StarCraft® II

Tomorrow's Optionally Manned Main Battle Tank

Posts: 1,412
This tank is designed to be able to quickly convert from an amphibious and airdroppable mobile gun system/self propelled howitzer to a main battle tank.

My idea is to alter today's main battle tank design (the standard 4 crew designs) in the following ways:
-General updates/improvements that would be applied to all new vehicles (better engines, active defense systems, better computing and communications, stealthier design, etc.)
-Make all armor beyond that capable of withstanding small arms fire removable/modular
-Give the tank a diesel-electric drive with the electric motors in the wheels such that the tank can operate without tracks.
-Give the tank water impellers for amphibious operations.
-Move the turret to the rear of the tank.
-Remove all crew compartments (and add autonomous capability, although fire commands would still be from an outside authorized source, and there would still be manual override controls mounted on the gun)
-Lower the Roof of the turret below the gun, such that the entire tank, other than the gun, is no taller than the tracks
-Allow the gun's vertical pivot to itself be raised or lowered. It would be lowered so that the entire gun could drop down into the hull, somewhat similar to the Zumwalt class destroyers. It would be raised to increase gun elevation (how far up the gun can be pointed without the back of the gun hitting something below it) for indirect fire or antiaircraft fire missions using guided munitions.

Optional:
Keep room for 1 crew member in the hull for consistent manual override capability.

Explanation:
Dual Weight Class
-Putting MBT tracks on a much lighter system might seem like a total waste of weight and cost, but the size and number of the road wheels allows it to operate with good mobility without the tracks, which increases speed and fuel efficiency. The relatively very high strength suspension would allow the vehicle (without humans on board) to be airdropped from low altitude without a parachute. The exact maximum altitude for this has yet to be determined.
-Quick field maintenance allows you to turn what you just airdropped or drove onto the beach into a MBT.
-Instead of having to follow up light vehicle deliveries by delivering entire heavier vehicles, you only have to follow it up by delivering the armor, tracks, and possibly a couple other components, which is much easier than delivering the entire vehicle, since it's lighter.
-In an emergency situation, this MBT could detach its armor to prevent having the tank sink (This happens, a M1 Abrams accidently drove off a bride during operation Iraqi Freedom, the tank was effectively lost [although I'm sure they salvaged it later]) or be stuck at the bottom of a river after a failed attempt at fording. If within reach, winching the armor out of the water sometime after would be relatively simple, since you could do it one piece at a time.
-One small benefit is the ability to equip the tracks without equipping most of the armor, thus making a vehicle which is able to drive at nearly full speed over snow and mud.
-It's hard to predict how much heavy armor the military will need decades from now, so this vehicle allows you to adjust your ratio of heavy armor to lighter/more mobile vehicles from conflict to conflict, or even from battle to battle, as enemy weapons, active defense technologies, and budgets change.

Limited Crew Protection
The benefits are pretty evident: A lower profile and stealthier tank and ample room for moving while reloading.
The immense amount of room to load the gun allows the number of loaders to be adjusted anywhere from one to however many are required to fire at the gun's max burst RoF.

In very safe environments, which might be encountered when the vehicle is acting as a self propelled howitzer, the vehicle could be crewed by humans, however,
In most dangerous environments, the gun would be loaded by robotic soldiers, who would be relatively well protected against small arms fire and nearly impervious to NBC dangers.
A gun shield would protect the loader(s) from direct fire from the target.
When an incoming large artillery shell or top attack missile is detected, it's possible that one or two of the robotic loaders would hop into the gun stowage compartment, and thus be protected from the attack.
In general the dangers of large explosive warheads making their way over top of or beside the tank would be greatly reduced with an effective active defense system installed.
In the event that the crew is wiped out, and replacements are not available, the tank is able to load the gun itself, but the loading mechanism is relatively simple and compact, so the gun must be nearly completely lowered, such that the rear of the gun is in the turret, and the rest of the gun just barely clears the hull. After being loaded the gun must be raised such that the recoil won't cause the gun to collide with anything.

Note: The tank would be able to serve as a charging station for robotic soldiers, so there would be no real need for robotic loaders to have any large batteries on them. Also, if recharging takes time, then this vehicle wouldn't need a designated crew, but instead would be crewed by whichever robots are being recharged.
^This is assuming that the robots aren't powered by internal combustion engines, which would probably be unwanted in a robot designed to operate in buildings and vehicles (just like people) due to noise and fumes.
Edited by Engineer on 2/2/2014 7:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/02/2014 11:27 AMPosted by Engineer
This tank is designed to be able to quickly convert from an amphibious and airdroppable mobile gun system/self propelled howitzer to a main battle tank.

My idea is to alter today's main battle tank design (the standard 4 crew designs) in the following ways:
-General updates/improvements that would be applied to all new vehicles (better engines, active defense systems, better computing and communications, stealthier design, etc.)
-Make all armor beyond that capable of withstanding small arms fire removable/modular
-Give the tank a diesel-electric drive with the electric motors in the wheels such that the tank can operate without tracks.
-Give the tank water impellers for amphibious operations.
-Move the turret to the rear of the tank.
-Remove all crew compartments (and add autonomous capability, although fire commands would still be from an outside authorized source, and there would still be manual override controls mounted on the gun)
-Lower the Roof of the turret below the gun, such that the entire tank, other than the gun, is no taller than the tracks
-Allow the gun's vertical pivot to itself be raised or lowered. It would be lowered so that the entire gun could drop down into the hull, somewhat similar to the Zumwalt class destroyers. It would be raised to increase gun elevation (how far up the gun can be pointed without the back of the gun hitting something below it) for indirect fire or antiaircraft fire missions using guided munitions.

Optional:
Keep room for 1 crew member in the hull for consistent manual override capability.

Explanation:
Dual Weight Class
-Putting MBT tracks on a much lighter system might seem like a total waste of weight and cost, but the size and number of the road wheels allows it to operate with good mobility without the tracks, which increases speed and fuel efficiency. The relatively very high strength suspension would allow the vehicle (without humans on board) to be airdropped from low altitude without a parachute. The exact maximum altitude for this has yet to be determined.
-Quick field maintenance allows you to turn what you just airdropped or drove onto the beach into a MBT.
-Instead of having to follow up light vehicle deliveries by delivering entire heavier vehicles, you only have to follow it up by delivering the armor, tracks, and possibly a couple other components, which is much easier than delivering the entire vehicle, since it's lighter.
-In an emergency situation, this MBT could detach its armor to prevent having the tank sink (This happens, a M1 Abrams accidently drove off a bride during operation Iraqi Freedom, the tank was effectively lost [although I'm sure they salvaged it later]) or be stuck at the bottom of a river after a failed attempt at fording. If within reach, winching the armor out of the water sometime after would be relatively simple, since you could do it one piece at a time.
-One small benefit is the ability to equip the tracks without equipping most of the armor, thus making a vehicle which is able to drive at nearly full speed over snow and mud.
-It's hard to predict how much heavy armor the military will need decades from now, so this vehicle allows you to adjust your ratio of heavy armor to lighter/more mobile vehicles from conflict to conflict, or even from battle to battle, as enemy weapons, active defense technologies, and budgets change.

Limited Crew Protection
The benefits are pretty evident: A lower profile and stealthier tank and ample room for moving while reloading.
The immense amount of room to load the gun allows the number of loaders to be adjusted anywhere from one to however many are required to fire at the gun's max burst RoF.

In very safe environments, which might be encountered when the vehicle is acting as a self propelled howitzer, the vehicle could be crewed by humans, however,
In most dangerous environments, the gun would be loaded by robotic soldiers, who would be relatively well protected against small arms fire and nearly impervious to NBC dangers.
A gun shield would protect the loader(s) from direct fire from the target.
When an incoming large artillery shell or top attack missile is detected, it's possible that one or two of the robotic loaders would hop into the gun stowage compartment, and thus be protected from the attack.
In general the dangers of large explosive warheads making their way over top of or beside the tank would be greatly reduced with an effective active defense system installed.
In the event that the crew is wiped out, and replacements are not available, the tank is able to load the gun itself, but the loading mechanism is relatively simple and compact, so the gun must be nearly completely lowered, such that the rear of the gun is in the turret, and the rest of the gun just barely clears the hull. After being loaded the gun must be raised such that the recoil won't cause the gun to collide with anything.


Interesting, although im more interested in the army of 2030 which is said to have 1/4 combat troops replaced entirely by robotic units.

Its nice to see all these innovations coming out of the army, i wonder how they will affect civilian life seeing as many military innovations tend to lead to changes in civilian life (the computer and internet i believe came from the military yeah?).

EDIT

If only the army can take a look at this! One question, what is the estimated cost of this supposed to be?
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/2/2014 12:33 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/02/2014 12:30 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
One question, what is the estimated cost of this supposed to be?

I don't know, but it's designed to serve as a MBT, SPH, or MGS, so it's definitely more expensive than buying a single one of any of those, but it's also definitely cheaper than buying all three.

The robotic crew, when not being used to man the tank, could presumably be used for other purposes.
Edited by Engineer on 2/2/2014 2:31 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/02/2014 12:30 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
army of 2030 which is said to have 1/4 combat troops replaced entirely by robotic units

Well, the reality is that the air force and naval air wing are already in full swing with armed unmanned systems. Cruise missiles and armed "drones" can be remotely commanded to switch course and targets.
The army already uses EOD bots which could easily be converted to armed versions, and the same goes with their new self-driving trucks.
Now, full size ships benefit little from not having any people on board (for now, just having fewer is sufficient), but the navy is producing lots of mine sweeping and patrol unmanned vessels.

Remote control isn't where it ends, as soon as "insurgents" get their hands on sufficient technology to successfully use armed autonomous systems, militaries will feel they have no choice but to match their adversary, even if it's not with the exact same kind of equipment.

02/02/2014 12:30 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Its nice to see all these innovations coming out of the army, i wonder how they will affect civilian life seeing as many military innovations tend to lead to changes in civilian life

Well, the main technologies involved in the OP were unmanned vehicles and robots that perform similar tasks as humans. Both of these technologies consist mostly of advanced software coordinating with sensors. The unmanned vehicles will obviously lead lead to self driving cars eventually. The robots are most useful for emergency response and for industrial applications. As the robots become more cost effective, they will take our jobs starting with the most dangerous and the most boring or undesirable, but they will probably lag behind in the service industry (unless there's a turn around and people start preferring to talk to machines).
Right now, robots for performing humans' tasks are not very advanced (watch videos from the DARPA Robotics Challenge 2013 trials), but they're coming along fairly quickly.
^Disclaimer, time was not a real factor in the grading of the competitors in the DRC. DARPA wanted to make sure the tasks could actually be done, and put off trying to get them done fast for later.

BTW, I added an edit to the OP (at the bottom).
Edited by Engineer on 2/2/2014 7:52 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/02/2014 07:46 PMPosted by Engineer
02/02/2014 12:30 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
army of 2030 which is said to have 1/4 combat troops replaced entirely by robotic units

Well, the reality is that the air force and naval air wing are already in full swing with armed unmanned systems. Cruise missiles and armed "drones" can be remotely commanded to switch course and targets.
The army already uses EOD bots which could easily be converted to armed versions, and the same goes with their new self-driving trucks.
Now, full size ships benefit little from not having any people on board (for now, just having fewer is sufficient), but the navy is producing lots of mine sweeping and patrol unmanned vessels.

Remote control isn't where it ends, as soon as "insurgents" get their hands on sufficient technology to successfully use armed autonomous systems, militaries will feel they have no choice but to match their adversary, even if it's not with the exact same kind of equipment.

02/02/2014 12:30 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Its nice to see all these innovations coming out of the army, i wonder how they will affect civilian life seeing as many military innovations tend to lead to changes in civilian life

Well, the main technologies involved in the OP were unmanned vehicles and robots that perform similar tasks as humans. Both of these technologies consist mostly of advanced software coordinating with sensors. The unmanned vehicles will obviously lead lead to self driving cars eventually. The robots are most useful for emergency response and for industrial applications. As the robots become more cost effective, they will take our jobs starting with the most dangerous and the most boring or undesirable, but they will probably lag behind in the service industry (unless there's a turn around and people start preferring to talk to machines).
Right now, robots for performing humans' tasks are not very advanced (watch videos from the DARPA Robotics Challenge 2013 trials), but they're coming along fairly quickly.
^Disclaimer, time was not a real factor in the grading of the competitors in the DRC. DARPA wanted to make sure the tasks could actually be done, and put off trying to get them done fast for later.

BTW, I added an edit to the OP (at the bottom).


As aerial drones advance as well as cruise missiles will it even be worth it to produce tanks and armored vehicles outside of simply transporting troops? I feel like soon anyways the idea of the tank is going to have to change because the heavily armored slug of today (even if the abrams has a top speed of over 50MPH) seems a little outdated as the air above gets more and more dangerous to troops and vehicles below.

Anyways, as I said before this idea is simply amazing. It'd allow the military to save some big bucks while maintaining power and versatility. I do still question however the viability of tanks in the future (like I said maybe the tank should be redesigned from the armored slug of today)
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/05/2014 03:41 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I do still question however the viability of tanks in the future (like I said maybe the tank should be redesigned from the armored slug of today)

I definitely think there's at least some truth to that.

Tanks were designed to spearhead land assaults, they're armor protects them, while their main gun serves two purposes: taking out other tanks (which only exists once the tank is popular) and providing close fire support for infantry.

Big tanks carry big guns to take out heavily fortified targets. If close air support OR EVEN guided artillery (rocket or cannon) becomes effective enough, then the tank will likely become obsolete.
Now, self propelled howitzers can resemble tanks, but they could also go obsolete if [See thread: "On the topic of tank size"]

02/05/2014 03:41 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
simply transporting troops

As far as I've been able to tell, today, superpowers are looking to build both lightweight and heavyweight vehicles, but they all carry infantry (like other IFVs, they could potentially hold other equipment). The GCV is the main program I'm referring to. The GCV weighs as much as a MBT, but it carries 9 passengers and 3 crew (if I remember the numbers right). I slightly less extreme example exists already as the Merkava MBT. Not only does the Merkava hold some passengers, but Israel is building Namer APCs which use the same chassis.
The thing is, these IFVs are big so they can be tough. They're tough so the grunts inside don't have to die. But if they're robots, then it wouldn't be so important to protect them. I'm not saying this is likely to happen (entire squads replaced by robots), but I'm not saying it's extremely unlikely either.

I don't know for sure when the tank will go or change, but I'm pretty confident saying that armor is not keeping up with weapons. As time goes on, heavy armor will almost surely disappear. Still, there's two things that makes tanks big: armor and cannon. For cannon, see thread: "On the topic of tank size"

Note: While the vehicles in development that I've read about don't have much armor, at least on the sides and top (just enough to "protect from small arms fire"), they must have a decent amount on the bottom, because they still weigh a lot and the GCV is said to have IED protection at least equal to that of the Abrams, and the GCV is flat-bottomed, so all that protection isn't from a fancy hull (I mean v-shape and/or high ground clearance).
Edited by Engineer on 2/5/2014 8:35 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/05/2014 07:47 PMPosted by Engineer
armor is not keeping up with weapons.


++++++++++111111111

I cannot stress this enough to people!!! and sooner or later the military is going to have to adress this issue, otherwwise wars are going to end in the blink of an eye with all sides dead. maybe the new "armor" of the future will lie in stealth and the ability to not get shot at since your unknown?

Infantry armor however seems to be doing mighty fine, and I think that liquid armor will provide a new challenge to firearms if it gets refined and produced. Armored powered suits in the future may also challenge firearms as well, making armor > weaponry on an infantry scale.
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/9/2014 7:10 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/09/2014 07:09 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
armor > weaponry on an infantry scale

That may be possible, but I'd just like to say that discussing armor on infantry is distinctly different from discussing armor on vehicles because infantry use their surroundings as armor (as in, hide or partially hide while under fire) extremely frequently, while vehicles rarely do so.

One weapon innovation that seems that it could be fielded soon is small grenades that explode at a range that can be quickly set to just before or just after an object down field (such as just after it goes through a window).
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/10/2014 07:22 AMPosted by Engineer
02/09/2014 07:09 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
armor > weaponry on an infantry scale

That may be possible, but I'd just like to say that discussing armor on infantry is distinctly different from discussing armor on vehicles because infantry use their surroundings as armor (as in, hide or partially hide while under fire) extremely frequently, while vehicles rarely do so.

One weapon innovation that seems that it could be fielded soon is small grenades that explode at a range that can be quickly set to just before or just after an object down field (such as just after it goes through a window).


The XM-25? is that thing in production yet? it looks complete to me but im no weapons designer/engineer so id rather not make that assumption.

02/10/2014 07:22 AMPosted by Engineer
That may be possible, but I'd just like to say that discussing armor on infantry is distinctly different from discussing armor on vehicles because infantry use their surroundings as armor (as in, hide or partially hide while under fire) extremely frequently, while vehicles rarely do so.


This is why I prefer the future of humanity to have "armored" walkers (akin to a marauder here) instead of clunky vehicles, the idea of a marauder or marine to me sounds better than any vehicle we can make. Vehicles for me in the future should only be for heavy barrage and siege operations (sounds like the thor and siege tank). suits are more mobile, fully armored, and they can use the surroundings to help in protection.

Suits may not be "tommorow" per se but I feel like in the future I hope they become more mainstream than vehicles, I personally think they have much more potential.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/11/2014 04:32 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
Vehicles for me in the future should only be for heavy barrage and siege operations (sounds like the thor and siege tank). suits are more mobile, fully armored, and they can use the surroundings to help in protection.

On mobility:
If your talking about power suits then while they may be more agile in getting past obstacles and extreme inclines, but for long ranged movements they are not very mobile. In fact, they wouldn't even have the range to go far unless they had an actual engine in them. Gasoline engines might not be allowed inside of building due to fumes, but I could think of a couple ways around this: 1) you could have a "silent mode" similar some other new military vehicles where they run off of a battery for a short amount of time with the engine off, 2) apparently some propane engines are allowed in buildings, because I've seen them used in stores, 3) when fossil fuels are depleted then you could use whatever is normal, unless its ethanol or another plant based fuel that's not allowed in buildings (I'm not sure if ethanol is)
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/11/2014 04:32 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
"armored" walkers (akin to a marauder here) instead of clunky vehicles

Just yesterday I started thinking about the possibility that it doesn't have to be so binary. The future doesn't have to be either Mech Warrior Online or an upgraded version or World of Tanks. The more advanced a suspension is, the more it becomes like a leg http://youtu.be/EeHkldcQjao . Likewise, I've seen several concepts of walking machines with tracks on the legs. Most real concepts were small, but lots of large ones have appeared in video games. I just started thinking about this, so I don't have any ideas yet.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/11/2014 07:56 AMPosted by Engineer
02/11/2014 04:32 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
"armored" walkers (akin to a marauder here) instead of clunky vehicles

Just yesterday I started thinking about the possibility that it doesn't have to be so binary. The future doesn't have to be either Mech Warrior Online or an upgraded version or World of Tanks. The more advanced a suspension is, the more it becomes like a leg http://youtu.be/EeHkldcQjao . Likewise, I've seen several concepts of walking machines with tracks on the legs. Most real concepts were small, but lots of large ones have appeared in video games. I just started thinking about this, so I don't have any ideas yet.


Sorry for the additional use of starcraft here but I imagine the possible replacement of tanks and such as something akin to A.R.E.S, it conducts multiple purposes, speedy, well sized but should be smaller and easily more mobile than a tank, armored and armed, unmanned. as for suits not being mobile in long ground movements even the marines in starcraft rely on medivacs to move around long ranges quickly and armored personnel carriers are still produced in the future, so those will still be around in the day of suits/robotic warriors.

I simply think a heavy suit (marauder) would be thousands of times more effective in urban combat than shoving a clunky-!@# tank in the street rolling around and making noise, waiting for some random person on a random roof to get out a rocket launcher and smash it. you can flood these theoretical suits in small squads on the street to provide heavy (even if not grenades in the form of smaller autocannons, say maybe a 16MM rifle) fire support while being able to withstand punishment, even more so since they can use some of the surroundings for cover which tanks cannot.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
I'd say there's 4 kinds of infantry-style roles for units:
1) To be able to perform tasks using human tools while being capable of self defense (from construction and assembly to field repairs and medic duties to hijacking enemy systems)
2) To be able to garrison buildings (fighting taking full advantage of the protection available from civilian structures).
3) To be able to secure a building for a search or the removal of garrisoned enemies when micro UAVs and outdoor weapon platforms are not up for the job. (Note: This type of unit is especially needed when avoiding collateral damage is extremely important, as micro UAVs cannot go through windows without breaking them and cannot go through doors without blowing a hole in them. Projectiles obviously aren't any better.)
4) To be able to disguise as a civilian or impersonate an enemy while being capable of spying, self defense, or even serious attacks.

While nothing's guaranteed, one would assume that all of these roles would be necessary and since all of them have similar requirements, such being able to walk through doors (although arguably for #2 and #3 you could decide to always just blow the hinges off), that they would be fulfilled by the same basic unit, that being an infantry that may be a robot, suited human (excluding #4), traditional infantry, or a hybrid/cyborg.

Honestly, I'm not sure I like the idea of heavy power suits (like in SC2). Not only is it difficult covering joints with armor, but you can't put armor on your inner arms upper arms or inner upper thighs.
This can't happen: http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/newssi/40000/40735_0_org.jpg . I don't know about you, but I don't have a 3 foot wide armpit that can fit lots of armor and hydraulic cylinders. Still, the big reason I don't like heavy power suits is that while robots can have an engine in them and still be no bigger than a person and the gear they can carry, a heavy power suit and its engine would have to be big (because the body has a certain volume and then the engine must add to that volume and any other gear must also add to that volume), making it difficult for them to fit into almost any of the vehicles used to transport people.
If there were a serious threat inside a building an you needed the indoor equivalent of a Thor, I would simply use a tank small enough to fit through a door. The only reason I wouldn't prefer robots is because robots or expensive due to all of the actuators and sensors involved in making a machine able to walk stably. The mini-tank would be much cheaper, and thus more expendable.
Edited by Engineer on 2/11/2014 10:24 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/11/2014 09:33 PMPosted by Engineer
I'd say there's 4 kinds of infantry-style roles for units


Arent there a metric crapton of specific MOS within army infantry?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/11/2014 09:33 PMPosted by Engineer
This can't happen: http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/newssi/40000/40735_0_org.jpg . I don't know about you, but I don't have a 3 foot wide armpit that can fit lots of armor and hydraulic cylinders. Still, the big reason I don't like heavy power suits is that while robots can have an engine in them and still be no bigger than a person and the gear they can carry, a heavy power suit and its engine would have to be big (because the body has a certain volume and then the engine must add to that volume and any other gear must also add to that volume), making it difficult for them to fit into almost any of the vehicles used to transport people.


Everything in starcraft the terrans made were big though (minus units like the hellion). I guess the reason why we see these outrageously huge things (a marine would smash a normal human like an ant, tychus findlay ripped out a giant jukebox from the ceiling while drunk) is because of the situation they were in. We fight human on human all the time yeah? Zerg are a mainly melee based durable race. There are uses for fast agile units but at the end of the day you need a heavy armored brute with a just as big gun to take down he brunt of the zerg. I believe their suits are despite being made before the zerg were especially built upon and used when the zerg arrived because it met their requirements of fighting zerg, which we today dont have to take into account.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/12/2014 04:21 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
02/11/2014 09:33 PMPosted by Engineer
This can't happen: http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/newssi/40000/40735_0_org.jpg . I don't know about you, but I don't have a 3 foot wide armpit that can fit lots of armor and hydraulic cylinders. Still, the big reason I don't like heavy power suits is that while robots can have an engine in them and still be no bigger than a person and the gear they can carry, a heavy power suit and its engine would have to be big (because the body has a certain volume and then the engine must add to that volume and any other gear must also add to that volume), making it difficult for them to fit into almost any of the vehicles used to transport people.


Everything in starcraft the terrans made were big though (minus units like the hellion). I guess the reason why we see these outrageously huge things (a marine would smash a normal human like an ant, tychus findlay ripped out a giant jukebox from the ceiling while drunk) is because of the situation they were in. We fight human on human all the time yeah? Zerg are a mainly melee based durable race. There are uses for fast agile units but at the end of the day you need a heavy armored brute with a just as big gun to take down he brunt of the zerg. I believe their suits are despite being made before the zerg were especially built upon and used when the zerg arrived because it met their requirements of fighting zerg, which we today dont have to take into account.


Even then an armpit can't be 2 feet wide (I think?).

Otherwise, I completely agree, suits could make perfect sense in the SC universe because vehicles could commonly be used to transport people who are wearing space suits, so vehicles would be roomy enough to hold huge power suits. Also, when fighting the Protoss there's probably a big threat of things getting hacked, so you don't want to use too much unmanned stuff. Lastly, you need soldiers, front line ones or not, and those soldiers are going to need a space suit or at least a similar thing to a lesser degree in a lot of the environments you fight in, so soldiers are already going to have a whole bunch of stuff on them, which makes it a smaller leap to a power suit.
Edited by Engineer on 2/12/2014 9:16 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/12/2014 09:12 AMPosted by Engineer
Otherwise, I completely agree, suits could make perfect sense in the SC universe because vehicles could commonly be used to transport people who are wearing space suits, so vehicles would be roomy enough to hold huge power suits. Also, when fighting the Protoss there's probably a big threat of things getting hacked, so you don't want to use too much unmanned stuff. Lastly, you need soldiers, front line ones or not, and those soldiers are going to need a space suit or at least a similar thing to a lesser degree in a lot of the environments you fight in, so soldiers are already going to have a whole bunch of stuff on them, which makes it a smaller leap to a power suit.


Yeah terran technology was a reaction to the enemies their fighting, we dont fight zerg, we dont need clunky suits (yet, I'd imagine tht one natural cover becomes useless in the way way far future i can imagine something like a warhammer 40k space marine coming about) because we fight mainly lightly armored ranged infantry in modern warfare.

I imagine our suits being the spartan suits from halo (obviously better than in halo though because as you can see in my other thread the !@#$ technology halo has is a joke). the tiny fusion reactor may be a little problem with our current tech but we could probably get a different power source that we would have to recharge more often (and by more often im thinking the suit can be used continuously for only a few days at best which should be fine enough in most cases).

As for lasers right now im thinking laser technology will be used hand in hand perfectly with power suits/robots seeing as they both require power and can probably share power. I think gun technology will eventually switch back to a certain degree to projectiles once high velocity kinetic weaponry becomes handheld (im looking at you rail/coil guns).

I also have this feeling that the invention of high armored power suits will lead to more precision armor piercing technology rather than large HE explosives. I have a feeling that a wide radius explosion wont be nearly as effective as precision shots that take down the target in a few hits, it would also be better for preventing collateral damage.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,737
02/12/2014 09:12 AMPosted by Engineer
Protoss there's probably a big threat of things getting hacked


The terrans shouldnt worry about that, if the protoss wanted the terran dead it wouldve been done a long long time ago.

According to lore protoss has time manipulation, creation of black holes, drill beams that pierce the crust of a planet and effectively destroys it all as lava rises around the entire planet, possible petaton level shielding on capital ships, beams that instantly gut terran battlecruisers, etc.

The last thing terrans need to worry about would be the toss hacking their suits. At that point it would just be the protoss having a troll moment.

EDIT

that being said thats no excuse for blizz making toss OP as !@#$ in the early game....
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/12/2014 12:47 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/12/2014 12:43 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Yeah terran technology was a reaction to the enemies their fighting, we dont fight zerg, we dont need clunky suits (yet, I'd imagine tht one natural cover becomes useless in the way way far future i can imagine something like a warhammer 40k space marine coming about) because we fight mainly lightly armored ranged infantry in modern warfare.

I imagine our suits being the spartan suits from halo (obviously better than in halo though because as you can see in my other thread the !@#$ technology halo has is a joke). the tiny fusion reactor may be a little problem with our current tech but we could probably get a different power source that we would have to recharge more often (and by more often im thinking the suit can be used continuously for only a few days at best which should be fine enough in most cases).

I have to almost completely disagree. I dislike heavy power suits not because they aren't useful in combat, but because their whole purpose is to be able to go where humans can go, and they don't meet that requirement.
02/11/2014 09:33 PMPosted by Engineer
I'm not sure I like the idea of heavy power suits (like in SC2). Not only is it difficult covering joints with armor, but you can't put armor on your inner arms upper arms or inner upper thighs.

02/11/2014 09:33 PMPosted by Engineer
I'd say there's 4 kinds of infantry-style roles for units:
1) To be able to perform tasks using human tools while being capable of self defense (from construction and assembly to field repairs and medic duties to hijacking enemy systems)
2) To be able to garrison buildings (fighting taking full advantage of the protection available from civilian structures).
3) To be able to secure a building for a search or the removal of garrisoned enemies when micro UAVs and outdoor weapon platforms are not up for the job. (Note: This type of unit is especially needed when avoiding collateral damage is extremely important, as micro UAVs cannot go through windows without breaking them and cannot go through doors without blowing a hole in them. Projectiles obviously aren't any better.)
4) To be able to disguise as a civilian or impersonate an enemy while being capable of spying, self defense, or even serious attacks.


02/12/2014 12:43 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I'd imagine tht one natural cover becomes useless in the way way far future i can imagine something like a warhammer 40k space marine coming about

The opposite is true. If there's no reason to garrison a building, then the concept of combat infantry disappears. There would be no combat infantry, and there would be no infantry combat suits.
Edited by Engineer on 2/12/2014 2:38 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,412
02/12/2014 12:43 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I also have this feeling that the invention of high armored power suits will lead to more precision armor piercing technology rather than large HE explosives. I have a feeling that a wide radius explosion wont be nearly as effective as precision shots that take down the target in a few hits, it would also be better for preventing collateral damage.

HE explosives would mean "high explosive explosives"
I don't see how suits are anything other than a mid point between infantry and tanks. We have infantry and tanks today. The weapons would just be a mid point between anti-infantry weapons and anti-tank weapons.
Large explosives aren't designed as anti-infantry weapons or anti-tank weapons. They're general use weapons that are only more effective than other types of weapons when attacking a fortification.

Also, I want to make sure you realize that there isn't just bullets (kinetic weapons) and bombs (explosive weapons).
There other things that are widely used, such as:
HEAT - explosively formed perpetrator, this holds far less explosives than a similarly sized HE shell, but it is much better at the specific task of penetrating armor. This is what ATGMs and RPGs are almost always armed with.
HESH - a slight variation of HE that's designed to cause the spalling of armor. Heavy spall liners have reduced this weapon's effectiveness.
FRAG - an explosive surrounded with metal that fragments and is propelled outwards during the explosion; damage comes mainly from penetration of multiple shrapnel projectiles into soft targets, and not from the blast itself; nearly all explosive weapons designed specifically to kill infantry and soft targets, such as grenades, anti-infantry landmines, claymores, and the most common type of artillery sub munition, are this type of weapon

Thermobaric - this serves the same purpose as HE, but does not carry its own oxidizer, thus must mix with the air before detonation.
Note: thermonuclear was intentionally incorrectly named to misguide the enemy to think that H-bombs primarily need heat for proper detonation, when they actually primarily need pressure.
Edited by Engineer on 2/12/2014 3:04 PM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]