from ambush, when thet are not supported by infantry, and fight dirty. If you do that, even a modern tech nation should be able to take out mecha.
Feel free to call BS on anyone who claims you can not kill their mecha using these tactics. :P

Edited for a typo.

OOC: Your grit idea is pure genius. My entire region is a big-ass dustbowl. Now for power armor and hovertanks... :P

OOC: Your grit idea is pure genius. My entire region is a big-ass dustbowl. Now for power armor and hovertanks... :P

Thanks! That big dustbowl should also be fun for helocopters and jets. :)

OOC: Without regular cleaning and special modifications, the choppers break down pretty often. We don't have much of an airforce, anyway. I can deal with the modern-tech stuff, its this anime crap I don't understand.

I will take Ortillery, I have long expirience (sort of) with reaserch on Ortillery, get back to me in a couple of days.

Here are a few notes on lasers that should suffice until some else can suppliment it.

Lasers are currently capable of guidance and blinding. Note that the blinding effect can be used against individuals (although this is a violation of the various conventions on land warfare rules, AFAIK) .
Anti-missile lasees have been tested sucessfully, but have not been deployed, AFAIK, so should be near future tech. Laser tank weapons should be near-mid range future tech and laser rifles mid-far.
Lasers used by ground forces will have many limitations.
Lasers used in atmospheres will be limited in range and power due to atmospheric degredation. Lasers will be further degraded by rain or other percipitation, dust, and dense vegetation. Don*t try to use them in jungles! :)
Lasers are complicated sensetive devices. Don*t drop them or bang them around. They will need much maintanance to keep them in good working order.
Lasers are line-of-sight only. You won*t be able to use plunging fire to hit targets behind cover.

So, make sure you have lots of maintanance support. And make sure you arm your units with a mix of lasers and projectile weapons. Don*t forget your mortars!

Units going up against lasers should be equiped with smoke or other anti laser defense weapons. They should also be equiped with light armor.

I will take Ortillery, I have long expirience (sort of) with reaserch on Ortillery, get back to me in a couple of days.

Thanks! That is one I don*t know enough about....

OOC: Or you could just snipe the bastards... :twisted:

Little Science fact, the US and Irealis Armies have developed a Chemo Laser that can destroy in midair, incoming 140mm Artillery shells. They are currently working on a model that can be fitted on the back of Humvee which is expected to enter Miltary service sometime in 2010. Does that help on the laser bit. Also you could prehaps reprogram IBMs to shot at Starships carrying out Ortillery attacks.

Don*t try to use them in jungles!

It just so happens that the Tu'lîmû(citizens of Letila) used to be from the Letilan jungles. We have a nice place to hide.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I'd have to take issue with some of the things said above...

Actually, legged war machine apparatus (I generally consider 4-10 legs as a good idea; humanoid "mecha" of significant size [past enhanced powered armor, which acts as... well, big mean infantry in many ways] aren't that great, generally speaking) are better for rough/tight terrain. You don't want these suckers out on the open, and they generally can maneuver through pitted, uneven, rough, and (in the case of bipeds) wooded terrain better than a boxy fixed tank.

Generally speaking, it's hard to get them faster than wheeled vehicles; however, they can be more mobile in rough terrain with ease.

It's also worth noting that destruction of a single leg - unlike destruction of a single tread - does not completely immobilize a mecha, of any variety of legged configuration. Destruction of a single tread completely immobilizes a tank. Additionally, it's easier to step over a mine than roll over it without setting it off. Furthermore, "feet" can be made to a less vulnerable specification (big solid chunks of metal with the appropriate shape) than treads (moving plates fixed together) making them less vulnerable to many mines. (the main body - being set apart from the ground - also less vulnerable than a tank)

However, on the battlefield, open terrain and low rolling hills - which can obscure tanks but not many mecha - are to be avoided for bipedal mecha. The whole higher-profile thing is a big disadvantage against other armor units.

That said, I currently use in my TO&E for the Tahar Joblis ground army - very modern/near modern - powered armor, and one ten-legged light tank - which is very useful for rough and wooded terrain and crossing through minefields that would disable tanks. Less handy on wide open battlefields.

If your forces are engaged by lasers which are extremly limited weapons, stardust could be the answer. Stardust is basically powdered glass. The glass acts as a refreactory prism and will dissapte the light of the laser and therefor the thermal charecteristics of it. Also in modern tech this effect can be used as counterr measer to laser guided weapons.

While we're on the future-tech topic, anyone have any suggestions on dealing with using modern tech to deal with those gravships that keep floating about? Im assuming some sort of conventional attack could do it, but am wondering about specifics.

While we're on the future-tech topic, anyone have any suggestions on dealing with using modern tech to deal with those gravships that keep floating about? Im assuming some sort of conventional attack could do it, but am wondering about specifics.

Shoot at it. Plain and simple. These things are usually very big and have large holes in their defenses, requiring an escort a good deal of the time. IF you can hit one of these with a high yeild explosive you can pretty much down it with next to no effort.

Despite what people may have told you, it is near impossible to have a gravship with a complete defense system.

There's nothing intrinsically impossible about powered armor (for purposes of this discussion, I am not referring to Battlemech-type armor, but rather normal human-sized armor with power-assisted musculature). The devil is- as always- in the details. Widespread use of powered armor implies a lot of things that are pretty unpleasant thinking, namely that the use of CBR weaponry is commonplace and/or the battlefields are normally lethal for unshielded humans. I'll take these environments one at a time.

Toxic/CBR environment.

No matter how advanced the technology, there are only two ways to win a war: either destroy the enemy utterly (vaporizing the planet, for example) or put actual personnel on the ground the enemy occupies. If that territory is covered with persistent area-denial toxins (whether Chemical, biological, or radiological), then the personnel going in-country need to be protected from the environment.

Most modern-tech CBR gear is essentially thin layers of protective clothing with no defensive value against non-CBR threats. If your enemies don't care if they turn purple and die from the poisonous air, then they could sneak up on you in your CBR suit (which limit vision and hearing) and brain you with a rock.

The answer is to build conventional-weapon defenses into the CBR protection, or perhaps incorporate CBR protection into standard body armor. This leads (as all engineering issues inevitably do) to another problem: weight. You average troopie is protected against standard small arms and CBR threats, but now he moves at a slow waddle, and not very far before being too exhausted to fight when he gets to his destination.

Enter the solution: powered battle armor. Build-in nanomachines to operate in tandem with the wearer's muscles and bear most of the load. We are now talking about the average infantryman weighing in at a good 3/4 of a tonne in full battle dress. This will have major disadvantages for the logistics part of any battle (far fewer troops can fit into an IFV or APC, aircraft can carry fewer troopers due to the weight, etc), so it may even be worthwhile to include some form of rocket-assist or jet-pack to allow greater long-range mobility (long-range only. Anyone who pops up into the air in a firefight with future tech weapons will die).

Here's the problem to this solution: each infantryman now costs the equivalent of a tank, but would still be vulnerable to tanks and other heavy equipment. There's a fine line in the protection vs cost vs utility argument that is easily crossed. Better technology will only alleviate the problems, not eliminate them. Lighter, more miniaturized equipment means lighter armor with the same protection and better detection equipment, which translates directly into better survivability for the infantryman.

IDLH Environments

IDLH means Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health. These environments are naturally-occurring environments where an unshielded human is going to die almost instantly. The two best examples of these are Interplanetary space and deep water. Those two environments are the definitive cases where some sort of powered armor would be the best possible solution. The problem with powered armor in space is likely to surprise you. The power assist of the armor would likely cause more causalties than it prevented.

In a zero-G or micro-G environment, Newton's Laws are the absolute rulers. Swing your arms, and you'll start spinning wildly in all directions, which will only get worse as you try to correct for the initial impulse. The harder you swing you arms, the worse this gets. EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. Almost any weapon you can think of will cause the shooter to spin in the opposite direction he was aiming. Lasers (and and similar technology not requiring expulsion of mass) would only mitigate this problem, not remove it. A laser powerful enough to burn holes in powered battle armor would also be pushing the shooter in the opposite direction (photons do have mass, you know), albeit much slower than modern weapons.

Deep water would absolutley require powered armor. Here the problem is pressure. Simply resisting the pressure of several miles of water above you would be very difficult (once again forget every single movie you've ever seen that seems to contradict this. Hollyweird doesn't operate in the same Universe we are forced to). Doing so without using exotic gases to breathe would require extremely durable materialsthat could withstand the pressure without compressing the atmosphere contained within.

The weapons problem is present in deep water, as well. Modern weapons rely on kinetic energy to do damage to the target. Underwater weapons usually use directed-energy warheads to pierce the target's protection and let the ocean do all the damage. This would be a good idea for infantry weapons, as well, but each weapon would likely have only a few shots (due to weight and space constraints, if for no other reason). Energy weapons are most likely to be of limited use underwater. The atmosphere (the water, in this case) is far more likely to diffuse the effect of lasers and similar weapons. This can probably be overcome with higher technology, making underwater energy weapons a good possibility.

Powered infantry tactics would be similar to modern infantry's. Sprint and cover, shoot and scoot. The power-armored infantryman would be able to carry a far larger and more lethal assortment of hardware, would be unaffected by most weather (or the visual effects of darkness), and generally be far more effective than the infantrymen of today. The fly in the ointment is the price. To outfit a single infantryman with powered armor would cost as much as outfitting an entire company of troops today- maybe more. Another issue is logistics. It will take more vehicles to transport the troops, and the re-supply needs would be immense (not just ammo, water, and food, but air, batteries, spare circuitry, etc).

All types of powered armor will have some of the same weaknesses as Mechs. The joints simply have to be flexible, and those areas will therefore be vulnerable. They will weigh a lot- even at high tech levels. They will not ever be as adaptable and flexible as an unarmored human. These drawbacks might have serious combat consequences.

For example: It might be fatal for powered-armor to try and cross marshes, and quicksand would be even worse. Climbing trees would likely be impossible wearing armor. Taking up a position in a damaged building would be dangerous, since the building may not be able to handle the load if the upper floors were damaged.

The US Army is researching new combat armor for deployment in the next twenty years or so. They call it the "Scorpion" suit, and it is currently not designed to have powered muscles (although the Pentagon would love to have this- it is technically impossible right now). It was originally conceived to reduce the load the infantryman carries (currently over 50 kilograms) as well as increase the level of protection. Plans are in the works to incorporate HUDs, sensors of various sorts, and built-in radios.

There are several good science fiction stories out there dealing with powered armor. The best of these is a book by Robert A. Heinlein called Starship Troopers. Note carefully that this is not the horrible movie supposedly based upon the book, but the book itself. I really can't stress enough to everyone who wants to roleplay future tech that they should forget every single science fiction TV show and movie ever made before they get started.

That said, I currently use in my TO&E for the Tahar Joblis ground army - very modern/near modern - powered armor, and one ten-legged light tank - which is very useful for rough and wooded terrain and crossing through minefields that would disable tanks. Less handy on wide open battlefields.

OOC: Modern powered armor? Where are you getting this? The best we've got so far is composite shock plates sewn into kevlar vests. I assume by near modern you mean in the next few centuries. Landwarrior could be considered powered armor, since it incorporates computers into the basic soft infantry armor, and requires power. That's the only thing that comes to mind. Fallout isn't modern.

Also you could prehaps reprogram IBMs to shot at Starships carrying out Ortillery attacks.

Well, if you could change the payloads to killersats. MIRVs generally aren't capable of maneuvering in space. Other than that, yes, ICBMs make excellent launch platforms for surface-to-orbit strikes. If you can convince the rest of the world that you're not launching a nuclear strike against any of them before they kick off Armageddon.

I'd have to take issue with some of the things said above...

Actually, legged war machine apparatus (I generally consider 4-10 legs as a good idea; humanoid "mecha" of significant size [past enhanced powered armor, which acts as... well, big mean infantry in many ways] aren't that great, generally speaking) are better for rough/tight terrain. You don't want these suckers out on the open, and they generally can maneuver through pitted, uneven, rough, and (in the case of bipeds) wooded terrain better than a boxy fixed tank.

Generally speaking, it's hard to get them faster than wheeled vehicles; however, they can be more mobile in rough terrain with ease.

It's also worth noting that destruction of a single leg - unlike destruction of a single tread - does not completely immobilize a mecha, of any variety of legged configuration. Destruction of a single tread completely immobilizes a tank. Additionally, it's easier to step over a mine than roll over it without setting it off. Furthermore, "feet" can be made to a less vulnerable specification (big solid chunks of metal with the appropriate shape) than treads (moving plates fixed together) making them less vulnerable to many mines. (the main body - being set apart from the ground - also less vulnerable than a tank)

However, on the battlefield, open terrain and low rolling hills - which can obscure tanks but not many mecha - are to be avoided for bipedal mecha. The whole higher-profile thing is a big disadvantage against other armor units.

That said, I currently use in my TO&E for the Tahar Joblis ground army - very modern/near modern - powered armor, and one ten-legged light tank - which is very useful for rough and wooded terrain and crossing through minefields that would disable tanks. Less handy on wide open battlefields.

Thank you. You have some good points. :)
Primarily I was adressing bipedal anime/battle-tech style mecha weaknesses. 8-10 Leggers would be quite reasonable.

However, I am fairly sure that knocking one leg off a 4 leg mecha will unbalance it enough to tip. 6+ will depend on which leg is hit. But imobilizing one leg should create significant mobility problems, as that leg will now drag, the walker will either be unable to lift the leg over obsticals or will have limited ability to do so, etc.

Light woods, light urban areas, and moderately rough terrain should be the areas where legged armor would be of the greatest use. However, they would suffer the same fate as tracked or wheeled armor in tight terrain. Infantry can easily be concealed in buildings, dense forests or jungle, and other tight terrain. Vision and mobility will be limited (you will be restricted to the same areas as tanks basically). Close quarters anti-armor ambushes will murder armor in these kinds of situations. Uneven terrain is no problem, but steep terrain (mountains, ravines) will be very hazerdous.

Legged armor will be less likely to set off direct mines, but off route mines should be effective for ambushes. Mines will be effective in unbalancing and walking machine, possibly even tipping it. Knee and ankle joints may also be succeptable to shocks.
Entanglement devices would be very effective. Either tangle shells or mines, or abatis or in depth heavy wire. It would have to be heavy - steel cable, spider silk, or maybe bucky tube wire? Wide, deep, steep sided ditches could be effective?

I wouldn't ever use mechs. They can easily be taken out with a couple ewoks and some logs!

OOC: Modern powered armor? Where are you getting this? The best we've got so far is composite shock plates sewn into kevlar vests. I assume by near modern you mean in the next few centuries. Landwarrior could be considered powered armor, since it incorporates computers into the basic soft infantry armor, and requires power. That's the only thing that comes to mind. Fallout isn't modern.

Actually, it is being worked on right now.

http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/matdev/ehpa.htm

I wouldn't ever use mechs. They can easily be taken out with a couple ewoks and some logs!

Agreed, think what highly trained soldiers could do to them...or better yet...an army of them :shock:

Powered combat armor would have to be near future. I*d guess 2020-30 (2015 at the earliest). Certainly not centuries away. However I would define modern as what is available *right now*. That would exclude the DARPA project linked.

I wouldn't ever use mechs. They can easily be taken out with a couple ewoks and some logs!

Agreed, think what highly trained soldiers could do to them...or better yet...an army of them :shock:

Their useless anywhere you could bring Airplanes and the enemy can't hold you off, Thats what happened in the SS invasion of Vorena, several nations attacking them for that Destroyed SS Mechs from the Air.

Clan Smoke Jaguar*s tank thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88484&highlight=) has some good notes on the future of tanks and ETC armaments.

I actually think it's suicide for infantry to attack battletech-style mechs in city fighting. The reason for this is simple, battletech mechs never travel in anything less than a group of four mechs and in a city inviroment they will have infantry support and probably lots of it.

Let's assume that the defending infantry are attacking from buildings and let's further assume that for some reason the defending infantry managed three or four hits against the head of a mech and disabled it. The likely outcome of that attack is that the other three mechs destroy every building they know the enemy attacked from, retreat a couple of kilometers, and then call down artillery in a kilometer wide circle from where the attack accured.

And about using mechs in open fields, your assumption is incorrect. Mechs are inherently more mobile than tanks in open areas and because of that they have at least a 4:1 advantage against tanks, that's if the tanks use the same weapons as the mechs. If the tanks use modern equipment then at the very least the advantage jumps to 12:1.

However, mountainous and heavily wooded terrain has always been and will always be the domain of infantry and I agree that any attempt to use mechs in those inviroments is courting disaster. About the only safe way to use mechs in those enviroments is to bombard the area with some kind of high-heat, long-burning material such as Thermite or Napalm.

Powered combat armor would have to be near future. I*d guess 2020-30 (2015 at the earliest). Certainly not centuries away. However I would define modern as what is available *right now*. That would exclude the DARPA project linked.

Definitely. The powered armor bit is the furthest future element without a doubt in my entire arsenal. The more primitive "full armor" - my OPS system, which is unpowered - is very near modern - 2005-8 possible for on the ball researchers from today, and not requiring any new technologies - just careful engineering, packaging, and integration of existing technologies. The three powered armors that I use - not, mind you, particularly incredibly heavily armored or armed, we're talking more or less small arms protection and squad/support weapons - are more along the 2015-2025 range.

"Severely unbalanced" is a lot better state for a 2 or 4 legged mecha than "completely immobile" for a treaded tank, I'd have to say. I would qualify my 10 legged light tank as completely modern technology (mobility and structural design is based on a non-military robot designed for logging use, actually). In truth, it's more designed to operate well in areas where conventional armor has problems, and primarily is designed to hunt vehicles rather than infantry. PBA units aren't too bad at that, but I find I mostly use them to hunt armor. The main point to powering battle armor is to make it move faster than regular infantry without relying on big clunky wheeled/treaded vehicles.

Classically speaking, the textbook NS example of this was during the Amerigan War, in which my near-future/present tech forces clashed heavily with some not-too-near-future tech forces. We had hovertanks and hover-APCs moving in a convoy on a road through the woods; I ambushed them with 12 UBUs - my heaviest and most advanced powered battle armor. Rocket and 40mm grenade fire nearly completely obliterated the convoy. This could have very nearly been done with regular infantry - the only difference being that standard infantry would have been more vulnerable to blind return fire and small arms fire from confused Iesusan personnel, and they wouldn't have been able to move quite as fast to set up and fade from the ambush.

I actually think it's suicide for infantry to attack battletech-style mechs in city fighting. The reason for this is simple, battletech mechs never travel in anything less than a group of four mechs and in a city inviroment they will have infantry support and probably lots of it.

Let's assume that the defending infantry are attacking from buildings and let's further assume that for some reason the defending infantry managed three or four hits against the head of a mech and disabled it. The likely outcome of that attack is that the other three mechs destroy every building they know the enemy attacked from, retreat a couple of kilometers, and then call down artillery in a kilometer wide circle from where the attack accured.

I think here, you're assuming a bit much... firstly, mechs dont magically deploy in groups of four with gobs of infantry support... rather, that is a tactic that you may consider common, but is certainly not an absolute. Secondly, you assume that, well, that the enemy is far inferior to the attacking mechs in terms of numbers. In an equal force, the mechs support infantry could be dealth with by the defending infantry, who would also probably have access to a slew of large scale RPGs, as well as rigged explosives at ambush points. You also assume that the mech force will have unopposed artillery, and that the city may be reduced to rubble because it is not valuable undamaged... In essence, youve just said that 'if you have superior numbers, superior weapons, clear lines of retreat, available artillery, and no restraint on obliterating a target, then infantry defending an urban environment are no threat'. Which I'm sure everyone will agree with, but it doesnt have much to do with the mechs, just raw superiority in every category.

And about using mechs in open fields, your assumption is incorrect. Mechs are inherently more mobile than tanks in open areas and because of that they have at least a 4:1 advantage against tanks, that's if the tanks use the same weapons as the mechs. If the tanks use modern equipment then at the very least the advantage jumps to 12:1.

4:1? 12:1? How were these numbers arrived at?
Tanks have a lower profile... mecha tend to be a bit tall, and thus can be seen sooner, and fired upon... If you're saying that a battlemech could use its maneuverability to dodge tank shells, missiles, etc. then I can see how you got your numbers... but, though Im not certain about the comparative velocities of mechs and tank shells, or the ability to trace the tragectory of an incoming shell in order to avoid it, it doesnt seem quite right to expect that a mech could be all that effective at managing such a feat while also engaging in combat.

Perhaps someoe will correct me on this, but I really find those odds to seem a tad unrealistic...

Although LRR doesn't have much experience in futuretech ground battles, here's some stuff on hovertanks:

Hovertanks are reasonably effective combat platforms, depending on how the battlefield commander uses them.

What not to do with hovertanks:

1. Never ever ever ever bring hovertanks into a mountainous area.

2. Never ever ever ever ever use hovertanks to conduct long-range operations through enemy territory or mountainous terrain.

Hovertanks will work great in flat, open environments. They can use their inherant speed to their advantage, moving faster than conventional tracked vehicles. They can cross low obstacles and water obstacles faster than tracked vehicles. They can easily avoid minefields.

However-

Hovertanks will be almost useless if you are trying to climb something. (Imagine trying to blow a napkin uphill)
Hovertanks will, unless they use cold fusion or some highly redundant technology for propulsion, will run out of fuel very quickly. And as soon as a hovertank is on its skirt without gas, it is very veunerable. Commanders operating hovertanks must be careful not to advance to far.
Hovertanks are limited in armor and armerment because of the fact that all weight must be lifted upward before moving foreward.

Defeating hovertanks:

Operate in hilly and rugged environments, or forests.
Allow hovertanks to advance until their fuel supply runs low. They will then have little left for an expedious retreat, and are as good as dead.
IR-seeking Anti-armor missiles will pick up on a hovertank's hefty thermal signature and make some interesting explosions.

Yep.

If you can see something, you can shoot it. You can call air support in on it. You can kill it. This is why soldiers go prone, and why giant bipedal robots are militarily inferior to sleek, efficient tanks.

Really, what its about is is the entire current concept of mechs comes from Japan (correct me if I'm wrong) where warrior culture emphasized individual combat. Not just Japan, pretty much any culture that has had the lone warrior infantryman tradition. The human warrior. Mechs resemble humans more than tanks, and are crewed usually by one, thus perpetuating that kind of warrior ethos.

So, people use mechs for the same reason God made us in His image (if you believe any of that crap.) Ego! Mechs look like humans, and naturally as humans we believe in our own superiority, when it comes to things we are more unique about (like our bipedalism). And, for RP purposes it gives the chance to revive heroism in a technological setting without destroying the coolness of one-on-one kind of combat.

basically the knight and Samurai syndrome.

Now, what about the Air. It would seem to me that a future tech nation would control the skies relatively easily (against other aircraft, not SAMs and such, though). I think that in modern-vs-future, it would be wise to keep the planes hidden unless absolutely necessary, and rely on mobile SAM sites and Stingers to down the enemy aircraft (plus bigger stuff to shoot the orbital stuff). Any other ideas?

Yep.

If you can see something, you can shoot it. You can call air support in on it. You can kill it. This is why soldiers go prone, and why giant bipedal robots are militarily inferior to sleek, efficient tanks.

Really, what its about is is the entire current concept of mechs comes from Japan (correct me if I'm wrong) where warrior culture emphasized individual combat. Not just Japan, pretty much any culture that has had the lone warrior infantryman tradition. The human warrior. Mechs resemble humans more than tanks, and are crewed usually by one, thus perpetuating that kind of warrior ethos.

So, people use mechs for the same reason God made us in His image (if you believe any of that crap.) Ego! Mechs look like humans, and naturally as humans we believe in our own superiority, when it comes to things we are more unique about (like our bipedalism). And, for RP purposes it gives the chance to revive heroism in a technological setting without destroying the coolness of one-on-one kind of combat.

LRR uses little cowardly recon cars that can scurry away in a hurry.

(But they do have reasonable firepower in their cannons, which can mess up a tank.)

We also have a very small number of anti-gravity tanks which use the casimir effect, but they go pretty slow and are used mainly in slugging it out with other tanks and artillery. They have a low profile, though, and can sneak up on things pretty easily. As for the lone warrior approach, LRR's never used that tactic. Note how the LRR special forces was disbanded long ago. A typical LRR assault consists of a blatent missile barrage and tank assault.

DGNT doesnt have much mecha, we typicaly use assault suites, essentialy minimecha, we do, however, have Korogoth units, which, if you havent played Total Annihilation, are walking battleships. They carry lots of guns, lots of armour, and kill stuff.
We tried a brief experiment with an anti-infantry mecha mounting four 20mm cannons, which went over badly. The recoil from firing four full auto cannons was so much that the mech could quite litteraly be shoved over. After that we simply took the legs off and put some treads and turret gear on, and called them tanks.

The main advantage I see in mechs is that they can go where tanks cant, IE: Scale a cliff. Tanks simply cannot climb, unless its just a hill, a mech can simply step over it. Also, mechs have the potential to be faster than tanks on certain types of ground. Though tanks would have the advantage on muddy, or loose ground, since a mechas legs would become mired, or the entire assembly would sink.

Mechas operating in a in a desert are commiting Tactical Sucide. Sand and dust cause problems in themselves and theres no place to hide from the enemy expecally their Airforces.

I think here, you're assuming a bit much... firstly, mechs dont magically deploy in groups of four with gobs of infantry support... rather, that is a tactic that you may consider common, but is certainly not an absolute. Secondly, you assume that, well, that the enemy is far inferior to the attacking mechs in terms of numbers. In an equal force, the mechs support infantry could be dealth with by the defending infantry, who would also probably have access to a slew of large scale RPGs, as well as rigged explosives at ambush points. You also assume that the mech force will have unopposed artillery, and that the city may be reduced to rubble because it is not valuable undamaged... In essence, youve just said that 'if you have superior numbers, superior weapons, clear lines of retreat, available artillery, and no restraint on obliterating a target, then infantry defending an urban environment are no threat'. Which I'm sure everyone will agree with, but it doesnt have much to do with the mechs, just raw superiority in every category.[quote]

There you go, it's all about tactics and Mechs lend themselves to greater tactical flexibility in an urban inviroment compaired to tanks (which is where I assume you got these general rules about armored warfare). What works against tanks won't work against Mechs. They aren't so fragile that a few dinky RPGs and/or a trap are going to take them out without a lot of luck, at least those in the medium class and up.

[quote]
4:1? 12:1? How were these numbers arrived at?
Tanks have a lower profile... mecha tend to be a bit tall, and thus can be seen sooner, and fired upon... If you're saying that a battlemech could use its maneuverability to dodge tank shells, missiles, etc. then I can see how you got your numbers... but, though Im not certain about the comparative velocities of mechs and tank shells, or the ability to trace the tragectory of an incoming shell in order to avoid it, it doesnt seem quite right to expect that a mech could be all that effective at managing such a feat while also engaging in combat.

Perhaps someoe will correct me on this, but I really find those odds to seem a tad unrealistic...

Not really, not if you had any serious grounding in the Battletech universe. The first battlemech had its armor tested by having a Merkava Mk4 firing center mass at it and the shot didn't so much as dent it, considering the fact that most modern tanks use a single 120mm cannon and that the Macky (the first battlemech) had paper armor compared to the mechs I use, the odds aren't all that far-fetched. The reduced odds against future tech tanks comes from the fact that those tanks have more powerful guns and quite often have two or more of those guns.

However, if you compare that to a mech of a similar weight class you'll find that the tank, no matter what tech level, is outgunned by a bit. For example, an Abrams weighs 70 tons and has a single main gun. Now take a WHM-4L Warhammer battlemech: it has two PPCs, four medium lasers (which have the hitting power of 90mm main guns), one SRM-6 (each missile is the size of a Dragon ATGM and are fired in volleys of six), an ECM suite, 13.5 tons of active camo armor, and is 10 Kp/h faster. Are you getting how outclassed a tank is against a mech yet?


Santa Barbara: Don't confuse anime mecha with battlemechs, it's insulting to BT players.

But a number of them are anime mecha. Destroids. Straight out of Robotech. Harmony Gold sued Fasa over that, and won.

We of Letila don't use mechs. Tanks don't get much use, either, but are definantly around.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Hrmm... well, since I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to the battletech technologies, and this is a thread on defeating future tech, a few questions for anyone who knows more than I.

1) What would be the per unit cost of your average mech? Would it be proportional to its suggested effectiveness (thus, at least 12x the cost of a modern mbt)?

2) What sort of weaknesses do they have?

<--- have done some mech work and design and have working prototypes (if you want a link to the research/copyright of said model please ask). The balance factor for bipedal mechs was taken care of with mind machine interface (did the research so =P) using the pilots own balance. As to being easy to take out, any thing can be taken with a lucky shot. Yes, legs may be a primo target agaist bipedal mechs, however curved armor can reflect/reduce most damage in that area. Furthermore, legs often can be replaced faster than a tread assemble just because of design making a mech's down time less.

my 2 cents

[ooc btw ^]

OOC:

To counter Hovertanks:
Use mines with a trip rod. Since the tanks don't touch the ground, trip rod mines are a must. When the rod is bent, the mine explodes, and tears up the hover technology under the tank. The russians developed a mine like this during WWII that worked well against treaded tanks. Combine conventional mines with trip-rod versions and you've got a deadly combo. When the hover circuitry is fried and the tank drops, it lands on larger, more powerful mines. If the tanks are in a group, damage could be extremely severe.

Infantry in an Urban Environment:
An area where infantry excel against vehicles and other infantry. Using gueirrilla tactics, a small team can easily cripple an advanching armor colum, by channeling the vehicles through a narrow alleyway, so tanks and other vehicles enter and exit one at a time. Blow the first tank and the last tank at the same time, then rake the units in between with heavy machine gun fire and small explosives. Al Queda used this tactic to great effect against the Russians during their attempted occupation.

OOC: Modern powered armor? Where are you getting this? The best we've got so far is composite shock plates sewn into kevlar vests.

Well... there is a hexapodal tractor that could be converted into a warmachine pretty easily.

Despite what people may have told you, it is near impossible to have a gravship with a complete defense system.
Depends on the type of antigrav they use. If they operate by generating a negative gravitational well (gravitational hill?) to balance the gravitational well of the planet they're on, you would have to fire a projectile near escape velocity to hit them.

(photons do have mass, you know)
Momentum, but not mass.

hmm
i dotn have much to say, but i guess modern v. future, all i adhere to is:
Bullets and swords can kill someone as dead as a laser beam or phased light or wutever u techies use.

I dunno... i could use some advice for modern v future cause im modern

be glad if anyone could give me advice

OOC: Modern powered armor? Where are you getting this? The best we've got so far is composite shock plates sewn into kevlar vests.

Well... there is a hexapodal tractor that could be converted into a warmachine pretty easily.

Despite what people may have told you, it is near impossible to have a gravship with a complete defense system.
Depends on the type of antigrav they use. If they operate by generating a negative gravitational well (gravitational hill?) to balance the gravitational well of the planet they're on, you would have to fire a projectile near escape velocity to hit them.

(photons do have mass, you know)
Momentum, but not mass.

Don't they have a very small mass?

*Makes pinching gesture with fingers*

i dotn have much to say, but i guess modern v. future, all i adhere to is:
Bullets and swords can kill someone as dead as a laser beam or phased light or wutever u techies use.


Even with all that technology, you are still not a god. Nothing matches a sword for shear goryness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

A quick question on hovertanks - I play moderntech and modern+, which means up to and around 2010-2015 or so. Are there any online resources with advice on how to cobble together a hovertank in that time period in a realistic manner?

Thanx.

And how would a moderntech or slightly modern+ (no exotic propulsion systems, preferably) hovertank fare in desert terrain?

OOC:

I quickly skimmed this thread and so forgive me if this was addressed already:

A guy in a powersuit weighing 3/4 of a ton (going by TOE's estimate) would also leave tracks that even a child can follow. Also it would be difficult to, well, swim or ford across water. I suppose the weight here might help but what if the river is really deep? Can you go underwater?Also difficulties would be encountered if trying to climb stairs (especially in a war theater structurally damaged buildings will likely be encountered) , bridges (say a rope bridge across a river), climbing trees, mud, etc...

Not to mention if the batteries run out, then what?

Don't get me wrong since I like the idea of power suits. I'm just wondering how these issues can best be resolved.

Not that I think future tech= godliness, but that 12:1 modern tank to battlemech statistic has me a bit worried.... as does that 'requires-escape-velocity-to-hit' gravship.

Im not sure if that sort of thing is just due to having better tech, but it certainly renders a large quantity of modern tech pretty useless against a futuretech assault, so im hoping someone can tell me how to

a) exploit their weaknesses using a modern tech army.

or b) accuse them of godmodding with some sort of moral-technical high ground, so that ignoring their tech is justifiable when they try to use it to obliterate my helpless armies.

A quick question on hovertanks - I play moderntech and modern+, which means up to and around 2010-2015 or so. Are there any online resources with advice on how to cobble together a hovertank in that time period in a realistic manner?

Thanx.

And how would a moderntech or slightly modern+ (no exotic propulsion systems, preferably) hovertank fare in desert terrain?

I'm guessing that it would kick up a helluva lotta dust, so thermal imaging systems would be a must if you're going to see what you're attacking.

A quick question on hovertanks - I play moderntech and modern+, which means up to and around 2010-2015 or so. Are there any online resources with advice on how to cobble together a hovertank in that time period in a realistic manner?

Thanx.

And how would a moderntech or slightly modern+ (no exotic propulsion systems, preferably) hovertank fare in desert terrain?

well, I do it with big farkin' magnets. alternatively, you could mount a tank turret on a hovercraft chassis... the problem being that you'd have to turn off the hover system and deploy some support legs to fire... might work for artillery...

A quick question on hovertanks - I play moderntech and modern+, which means up to and around 2010-2015 or so. Are there any online resources with advice on how to cobble together a hovertank in that time period in a realistic manner?

Thanx.

And how would a moderntech or slightly modern+ (no exotic propulsion systems, preferably) hovertank fare in desert terrain?

well, I do it with big farkin' magnets. alternatively, you could mount a tank turret on a hovercraft chassis... the problem being that you'd have to turn off the hover system and deploy some support legs to fire... might work for artillery...

You fire a physical gun while on a hoverfield, you're going to be going backwards faster than you can blink. Whoops!

What, even with really light armor and a relatively small-bore cannon?

I don't want some big effing 120mm smoothbore on these things, they're supposed to be sly little buggers.

What, even with really light armor and a relatively small-bore cannon?

I don't want some big effing 120mm smoothbore on these things, they're supposed to be sly little buggers.
Light armor equals more blowback, but light guns would work. Mind you, the crew should know about kickback and compensate.

Well, light armor because it's a hovercraft - I don't know how much weight those things can handle.

And a 35mm cannon would probably be mounted. Probably a machinegun as well.

35mm, no problem. You could probably even pull off up to 80mm cannon. I was thinking you were talking 105 or more. Hovertanks would make excellent scouts or picket craft, but not very good MBTs.

I just thought that with devious enough tactics these babies could serve very well in a defensive capacity on the desert and plains areas. Hit 'n' run, that sort of thing.

Of course, I have no idea what statistics are and are not realistic.

Well, you've obviously got the concept already. In the desert and plains, their speed would serve them, and they would excell in light hills or crossing water, but they would have trouble in cities and dense jungles (just like treaded tanks and mechs). Sometimes, infantry are still the only way to win.

Basically, use your speed, strike and flee, harass, gather intel, spot for arty and retreat. Don't get into a bogged firefight with Main Battle Tanks.

Armed Hovercraft are a modern tool, the US has an hover landing craft that use air to keep it off the ground and water and it is armed to fire back at whats firing at it but not with every heavy weaponary though. They use it for beaches that they can't get normal Landing craft on, the tech been around since the 1960s and 1970s.

Got a link to a resource? All that comes up on Google is a bunch of uberwank from various games.... Zeron Phase Lasers, Graviton Acceleration Coils, blah blah blah.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lcac.html

What it does is use an Air Cushion to keep the craft off the ground.

You fire a physical gun while on a hoverfield, you're going to be going backwards faster than you can blink. Whoops!

If you fire a regular tank gun, yes. However, there are ways around this problem.

Consider recoil compensation systems - mainly, I'm talking about gas venting types. As far as recoilliess rifle systems go, I'm aware of calibers of up to 106mm for recoilless rifle systems, such as used on the Ontos vehicle by the US army for the past 50 years or so. The Ontos uses 6, in fact, and only weighs in at ten tons. It only has about a half inch of steel plate surrounding it and carries 18 rounds of ammunition for the 106mm rifles, though - designed for high firepower volume support work rather than a MBT role.

Other than recoilless rifle type systems, it's also worth considering the use of missile systems with low initial velocities rather than guns - tube launched missiles are gaining popularity over the years with tank designs, and a low initial-v or boosted system would be easy to manage with minimal recoil.

You might consider side missile packs that simply physically release and then light off the missiles in a small smooth tube open at both ends - virtually no recoil and doesn't require a long barrel. Then you retract, reload, and fire again. Your hovertank could thus use extendable and refillable side packs to fire missiles as primary weapon, which would actually help give it a low physical profile by a bit. You do lose some by having only non-charge boosted missile systems instead of a basic main gun, but it still can be interesting.

With your traditional hovertank (pumped air creating enough pressure to keep you up) you do run into the problem of getting your skirts punctured, which causes a loss of pressure and immobilization of the tank.

Thanks!

Woah.... big.

I should probably come up with two models - the light plains/desert prowler and a hulking 70 ton beast that can do coastguard work as well. Heh.

Does anyone know how practical a particle accelerator cannon'd be as armament for a hovertank? Does it produce some sort of recoil effect, or is it implausibletech for that sort of role?

[perhps a stupid question... half-remembering hovertank armaments from scifi rpgs is probably not the best way to come up with military equipment options...]

I don't know but a Modern miltary Hovercraft the The landing craft air cushion (LCAC) is capable of carrying a 60-75 ton overload with a range of 200 miles at 40 kts with payload/300 miles at 35 kts with payload with a top speed of 40+ knotts or 46+ MPH. Its armed with 2 - 12.7mm MGs. Gun mounts will support: M-2HB .50 cal machine gun; Mk-19 Mod3 40mm grenade launcher; M-60 machine gun.

Does anyone know how practical a particle accelerator cannon'd be as armament for a hovertank? Does it produce some sort of recoil effect, or is it implausibletech for that sort of role?

[perhps a stupid question... half-remembering hovertank armaments from scifi rpgs is probably not the best way to come up with military equipment options...]

The only way I can think of to compensate for the recoil of a particle cannon... :lol: the short answer is, it's better than for a regular cannon, although there is no way to integrate recoil compensation on a particle accelerator. You could build a separate system solely to provide a counter-blast, but it'd make for something of a rough ride.

OK, well, to be honest, a particle cannon in the traditional SF sense has less recoil than a main gun of similar power. Generally speaking, we're accelerating - oh, let's call it a 100 gram batch of particles and make it a relatively primitive particle cannon - to extremely high speeds. For simplicity's sake, I'll assume 1/2000th the speed of light - 93 miles per second. Thus, a momentum of 0.64 slug-miles/sec, which is then imparted to the tank.

A 120mm tank round masses about 20 kg, with an exit velocity of 4500 fps, in the case of the Abrams. This is 1.17 slug-miles-second - close to twice the recoil; in this case, the particle cannon's blast has 50 times the kinetic energy as the 120mm round, although we don't get the nice bonus of a chemical explosion of any kind helping things along, and our high velocity restricts us to line of sight fire, athough we can shoot down satellites - escape velocity is only 7 miles per second. This becomes even less of a problem as we move closer to the particle cannon ideal - a less massive projectile and high velocity - while keeping about the same power. Sixteen times the speed (to 1/250th the speed of light) and a quarter the mass, and recoil drops to 0.16 sms. If we're aiming for the same kinetic energy as the 120mm round with a 25 gram particle batch (which, due to lack of explosive effects, would be generally less destructive on the whole), the recoil drops all the way down to the 0.02-0.03 sms range - a similar range to a 20mm cannon firing a burst.

The question then becomes - could you fit a particle cannon of this power on a tank and power it? The answer is... not with modern technology, as far as I know. A rough quick calc looks like around a gigajoule of energy is required to accelerate the particles; assuming a time from initiating fire sequence to firing of a second to a fifth of a second, that means we're talking about short term power outputs in the range of billions of watts... fairly difficult to do. It's also fairly difficult to fit a particle accelerator physically in a 6x3x4 meter box... requires, I think, beyond modern tech.

I would qualify my 10 legged light tank as completely modern technology (mobility and structural design is based on a non-military robot designed for logging use, actually).

Cool. 8) Link, please?

I would qualify my 10 legged light tank as completely modern technology (mobility and structural design is based on a non-military robot designed for logging use, actually).

Cool. 8) Link, please?

The tank. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4650&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=200) The logging machine (http://www.plustech.fi/Walking1.html) - admittedly, there are other multi-legged thingies floating around, but here's one in practical use. I thought I recalled a lower-slung one, but that's memory for you.

As far as my tank goes, the ten legs vs the six shown for the logging machine are for further redundancy and stability in combat situations... frankly, with the ten legged design, it's built to lose legs now and then.

I actually think it's suicide for infantry to attack battletech-style mechs in city fighting. The reason for this is simple, battletech mechs never travel in anything less than a group of four mechs and in a city inviroment they will have infantry support and probably lots of it.

Let's assume that the defending infantry are attacking from buildings and let's further assume that for some reason the defending infantry managed three or four hits against the head of a mech and disabled it. The likely outcome of that attack is that the other three mechs destroy every building they know the enemy attacked from, retreat a couple of kilometers, and then call down artillery in a kilometer wide circle from where the attack accured.

I think here, you're assuming a bit much... firstly, mechs dont magically deploy in groups of four with gobs of infantry support... rather, that is a tactic that you may consider common, but is certainly not an absolute. Secondly, you assume that, well, that the enemy is far inferior to the attacking mechs in terms of numbers. In an equal force, the mechs support infantry could be dealth with by the defending infantry, who would also probably have access to a slew of large scale RPGs, as well as rigged explosives at ambush points. You also assume that the mech force will have unopposed artillery, and that the city may be reduced to rubble because it is not valuable undamaged... In essence, youve just said that 'if you have superior numbers, superior weapons, clear lines of retreat, available artillery, and no restraint on obliterating a target, then infantry defending an urban environment are no threat'. Which I'm sure everyone will agree with, but it doesnt have much to do with the mechs, just raw superiority in every category.

I can think of other problems here.
As for infantry support, see the rules in my OP - kill off the infantry support. :)
Even if reduceing a city to rubble is feasable, it creates an environment that will be extremely hazerdous for armor and near custom built for infantry. Think Stalingrad. Bad, bad scene for armored forces.
The above tactics take time. Think hit and run. An infantry fire team ambushes the mechs from concealment. They hit the knees of the front and rear mecha with tanglers, super glue/grit bombs, and flame weapons. (And don*t try to claim that mecha*s joints are completely sealed. That*s when nastieness like solvents and get added... :twisted:) Easy m-kills. You have just traded a pretty good chance at a m-kill and a possible k-kill on a $25-100+++ million mech for a possible kill against an infantry fire team.
The response takes time. The ambushing infantry fires, then runs. Lots of pin prick amubshes will slow those mecha to a near stand-still, as they now move at the rate the infantry can clear ambush sites.
Now, add the use of remote ambushes, off-route mines, remote detonated IEDs, influence mines (radar or IR proxemity, magnetic, and whatever the future holds), and the like. These are all great for urban anti-armor warfare.

I have to ask those that use hover tanks. You must have some increadable recolie supresers or some form of ancoring system. Becaus I just can see any large bun being fired frome such a platform.... but then again I need to remind my self it's just a game and is for Rp perposes only.

But a number of them are anime mecha. Destroids. Straight out of Robotech. Harmony Gold sued Fasa over that, and won.Actually, they were made by a third party, the pictures sold to both parties. They were the same only in appearance. BT obviously put its stats to suite the BT world. So they look the same, but they aren't.

I have to ask those that use hover tanks. You must have some increadable recolie supresers or some form of ancoring system. Becaus I just can see any large bun being fired frome such a platform.... but then again I need to remind my self it's just a game and is for Rp perposes only.

That was just discussed a page ago, Somtaaw. After reading and considering, I'm going to have to design some hovertanks myself. Fun stuff.

I'd have to note that if you want to read about the vulnerabilities of Battlemechs to smart infantry, read the Battletech novel Close Quarters. The folks at FASA - may the company name rest in peace - weren't entirely unaware of the ways infantry could screw with mecha (and we're talking about big mean futuretech mecha, that regularly take hits from 120mm automatic guns and keep walking. Imagine an Abrams tank gun... that fires bursts of 5-10 rather than single shots, and with any advances in chemical explosives and propellant added to it. (That would be an AC/20 - and heavier Battlemechs can take a few hits from those, according to standard BT rules.)

Actually, Particle beams rely one extremely high velocity to do damage., typically over 99% C. On the other hand, they use very few particles (much much less then 100 grams, less then 1 gram).

Particle beams have a few problems.

1: They take a LOT of energy (and so does hovering 20-70 tons)
2: They do NOT work well in an atmosphere. The particles hit the air and scatter. At anything more then a few meters, you get a very large wind cannon.
3: They are bulky and typically quite heavy.
4: Because of the velocity, particle weapons are not good balistic weapons. Sometimes balistic weapons are good...you can shoot over obsticals or (with artillary) shoot from behind the curvature of the Earth.
5: Particle weapons usually throw off charged particles. This means the particles are affected by magnetic fields, including Earth's. That can make aiming very difficult. Neutral particle beams exist, but they are even larger, heavier, consume more power, and produce less result.

Really, a particle weapon is something you want as a ship's or satelite's main weapon, and then only for use against other things in space (and preferably away from planetary magnetic fields).

So a lot of limitations.

You want to put something on a hovertank? You need something relatively lightweight and non-power consuming. I would suggest (advanced) traditional chemically propelled rounds. Anything from caseless APE rounds in your .50cal machinegun to rocket-propelled sabot discharging anti-armor rounds for your main gun to missiles.

Stick your lasers, rail-guns, plasma weapons (which really don't work in an atmosphere either, but are accepted in NS), and other high-energy or heavy weapons in tracked or wheeled vehicles. You'll be able to save fuel AND have a stronger weapon.


EDIT:

I have to ask those that use hover tanks. You must have some increadable recolie supresers or some form of ancoring system. Becaus I just can see any large bun being fired frome such a platform.... but then again I need to remind my self it's just a game and is for Rp perposes only.

Good point. You would probably want to use self-propelled weapons here.

Personally, if I were to use hover-vehicles, I would make something small and fast. Something that uses light weapons and a few heavier missiles to harrass enemy troops, armor, and helecopters.

Wait...I already do! :)

TJ, while I agree that anti-mech infantry are best used in urban areas, you also have to remember that the infantry in that book had weapons suited to taking out mechs. Most nations, including future tech ones, only have weapons for taking out tanks.

I think I saw someone post about how to negate the advantages of battlemechs during an assault. My question is, why the hell would you be stupid enough to assault a nation that you know has better tech? But to answer the question, range. Battlemech weapons do not have much in the way of range, the longest firing weapon any of my battlemechs have available is a laser with a 6Km range. Considering that most modern tank main guns have a range of at least 10Km, you can group a tank company's fire onto a single mech and you'll probably take that mech out.

If there is a problem with mechs, I would say it was poor armor. Yes, poor armor. Think about it for a moment.

Which shapes have more volume to surface area, and which have less?

A sphere has the most volume to surface area possible.

A bunch of string (the thinner the better), has the least volume to surface area.

Simply stated, a tank has more internal volume for its surface area then a mech. That means a tank can have thicker armor and be a smaller target.

"Ok," someone might say, "but with post-modern weapons, accuracy is always good...smart weapons."

My answer is that not all weapons are smart. Even in the future, a dumb-bomb, an unguided rocket, a source-aimed tank round are all much less expensive then smart munitions. So halfing the size of a target means you can get twice as close and still have only the same chance of being hit as your buddy in the giant mech.

And you still have thicker armor and a (MUCH) less expensive platform...so probably 4-10 buddy tanks for your one friend in the mech.

------

I am not saying mechs are useless, just that they are vulnerable. Their armor is weak. A standard anti-tank weapon should be able to knock off a leg or arm quite easily, if not get through to more vital areas.

So where/how would I use giant mechs? Probably mostly for construction, including military base construction. They could also be useful for loading large munitions (like long-range or anti-orbital weapons) into other vehicles (from trucks to ships). A specialized mech might also be a OK replacement for tanks in mountainous or ohter very rough terrign.

------

If there is a usefull side to robotic technology, I would put it in powered armor. I don't mean for every troop, or even for non-standard infantry. That is too expensive. Powered Armor would best be utilized by highly-skilled special forces. It is a way to allow your troops to carry more weapons, more rounds, and be much more effective (think advanced optics and hearing packages, ability to run quickly and jump high/far, etc.).

A good example of powered armor in NS combat took place at Iuthia's Vampire Conference (Invite, RP) (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72858&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).

Of course, that was a very light form of powered armor, but, why not? Better armor, strength, endurance, senses, etc. all in a bundle that will fit through a doorway. Sounds incredibly useful (and a bit expensive) to me.

Powered armor, in my opinion, could be useful just about anywhere. With futuristic technology, a "simple" jetpack could even allow a unit to fly (or as in Starship Troopers, to make sensational hops/leaps). Built in weapons (like shotguns, flame thowers, or even self-propelled artillery or guided missiles in a backpack) could give a trooper a wide range of attack options.

I'd rather have 1 powered armor then 1 giant mecha, and could probably afford 5-10 per mecha instead (or 10-100 tanks).

OOC:

I wonder how well a power-armoured fireteam (let's say 4 troops) would do against a mech. I realize the range of variables would be great, but would such a team specifically designed to take on mechs be plausible? Or effective?

Mechs are much better designed for urban combat where a tank would be to cumbersom. Furthermore, a nice rounded/multi-facited armor would reflect or at least make the blows glancing on vital areas (legs arms). And you can toss as much armor onto a tank (or mech) as you want, however, be prepared to sacrifice speed!

Mechs are walking tanks, both are good for diffrent situations. In the end, it comes down to whom is piloting them.

Um, in urban combat, while the Mech would be easier to move about in the turning aspect, it would be an even larger profile (read: rocket bait). And curved armor was the big armor craze in WWII. Shaped charges will blast right through any curved armor.

Of course, that applies to tanks, too. In urban combat, the only real effective force is still Infantry (and VTOLs/Choppers, of course), and light armor (HMMWVs and such).

OOC:

I wonder how well a power-armoured fireteam (let's say 4 troops) would do against a mech. I realize the range of variables would be great, but would such a team specifically designed to take on mechs be plausible? Or effective?

Well, the mech is going to have a longer range weapon. Actually, it will probably have several longer range weapons.

A PA squad's best chance against a mech is stealth.

Powered Armor usually isn't very big, so you can hide. PA should also have enough room for some anti-electronic equipment.

Still, the best environment would be a city, preferably no suburbs. They could hide in a building or three, use sewers to get around undetected, or even run around behind buildings...faster then a mech.

Forest/jungle or mountainous environments would be next best. Desert areas would be much tougher for the PA.

So overall, the tactics would be similar to infantry anti-tank tactics, ambush. The difference is that PA can hold (and power) all those neat, futuristic weapons. Weapons we have yet to discuss here.

Kaukolastan if the pilot allows you to place the charge he deserves to get the mech's leg blown off. The curvature is to prevent those long range, dumb fire, heavey missils from crippling in one blow.

As you putting a charge on something, that would take any tank/hummer/vehicle out.

Man Power, Training, Supplies, Inteligence

You hold the upper hand in those four points your gonna be hard pressed to lose.

TJ, while I agree that anti-mech infantry are best used in urban areas, you also have to remember that the infantry in that book had weapons suited to taking out mechs. Most nations, including future tech ones, only have weapons for taking out tanks.

I think I saw someone post about how to negate the advantages of battlemechs during an assault. My question is, why the hell would you be stupid enough to assault a nation that you know has better tech? But to answer the question, range. Battlemech weapons do not have much in the way of range, the longest firing weapon any of my battlemechs have available is a laser with a 6Km range. Considering that most modern tank main guns have a range of at least 10Km, you can group a tank company's fire onto a single mech and you'll probably take that mech out.

I can tell by reading that one thing: You, my friend, have yet to read Close Quarters. There were no ubertechwank specialized anti-mech weapons used, but suprisingly mundane things. Using the right tricks (and, when you can, preparing the battleground beforehand) can be startling.

Battletech weapons have a reduced range from what they *ought* to be; it's to make for an easier board game. Realistically speaking, Battletech weapons ought to, by and large, have ten times or so the listed range... sometimes more. A machine gun, for example, has an effective range of far more than the 300 feet listed in the basic rules (and yes, the MG listed in BT rules is probably a 20mm cannon at the least) and a rifle more than 200 feet. The ranges are, very basicly, screwed up, and it's all to make the game easy to run. FASA may not have even considered real life examples when setting out the rules, and the BT game rules aren't in truth that realistic for the dynamics of combat. Go cruise the forums at classicbattletech.com (I think that's the site) if you want to go in detail about BT gaming scale and what the battlemech weapons they have *should* realistically do.

Wazzu, particle accelerators don't have to be at .99c; it's just the ideal state for particle accelerator weapons. There is no set mass/speed defining particle accelerator. Yes, charged particle beams do have... erm, slight problems with dispersion, but earth's magnetic field is both locally weak and easily compensated for as far as those go. As with your complaints about plasma weapons... it's quite possible to make accelerator and plasma weapons that work in atmosphere. It's just a matter of meaning the right thing by it. Generally speaking, weaponized particle cannons are best left to far-future tech, in my opinion.

The point about surface area to volume is well taken, although it's not quite as extreme a case as you would think. As far as PBA go... well, I have three models of powered battle armor and two unpowered. The powered models weigh in at 500 pounds, 800 pounds, and 1500 pounds, the last being an aquatic heavy model that is unusual in a number of respects.

OOC:

I wonder how well a power-armoured fireteam (let's say 4 troops) would do against a mech. I realize the range of variables would be great, but would such a team specifically designed to take on mechs be plausible? Or effective?

Well, the mech is going to have a longer range weapon. Actually, it will probably have several longer range weapons.

A PA squad's best chance against a mech is stealth.

Powered Armor usually isn't very big, so you can hide. PA should also have enough room for some anti-electronic equipment.

Still, the best environment would be a city, preferably no suburbs. They could hide in a building or three, use sewers to get around undetected, or even run around behind buildings...faster then a mech.

Forest/jungle or mountainous environments would be next best. Desert areas would be much tougher for the PA.

So overall, the tactics would be similar to infantry anti-tank tactics, ambush. The difference is that PA can hold (and power) all those neat, futuristic weapons. Weapons we have yet to discuss here.

OOC:

Basically, I agree with you. Anywhere to negate the mech's advantages and to augment the PA guys would be best. Indeed, for the PA team, an urban environment is the best while flat terrain works against them.

If the mech could detect the PA guys using whatever sensors (and of course the PA guys jamming) then it might stand a chance in an urban environment. Personally, I would be very hesitant about sending mechs into a city.

Simple thermal imaging should reveal most infanty, unless you begin equping PA with massive cooling systems, toss in a few uranium depleted 50 cal rounds and you got one dead PA.

IMO

No, mechs do not have as good armor as tanks, period.

A tank has less surface area to cover the same amount of volume. The armor can be thicker and the tank will still mass less.

In an urban environment, everything is dangerous. There are so many hiding places for infantry it is scarry. So here is how I set up Wazzu (a city-nation).

First, Wazzu tends to have fewer but better trained infantry. They also specifically deal with urban environments (only a few deal with other environments, making them somewhat lacking in non-urban combat). They are trained to work in teams with a variety of weapons, from advanced flame throwers to "pulse" weapons (think Aliens rather then ST/SW/B5 energy weapons) to grenades to sniper rifles and guided/unguided rockets. Infantry are THE most versitile force.

Second, Wazzu specifically designs its armor for use in city environments. That is, heavily armored but low-profile APCs with a variety of light weapons. The idea is to NOT destroy the city while offering protection/transportation for a squad of troops.

Third, Wazzu uses helecopter UCAVs for air support. A simple (specialized system) AI for flight and targeting, and a guy working controls somewhere else. The UCAV is a smaller target, less expensive to build/maintain, and doesn't risk human life. There are some disadvantages, but it is a good way to get anti-armor missiles from one place to another quickly and still be able to use them.

There is a lot more to it then that, but those are good near-future (or better) ways to fight in a city.

Traditional tanks, robots, helecopters, jets, and other vehicles (and average infantry) are simply not suited for the task. They lack mobility and stealth.

------

All that said, probably the most important thing in urban warfare is good propaganda. If the civilian residents agree with your ideology, believe you are trying to help them, or otherwise buy into your propaganda, they will support you. That is a BIG boon.

So bringing in aid behind your troops and treating the locals well is probably a good idea.

OOC:

A Few Rich People: Well, you might be able to counteract that by setting off fires all over the place. Just a quick example. Besides, a big mech stomping into an urban environment should, in most cases, be seen and heard first as opposed to the PA team.

If you want to burn the city, be my guest, I'll pull out and roast marshmellows are your infantry melt inside my perimeter.

Cheers

If you want to burn the city, be my guest, I'll pull out and roast marshmellows are your infantry melt inside my perimeter.

Cheers

OOC:

It was just a thought on how to counteract thermal imaging. It doesn't have to be the whole city but rather explosives set to go off when a mech comes near a certain location. I'm sure there are other ways. :)

No, mechs do not have as good armor as tanks, period.

A tank has less surface area to cover the same amount of volume. The armor can be thicker and the tank will still mass less.

Basic mecha structure: Box with legs attached*.
Basic tank structure: Box with treads attached.
Treads can't be very well armored and have a tendancy to blow apart.
Legs can be armored.
Armored legs do, however, weigh somewhat more than treads, generally speaking.

Thus, we find that an equivalent mech based on the same box body and weapons can be better protected overall, but has a higher profile, slightly higher mass, and worse milage on the gas tank. It's not actually that different.

Kudos for you for picking a priority for your army. I have a tendancy not to try to dig in and take cities with nitty gritty force for the very reason that urban fighting is a pain in the behind (along with, of course, my basic tendancy not to invade in the first place). Levelling the city is always a way around that, but tends to leave sore memories.

*Yes, fancy anime mecha are often very human looking, specifically human with a bunch of projections and a worse surface/volume ratio than an actual human the same size.

If you want to burn the city, be my guest, I'll pull out and roast marshmellows are your infantry melt inside my perimeter.

Cheers

OOC:

It was just a thought on how to counteract thermal imaging. It doesn't have to be the whole city but rather explosives set to go off when a mech comes near a certain location. I'm sure there are other ways. :)

Hit the mech with napalm or any other flamin, viscous ooze. No more thermal imaging.

TJ: No, seriously. Particle beams literally have a range of a few meters in an atmosphere...at least those produced by objects portable by a tank, mech, or plane. There is simply too much air in air.

Plasma doesn't work for a few reaons:
1: In vacuum and atmosphere, heat is lost through radiation. In an atmosphere, it is also lost (very quickly) to convection.
2: In an atmosphere, the electrons of a plasma will quickly discharge.
3: In vacuum and atmosphere, plasma tends to disassociate...quickly Think about it, it is basically a superheated (to the point of being completely ionized) gas. It would take quite a magnet and a lot of energy to keep that together.

But again, plasma has a long history of being recognized in NS (primarially because of Menelmacar).

Simple thermal imaging should reveal most infanty, unless you begin equping PA with massive cooling systems, toss in a few uranium depleted 50 cal rounds and you got one dead PA.

IMO

Thermal imaging can not see through trees, buildings, streets, etc. Thermal imaging is also easy to fool and isn't as clear as normal vision. It is extremely useful, but does not make the user omniscient.

And don't forget, the PA troopers (and even advanced infantry) will have it too.

It can see through quite a bit, but yes, after a certain ammount of material it will stop working, same with heartbeat dectors etc. As for thermal on a mech, true, it would work, but as stated above, its stomping about so doubt you will need it.

However, using the princibal behind elephant feet (whom are quite silent) along with electic engins (hydrogen fuel cells, d@mn effiecent) they can be as quite as infanty if made well.

If you want to burn the city, be my guest, I'll pull out and roast marshmellows are your infantry melt inside my perimeter.

Cheers

OOC:

It was just a thought on how to counteract thermal imaging. It doesn't have to be the whole city but rather explosives set to go off when a mech comes near a certain location. I'm sure there are other ways. :)

Hit the mech with napalm or any other flamin, viscous ooze. No more thermal imaging.

OOC: I was just getting to that. :)

Mallberta wrote:
Vrak wrote:
A Few Rich People wrote:
If you want to burn the city, be my guest, I'll pull out and roast marshmellows are your infantry melt inside my perimeter.

Cheers


OOC:

It was just a thought on how to counteract thermal imaging. It doesn't have to be the whole city but rather explosives set to go off when a mech comes near a certain location. I'm sure there are other ways.


Hit the mech with napalm or any other flamin, viscous ooze. No more thermal imaging.


Takes less napalm or visious fluid to take down a PA or infantry than a mech though

No, mechs do not have as good armor as tanks, period.

A tank has less surface area to cover the same amount of volume. The armor can be thicker and the tank will still mass less.

Basic mecha structure: Box with legs attached*.
Basic tank structure: Box with treads attached.
Treads can't be very well armored and have a tendancy to blow apart.
Legs can be armored.
Armored legs do, however, weigh somewhat more than treads, generally speaking.

Thus, we find that an equivalent mech based on the same box body and weapons can be better protected overall, but has a higher profile, slightly higher mass, and worse milage on the gas tank. It's not actually that different.

Kudos for you for picking a priority for your army. I have a tendancy not to try to dig in and take cities with nitty gritty force for the very reason that urban fighting is a pain in the behind (along with, of course, my basic tendancy not to invade in the first place). Levelling the city is always a way around that, but tends to leave sore memories.

*Yes, fancy anime mecha are often very human looking, specifically human with a bunch of projections and a worse surface/volume ratio than an actual human the same size.

Treads are weak, very weak, yes. They are also easier to repair then mecha legs...not that I'd want to be repairing a tank tread in the middle of a fire fight.

Still, I disagree with you. Mechs typically have both arms and legs. Highly complex, large, and vulnerable arms and legs that often contain munitions. The body itself can be a box and well armored, but typically needs more room then a tank. It needs a large powerplant, more fuel, bigger computers, you name it.

I'd rather put that armor on an APC (along with a .50 cal or two, a small/advanced auto-loading guided artillery system for use against enemy armor, a flame thrower, some grenade launchers for smoke/tear-gas/frag grenades, and maybe some other nifty little tricks...all of course operable from INSIDE the vehicle).

I'll say one thing for armor and mechs though. Armor is worth more to a mech then a tank, if only by virtue that everything inside a mech is horrendously expensive.

Replacing a leg or arm can be a breeze with a few snaps there and a little wire trimming/attaching, especially at the joints best place to break cause you just have a spare lower arm. It depends on the design.

:?

It can see through quite a bit, but yes, after a certain ammount of material it will stop working, same with heartbeat dectors etc. As for thermal on a mech, true, it would work, but as stated above, its stomping about so doubt you will need it.

However, using the princibal behind elephant feet (whom are quite silent) along with electic engins (hydrogen fuel cells, d@mn effiecent) they can be as quite as infanty if made well.

Hydrogen fuel cells? You want to stick a tank of (likely liquid) hydrogen in a lightly armored and high profile target inside a warzone? You will be better off giving it a fission/fusion powerplant. Of course, that is more expensive and possibly larger, but at least you have more energy for your energy weapons.

Thats future tech, mine are based off of about 3 year away tech (did the research if you look at my posts) so those would not be efficent (and needs constant water supply less your gonna filter radioation somehow). Hydrogen is cheap, potent, and quite. Good combination.

Replacing a leg or arm can be a breeze with a few snaps there and a little wire trimming/attaching, especially at the joints best place to break cause you just have a spare lower arm. It depends on the design.

:?

That is if you have a spare arm/leg available...and if the joint assembly is not damaged (which it likely would be).

Though I guess a mech with a missing leg or two could still crawl, slowly.

I'm not sure if that ability to crawl is worth the difference in cost between a tread and an uber-complex appendage.

question for Wazzu, Tahar Joblis and you intelligent, rational people who know stuff about physics...

I'm going into space, in a limited fashion, using a 'solar sail'; that is to say, my ship is propelled by photons emitted by the sun (and possibly light batteries at some point). Is this total ridiculousness?

Its quite plausable, however, getting back is the harder part.

question for Wazzu, Tahar Joblis and you intelligent, rational people who know stuff about physics...

I'm going into space, in a limited fashion, using a 'solar sail'; that is to say, my ship is propelled by photons emitted by the sun (and possibly light batteries at some point). Is this total ridiculousness?

Not at all. Your ships will be slow but have constant acceleration. Definately not good for military purposes.

Solar sails will best be used nearer the sun. Your ship's acceleration will drop off by the square of the distance between it and the sun. So if your ship moves from Earth to twice as far away from the sun, it will have 1/4th the acceleration. If it moves 3 times further away, it will have 1/9th.

You'll have a problem with having to replace solar sails...they will occassionally be hit with objects or tear (if moved wrong). You also can't get too near the sun or they will melt (but, so will everything).

Another problem will be tacking. Sailing ships on Earth use friction with the water to tack...to move upstream. Upstream for you will be towards the sun. As far as I know, you won't have a way to do it.

But your not out of options. Ion engines can be used to push you back inwards (they are cheap, efficient, require little energy or fuel, and last a long time...though like sails, not particularly quick).

If you can heat one side of your sail, you may be able to use that as propulsion (your giving off thermal radiation, infra-red light). Then you could turn your ship sideways to the sun (get no acceleration from it) and thrust your ship counter-orbit. That would move you to a lower/faster orbit of the sun.

Solar sails could also be used with high-powered (preferably vacuum-based) lasers...if the lasers are accurate enough. Over super-large distances, even lasers will disperse, which is perfect for a solar sail. Insetad of getting cut, the laser is basically a large and bright flashlight (and on exactly the frequency you want it). So a laser on the moon could help push a solar sail to Mars, or beyond.

I have posted a thread or two in the past with TransCorp (a Wazzu aerospace giant) making solar sail ships as luxury liners, but no one bought any. People here are simply too concerned with "better". And would you rather get to Juipiter in style in a few months? Or in only slightly less style in a few days? Even the elves are moving quickly these days.

I would suggest looking up solar sales on the internet, there are some good ideas out there involving them.

Wazzu- Thanks

My stellar excursions aren't military in nature, so I'm not concerned with speed particularly. I think that consctruciting vacuum lasers will be a nessecary component of the project.

For my return voyage, I was planning on constructing another laser in the asteroid belt. Would this allow for a return voyage providing I didn't head directly 'upstream', but 'tacked' back and forth?

Also, here's some homemade cg's of the project; however the scale is off due to limitations in the graphic program I was using.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96467&highlight=

Mallberta, solar sails are a handy idea. There is actually someone trying to launch one now IRL, (http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/missions/bold_new_voyage.html) as a matter of fact.

TJ: No, seriously. Particle beams literally have a range of a few meters in an atmosphere...at least those produced by objects portable by a tank, mech, or plane. There is simply too much air in air.

Plasma doesn't work for a few reaons:
1: In vacuum and atmosphere, heat is lost through radiation. In an atmosphere, it is also lost (very quickly) to convection.
2: In an atmosphere, the electrons of a plasma will quickly discharge.
3: In vacuum and atmosphere, plasma tends to disassociate...quickly Think about it, it is basically a superheated (to the point of being completely ionized) gas. It would take quite a magnet and a lot of energy to keep that together.

But again, plasma has a long history of being recognized in NS (primarially because of Menelmacar).

You are talking (largely) about electron beams here, and I'm talking about less-than-completely-coherent projectile acceleration (batch particle acceleration, we might say; I'd still stick with what I've been saying, which is that it'd be awfully hard to stick a weapons-grade version on a tank and power it).

And again with the plasma... we're talking about different things. You, here, are talking about Menelmacari plasma weapons. I'm talking about plasma weapons in general.

If you can't think of a single way to weaponize plasma... well, I can think of several, although some would require technical knowhow that we don't have yet. (Go look up ball lightning... it appears to be an interesting terrestrial plasma phenomenon.) The simplest is that the neatest way to make a really hot flamethrower is to superheat something (by one means or another - 100,000 degrees is nice) and then shoot it out as fast as you can - aka "plasma torch." Sure, it's not an elegant, accurate, long range weapon. Neither is a regular flamethrower.

Third, again, same thing. You have a very fixed idea in mind when I say "mech" or "mecha", and that's of giant, very humanoid, anime style fighting robots - precisely what I've been advocating avoiding, by and large, throughout my posts in this thread.

An "arm" could be just a gun turret or missile launch system, no more, no less; it could also be a manipulative appendage. In practical terms, a basic manipulative appendage or turret isn't that complicated a device. In the former case, losing it isn't much of a deal; in the latter case, it's not really much more vulnerable than a tank turret.

There isn't any additional need - beyond the basic issue of leg placement and balance, easily addressed computationally with a few thousand dollars' worth of computers (a drop in the bucket compared to total tank or mech prices) - for complicated and expensive sensors and equipment when going from tank to mech.

Furthermore, not all "mecha" are strictly humanoid - 4 or more legs are somewhat more common to realistic legged armor designs, as you may have noticed reading carefully through the thread. For example, go back and look at my legged light tank, there is a link to it in here somewhere.

Solar sails will best be used nearer the sun. Your ship's acceleration will drop off by the square of the distance between it and the sun. So if your ship moves from Earth to twice as far away from the sun, it will have 1/4th the acceleration. If it moves 3 times further away, it will have 1/9th.

You'll have a problem with having to replace solar sails...they will occassionally be hit with objects or tear (if moved wrong). You also can't get too near the sun or they will melt (but, so will everything).

Both of those problems can be solved by using magnetosails instead of physical solar sails. Basically, you get a really huge solenoid, and inject a small amount of plasma into the magnetic field to inflate it many times its original size. The pressure of charged particles of solar wind provides thrust, which remains constant, because the area of the magnetic bubble would increase as it got farther away from the sun. Another plus is inherent radiation shielding.

Downsides:
1. You would have to carry a small amount of fuel.
2. In order to move back towards the sun, whether you use ion engines (actually, especially if you use ion engines) or just fall back, you have to turn of the solenoid, which releases the plasma. Do that a lot, and you might run out of that small amount of fuel required to start up. That might be countered by collecting excess charged particles that get stuck in your artificial magnetosphere, but I have no idea how you would do that.
3. You can't use lasers to give it a boost.

Although I advoate fully particle beam weapons in space, as they are more handy than bullets and mass-driver slugs, they just don't work thier weight in atmospheric conditions. Atmospheric particles make for very unfavorable conditions.

For example, in space, I use antimatter cannons. These would not work in atmospheric environments because their effect would be so dampened by annihilating atmospheric particles that they would have a range of only a few feet, not to mention cooling problems.

*bump*

(Sorry to gravedig this, but it's an old post originally mine, that I wanted an ally to see.)

No probs, its apreciated.

From what Ive read, it seems most people are advocating their own systems, but there are a few gems in there, a lot of the downsides to mecha I can see also apply to Tanks, also a few others, (like higher profile, etc) however it looks like its a trade off. (Mecha are more manouverable etc.)

Im not talking about battle tech or anime systems here, both i feel are a tad unfeasable, basicaly a tank body with a different motive system, is probably the best.

Also, a society that has never developed wheeled or surface based motive systems like wheels and tracks, but has however developed power armour and arteficial musculature would be more inclined to develop a leg based system.


On the upside, having mecha means cool looking pictures!

Also, a society that has never developed wheeled or surface based motive systems like wheels and tracks, but has however developed power armour and arteficial musculature would be more inclined to develop a leg based system.

Um, might I pull out a bit of that?

"society that has never developed... systems like wheels"

Why do they have anything beyond a dude and a horse, if that? The wheel is pretty much par for the course, up there with fire and "smack Gug on head with bone". ;)

Um, might I pull out a bit of that?

"society that has never developed... systems like wheels"

Why do they have anything beyond a dude and a horse, if that? The wheel is pretty much par for the course, up there with fire and "smack Gug on head with bone". ;)

Re-read his post. ;)
He didn't say he hasn't developed the wheel. He just hasn't developed wheeled vehicles. (And the wheel isn't exactly necessary. None of the great new world civilizations had the wheel. http://www.ambergriscaye.com/museum/digit4.html)

Re-read his post. ;) Done.

He didn't say he hasn't developed the wheel. He just hasn't developed wheeled vehicles.

My bad, but modern life is kind of dependant on wheeled vehicles. After all, you would need quite some technology to your credit to develope the pneumatics, hydraulics, electronics, and servometrics (there's that damn wheel again, but I digress) to run a fully functional suit of powered armor. This requires a modern (early-20th century) tech at least, plus the economy to develope the tech. Without mass transit (damn wheels), that would be impossible. A society lacking the simple power of the wheel could never evolve beyond it, barring some excrutiating circumstances, such as being left alone for a thousand years, and having an entirely self-sufficient nation with interconnecting waterways.

And should you, lacking the perfect situation and the absolute perfect random events for an aeon or two, get attacked (OMGZ NOES) by a neighbor before you could build your powered armor...

Did you know that in WWII, the Poles charged the Nazi Panzerkorps with horses? Any takers on how that ended?

And the wheel isn't exactly necessary. None of the great new world civilizations had the wheel.

And yes, we all saw how well they did. Let us just look to the giant Mayan civilization which dominates much of the world to this day, and appreciate the success of their peoples... oh, wait, they got trounced. Nevermind.

(Damn wheel.)

DISCLAIMER:
-This post is not intended as a mean dig, simply as dry humor, so please appreciate the non-abbrasive intent.-

...an entirely self-sufficient nation with interconnecting waterways.

:D FYI, ANA actually RPs an aquatic ocean dwelling nation. His reply was to me, so he didn't need to explain it. ;)

And yes, we all saw how well they did. Let us just look to the giant Mayan civilization which dominates much of the world to this day, and appreciate the success of their peoples... oh, wait, they got trounced. Nevermind.

(Damn wheel.)

There was significantly more to the fall of the advanced New World cultures than not having the wheel, but that's a digression I'll leave to General.

DISCLAIMER:
-This post is not intended as a mean dig, simply as dry humor, so please appreciate the non-abbrasive intent.-

None taken. :)

Pedantic historical nitpick; the Aztecs did in fact have the wheel. It's attested to from pre-Columbian ceramic toys. What they didn't have was something to pull it; the only suitable mammal, the Llama, never made it to Mesoamerica from the Andes before the Europeans turned up.

(This ignores the fact that the wheelbarrow is a very useful human-powered wheeled thingy - I'm not sure why they didn't invent it.)

But yes, to get back on topic; I'm not really sure how you'd develop complex civilisation without the wheel - practically everything in our society uses it in some form or another.

Without it, power armour, mecha, or whatever are pretty much a no-go, but given that this is a nation that lives under the sea I'm sure we can ignore that in favour of RP fun. Because it is, after all, all about fun in the end.

With regards to tanks, there is essentially a size (or rather, weight) limit to what you can build; Hitler's Maus surpassed it (I think I've heard that there was no bridge in Europe strong enough to hold it).

With that said, you can build bigger - I've worked out tracks for sandcrawler-type things in the past, and GMC Military Arms builds giant tanks by, essentially, ignoring ground pressure - but there's a degree of reality to be sacrificed when doing so. Eh. Reality, who needs it?

I personally don't use mecha, however, because the combination of ground pressure, armour, and profile problems require more suspension-of-disbelief than I can offer up.

I do have power armour, however, although that's much more like high-powered infantry than battlefield-bestriding collossi. The ground pressure, armour, and profile all fit within my comfort zone.

OK, What I was saying is, yes, my society DOES have wheels.. but not wheeled or tracked motive systems, mainly because they are based in the sea, a 3 dimensional enviroment, where wheels and tracks would be pretty useless.

And once more.. mine are not going to be battlefield striding collossi, like Battletech or Anime, (even though some of my other puppets DO have those kind of things) merely tanks with legs kind of things..

OK, What I was saying is, yes, my society DOES have wheels.. but not wheeled or tracked motive systems, mainly because they are based in the sea, a 3 dimensional enviroment, where wheels and tracks would be pretty useless.

And once more.. mine are not going to be battlefield striding collossi, like Battletech or Anime, (even though some of my other puppets DO have those kind of things) merely tanks with legs kind of things..

Okay, that sounds kind of cool. While my critical mind shudders at a society developing without wheeled transit (it's so easy!), the potentials for a cool story abound, and I'll give it a pass in my book.

Oh, and thank God on the no ubermechae. I use some small ACS units, but nothing bigger than a personal suit for Armored Infantry maneuvers. The gigundus ones are just begging for the world's biggest tripline.

OK, so how about other future tactics? Most people seem to be debating the merits of whether to use mecha, mecha vs tanks etc. That is mostly a strategic decision, however, and is not of much practical value to anyone roleplaying tactics not involving or centering around mecha and tanks.

Like, what about other ground vehicles (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/talon.htm) like unmanned mini-tanks? Or as I like to think of them, Self-Propelled Small Arms. With the capacity for mass production in future technological societies being what it is, I might very well fear an army of hordes and hordes of mini-tanks instead of larger things. Especially as, each mecha or tank lost is a loss of a highly specialized and expensively trained crew (as well as the expensive machine). Each mini-tank lost is just some money (less than the cost of most missiles, using today's tech) and manufacturing material. The individual machines will be smaller, and you won't have any problems with them being too heavy for a road, or so big that anyone with an RPG and eyes can hit the damn thing. The main issues seem to be with command and control, once you get past any engineering hurdles.

Thoughts?

Of course, it's all pointless in consent-based roleplay in NS - victory is achieved not through tactics but through convincing your opponent nation's player to lose. If you can't do that, you never win.

-snip-
Well, my nation actually fights around a concept of Swarm Doctrine, in which the Engagement Forceis comprised of small, fast, heavy hitting systems, like HMMWVs with LOSAT, or VTOL gunships. Very little emphasis is placed on "staying power", armor, or slugging ability, resulting in a force who's principle isn't "takes a licking and keeps on ticking", but rather "first look, first shot, first kill".

The disadvantage to this is quite obvious. It's really hard to break fixed emplacements with all these light vehicles and rapid movement, and it is dependant upon informational superiority over the enemy, as well as full logistics.

The advantage, though, is quite nice. Since the entire unit is fluid, combined arms, and bottom-up strcutured, the amount of firepower that can be leveled is actually much greater than a set of massive, slower units. The force is bound together through BattleNet, a computer network that links the military (yes, there are massive safeguards on hacking/theft, but I don't have room for those). A local "Advisor" (AI) coordinates the movements for the human commanders, and the entire force is constantly moving, contracting and expanding on small enemy segments.

In this design, an entire sector of the Swarm will suddenly and violently "contract" upon a small set of the enemy units, engage, destroy, disengage, and expand. The enemy is not engaged en masse, but piecemeal, allowing the swarm to rip an enemy apart through confusion and localized firepower. Combined with the ability for near instantaneous fire support and branch integration (BattleNet), the Swarm is a whole new type of combat to enounter, with it's own strengths and weaknesses, and it makes for fun RP.

Well, my nation actually fights around a concept of Swarm Doctrine, in which the Engagement Forceis comprised of small, fast, heavy hitting systems, like HMMWVs with LOSAT, or VTOL gunships. Very little emphasis is placed on "staying power", armor, or slugging ability, resulting in a force who's principle isn't "takes a licking and keeps on ticking", but rather "first look, first shot, first kill".

The disadvantage to this is quite obvious. It's really hard to break fixed emplacements with all these light vehicles and rapid movement, and it is dependant upon informational superiority over the enemy, as well as full logistics.

The advantage, though, is quite nice. Since the entire unit is fluid, combined arms, and bottom-up strcutured, the amount of firepower that can be leveled is actually much greater than a set of massive, slower units. The force is bound together through BattleNet, a computer network that links the military (yes, there are massive safeguards on hacking/theft, but I don't have room for those). A local "Advisor" (AI) coordinates the movements for the human commanders, and the entire force is constantly moving, contracting and expanding on small enemy segments.

In this design, an entire sector of the Swarm will suddenly and violently "contract" upon a small set of the enemy units, engage, destroy, disengage, and expand. The enemy is not engaged en masse, but piecemeal, allowing the swarm to rip an enemy apart through confusion and localized firepower. Combined with the ability for near instantaneous fire support and branch integration (BattleNet), the Swarm is a whole new type of combat to enounter, with it's own strengths and weaknesses, and it makes for fun RP.


:) All I'll say on this is just add Santa Barbara's post, and you'll have one bit of where I'm aiming for, at the moment...

Mines in space.

I don't think much of 'em. I like mines, but in space there's really not much opportunity to use them near as I can tell. You mine areas in water or earth that the enemy has to go through, to make it more difficult. But can you really do that in space? The enemy never 'has' to go through an area. You could lay them down in a place you think they're going for, but it's unlikely in space combat that they won't just move around it. It's hard to hide a mine from future tech sensors, too. People talk of mining asteroid fields, but then I think lots of people think asteroid fields are kinda like how they are in SW - a practical barrier anyway composed of slow moving, densely ordered rocks. I don't think that'd be a successful tactic against anything but noncombatants.

And practically anything works against noncombatants.

Indeed - asteroid belts aren't densely packed, and space mines are unlikely to work.

If you want densely packed-ness, try a ring system, like the one around Saturn; that's a lot more dense.

About the only way a "space mine" would work would be if you plotted the orbit of some satellite that couldn't dodge, and then sent a mine/bomb/whatever on a retrograde orbit to intercept it. But then, it would work equally well with a lump of rock in retrograde orbit, at least on modern satellites; they don't armour them against collision, after all. That may change, in NS, where space travel is cheap and easy for all the family.

[edit] And even then, if you miss by a couple of hundred meters - not so hard to do, in space - you've wasted a bomb. Targetting must be very very accurate.

[edit2]This (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/astro.html#3) is a very nice little thing on spacedy tactics. In fact, that whole site is pretty good.

[edit3] Scolopendra says the science is dodgy. Scolopendra is more knowledgeable than I, so I'm inclined to agree.