[BT] Real life Battlearmor?
Adam Froehlig
Marine Times today, discussing the idea of developing exoskeletons for
military use. Don't remember the full story, but it mentioned many
contracts let for a full-body exoskeleton "prototype demonstration" by
2005.
I can try to get a copy of the article tomorrow.
Froggie | http://www.ajfroggie.com/battletech/
lupi
part of it. They were looking at developing an enhanced structural system
allowing the soldier to carry more armor for body protection and also give
them extra strength and endurance for battlefield conditions.
lupi
--
Remember the Liberty
http://www.ussliberty.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/liberty/petition.html
And play Battletech
Adam Froehlig <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote in message
news:3B785364...@mississippi.net...
Scott Kasai
news:FPYd7.276814$qc.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> I saw a clip on TV not to long ago about future army technology and this
was
> part of it. They were looking at developing an enhanced structural system
> allowing the soldier to carry more armor for body protection and also
give
> them extra strength and endurance for battlefield conditions.
Not really surprising that they would want to go this way. While in all
technicality, powered armor is going to be just as expensive, if not more
so than your typical main battle tank, it also means fewer casualties on
your side due to having better protection against most small arms fire,
especially with the heavy use of machine guns and assault rifles these
days. And the fact that urban combat is better suited for infantry than
tanks when it comes to block by block fighting.
Another good example made by a Japanese Animation series, Gasaraki, of the
use of Bipedal Weapon systems, in this case, the Tactical Armor, is, when
it is done properly, the ability to be more manueverable than most of the
ground based weapon systems and be able to be in areas conventional armor
would not be.
I am also sure, that often times, infantry wished that they had more than
just the specialist weapons they had available to route out an enemy
position, and with the current use of 30 and 50 calibur type machine gun
emplacements, and the lack of getting armor support, mostly because of the
places to get armor support is almost impossible.
If I remember also correctly, this has been mentioned a few times before
hand. Heck, they are also working on a SEAL suit that they can wear
practically anywhere so they don't have to change out.
Shiro Ryukami
they never really make clear some of the systems used to make the darn
things move...Like what exactly powers the things? Well I haven't seen part
4 yet...maybe I jussed missed it?
Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
mainly for the reason the tanks turrets can't transverse fast enough to hit
them!!
Skywalkre
Eh, I wouldn't say that. While the series held true to RL physics opposed to
the anime laws of physics, it did a bad job of portraying the advantages mecha
might have over more conventional vehicles.
>Although
>they never really make clear some of the systems used to make the darn
>things move...Like what exactly powers the things?
They apparently do later on, and it has everything to do with some mystical
power source (from what I've read in reviews and what friends have told me),
not one based on reality.
>Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
>armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
>battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
Again, I have to disagree. While the TA's were impressive in the series it had
less to do with a realistic portrayal of combat or any inherent advantage in a
mecha platform than it did with the much higher level of technology present in
the TA's and the ineptitude of their opponent's in the armored vehicles.
On a side note... what exactly is a Close Assault Vehicle? I've only seen the
first episode of the series (all I needed to see actually...) so are you
referring to the scene where the American force is neutralized by the enemy
TA's? While the tanks didn't look much like Abrams I was under the impression
that's what they were.
-sky
Scott Kasai
news:tns16tt...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gasaraki is an Awesome series...Very realistically done as well...Although
> they never really make clear some of the systems used to make the darn
> things move...Like what exactly powers the things? Well I haven't seen
part
> 4 yet...maybe I jussed missed it?
Actually, they did. It is an artificial muscle system they derived from
something they call "Mile One". Much like what myomer is in BattleTech.
They mentioned that the transmission system is not like your traditional
transmission system, but more of independant transmission systems working
together, learning to work better.
> Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
> armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
> battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
> mainly for the reason the tanks turrets can't transverse fast enough to
hit
> them!!
Actually, this was also hit on by another anime OAV called Maddox, Metal
Skin Panic.
The point of a Tactical Armor/BattleArmor unit, is due to the ability to do
things most tanks cannot, which is manueverability and the ability to be
more mobile than most tanks. One of the main reasons why tank forces are
not always the sole forces going in. Infantry and motorized infantry is a
must along with Tanks. World War 2 and The Korean and Vietnam War proved
that tanks are still not the end all of combat, and still need infantry
support.
Scott Kasai
news:20010818154543...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >Gasaraki is an Awesome series...Very realistically done as well
>
> Eh, I wouldn't say that. While the series held true to RL physics opposed
to
> the anime laws of physics, it did a bad job of portraying the advantages
mecha
> might have over more conventional vehicles.
Well, the series itself is held closer to current day technology. Most of
the Mecha based storylines are set in a much more far flung future. Just as
BattleTech is taking place in 31st century, a millenium from now. And right
now, the only real advantage Mechs will have over most conventional
vehicles, is the ability to go into areas conventional vehicles were not
designed for. It allows more versatility that most conventional vehicles
are not able to do. Personally, it was fairly realistic in the advantages
of mechs given our current state of technology.
> >Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
> >armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
> >battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
>
> Again, I have to disagree. While the TA's were impressive in the series
it had
> less to do with a realistic portrayal of combat or any inherent advantage
in a
> mecha platform than it did with the much higher level of technology
present in
> the TA's and the ineptitude of their opponent's in the armored vehicles.
Well, unless you are privvy to the future in the next 50 years, your
expectations of 'realistic' portrayal of mech vs conventional vehicles
combat might not be a fair assessment of things yet to come. Read Harry
Turtledove in his alternate history stories, like World at War, where 1940
conventional forces engage in combat with 1980-90 military hardware. The
introduction of weapon systems that are beyond our current comprehension,
does not allow us to fanthom how to handle or deal with them. That is the
deal of initial surprised of new weapon systems. How do you fight something
you have never encountered, guessing and using tactics you are familiar
with. History is full of examples of how we reacted to changes in warfare,
and things we have not encountered before.
> On a side note... what exactly is a Close Assault Vehicle? I've only seen
the
> first episode of the series (all I needed to see actually...) so are you
> referring to the scene where the American force is neutralized by the
enemy
> TA's? While the tanks didn't look much like Abrams I was under the
impression
> that's what they were.
CAVs are for Urban combat, not meant to blast things apart like Abrams. But
with reasonable firepower to hit armored units within the cities. Abrams
are mostly open area tanks, meant for speed and heavy firepower. In city,
you want to be able to destroy armor, but not bring down an entire city
down. And in most cases, you will be fighting infantry, not so much armor,
given cities are not the most manueverable places for tanks.
Skywalkre
>>
>> Eh, I wouldn't say that. While the series held true to RL physics opposed
>> to the anime laws of physics, it did a bad job of portraying the advantages
>> mecha might have over more conventional vehicles.
>
>Well, the series itself is held closer to current day technology.
The conventional forces found in the series were held close to or behind
present day technology. The TA's on the other hand were clearly way ahead in
their technology which marred the series from the start from being useful for
seeing the advantages that mecha might have over more conventional forces in
certain situations.
>> >Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
>> >armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
>> >battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
>>
>> Again, I have to disagree. While the TA's were impressive in the series
>it had
>> less to do with a realistic portrayal of combat or any inherent advantage
>in a
>> mecha platform than it did with the much higher level of technology
>present in
>> the TA's and the ineptitude of their opponent's in the armored vehicles.
>
>Well, unless you are privvy to the future in the next 50 years, your
>expectations of 'realistic' portrayal of mech vs conventional vehicles
>combat might not be a fair assessment of things yet to come.
I'm not saying I'm privvy to how combat will evolve in the next 50 years, but
rather the treatment of current forces in Gasaraki was poorly done. Just to
name a few examples there was the scene where the Japanese tanks and IFV's were
running around in the city by themselves (armored forces aren't trained like
that in RL, so why place them in such a role in the movie?) and at least two
times tanks had the TA's in their sights but didn't fire for one reason or
another. If your opponent doesn't fire back at you anything you send against
it will look impressive.
This, coupled with the fact that the TA's had superior technology, made the
movie less than ideal for comparing mecha against conventional vehicles. It
was a loaded deck for the mecha from the get go, which is understandable given
the fact it was an anime series with mecha as a lead role, not a serious study
of the impact humanoid shaped vehicles might have in combat.
I have no problem saying that, but what bothers me is when the movie is slanted
like it is and then called realistic. I'm not against mecha and I believe they
could've done a better job showing the advantages of the platform, but that
wasn't their focus and they didn't really try to do that. If it was their
focus then mecha wouldn't have been exalted as the ultimate battlefield
platform like in the end of the first chapter. I haven't seen the rest so I
don't know if the TA's go up against conventional forces with current day
technology and competence, or better yet against conventional forces with the
same technology as the TA's. If either one of those situations is true then I
just might be interested in seeing the rest of the series.
>CAVs are for Urban combat, not meant to blast things apart like Abrams. But
>with reasonable firepower to hit armored units within the cities.
Hmm... my question now then is is this something from BT? I don't play the
game (or rather... I never got into it and it's been a long time since I looked
at it). The reason I asked originally is because I've never heard of the of
such a vehicle or even the term in modern military circles or from the past
(the only time I've even seen that acronym is for the new mecha game CAV). In
that case, if that's what the TA's were attacking when they wiped out that
American force then I can understand why they might have been so successful
given the technology of those vehicles didn't match up with the Abrams.
-sky
Scott Kasai
> >> >Gasaraki is an Awesome series...Very realistically done as well
> >>
> >> Eh, I wouldn't say that. While the series held true to RL physics
opposed
> >> to the anime laws of physics, it did a bad job of portraying the
advantages
> >> mecha might have over more conventional vehicles.
> >
> >Well, the series itself is held closer to current day technology.
>
> The conventional forces found in the series were held close to or behind
> present day technology. The TA's on the other hand were clearly way ahead
in
> their technology which marred the series from the start from being useful
for
> seeing the advantages that mecha might have over more conventional forces
in
> certain situations.
Uhm... you are severely missing the point of Gasaraki then. First off, the
TAs are of course going to be ahead in technology... Why? Uhm, given it is
*gasp* NEW TECHNOLOGY. As in, undiscovered and prototype technology. This
is one thing you are missing. The history of warfare through technology has
been of the following:
World War I, introduced Tanks, when conventional warfare consisted of
infantry, calvary, wagons. Tanks weren't exactly conventional technology.
World War II, introduction of the Messerschmidt Jet Fighters, V2 Rockets,
and the Atomic Bomb. Again, technology that wasn't widely available and
developed new means of fighting and created, *gasp* Strategic warfare, which
almost eliminated conventional warfare. ECM and ECCM, created a new form of
warfare, meaning that now we focus on different targets, not on military
force.
> >Well, unless you are privvy to the future in the next 50 years, your
> >expectations of 'realistic' portrayal of mech vs conventional vehicles
> >combat might not be a fair assessment of things yet to come.
>
> I'm not saying I'm privvy to how combat will evolve in the next 50 years,
but
> rather the treatment of current forces in Gasaraki was poorly done. Just
to
> name a few examples there was the scene where the Japanese tanks and IFV's
were
> running around in the city by themselves (armored forces aren't trained
like
> that in RL, so why place them in such a role in the movie?) and at least
two
> times tanks had the TA's in their sights but didn't fire for one reason or
> another. If your opponent doesn't fire back at you anything you send
against
> it will look impressive.
Uhm... Again, you miss the point of this again. You are facing a new form
of weapon. The element of surprise is there and the unsurity of how you
deal with a possible threat. Take some time and re-read the Blood Legacy
Trilogy for BattleTech. Mechwarriors who were used to Infantry being cannon
fodder and their first encounter with the Elementals. Shin Yodama used a
machine gun against it, and was caught off guard on how it bounced back and
did some damage to him again, hitting it with something that would normally
be Anti-Armor, then Anti-Mech weapon, with nothing left to prove what happen
short of a severely messed up mech and barely able to live to tell about it.
> This, coupled with the fact that the TA's had superior technology, made
the
> movie less than ideal for comparing mecha against conventional vehicles.
It
> was a loaded deck for the mecha from the get go, which is understandable
given
> the fact it was an anime series with mecha as a lead role, not a serious
study
> of the impact humanoid shaped vehicles might have in combat.
Again, you miss the point that TAs were not that very superior in high tech.
With the exception of the transmission system, that TA was using standard
Armor and electronics you would find in most conventional systems. The only
difference is they are not loaded out like a tank with heavier anti-armor
weapons. At best, they are loaded down with infantry level anti-armor
weapons.
> I have no problem saying that, but what bothers me is when the movie is
slanted
> like it is and then called realistic. I'm not against mecha and I believe
they
> could've done a better job showing the advantages of the platform, but
that
> wasn't their focus and they didn't really try to do that. If it was their
> focus then mecha wouldn't have been exalted as the ultimate battlefield
> platform like in the end of the first chapter. I haven't seen the rest so
I
> don't know if the TA's go up against conventional forces with current day
> technology and competence, or better yet against conventional forces with
the
> same technology as the TA's. If either one of those situations is true
then I
> just might be interested in seeing the rest of the series.
Actually, it was closer to using current day military hardware versus going
ga-ga like something like Gundam Wing, or Gundam or Macross. Bipedal Weapon
systems will have an advantage over conventional ground forces in things
like rugged terrain, and poor weather conditions. In Urban warfare, it will
have better manueverability than what we can do with tanks.
> >CAVs are for Urban combat, not meant to blast things apart like Abrams.
But
> >with reasonable firepower to hit armored units within the cities.
>
> Hmm... my question now then is is this something from BT? I don't play
the
> game (or rather... I never got into it and it's been a long time since I
looked
> at it). The reason I asked originally is because I've never heard of the
of
> such a vehicle or even the term in modern military circles or from the
past
> (the only time I've even seen that acronym is for the new mecha game CAV).
In
> that case, if that's what the TA's were attacking when they wiped out that
> American force then I can understand why they might have been so
successful
> given the technology of those vehicles didn't match up with the Abrams.
Uhm... No... If you look at the various warfare vehicles, there are Close
Action Vehicles as well as APCs. There is also AA vehicles, which are often
seen to act as a means of support. There is also mobile artillery pieces,
mobile Anti-missile defense systems and mobile radar support systems.
Obviously, there will be weapon systems that will allow for Urban warfare
where you don't go blasting to pieces the buildings. APCs themselves are
outfitted in such a way as well.
Please also note that for all vehicles, there are weak points. Turrets are
weak points, Treads are weakpoints, Engine Blocks are weak points for tanks.
A billion dollar Abrahms can be taken down by a World War II Russian T-72
MBT if done properly. Another good example is the concern of Disel Subs in
the hands of terrorists versus our Nuclear fleet. Terrorists don't need to
go head to head against our sub fleet if they have a very good commander to
work his way around our fleets and sonar nets. Advance technology will
always have a weak point that can be exploited by primative means.
Mike Miller
> >Gasaraki is an Awesome series...Very realistically done as well
>
> Eh, I wouldn't say that. While the series held true to RL
> physics opposed to the anime laws of physics, it did a bad job
> of portraying the advantages mecha might have over more
> conventional vehicles.
Ayup. The TAs could've been next-generation (or generation after
next) tanks and still done virtually everything they did as mecha.
> They apparently do later on, and it has everything to do with some mystical
> power source (from what I've read in reviews and what friends have told me),
> not one based on reality.
Mystical or advanced alien that humans could previously only harness
mystically because they didn't understand the tech.
It's some sort of myomer in any case, actuated with mind power or the
like. I'm still not sure why the pilots stress out so much from using
it.
> >Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of the
> >armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
> >battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and Bradleys
>
> Again, I have to disagree. While the TA's were impressive in the series
> it had less to do with a realistic portrayal of combat or any inherent
> advantage in a mecha platform than it did with the much higher level of
> technology present in the TA's and the ineptitude of their opponent's
> in the armored vehicles.
I agree with Skywalkre. The first time I saw Gasaraki, I was
impressed with the near future, high plausibility feel of the mecha (TA)
in it.
After a few more viewings, I began to see that Gasaraki was rather
goofy...no, naive and anime-educated with respect to its mecha. It
didn't really show any special advantages of mecha vs. conventional
vehicles, it showed a very high tech vehicle vs. older ones. That
the high tech vehicle had legs and arms was almost an afterthought.
About the only real 'mecha' attribute the TAs displayed was getting
on top of buildings (primarily via winches and, to a lesser extent,
jump jets). Their other cutting-edge attributes were mostly from
accurate shooting, highly accurate missiles, and moving too close,
too fast to be easily tracked by older generation weapon systems.
These were not mecha-only attributes and could easily have been
replicated by a helicopter or light armored vehicle that gave the same
level of lipservice to physics that TAs did.
Still, it's a great series. I eagerly await a healthy copy of the
fifth tape at my local anime rental store (the distributer sent a
blank tape in the right box).
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are
some fantastic pictures." --George W. Bush, as quoted in Time
Skywalkre
>> or behind present day technology. The TA's on the other hand
>> were clearly way ahead in their technology which marred the
>> series from the start from being useful for seeing the advantages
>> that mecha might have over more conventional forces in certain
>> situations.
>
>Uhm... you are severely missing the point of Gasaraki then.
As I said later in my post Gasaraki clearly wasn't intended to be a study of
the advantages of mecha over conventional armed forces. All I'm commenting on
is that it's foolish for folks to point to the series as if it was made for
that purpose. If it was they wouldn't have made the decisions that they did
which I outlined above.
>First off, the
>TAs are of course going to be ahead in technology... Why? Uhm, given it is
>*gasp* NEW TECHNOLOGY. As in, undiscovered and prototype technology. This
>is one thing you are missing. The history of warfare through technology has
>been of the following:
>
>World War I, introduced Tanks, when conventional warfare consisted of
>infantry, calvary, wagons. Tanks weren't exactly conventional technology.
>World War II, introduction of the Messerschmidt Jet Fighters, V2 Rockets,
>and the Atomic Bomb.
The main problem I have with Gasaraki is that the TA's were ahead of their
time. From watching the first chapter it was clear that the conventional
forces in it were either modeled on present day forces or older ones. One
thing to note with the examples you give is that those advancements were made
using technology of the day but applying it in ways never before done. Since
Gasaraki is set in the present day, could we build a machine with that
capability as seen in the series? Absolutely not. The technology that would
make such a vehicle possible would also have repercussions on the more
conventional forces which they were facing which would have led to a different
force than we saw. It didn't. Either the technology of the TA's was hidden
(which it apparently was) and in which case the comparison isn't fair since the
two forces don't start out the same or either the technology was available to
be used in other forces and wasn't, in which case the defeat of the
conventional armed forces at the hand of the TA's is due more to the
foolishness of the military establishments that had the chance to adapt (this
isn't that hard to believe either since most of the conventional forces in the
show were incompetent to say the least).
>> Just to name a few examples there was the scene where the
>> Japanese tanks and IFV's were running around in the city by
>> themselves (armored forces aren't trained like that in RL, so
>> why place them in such a role in the movie?) and at least two
>> times tanks had the TA's in their sights but didn't fire for one
>> reason or another. If your opponent doesn't fire back at you
>> anything you send against it will look impressive.
>
>Uhm... Again, you miss the point of this again. You are facing a new form
>of weapon. The element of surprise is there and the unsurity of how you
>deal with a possible threat. Take some time and re-read the Blood Legacy
>Trilogy for BattleTech.
You seem to assume that since I'm posting in r.g.m. that I'm an avid BT fan and
would know what you're talking about. ;)
While I did read the first book of the series (you lucked out ^_~ ) I wasn't
all that impressed and since have spent my time reading books on the real thing
(military theory and conflict) by authors who have seen combat, trained for it,
or studied it their whole life. From what I've read I'll say it again: the
conventional forces in the series were poorly portrayed. But that's
understandable since it wasn't meant to be a serious study. Take it for what
it is as good entertainment, but just don't call it 'realistic'.
>> This, coupled with the fact that the TA's had superior technology,
>> made the movie less than ideal for comparing mecha against
>> conventional vehicles. It was a loaded deck for the mecha from
>> the get go, which is understandable given the fact it was an anime
>> series with mecha as a lead role, not a serious study of the impact
>> humanoid shaped vehicles might have in combat.
>
>Again, you miss the point that TAs were not that very superior in high tech.
>With the exception of the transmission system, that TA was using standard
>Armor and electronics you would find in most conventional systems. The only
>difference is they are not loaded out like a tank with heavier anti-armor
>weapons. At best, they are loaded down with infantry level anti-armor
>weapons.
I'm sorry, but the TA's were VERY superior in their capability. The series
just did a good job of portraying them as being similar in tech. If they
weren't all that superior, how were 4-6 TA's (I forget the exact number) able
to take out that American force like they did? Are you saying that we could
build something with today's technology that could do the same thing?
While I could go on and list examples this message is going on long enough.
However, if you'd like to hear I wouldn't mind going back and watching the
first chapter, taking a few notes, and posting them here.
>Bipedal Weapon
>systems will have an advantage over conventional ground forces in things
>like rugged terrain, and poor weather conditions. In Urban warfare, it will
>have better manueverability than what we can do with tanks.
I agree here, it's just that Gasaraki doesn't show this. Instead, they show a
few TA's take out a much larger armored force in the open desert. That
situation, while great for telling the story, was a horrible example of a
mecha's advantages over conventional vehicles. As someone else already
mentioned, for that one scenarion at least, they could have accomplished the
same thing using a more conventional vehicle equipped with the same technology.
In another example they show armored vehicles running around in a training
scenario hunting for the TA's (as I posted in my last message, modern forces
wouldn't do that so why would they in the movie?). There's also another scene
where the TA takes out the lead tank in a column of Allied armor advancing into
the capitol. A single infantryman could've done the same thing while being
easier to hide (actually able to enter buildings, not just stand on top).
The only thing in the first chapter that seemed to portray the advantage mecha
might have over conventional vehicles was the climbing of buildings. However,
I highly doubt the effectiveness of such a technigue in RL (the weight of the
machines, the inability to hide, etc...).
>Uhm... No... If you look at the various warfare vehicles, there are Close
>Action Vehicles as well as APCs.
And the name of one currently used in the US would be...? While I can't speak
for the Japanese military I can clearly say I've never heard of such a vehicle
in the American arsenal and I don't know of any that exist or have existed in
the last 50 years. Even a search on google or searchmil.com doesn't turn up
any results for CAV let alone close assault vehicle or close action vehicle. I
guess you could say that the new 105mm equipped LAV's that the US IBCT's are
fielding count as a 'Close Assault Vehicle', but it's only recently been
deployed and it'd be the first of it's kind in the US Arsenal. The point being
I'm starting to assume this is a term from BT or from the series itself, and
even if the vehicles the TA's took out were this hypothetical urban assault
vehicle then the criticism I have on their handling and lack of technology
don't really change.
-sky
Scott Kasai
news:5dcb47db.01082...@posting.google.com...
> like. I'm still not sure why the pilots stress out so much from using
> it.
For Gasaraki, it was based on the 'mystical' nature of the Mile One sample,
where the Kugai Armor was driven by the Kai, and it was mostly on the level
of psyche. While the TAs were mostly technological in its design, the
'Pilot' stress you are refering two is the level of performance that Yushiro
was able to eek out of the TA system that none of the pilots were able to
eek out of it. Which is why Mizuru and Yushiro were considered 'special'
with their 'Fakes'.
> > >Anyway, In Gasaraki, they very clearly demonstrate the advantages of
the
> > >armor suit vs' tanks... A small unit of 6 TA's is able to demolish a
> > >battallion of what looks to be CAVs (Close Assaault Vehicle) and
Bradleys
> >
> > Again, I have to disagree. While the TA's were impressive in the series
> > it had less to do with a realistic portrayal of combat or any inherent
> > advantage in a mecha platform than it did with the much higher level of
> > technology present in the TA's and the ineptitude of their opponent's
> > in the armored vehicles.
>
> I agree with Skywalkre. The first time I saw Gasaraki, I was
> impressed with the near future, high plausibility feel of the mecha (TA)
> in it.
>
> After a few more viewings, I began to see that Gasaraki was rather
> goofy...no, naive and anime-educated with respect to its mecha. It
> didn't really show any special advantages of mecha vs. conventional
> vehicles, it showed a very high tech vehicle vs. older ones. That
> the high tech vehicle had legs and arms was almost an afterthought.
Actually, it isn't just a manner of older tech versus ga-ga tech. Remember,
the one thing they showed during the combat with the bradleys vs the TAs was
side stepping, something none of the current day conventional vehicles can
perform and with current day tactics, you don't adjust your fire with heavy
weapons for that kind of fighting. Infantry doesn't scatter that nicely or
recover from the shock that the TA was subjected to with heavy weapons fire.
You will have to admit that the style of combat isn't just the weapon
systems of being 'better' or outclassed, because it is a matter of how
combat with the weapon systems you have must be adapted to feature what you
are dealing with. This is also in the case of how the Americans, who
boasted the biggest Battleship fleet before Pearl Harbor, wasn't out of the
war when they change their tactics with Carrier groups. The Japanese also
proved that what we believed to be impossible could happen with their daring
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor with what we considered poor equipment.
> About the only real 'mecha' attribute the TAs displayed was getting
> on top of buildings (primarily via winches and, to a lesser extent,
> jump jets). Their other cutting-edge attributes were mostly from
> accurate shooting, highly accurate missiles, and moving too close,
> too fast to be easily tracked by older generation weapon systems.
> These were not mecha-only attributes and could easily have been
> replicated by a helicopter or light armored vehicle that gave the same
> level of lipservice to physics that TAs did.
Yes, these could be attributed to Helicopters... Light Armored Vehicles...
I don't think so, due to the nature of the zig zagging the TAs were using,
and with even older weapon systems, you can get a good prediction to knock
out most light armored vehicles, or do sufficient damage to put them out of
commission. But also remember, Helicopters are grounded under poor weather
conditions, and not very effective in Urban Areas unless you want much more
collateral damage than needed. The TAs did surgical strikes while keeping
their profile and collateral damage down to a minimum.
Mike Miller
news:<tqmg7.76579$A47.36...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
> > I agree with Skywalkre. The first time I saw Gasaraki, I was
> > impressed with the near future, high plausibility feel of the mecha (TA)
> > in it.
> > After a few more viewings, I began to see that Gasaraki was rather
> > goofy...no, naive and anime-educated with respect to its mecha. It
> > didn't really show any special advantages of mecha vs. conventional
> > vehicles, it showed a very high tech vehicle vs. older ones. That
> > the high tech vehicle had legs and arms was almost an afterthought.
> Actually, it isn't just a manner of older tech versus ga-ga tech.
I know. This is another good example: the TA's weren't great because
they were mecha, they were great because they were new and unfamiliar.
The writer's kept dropping the ball by not showing the advantages of
mecha, though they tried to. It was the one dark spot on a great
series.
> and with current day tactics, you don't adjust your fire with heavy
> weapons for that kind of fighting
Actually, you do for close range infantry attacks, and at long ranges
fast-moving targets are fairly easy to track. The writers really gave
the Bradleys and M1s a raw deal. The TAs couldn't dodge shells in
flight, just guns pointing at them. An entire mechanized infantry
regiment is pointing to many guns at anyone TA for them to dodge - that
was pure anime fantasy.
> Yes, these could be attributed to Helicopters... Light Armored Vehicles...
> I don't think so, due to the nature of the zig zagging the TAs were using,
They were zig-zagging to avoid guns they could see pointed at them. The
volume of fire should've produced some hits from heavy weapons, especially
guided ones like TOWs. If they dodged out of the field of fire of one
weapon, they should've crossed the field of fire of another weapon. The
25mm Bushmasters of the Bradleys were particularly ideal for this -
they're automatic weapons and can keep up a stream of fire adequate to
defeat moderate armor.
> But also remember, Helicopters are grounded under poor weather
> conditions, and not very effective in Urban Areas unless you want much more
> collateral damage than needed.
Helicopters aren't the only type of VTOL out there. Given the level
of technology demonstrated by the TA, I can imagine all sorts of
alternatives that would be fine for urban areas. Vectored thrust,
for example.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
The Salesman
> Uhm... you are severely missing the point of Gasaraki then. First off, the
> TAs are of course going to be ahead in technology... Why? Uhm, given it is
> *gasp* NEW TECHNOLOGY. As in, undiscovered and prototype technology. This
> is one thing you are missing.
New technology doesn't mean much when I know my weapon will punch
through the side armor of a tank. I'm going to hose you, and if you
keep moving, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to hose you some
more. If my weapon clicks to 'overheat' on me, and you are still
moving, I will hit the override and continue to hose you.
I've used modern weapon systems. I've fired at live targets. You can
zig, you can zag, you can do whatever you want to. If I have a lock on
your rear (You know, where fighter pilots hear a WHEEEEEEP in their
ears? Well, jets aren't the only folks with that kinda nice gear.) you
are going to STAY in my sights until you do one of 3 things:
1. Execute a movement that will jerk you across my field of view. I
don't mean jump 5 or 10 feet to the side, I mean 45 degrees or more to
one side. If you do this, I will track to that side and begin
unloading on your rear as soon as you get NEAR my sights to prevent
you from doing it again. Ammo's cheap. My tender hide is not. The way
you use an automatic weapon is to sweep it THROUGH your target. Start
off to one side, track to your target, then let up as you pass to the
other side of the target. If you haven't just sawn him in half, you
will do some ungodly damage. Bushmaster 25 MMs are automatic weapons.
:)
2. Get yourself behind cover/concealment. If your concealment is
small, congradulations, you've broken my lock. I will now shoot
THROUGH the concealment as explained above. You lived another 1/2
second. If you are behind cover and it is small, I will use indirect
weaponry. Grenades, fragmenation rounds, missles/rockets if they will
be effective against you with a near miss. If the cover is large, I
will track to the other side if you do not reemerge after a few
seconds. As soon as your ugly mugg peeks out, I will roast it.
3. Convince me that I don't WANT to have you in my sights. Something
like a TOW, a little autocannon or heavy machinegun fire, maybe a
couple of mortar rounds make good persuasion.
> Actually, it was closer to using current day military hardware versus going
> ga-ga like something like Gundam Wing, or Gundam or Macross. Bipedal Weapon
> systems will have an advantage over conventional ground forces in things
> like rugged terrain, and poor weather conditions. In Urban warfare, it will
> have better manueverability than what we can do with tanks.
>
> Uhm... No... If you look at the various warfare vehicles, there are Close
> Action Vehicles as well as APCs.
I'm pretty familar with the ground vehicles, helicopters and aircraft
in use today by the US military. Give me a name for this mystery track
or truck?
> Please also note that for all vehicles, there are weak points. Turrets are
> weak points, Treads are weakpoints, Engine Blocks are weak points for tanks.
> A billion dollar Abrahms can be taken down by a World War II Russian T-72
> MBT if done properly.
Turret rings, not turrets. The turret on an Abrams is incredibly
well-armored. And turret rings don't make the best targets when the
turret hangs way over them, parallel to the hull. Treads are often
covered in modern MBTs, although a sufficiently powerful round could
punch through that armor and knock off a tread. If you've got that
kind of firepower though, why are you aiming for a tread? Engine
exhaust, I can't dispute. They can armor it all they want, but you're
still going to have to have a way to get the exhaust out.
I am pretty curious about your (2 million dollar?) M1A2 is going to
get killed by a WWII T-34, or a Vietnam era T-72. Considering that
there are records of them having been shot multiple times by other
M1s, including a direct hit on the ammo bin that blew it sky-high. M1s
have their own version of CASE, so other than shaking some bolts loose
and being suddenly out of ammo, it was still in pretty good shape.
Scott Kasai
> Scott Kasai <kei...@weNOSPAMst.com> wrote in message
> news:<tqmg7.76579$A47.36...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
> > "Mike Miller" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5dcb47db.01082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > I agree with Skywalkre. The first time I saw Gasaraki, I was
> > > impressed with the near future, high plausibility feel of the mecha
(TA)
> > > in it.
>
> > > After a few more viewings, I began to see that Gasaraki was rather
> > > goofy...no, naive and anime-educated with respect to its mecha. It
> > > didn't really show any special advantages of mecha vs. conventional
> > > vehicles, it showed a very high tech vehicle vs. older ones. That
> > > the high tech vehicle had legs and arms was almost an afterthought.
>
> > Actually, it isn't just a manner of older tech versus ga-ga tech.
>
> I know. This is another good example: the TA's weren't great because
> they were mecha, they were great because they were new and unfamiliar.
> The writer's kept dropping the ball by not showing the advantages of
> mecha, though they tried to. It was the one dark spot on a great
> series.
Personally, they hit it on some of the parts, but at the same time, putting
in a sense of belief into it without going too seriously into the realm of
super-tech. At the same time, they were going for the more mysticism of the
storyline. The other thing you have to consider, which is why I am leaning
towards "realism" into it, was the fact that the TAs were exactly doing a
lot of major manuevers for its technology. When you look at what they are
showing in Gundam, it makes you wonder how the HELL do they have such weak
control layouts, YET be able to do major complex movements.
> > and with current day tactics, you don't adjust your fire with heavy
> > weapons for that kind of fighting
>
> Actually, you do for close range infantry attacks, and at long ranges
> fast-moving targets are fairly easy to track. The writers really gave
> the Bradleys and M1s a raw deal. The TAs couldn't dodge shells in
> flight, just guns pointing at them. An entire mechanized infantry
> regiment is pointing to many guns at anyone TA for them to dodge - that
> was pure anime fantasy.
Hmmm... From what I have seen, at long range, fast moving target versus
large bore rounds, the accuracy isn't 100%, and also, it presumes straight
line vectoring. In the case of the TAs, while, technically, they should not
be able to doge shells in flight, a spin pivot on a target you would expect
to veer for targetting purposes, throws in new variables in how do you track
a target. And again, it is mentality of how you handle it. Remember, at
the time of the first engagement of the major conflict, they were planning
on unloading their men for infantry combat, then reloaded them after finding
out that the signatures were too big to be infantry. The initial surprise
factor of what they were dealing with and still using standard Anti-Armor
tactics would suggest that the mixing of the units and the surprise of
getting hit by such things throws enough chaos that it is confusing, to say
the least, causing issues of random firing and trying to manuever. Play
Tribes 2 sometimes with someone driving the tank and someone firing. You
will notice a gunner will have a hell of a time tracking another tank let
alone people with certain weapons when there is enough confusion.
> > Yes, these could be attributed to Helicopters... Light Armored
Vehicles...
> > I don't think so, due to the nature of the zig zagging the TAs were
using,
>
> They were zig-zagging to avoid guns they could see pointed at them. The
> volume of fire should've produced some hits from heavy weapons, especially
> guided ones like TOWs. If they dodged out of the field of fire of one
> weapon, they should've crossed the field of fire of another weapon. The
> 25mm Bushmasters of the Bradleys were particularly ideal for this -
> they're automatic weapons and can keep up a stream of fire adequate to
> defeat moderate armor.
From what I saw of what was used... And probably the mentality of the
combat, was the consideration of it being the advanced scouts and they were
going to make a push into the city. Sure, laying down the ordinance to take
care of the situation would have done it, but then, mission wise, would it
have been wise?
> > But also remember, Helicopters are grounded under poor weather
> > conditions, and not very effective in Urban Areas unless you want much
more
> > collateral damage than needed.
>
> Helicopters aren't the only type of VTOL out there. Given the level
> of technology demonstrated by the TA, I can imagine all sorts of
> alternatives that would be fine for urban areas. Vectored thrust,
> for example.
Granted Helicopters are not the only type of VTOLs, but Harriers aren't any
better in poor conditions. The Marine VTOL Jet/Copter (Don't recall the
name) isn't also a very good under poor conditions as well. And again,
those systems aren't exactly made for Urban pacification either.
Scott Kasai
news:f406bef7.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > Please also note that for all vehicles, there are weak points. Turrets
are
> > weak points, Treads are weakpoints, Engine Blocks are weak points for
tanks.
> > A billion dollar Abrahms can be taken down by a World War II Russian
T-72
> > MBT if done properly.
>
> Turret rings, not turrets. The turret on an Abrams is incredibly
> well-armored. And turret rings don't make the best targets when the
> turret hangs way over them, parallel to the hull. Treads are often
> covered in modern MBTs, although a sufficiently powerful round could
> punch through that armor and knock off a tread. If you've got that
> kind of firepower though, why are you aiming for a tread? Engine
> exhaust, I can't dispute. They can armor it all they want, but you're
> still going to have to have a way to get the exhaust out.
Actually, from what I have been told, on tanks, it isn't just the turret
ring, but compared to the rest of the tank, besides the engine block and
treads, the next weakest link of a tank or not as heavily armored as the
body, is the Turret. There are currently Infantry TOW based Anti-Tank
Rockets that focus on hammering a tank at the turret with a shaped charge.
It was to use the force of the charge to help cook off the rounds in the
tank to do the rest of the damage within.
> I am pretty curious about your (2 million dollar?) M1A2 is going to
> get killed by a WWII T-34, or a Vietnam era T-72. Considering that
> there are records of them having been shot multiple times by other
> M1s, including a direct hit on the ammo bin that blew it sky-high. M1s
> have their own version of CASE, so other than shaking some bolts loose
> and being suddenly out of ammo, it was still in pretty good shape.
Again, the statement is based on having good commanders working with much
less and better tactics. Remember, The German Panzer and Tiger Tanks
boasted 88mm versus the Sherman's 75. The Panzers and Tigers could deal
more damage and take it better than Shermans, but with a good crew and
tactics, it is possible for Shermans to take down Panzers and Tigers. The
thing is, that you don not fight them in the same conditions that make it
optimal for a the better tank. And once again, while the M1A2s can fire
rapidly, traverse turret faster, and be manueverable, if I remember the
situation of the M1A2s was they also had to deal with larger number of the
T-72s they were built to counter. You also assume that this is a purely
tank versus tank engagement, but when you throw in infantry, especially
properly trained and prepared infantry, the situation changes.
Also, let's not forget, in the case of the Vietnam War, the US was the most
well equiped military force in the conflict, and the Vietnamese was supplied
by the Chinese, but not all their methods required major technology. One of
the examples I was given was how the Vietnam Era M16 rifle was the most
technically advanced Assault rifle, but could be easily fouled up where as
the Russian/Chinese AK-47 and AK-74 Assault rifles could be treated almost
like crap and still be reliable to a certain degree.
Mike Miller
> "The Salesman" <gah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f406bef7.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > Please also note that for all vehicles, there are weak points.
> > > Turrets are weak points, Treads are weakpoints, Engine Blocks are
> > > weak points for tanks. A billion dollar Abrahms can be taken down
> > > by a World War II Russian T-72 MBT if done properly.
Eh...the Abrams is about $4 million dollars, not a billion (the US Army
purchased 5000 of them. I hope they're not a billion dollars) and the
T-72 was introduced about 3 decades after WWII.
And the turret ring, not the turret, is the weak link.
Yes, the T-72 can defeat an M1A2 with a hit to the turret ring, or
make the M1A2 a mobility kill by hitting its tracks or engine
compartment. I'm not sure the term "engine block" is appropriate for
turbine engines like the M1's - an engine block is the big cast iron
or aluminum block that has the pistons in a piston engine.
> > Turret rings, not turrets. The turret on an Abrams is incredibly
> > well-armored. And turret rings don't make the best targets when the
> > turret hangs way over them, parallel to the hull. Treads are often
> > covered in modern MBTs, although a sufficiently powerful round could
> > punch through that armor and knock off a tread.
Track skirts are usually just RHA steel: rolled homogenous armor steel.
It doesn't take much to get through them, some medium weight chaingun
(20-30mm, etc). They're there to protect the tracks from casual abuse
(like artillery) and provide a first line of protection to the side of
the body. Spaced armor is very effective - a first layer (like track
skirts) prematurely detonates shaped charges and blunts or fragments
kinetic penetrators, then gives some open space for the shaped charge
or fragments to disperse.
> Actually, from what I have been told, on tanks, it isn't just the turret
> ring, but compared to the rest of the tank, besides the engine block and
> treads, the next weakest link of a tank or not as heavily armored as the
> body, is the Turret.
The frontal armor of a tank turret is frequently as thick or thicker
than the body's frontal armor. While the body can often be hidden
behind a hill or dug-in position, the tank cannot hide its turret and
remain an effective combatant. Hence, turrets do get lavish
protection...across its front and sides.
The turret's top and rear armor is far thinner, usually being just
rolled homogenous steel armor (RHA) an inch thick or so even on tanks with
Chobham laminate across their fronts and sides.
Current ATGM technology is emphasizing (among other tricks) top-
attack missiles to exploit this. OTOH, firing an ATGM against the
frontal turret armor of a modern tank is a waste of a missile that
probably costs more than most people's annual salaries.
No, simply "hammering the turret" won't cook off the rounds inside.
The shaped charge needs to penetrate and spray the turret interior
with molten metal and shrapnel. Modern cannon propellants are
relatively resistant to shock and casual overheating.
R Chverchko
> > and with current day tactics, you don't adjust your fire with heavy
> > weapons for that kind of fighting
> Actually, you do for close range infantry attacks, and at long ranges
> fast-moving targets are fairly easy to track. The writers really gave
> the Bradleys and M1s a raw deal. The TAs couldn't dodge shells in
> flight, just guns pointing at them. An entire mechanized infantry
> regiment is pointing to many guns at anyone TA for them to dodge - that
> was pure anime fantasy.
Laws of anime physics:
The more misssiles, people, things firing at a target. The
less chance of them actually getting hit.
That's right up there w/ mallet space, quick and painless
death or long and very introspective death sequences...
As far as all above & prior, Gasaraki is pretty poor to draw
conclusions from. Patlabor might be a better analogue, in that
they only work for a short time, and have support units that handle
deployment, simple maintenance, resupply, etc. Anything
larger than augmented infantry I think is pretty unlikely. And
that will be rare. (think of the power concerns, or does all the
power come from good old muscle, sinew, and bone?) Energy recovery
systems like spring based systems in the legs to allow someone
to move faster might be something but they're ackward at best.
They don't change the source of the power, only increase the
efficiency of it.
Also I find it amusing how people love to shout maneuverability
as a mantra, then fail to realize the maneuverability benefits
that tracked vehicles have due to their low ground pressures.
But all that's old hat and has been hashed over god knows how
many times in this group. What good does it do you to have a
walker if in poor weather it sinks into normal ground to it's
knees on every step. Think how fast normal packed dirt roads
can get churned to mud by existing wheels and tracks... now
think how fast walkers could reduce that or normal unpacked
ground into a sticky morass.
Cool sci fi gizmo, but impractical barring massive technological
improvements.
Scott Kasai
news:3B85CAFF...@psu.edu...
> As far as all above & prior, Gasaraki is pretty poor to draw
> conclusions from. Patlabor might be a better analogue, in that
> they only work for a short time, and have support units that handle
> deployment, simple maintenance, resupply, etc. Anything
> larger than augmented infantry I think is pretty unlikely. And
> that will be rare. (think of the power concerns, or does all the
> power come from good old muscle, sinew, and bone?) Energy recovery
> systems like spring based systems in the legs to allow someone
> to move faster might be something but they're ackward at best.
> They don't change the source of the power, only increase the
> efficiency of it.
Yes, it is hard to draw accurate conclusions from it, especially the power
system that fuels the armor system and justification of how much it was able
to function. Especially given its size.
> Also I find it amusing how people love to shout maneuverability
> as a mantra, then fail to realize the maneuverability benefits
> that tracked vehicles have due to their low ground pressures.
> But all that's old hat and has been hashed over god knows how
> many times in this group. What good does it do you to have a
> walker if in poor weather it sinks into normal ground to it's
> knees on every step. Think how fast normal packed dirt roads
> can get churned to mud by existing wheels and tracks... now
> think how fast walkers could reduce that or normal unpacked
> ground into a sticky morass.
Actually, the maneuverability compared to current day technology. For
instance, while you cite the fact that walker/bidpedals will suffer problems
in unpacked dirt, or say, sand areas are. Yes, this is a problem for
bipedals, more so than tanks in some issues. However, the relation of
manueverability is looking in the aspects of tight spots or side stepping, a
full-motion bipedal system would probably allow manueverability and changes
in combat style versus traditional combat. A good example would be like
would trying to use standard atmosphere dogfighting combat tactics with a
space combat tactics. Traditional atmosphere tactics would be to make a
swing around, chasing a fighter and hit it from behind or juking to shake it
to get on its tail so you can hit it. When you look at space combat, the
swing around was necessary for fighters to say aloft, but there is no need
to swing, you can make the fighter spin, flying backwards and fire at the
chaser. In the case of bipedal weapons, tanks and wheeled vehicles suffer
limited terrain advantages, requiring other specialized vehicles to focus in
areas that cannot be covered by others. BattleTech itself pokes at this
issue as well, a Treaded tank cannot fight effectively in water, where as a
bipedal system might for a short period of time. The means to get a tank up
a steep terrain is limited without help of engineering support, but with a
bipedal system, allows heavier firepower with fewer men to field. In the
broadest sense, the maneuverability of a bipedal system takes combat to a
new level.