I noticed that, but I guess it's a render. But hey, if it was a TS/RA2 style game, then we shouldn't be seeing this type of 'screenshot'! You're a very good Admin, Banshee! But I think Banshee means when the Mammoth Tanks turns. The tracks should be manuverable right? I see it now. The track's are seperate right? So a small part should be 'stuck' (But can 'rotate' 360 degrees) to the body of the tank, so if the front part of the tanks moves up a slope, the other 2 tracks at the back would still be straight. Ahh I can't explain it.
I think I know what you mean.
If we're thinking the same thing, it's the same as the Halo Scorpion MBT. _________________ "Banned" RP here QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Location: DAS BOOT IM DER OSTSEE
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:
chielscape wrote:
of course all tanks have the same tracks. how many tracks do you want em to have? JFC
Renegade had quite a few different tracks. STNK/FTNK share a different track from the other tanks/apcs. And the shadows..A lot of the guys without shadows are IN the shadows of a building, so, it'd be quite hard to make out the shadow of them anyways. _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
i think tank will not replance by mech.[and cant replance] however mech will have it own postion in the battle field.like tank and artillery.i dont know anything about engineering but this's IMO. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject:
im already boycotting them, it will only make me change from a passive boycot to an active one _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
well, all of this "tanks sux0rz no mechs sux0rz" crap is ridiculous. the first thing that people say is that mechs aren't viable because they would have trouble staying steady in rough terrain. i think that this logic is flawed, because with military computers it probably is possible for mechs to stay steady anywhere they go. there are aircraft whose designs are inherantly unstable, such as the Stealth Fighter and Bomber, and yet they fly perfectly fine with the aid of computers. mechs could be a possible solution to the problem of modern tanks not being suited to combat. mechs coud be small and nimble for manuevering through small alley ways, and mechs as tall as a titan could be beneficial in cities with many tall buildings because they can see farther and allow for easy navigation, which could also be aided by something like GPS. i do think that we will one day see mechs in combat, but i don't think they will replace the tank. if anything they will work alongside the tank by makin up for weaknesses, while the tank makes up for the weaknesses of the mech. that way you would have a truly solid armored army that balanced enough to take on any foe. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I want to park that medium tank in my garage.. <<;>>
chielscape wrote:
HEAT doesnt have anything to do with heat as in warmth. High Explosive Anti Tank.
You do realize I was making a joke out of it...Right? _________________ ... Last edited by Von Kriplespac on Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
IHateHarriers, have you ever tried walking across a creek bed by jumping stone to stone? It is pretty fun as you try and hit smaller and smaller stones and not fall. Now try that same activity in full suit of armor carrying a 50 calibre rifle. (I'm not talking about that light chainmail crap, I'm talking full plate mail). You'll find this activity ridiculously difficult as your field of view is obstructed and your movements are stifled by the limitations of the armor and your weight alone makes picking which rock you should jump to even more difficult. The act of walking is actually just calculated falling. The only reason why biomechanisms can do it sosuccessfully is because we have brains capable, a nervous system, and fine-tuned control over our feet and legs. Without these three things, we would fall on our asses every time we took a step. Currently, the only computers capable of doing what the Human Brain can are far too large to house in a mech and require far too much power and coolant to maintain easily. Insofar as a nervous system we have nothing that is capable of doing that. A medium through which information can be sent and touch sensation may be felt. We would have to couple topography viewing systems with seismic sensors and some sort of touch activated sensors and then we would need the computer to react as fast as the Human Brain. We barely have just scratched the surface of muscle-emulating materials. We would need a foot with at least two pads touching the ground and a stabilizer on the foot, then we would need a knee, calf, and hip with enough flexibility to allow for turning and quickly maneuvering. Now even with allof this you would need a program that ties all of this together and quickly analyzes the topography, tests the terrain, and then chooses the best place to put its foot down in less than 1 second. Do you know how difficult that would be? What army would spend craploads upon craploads of money doing that when they have an option that works pretty effectively already. Aircraft Stability and Walking stability are two different things. Air is uniform and does not change, terrain changes constantly.
You want to know why all robots built so far are no larger than 10-15 feet tall? Because the materials needed to construct taller robots doesn't exist. And these aren't even mechs, they are power suits which I've already postulated would be a useful addition to an army. It will be quite awhile before we find a material that can withstand the stress of holding a moving center of gravity. Even then this material will cost quite a bit to create and wouldn't be economically feasible for awhile after that.
\\//,DedmanWalkin _________________ "deth is only the beginning," Imhotep from 'The Mummy' QUICK_EDIT
Ok imay be new around here but i am excellent in this field of topic.
The mech as we shall say can be the next evolutionary step due to the fact that can be faster than a tank.
The mech also is more intimidating.
Imagine someone who has been in 3 wars and he sees a tank he'd be thinking "Wow another tank, blow it up." . now lets say he sees a mech he would probaly be thinking "WTF is that!? Im outta here" The mech can also possibly carry more armor and weapondry and ammo. The tank would requre Fuel and a larger powerplant than the mech to power it over hills and obstacles plus the multipule drive tran systems within it. The mech isnt much better off though. You have hundreds of moving parts that must operate in a speific order to keep that mech moving. Damage to these could slow it down but not stop it.
A mech would really require one man only too. He would have the displays and controls in front of him. A tank requires 2 to 4 people depending on model. The average tank requires 4 people. A commander, driver, reloader, gunner. Blow the tank up and all 4 usually get fried. Tanks also have slow Turning Speed. It has to move one side of treads in one direction while it moves the other in the opposite to turn. Mechs on the other hand, just turn their torso to face that way and the legs could auto correct or something. My guess would be like BT mechs with a movable torso and human like legs that can turn easily. Of course it will be a while before that happens. Anyways if you play Mechwarrior you can see that when you get knocked over by terrain , bad Jump Jet landings or weapons fire, you get up after a few seconds. You see that he legs are manipulated for leverage and the mech can possibly stand up. Also yeah a tank could run over debries and soldiers, a mech could step on that tank and crush the turrent, rendering it useless and killing the men inside. One tank however could not level an entire city. Not a good enough gun plus ammunition limits. A mech is larger, thus more ammo and armor capabillites and weapondry. A mech could possibly level an entire city due to the fact of stronger weapons, and more ammo and could plow right through a building like a tank except it would do more damage and take less damage.
Also about Ghost Stalker's railgun. Have you played MGS 2 SOL or Substance. Fortune on there uses a Railgun. Railguns are a possibillity with todays technoligy. A railgun is a gun that can fire projectilles at supersonic velocities. By using magnetic fields and possibly a theromatic plasma boost you can propell a bouncy ball size metal ball right through a tank with no trouble. Railgun prototypes acctually do exist. I heard that the US Goverment is developing one. Although the rails used on it fry out in 2 shots.
multi leg mechs have one serious disadvantage. No torst movement. This means it has to manipulate its legs to turn in the direction it wants and it could take lots of damage befoe it can bring its weapons to bear. Also mechs make very good triple A and double A platofrms. The height means less range to aircraft and the mech can withstand more damage. Plus more rounds for guns and more guns. The best Anti-air tank today to me is the russain ZSU series.
Plus you think tanks to mechs are crazy? Look at the Future Force Warrior concept program being pursued by the Millitary. If you buy Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Redstorm worked with the Natik soldier facillity to create the Advanced Warighter system in the game as close to the real life one as possible. The armor our soldiers will be using has many ideas and forms. Basically we want the "F-16 on legs" concept for our men. Nanotechnoligy is being heavily researched as it is a critical part of this project.
For air superiority the US has this. Since soon you guys will be arguing about aircraft whn renders and info come. The US posses the best air to air superiority fight plsu Multirole fighters and Air to ground. The F/A 22 "Lightning III" or "Raptor" and the F/A 22B concept are two of the best the US has. This fighter combines Stealth Technoligy, Information distrubution systems like on JSTARS platforms and AWACS, with high performance and a aerodynamic frame and advanced targetting software and radar processors with the latest in weapondry. However the russians are not far behind with the SU 40 "Berkut" which is also a fighter for Air to Air superiority. It also uses some stealth technoligy.
Well that should shut some minds up hopefully and if you start argueing with me on Air to Air superirity you will witness technical details trhat i have known for years. QUICK_EDIT
A mech would really require one man only too. He would have the displays and controls in front of him. A tank requires 2 to 4 people depending on model. The average tank requires 4 people. A commander, driver, reloader, gunner. Blow the tank up and all 4 usually get fried. Tanks also have slow Turning Speed. It has to move one side of treads in one direction while it moves the other in the opposite to turn. Mechs on the other hand, just turn their torso to face that way and the legs could auto correct or something.
e.e
Moron.. See.. tanks have something.. it's called a turret, see? It moves around, and the main gun is usually mounted on it.
And it moves ALOT faster than the whole tank itself.
I seriously wish we could have a MechVsTank fight in reality, just to see who the feck is right..
Hey kyler each tank model has a diffrent turrent turn rate. MBTs have diffrent rates depnding on country's pholisphy on tank construction.
Also FACTORS DETERMINE TURRENT TURN RATE! Read a freakin millitary manual or book or watch a damn documentry many soldiers and generals say so. QUICK_EDIT
But Mech's are heavy. If they fall, it's impossible to get up since the Mech doesn't have hands or arms to push itself up again. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
But Mech's are heavy. If they fall, it's impossible to get up since the Mech doesn't have hands or arms to push itself up again.
You could use a hyper-velocity thing in the back as a self righting mechanism, but this is a stupid idea and a waste of resources. Otherwise it is quite easy to push itself up, it has to roll on it's back, and basically get up like that by thrusting itself onto it's feet. Battletech simulates this when mechs are knocked down. Alternatively, if a mech had something like jump jets on it's back which could turn down and sideways, it could blast itself back up to its feet. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Who was that supposed to shut up? The people who have never been in a physics class? Or the people who have no idea how anything mechanical in origin works? Because obviously you are one of them.
First off, much of the last part of your post was powersuits which are not mechs which we have no qualms with as they are just advanced infantry not mobile armor.
You do realize that for the price of the mech, I could squeeze out 2-4 tanks, right? 2-4 Tanks will obliterate a Mech. Without magical Tiberium to back you, constructing a Titan would cost craploads of money.
Here are some experiments I want you to do before you come back. Get a handgun and mount it on a 2 foot tall 2x4 board, now get another and mount it on a 8 inch long 4x8 block. Now take a third one and shoot the board and the block see which one falls over easier. Now go find a 50 calibre rifle and a suit of armor and go into a forest and put targets on 5 random trees. Put on the suit of armor and a bunch of 50 caliber ammunition, now pick up the rifle and run through the forest firing at every target. You must hit them all while moving and they must not be directly infront of you. Get a small motorcycle load it with ammunition, the rifle, and lots of armor, get a suit of armor and put it on with the ammo and the gun now race it. These experiments prove that unless you have some magics, you will never be as effective as a tank.
Imagine this scenario: You see a mech approaching. You think, it doesn't know I am here. You pull out your laser targetter and paint the mech. You relay a message to a DDX on the ocean. They fire a single shot into the sky. The shell comes down on the mech with such speed, accuracy, and force that the mech is brought down.
\\//,DedmanWalkin _________________ "deth is only the beginning," Imhotep from 'The Mummy' QUICK_EDIT
Who was that supposed to shut up? The people who have never been in a physics class? Or the people who have no idea how anything mechanical in origin works? Because obviously you are one of them.
Why thank you, seen as though mechs are non-existant at the moment. Look, mechs are fictional, and I've seen self righting mechanisms work in my lifetime, so why not one for a mech? I only suggested that because mechs were fictional, nothing more, nothing less. I've also seen people stand up like this, even when flat laid on their backs. The human skeleton is a mechanism.
Quote:
You do realize that for the price of the mech, I could squeeze out 2-4 tanks, right? 2-4 Tanks will obliterate a Mech. Without magical Tiberium to back you, constructing a Titan would cost craploads of money.
You do realise also that mechs can also be used as a support unit if it has missile pods. That's the only way I can see mechs being used as support. It can also carry more payload weaponry than a tank.
Quote:
Here are some experiments I want you to do before you come back. Get a handgun and mount it on a 2 foot tall 2x4 board, now get another and mount it on a 8 inch long 4x8 block. Now take a third one and shoot the board and the block see which one falls over easier. Now go find a 50 calibre rifle and a suit of armor and go into a forest and put targets on 5 random trees. Put on the suit of armor and a bunch of 50 caliber ammunition, now pick up the rifle and run through the forest firing at every target. You must hit them all while moving and they must not be directly infront of you. Get a small motorcycle load it with ammunition, the rifle, and lots of armor, get a suit of armor and put it on with the ammo and the gun now race it. These experiments prove that unless you have some magics, you will never be as effective as a tank.
Simply put, get me these items and I will test it, otherwise Mythbusters can have a go at it once mechs are made. Also something is wrong with your test, a motorcycle is more faster than a tank.
Quote:
Imagine this scenario: You see a mech approaching. You think, it doesn't know I am here. You pull out your laser targetter and paint the mech. You relay a message to a DDX on the ocean. They fire a single shot into the sky. The shell comes down on the mech with such speed, accuracy, and force that the mech is brought down.
Same can be said with a tank, it doesn't know I'm here, I laser paint it boom, congratulations, we have a new anti-tank/mech weapon.
These arguements are pointless. We are arguing over something we have today over something fictional. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The yellow stuff is definitelly a flaw. The red one I still couldn't get. The blue one can also mean that the engine doesn't deal well with tracks..
He thought it was a hole through the roof, but it's not, it's metal patched on the roof... (it looks a bit like a hole though)
As for the tracks, they aren't moving maybe, so that's why. But it could've just happened to be like that. It's 100% impossible for it to be copy paste, because of the lightning variations on each of the tanks...
As for the shadows, it's not easy to code what you asked for...and EA and even others at E3 and magazines confirmed these are ingame screens, so you two should please shut the heck up, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Even some idiots thought the Earth 2160 early screens were renders, but they ended up being real ingame screens, but just poorly animated. No Remaps? I've seen a thousand RTS games in very early developpement without any remaps at all and it was ingame...Take a good example of Earth 2160! QUICK_EDIT
I see but if 1 wheel be shot and is fall out the robor are dead ^^. Therefor is beter too have legs some mabye can get some hit and then is mabye fall over. _________________ Can you hide from me ? QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 23 Jun 2006 Location: 3rd Rock from the Tiberian Sun
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:16 am Post subject:
I personally prefer tanks. Mechs are certainly a possibility in the future altho I seriously doubt they would be feasable. They would have to be incredibly high tech to function with any reliability. Even more so than a state of the art tank from the same era. We're talking some type of gyroscope thingamagig (a techinical term, lol) for balance & stability during combat. The articulated frame and joints would be high wear areas. The logistics of maintaining mechs would be greater than a conventional tank. How much is unknown and all this is speculative at best. Current technologies that have been exploring robotics and powered armor all point to those conclusions though (got to love Discovery Channel ).
Conventional armor is a known quantity. Proven realiable through our planets warfare history. The only place I can see a mech having an advantage over a tank would be jungle warfare, and that isn't really a realistic option. One thing I have yet seen debated is the main characteristic that is required when dealing with armor of either kind in all kinds of terrain. Ground pressure. Tracks on a tank serve another purpose besides being able to negotiate different terrains. They also distribute the weight of the vehicle evenly over the ground.
Lets say you have a tank & a mech weighing 65 tons each. Both are operating in a desert enviroment. The ground pressure of a 65 ton tank would be 13 psi. Since I don't know the exact size of a Titan's foot, we have to go with the fact it will be much smaller than the tank. Even with 2 feet planted fully on the ground, the ground pressure would be considerably greater than the tank, psi. During combat, with the height of the Titan making it a open target a good portion of the time, it will have to be moving. This will mean during it's travel, it will have only 1 foot on the ground doubling the ground pressure. If you have ever been in deep snow, or even just walked on the beach, you know how your feet sink. A mech will do that but 65 tons worse. Now we're talking about really bogging down.
This is the primary advantage a tank has over a mech. I could see very few situations a mech might be able to go somewhere a tank wouldn't. Jungles or thick forests possibly being one, but again the soft ground in a forest or wet ground in a jungle would be a major problem for a 2 legged mech. Truth be told, a hover tank is the only true all-terrain armor. And it's disadvantage would be when it fired it's main gun, the hover tank would go the other direction. You know, "an equal and opposite reaction".
That said, Mechs have several things going for them. Height & they're abilitiy to intimidate their enemies are 2 I know of. But I'm sure they're are more. Well, most look cool too. Plus river crossings that would be too deep for a tank to forge, but again only if the bedrock was exposed or the bottom had very little sand/mud. Anyway, I persoanlly believe tanks are the most likely future of warfare.
Time will tell tho.
Cheers,
Rebelmoon Last edited by Rebelmoon on Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:27 am; edited 2 times in total QUICK_EDIT
It's not my model. It's from game named "Chromehounds" on Xbox360
Anderwin wrote:
I see but if 1 wheel be shot and is fall out the robor are dead ^^. Therefor is beter too have legs some mabye can get some hit and then is mabye fall over.
Then why not add it a caterpiller? I saw some of mech in game have it. QUICK_EDIT
All these tech vs mech stuff is making me puke. New member here but frankly, what we want to know is why GDI went back to tanks...
Here's my reasons as I see it. NOD, being the world superpower in 2047 with up to 50% control over the Earth (as they are dominant in Yellow Zones, that's how I got the 50%), have much to spend on. Tiberium, being the source of money for C&C, is still in the hands of NOD, so they could be the ones who have taken mech technology instead. GDI, prevalent in 30% of the world, or Blue Zones with minimal Tiberium infestation, are starved with little cash as much funding is concentrated on solving the Tiberium infestation problems. Therefore, GDI could have turned back to the tanks as they are easy to build compared to its Titans and Wolverines.
Also, it doesn't seem that GDI has completely given up its mech technology. Planet C&C said that each side would have a mech unit. That would be the best of both worlds, I think. Besides, whoever said that 2047 couldn't have mechs, I say this, they did have Scrin ships, so who cares? All I want is the story that continues to unfold in the C&C world. QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
I hardly got to play Renegade. But I noticed the difference too.
nice model ^^.
?
