Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1
Rounds get weaker with increasing distance. The Tiger could obliterate a Sherman from a distance where the (original) Sherman couldn't even penetrate the Tigers rear armor. On an open field, where this advantage could be used, any attack on a Tiger from a Sherman was suicide. However, if you are talking about an area where there is cover the whole side armor weakness becomes much less of a problem if the commanding officers isn't a complete idiot.

Side note: there's a reason sloped armor exists and is useful: It increases the thickness without actually using more material. Also, if the angle is too narrow the round will bounce off the target instead of penetrating it. I do not think a Sherman that fires at a Tigers side armor at 15° will have any chance of doing damage.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The20
Suicidesoldier#1
Rounds get weaker with increasing distance. The Tiger could obliterate a Sherman from a distance where the (original) Sherman couldn't even penetrate the Tigers rear armor. On an open field, where this advantage could be used, any attack on a Tiger from a Sherman was suicide. However, if you are talking about an area where there is cover the whole side armor weakness becomes much less of a problem if the commanding officers isn't a complete idiot.

Side note: there's a reason sloped armor exists and is useful: It increases the thickness without actually using more material. Also, if the angle is too narrow the round will bounce off the target instead of penetrating it. I do not think a Sherman that fires at a Tigers side armor at 15° will have any chance of doing damage.


Plenty of Shermans took down tigers during the war. While they outgunned our tanks (more power and range) from a flanking attack which was typical of allied tank maneuvers, they would easily be taken down.

Later in the war Shermans had explosive rounds that were handed out more often. These rounds could easily get through panzer and tiger side armor with little to no problem, and usually in 2-3 shots with explosive rounds from the front (but this was only useful if you had clear numbers and clear targets with precise coordination).


The front armor could completely deflect a non explosive sherman round though.

It would dent the armor in but otherwise had little effect even after 2 or 3 rounds would strike the front armor. But it was useless becuase a clear shot at the side from a bazooka could take them down. Even the tiger was little match for allied tanks. The reason being we had far more of them and even if they attacked us head on, we would send around a group to flank them. Even if they turned to face them, with sheer numbers you are always going to be flanked by someone. Had the armor been on all sides it may have been a different story.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

You will eventually be forced to defend these supply lines at some point, which will be easy to take down, even if panzer tanks are used to protect them, as you go further in you will be more spread out.

That depends. If you plunder the areas you take, you don't need supply lines.
That said, the germans didn't do that, so they DID need supply lines, which is, in the long term, what took them down.
Quote:


The theory is to "make it to your objective" but you can't just take over a region by going to one place.

Bear in mind, the secondary objective was to turn around, and capture the enemy in a pincer, which eliminates their forces, and DOES secure the region.
Quote:
Even so it's not like you won't have time to respond. If you can hold the Germans off long enough (which is possible to do) then you can get reinforcements, surrounding them, annihilating them etc.

Except they couldn't. As far as stopping the actual penetration goes, no force was ever strong enough to actually hold the line long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
The only thing that ever held the tanks back long enough for them to get encircled was deceptively bad terrain; if the tanks got stuck in the mud, the strategy would fail.
Quote:

And why have front armored tanks? You'd be better off with no armor sense it would be cheaper and faster.

I think they just found the idea of a literal wall of steel advancing on an enemy that had already been decimated with artillery fire to be appealing. Yeah, the armor probably wasn't even needed.

It might've also come in handy when crossing terrain with obstacles. I seem to recall the germans using their panzers to knock down trees in one attack.
Quote:
That or at least with side armor.

That would just slow it down more.
Quote:
And no turret? These guys literally couldn't aim unless they moved the entire tank.

If they had a turret, they might be tempted to aim it away from what's in front of them.
Quote:

Anyways we don't have human like robits right now.

No, and the closest we have are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:

So any perception of them at the moment is artificial.

Any perception ever is artificial.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

You will eventually be forced to defend these supply lines at some point, which will be easy to take down, even if panzer tanks are used to protect them, as you go further in you will be more spread out.

That depends. If you plunder the areas you take, you don't need supply lines.
That said, the germans didn't do that, so they DID need supply lines, which is, in the long term, what took them down.
Quote:


The theory is to "make it to your objective" but you can't just take over a region by going to one place.

Bear in mind, the secondary objective was to turn around, and capture the enemy in a pincer, which eliminates their forces, and DOES secure the region.
Quote:
Even so it's not like you won't have time to respond. If you can hold the Germans off long enough (which is possible to do) then you can get reinforcements, surrounding them, annihilating them etc.

Except they couldn't. As far as stopping the actual penetration goes, no force was ever strong enough to actually hold the line long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
The only thing that ever held the tanks back long enough for them to get encircled was deceptively bad terrain; if the tanks got stuck in the mud, the strategy would fail.
Quote:

And why have front armored tanks? You'd be better off with no armor sense it would be cheaper and faster.

I think they just found the idea of a literal wall of steel advancing on an enemy that had already been decimated with artillery fire to be appealing. Yeah, the armor probably wasn't even needed.

It might've also come in handy when crossing terrain with obstacles. I seem to recall the germans using their panzers to knock down trees in one attack.
Quote:
That or at least with side armor.

That would just slow it down more.
Quote:
And no turret? These guys literally couldn't aim unless they moved the entire tank.

If they had a turret, they might be tempted to aim it away from what's in front of them.
Quote:

Anyways we don't have human like robits right now.

No, and the closest we have are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:

So any perception of them at the moment is artificial.

Any perception ever is artificial.


A pincer movement really wouldn't work.

They would eventually on a take on a line of tanks, and again, even a 15 degree angle reveals your flank which means you'll get taken down even if they don't know your front armor is uber powerful.


Radio communication existed in the day so even if they destroyed a tank it really wouldn't have mattered as they would have reported the location and caught up with them.

And you can't always scavenge off your enemies supplies.


Their food, their water, even assuming they have gasoline?

Your asking for trouble if you want to eat the bacteria laden enemy food, even assuming it's nutritious and any good.


As far as robits go they're expensive due to the fact we really don't have anything that can mimic human movement other than prototypes.

So if you wanted to buy a single prototype with tons of research behind it, yeah, that single robot would be expensive. Once you got a system going? Bodies themselves would in theory be cheap. Even electro active polymers wouldn't be very expensive.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1
Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

You will eventually be forced to defend these supply lines at some point, which will be easy to take down, even if panzer tanks are used to protect them, as you go further in you will be more spread out.

That depends. If you plunder the areas you take, you don't need supply lines.
That said, the germans didn't do that, so they DID need supply lines, which is, in the long term, what took them down.
Quote:


The theory is to "make it to your objective" but you can't just take over a region by going to one place.

Bear in mind, the secondary objective was to turn around, and capture the enemy in a pincer, which eliminates their forces, and DOES secure the region.
Quote:
Even so it's not like you won't have time to respond. If you can hold the Germans off long enough (which is possible to do) then you can get reinforcements, surrounding them, annihilating them etc.

Except they couldn't. As far as stopping the actual penetration goes, no force was ever strong enough to actually hold the line long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
The only thing that ever held the tanks back long enough for them to get encircled was deceptively bad terrain; if the tanks got stuck in the mud, the strategy would fail.
Quote:

And why have front armored tanks? You'd be better off with no armor sense it would be cheaper and faster.

I think they just found the idea of a literal wall of steel advancing on an enemy that had already been decimated with artillery fire to be appealing. Yeah, the armor probably wasn't even needed.

It might've also come in handy when crossing terrain with obstacles. I seem to recall the germans using their panzers to knock down trees in one attack.
Quote:
That or at least with side armor.

That would just slow it down more.
Quote:
And no turret? These guys literally couldn't aim unless they moved the entire tank.

If they had a turret, they might be tempted to aim it away from what's in front of them.
Quote:

Anyways we don't have human like robits right now.

No, and the closest we have are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:

So any perception of them at the moment is artificial.

Any perception ever is artificial.


A pincer movement really wouldn't work.

It did work. Between that and the kettle pot, that's why the allies took heavy losses to the blitzkrieg at the beginning of the war.
Quote:

They would eventually on a take on a line of tanks,

Who are currently behind them, as they're being attacked by infantry and artillery from the front.
Quote:
and again, even a 15 degree angle reveals your flank

Except the pincer didn't last long, as it was a surprise attack. For the pincer, the allies are facing away from the tanks. When it converts to the kettlepot, the panzer's flanks aren't exposed. (Now that I think about it, the armor in the front probably aided the kettlepot maneuver as well.)
Quote:

Radio communication existed in the day so even if they destroyed a tank it really wouldn't have mattered as they would have reported the location and caught up with them.

Between the artillery bombardment, and the swiftness of the tank rush, they weren't always able to report a penetration. Even when they did, because the allied tanks were spread in groups across the line, it took too long to bring power to bear where it was needed.
Like I said, the "hedgehogging" counter tactic was most effective.
Quote:

And you can't always scavenge off your enemies supplies.

Not always, but if your country is as depleted of resources as Germany, it makes sense to try.
Quote:
Your asking for trouble if you want to eat the bacteria laden enemy food, even assuming it's nutritious and any good.

Ha, you've never eaten german food. We cook the s**t out of it. Bacteria doesn't stand a chance.
Quote:

As far as robits go they're expensive due to the fact we really don't have anything that can mimic human movement other than prototypes.

We haven't gotten beyond prototypes because the prototypes are still REALLY expensive. (You can estimate the cost of mass production by dividing the prototype production cost in half.)
Quote:

So if you wanted to buy a single prototype with tons of research behind it, yeah, that single robot would be expensive.

Actually, I didn't factor research and design into the cost. THAT would set us back a s**t-ton of money, but it's a one time cost.
For robots, what I'm considering is the cost of the servos, the cost of the on-board computer, the cost of the sensory apparatus, the cost of battery replacement, the cost of maintainance in a risky, unstable environment, frequent unit losses due to capture or destruction, the inevitable obsolescence when the enemy figures out their inherent weakness to magnets and fire...

So yeah, expensive. I mean, even an assembly robot costs a lot of money, but at least that pays for itself.
You can't really argue that they'll get cheaper as tech progresses, because the same argument could be applied to other technologies, like, as you said, choppers.
Quote:
Once you got a system going? Bodies themselves would in theory be cheap. Even electro active polymers wouldn't be very expensive.

The servos aren't the most expensive parts. Replacing them with piezo wires won't help.
(By the way, best hope the enemy doesn't figure out how to build a tesla coil. If they do, every piezobot in the room would spaz out.)
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

You will eventually be forced to defend these supply lines at some point, which will be easy to take down, even if panzer tanks are used to protect them, as you go further in you will be more spread out.

That depends. If you plunder the areas you take, you don't need supply lines.
That said, the germans didn't do that, so they DID need supply lines, which is, in the long term, what took them down.
Quote:


The theory is to "make it to your objective" but you can't just take over a region by going to one place.

Bear in mind, the secondary objective was to turn around, and capture the enemy in a pincer, which eliminates their forces, and DOES secure the region.
Quote:
Even so it's not like you won't have time to respond. If you can hold the Germans off long enough (which is possible to do) then you can get reinforcements, surrounding them, annihilating them etc.

Except they couldn't. As far as stopping the actual penetration goes, no force was ever strong enough to actually hold the line long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
The only thing that ever held the tanks back long enough for them to get encircled was deceptively bad terrain; if the tanks got stuck in the mud, the strategy would fail.
Quote:

And why have front armored tanks? You'd be better off with no armor sense it would be cheaper and faster.

I think they just found the idea of a literal wall of steel advancing on an enemy that had already been decimated with artillery fire to be appealing. Yeah, the armor probably wasn't even needed.

It might've also come in handy when crossing terrain with obstacles. I seem to recall the germans using their panzers to knock down trees in one attack.
Quote:
That or at least with side armor.

That would just slow it down more.
Quote:
And no turret? These guys literally couldn't aim unless they moved the entire tank.

If they had a turret, they might be tempted to aim it away from what's in front of them.
Quote:

Anyways we don't have human like robits right now.

No, and the closest we have are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:

So any perception of them at the moment is artificial.

Any perception ever is artificial.


A pincer movement really wouldn't work.

It did work. Between that and the kettle pot, that's why the allies took heavy losses to the blitzkrieg at the beginning of the war.
Quote:

They would eventually on a take on a line of tanks,

Who are currently behind them, as they're being attacked by infantry and artillery from the front.
Quote:
and again, even a 15 degree angle reveals your flank

Except the pincer didn't last long, as it was a surprise attack. For the pincer, the allies are facing away from the tanks. When it converts to the kettlepot, the panzer's flanks aren't exposed. (Now that I think about it, the armor in the front probably aided the kettlepot maneuver as well.)
Quote:

Radio communication existed in the day so even if they destroyed a tank it really wouldn't have mattered as they would have reported the location and caught up with them.

Between the artillery bombardment, and the swiftness of the tank rush, they weren't always able to report a penetration. Even when they did, because the allied tanks were spread in groups across the line, it took too long to bring power to bear where it was needed.
Like I said, the "hedgehogging" counter tactic was most effective.
Quote:

And you can't always scavenge off your enemies supplies.

Not always, but if your country is as depleted of resources as Germany, it makes sense to try.
Quote:
Your asking for trouble if you want to eat the bacteria laden enemy food, even assuming it's nutritious and any good.

Ha, you've never eaten german food. We cook the s**t out of it. Bacteria doesn't stand a chance.
Quote:

As far as robits go they're expensive due to the fact we really don't have anything that can mimic human movement other than prototypes.

We haven't gotten beyond prototypes because the prototypes are still REALLY expensive. (You can estimate the cost of mass production by dividing the prototype production cost in half.)
Quote:

So if you wanted to buy a single prototype with tons of research behind it, yeah, that single robot would be expensive.

Actually, I didn't factor research and design into the cost. THAT would set us back a s**t-ton of money, but it's a one time cost.
For robots, what I'm considering is the cost of the servos, the cost of the on-board computer, the cost of the sensory apparatus, the cost of battery replacement, the cost of maintainance in a risky, unstable environment, frequent unit losses due to capture or destruction, the inevitable obsolescence when the enemy figures out their inherent weakness to magnets and fire...

So yeah, expensive. I mean, even an assembly robot costs a lot of money, but at least that pays for itself.
You can't really argue that they'll get cheaper as tech progresses, because the same argument could be applied to other technologies, like, as you said, choppers.
Quote:
Once you got a system going? Bodies themselves would in theory be cheap. Even electro active polymers wouldn't be very expensive.

The servos aren't the most expensive parts. Replacing them with piezo wires won't help.
(By the way, best hope the enemy doesn't figure out how to build a tesla coil. If they do, every piezobot in the room would spaz out.)


Piezoelectric robits are expensive, my point was it would still be reasonably cheap even with those designs (well some are up to 58 dollars per gram but, that's another story, they wouldn't even be good for robot applications).

And Hitler's take were heavy and slow, and the Allied had Radios.


A tank with a powerful cannon can inflict causalities on a lightly armored force, but winning is unlikely. Again, they'd just flank the Panzers who couldn't not be facing two enemies at once. And they'd crumble.

You'd think hitler have used lightweight designs for this.


Front armor is only good for a wall of shields, which he didn't do.

You'd think he'd at least use wechermetsz or Jews as bait so he could ambush the enemy front a frontal fixed position that the German tanks would have been good at. That's a dirty evil tactic one could use.


But he didn't even do that.

Hitler was a moron.


As well, you'd of thought he'd have waited a while to at least manufacture these tanks and wait at least 5 years for the rest of the world to continue to disarm after "the last war ever".

He could have pretended to sign that treaty and been fine for 5 years, at least, making more tanks, but nope.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

Piezoelectric robits are expensive,

Actually, piezoelectric designs have the potential to be slightly cheaper than servos. What I was saying was, you wouldn't be saving enough for it to matter. The most expensive bits will be the battery, and the computer, and the maintainance of both isn't cheap either.
Quote:

And Hitler's take were heavy and slow, and the Allied had Radios.

That isn't going to teleport them to where they're needed.
Quote:

A tank with a powerful cannon can inflict causalities on a lightly armored force, but winning is unlikely. Again, they'd just flank the Panzers who couldn't not be facing two enemies at once. And they'd crumble.

Except they couldn't flank the enemy panzers. For one thing, they didn't have enough units at the penetration point, for another, they were too busy hiding from artillery shells. Please refer back to my drawings.
Quote:

Front armor is only good for a wall of shields, which he didn't do.

That's how the kettlepot works, more or less. The enemy is surrounded on three sides by a wall of shields, with the fourth side being infantry and artillery.
Quote:

You'd think he'd at least use wechermetsz or Jews as bait so he could ambush the enemy front a frontal fixed position that the German tanks would have been good at. That's a dirty evil tactic one could use.

Except it would only work on the most foolish of generals. In fact, a clever person would see the bait, figure out the trap, and quickly figure out a way to turn it into an ambush of his own.
Quote:

Hitler was a moron.

He's not much dumber than most people.
Quote:

As well, you'd of thought he'd have waited a while to at least manufacture these tanks and wait at least 5 years for the rest of the world to continue to disarm after "the last war ever".

The rest of the world was suffering from the great depression. Lots of WWI weapons were outmoded by this time.
Ratttking's avatar

Magical Pumpkin

18,550 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Is this thread, like, closed, or something? lol
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

Piezoelectric robits are expensive,

Actually, piezoelectric designs have the potential to be slightly cheaper than servos. What I was saying was, you wouldn't be saving enough for it to matter. The most expensive bits will be the battery, and the computer, and the maintainance of both isn't cheap either.
Quote:

And Hitler's take were heavy and slow, and the Allied had Radios.

That isn't going to teleport them to where they're needed.
Quote:

A tank with a powerful cannon can inflict causalities on a lightly armored force, but winning is unlikely. Again, they'd just flank the Panzers who couldn't not be facing two enemies at once. And they'd crumble.

Except they couldn't flank the enemy panzers. For one thing, they didn't have enough units at the penetration point, for another, they were too busy hiding from artillery shells. Please refer back to my drawings.
Quote:

Front armor is only good for a wall of shields, which he didn't do.

That's how the kettlepot works, more or less. The enemy is surrounded on three sides by a wall of shields, with the fourth side being infantry and artillery.
Quote:

You'd think he'd at least use wechermetsz or Jews as bait so he could ambush the enemy front a frontal fixed position that the German tanks would have been good at. That's a dirty evil tactic one could use.

Except it would only work on the most foolish of generals. In fact, a clever person would see the bait, figure out the trap, and quickly figure out a way to turn it into an ambush of his own.
Quote:

Hitler was a moron.

He's not much dumber than most people.
Quote:

As well, you'd of thought he'd have waited a while to at least manufacture these tanks and wait at least 5 years for the rest of the world to continue to disarm after "the last war ever".

The rest of the world was suffering from the great depression. Lots of WWI weapons were outmoded by this time.


Psshft, batteries are cheap. Aluminum air batteries could give power for quite some time. Recycling would be easy enough. Just have portable nuclear reactors like in aircraft carriers for sustained power.

Also you could use piano wires to replicate muscle and then have them fixed to joints focusing most the electric motors primarily in the upper torso and larger parts of the body. The way I see it is the fingers and toes can hold up the whole body weights but you can't fit an equivalent electric motor in the hands- so why bother? Put it in the chest and let the tension go down the joints and arm in fixed positions. Course you need multiple ones for opposite tension and to move the arm back and forwards and you have little strength in dexterity manipulation, such as moving the fingers side to side instead of clenching super hard, but that's humans. I'm sure there's better wires too. Most importantly is pressure sensors. You need 13 "toes" in the foot in order to maintain balance, but it's more like 26+. In any case it would be important- you want to pick up a soda or a broomstick compared to a small car you're going to need a robot that can tell the difference. Second thing would be to have capacitors and shock absorbers and whatnot to compensate for energy lost energy in movement due to the inefficiencies in human design. It's not perfect, but the HULC by northrup and gruman can last 3 days with lithium ion compared to like 3 hours with Cybderine's system, so apparently it's significant. Doesn't surprise me becuase humans are said to move around in "controlled falling". A tail might benefit robits. More or less, with some simple design features it would be totally pluasible to create something as strong or stronger than a human that could last for quite some time. Advantage being that it can go into a house, carry 200 pounds worth of body armor without getting a scratch, and then not shoot any civilians, slowly targeting the terrorist, and then taking them down. It makes guys with guns virtually useless in a combat scenario where it's reduced to that. There are plenty of ways to take down all kinds of things but when people are needed we send in special forces; this could eliminate that, at least to some degree. I mean I can imagine a thousand situations where a tank or an Apache wouldn't be viable due to killing civilians or having to blow up a whole mountain to fit in, so infantry would be nice- robits would be awesome, no sleep, no eating, no fatigue, nothing, just endless pursuit.


And numbers.

D-Day proved that the Allied weren't scared of s**t, and would gladly die to achieve an objective. WWII soldiers were said that they were already dead. They had entire battalions replaced 3 times over. And they sent those men in to die, on purpose. It's sad but they won the war. Thier strategy hinged on these types of attacks too- you can't take on a horde of tanks who don't really care if 1 or 2 people die in the assault, and they'd flank em no problem.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Nila Nycto
Suicidesoldier#1
IT IS EVERYTHING. ._.

Along with good morals and things.


But why do some smart people forget about good morals and things?


I wouldn't say that morals and intelligence necessarily go hand in hand.
Let's look at Hitler, shall we? Undoubtedly an intelligent man, but his morals weren't worth what a pig could spit.


No, Hitler was very stupid.

This has been proven time and time again.


He was also very morally upright in the eyes of his country.

He also gollowed God. He attributed the death of the Jews to Jesus.

He was trained in military tactics as well as diplomacy.

Stupid? Compared to who?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

stealthmongoose
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Nila Nycto
Suicidesoldier#1
IT IS EVERYTHING. ._.

Along with good morals and things.


But why do some smart people forget about good morals and things?


I wouldn't say that morals and intelligence necessarily go hand in hand.
Let's look at Hitler, shall we? Undoubtedly an intelligent man, but his morals weren't worth what a pig could spit.


No, Hitler was very stupid.

This has been proven time and time again.


He was also very morally upright in the eyes of his country.

He also gollowed God. He attributed the death of the Jews to Jesus.

He was trained in military tactics as well as diplomacy.

Stupid? Compared to who?


Compared to an average person. I've also gone into depth about how his strategies were rather poor. In a lot of ways. Even if we ignore major things like slow tanks and bolt action rifles for blitzkreig, invading Russian despite not being needed real early, not using Jews for cannon fodder or soldiers, not waiting 5 years until invading poland when the rest of the world would have continued to disarm sense WWI was the war to end all wars and the U.S. just wanted to stay out forever again, and how he believed that Blonde hair and blue eyes were atlantean traits and gave people magic powers.


He actually hated Christians- Jesus was a Jew after all. "The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” In private, a term called "table talks" he often spoke of how he hated Christianity and all religion. But yet in public he wanted the people's support. He even went so far as to recreate the 10 commandments to be under him in hopes they'd listen.

He removed pesky things like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" he saw as obstacles for a powerful regime he wanted.


But yeah, it's pretty obvious he was dumb and hated Christianity.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

Psshft, batteries are cheap.

Are you serious? Battery cost is the number one reason why we don't drive electric cars.
Quote:
Aluminum air batteries could give power for quite some time.

They also cost quite a bit, and can't be electrically recharged.
Quote:

Recycling would be easy enough. Just have portable nuclear reactors like in aircraft carriers for sustained power.

Are you serious?
Quote:

Also you could use piano wires to replicate muscle and then have them fixed to joints focusing most the electric motors primarily in the upper torso and larger parts of the body.

The torso, the number one most likely place for people to aim at.
Why, if it costs exactly the same, would you relocate the motors to the torso?
Quote:
The way I see it is the fingers and toes can hold up the whole body weights but you can't fit an equivalent electric motor in the hands- so why bother? Put it in the chest and let the tension go down the joints and arm in fixed positions.

Or you can use piezoelectric wires for the hand, since it can generate significant force in cramped spaces.
(And I say hand, not hands, because I'm of the opinion that the gun should be permanently fixed to one of the robot's arms, if we were to use them.
Quote:
Most importantly is pressure sensors.

Not an issue. Pressure sensors are cheap.
Quote:
Second thing would be to have capacitors and shock absorbers and whatnot to compensate for energy lost energy in movement due to the inefficiencies in human design.

Shock absorbers don't compensate for lost energy. If you want them to lose less energy from moving, get them a vehicle.
Quote:
A tail might benefit robits.

Or extra appendages.
Quote:
More or less, with some simple design features it would be totally pluasible to create something as strong or stronger than a human that could last for quite some time.

Easy. The problem is cost.
Quote:
Advantage being that it can go into a house, carry 200 pounds worth of body armor without getting a scratch, and then not shoot any civilians, slowly targeting the terrorist, and then taking them down.

Why would it be wearing body armor? Why not just make its body armored?
Quote:
It makes guys with guns virtually useless in a combat scenario where it's reduced to that.

Except there are targets all around him; civilians. Also, he could shoot the bot itself, if he knows where to aim.
Quote:
There are plenty of ways to take down all kinds of things but when people are needed we send in special forces; this could eliminate that, at least to some degree.

So you're not thinking of a replacement for soldiers in general, you're thinking of a robot designed to go into specific situations, like a bomb robot.
That's feasible, since we don't have to make as many.
Quote:
I mean I can imagine a thousand situations where a tank or an Apache wouldn't be viable due to killing civilians or having to blow up a whole mountain to fit in, so infantry would be nice- robits would be awesome, no sleep, no eating, no fatigue, nothing, just endless pursuit.

Except because of prohibitive costs, they can only really be used in special scenarios.


Quote:
And numbers.

No.
We don't have the money to build enough humanoid robots to outnumber the enemy.
Something you might want to look into, though, is self replicating nanites. If we can make those, they could make themselves a real pest to our enemies.
Quote:


D-Day proved that the Allied weren't scared of s**t,

That's nice. If they weren't hiding from falling artillery, (and you don't have to be scared to have the sense not to walk under those,) then they were getting blown up by falling artillery. As you can probably imagine, getting blown up by artillery is a bit of an impediment to any counterattack you may be attempting.
At 23, I have learned that having a great attitude and a kind heart is worth much more than a 4.0 GPA or a fancy degree. Degrees and brains are nice, but if it doesnt have a nice personality at the helm, its wasted.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

Psshft, batteries are cheap.

Are you serious? Battery cost is the number one reason why we don't drive electric cars.
Quote:
Aluminum air batteries could give power for quite some time.

They also cost quite a bit, and can't be electrically recharged.
Quote:

Recycling would be easy enough. Just have portable nuclear reactors like in aircraft carriers for sustained power.

Are you serious?
Quote:

Also you could use piano wires to replicate muscle and then have them fixed to joints focusing most the electric motors primarily in the upper torso and larger parts of the body.

The torso, the number one most likely place for people to aim at.
Why, if it costs exactly the same, would you relocate the motors to the torso?
Quote:
The way I see it is the fingers and toes can hold up the whole body weights but you can't fit an equivalent electric motor in the hands- so why bother? Put it in the chest and let the tension go down the joints and arm in fixed positions.

Or you can use piezoelectric wires for the hand, since it can generate significant force in cramped spaces.
(And I say hand, not hands, because I'm of the opinion that the gun should be permanently fixed to one of the robot's arms, if we were to use them.
Quote:
Most importantly is pressure sensors.

Not an issue. Pressure sensors are cheap.
Quote:
Second thing would be to have capacitors and shock absorbers and whatnot to compensate for energy lost energy in movement due to the inefficiencies in human design.

Shock absorbers don't compensate for lost energy. If you want them to lose less energy from moving, get them a vehicle.
Quote:
A tail might benefit robits.

Or extra appendages.
Quote:
More or less, with some simple design features it would be totally pluasible to create something as strong or stronger than a human that could last for quite some time.

Easy. The problem is cost.
Quote:
Advantage being that it can go into a house, carry 200 pounds worth of body armor without getting a scratch, and then not shoot any civilians, slowly targeting the terrorist, and then taking them down.

Why would it be wearing body armor? Why not just make its body armored?
Quote:
It makes guys with guns virtually useless in a combat scenario where it's reduced to that.

Except there are targets all around him; civilians. Also, he could shoot the bot itself, if he knows where to aim.
Quote:
There are plenty of ways to take down all kinds of things but when people are needed we send in special forces; this could eliminate that, at least to some degree.

So you're not thinking of a replacement for soldiers in general, you're thinking of a robot designed to go into specific situations, like a bomb robot.
That's feasible, since we don't have to make as many.
Quote:
I mean I can imagine a thousand situations where a tank or an Apache wouldn't be viable due to killing civilians or having to blow up a whole mountain to fit in, so infantry would be nice- robits would be awesome, no sleep, no eating, no fatigue, nothing, just endless pursuit.

Except because of prohibitive costs, they can only really be used in special scenarios.


Quote:
And numbers.

No.
We don't have the money to build enough humanoid robots to outnumber the enemy.
Something you might want to look into, though, is self replicating nanites. If we can make those, they could make themselves a real pest to our enemies.
Quote:


D-Day proved that the Allied weren't scared of s**t,

That's nice. If they weren't hiding from falling artillery, (and you don't have to be scared to have the sense not to walk under those,) then they were getting blown up by falling artillery. As you can probably imagine, getting blown up by artillery is a bit of an impediment to any counterattack you may be attempting.


Clearly we beat the Germans based on the very things you are proclaiming to have "not been necessary" and with our advantages utilized exactly the way I'm saying they would have been.

I mean I don't really know what more to go into. Germans unprotected from flanks. German attacked from flanks, as it will be inevitable in combat. Germans destroyed with no flank protection. For God's sake. This is simple stuff. You can talk about how they'd never be attacked from the side magically even though all you need is a 15 degree angle on your enemy, what would still be considered in front of your enemy even if it wasn't 90 degrees and they'd go down. No strategy can account for that. It's just downright a stupid idea.


As far as robits go the battery would be easy, yes. Especially in the future with super nano-capacitor psuedo batteries! Anyways yes, obviously they've compensated due to the inefficiencies of the human form! And store it in capacitors which helps in long range movement.

I mean you haven't even labeled a projected cost. What do you think it will cost?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games