Modern Melee Combat - A dress in the heat of battle
A comment on the earlier idea that melee would be disrupted by direct EMP from tasers and the like, keep in mind that the cyborg would be incredibly fast and that unless the enemy was as fast with visual enhancements as well, it would be impossible to visually track the cyborg, much less land a hit.
Quote:Original post by JasRonqSo give the guy a cheap bodysuit with an outer mesh layer carrying a good bit of current - electric fence style. Or use EMP grenades (which are rumoured to exist already) on a dead-man trigger.
A comment on the earlier idea that melee would be disrupted by direct EMP from tasers and the like, keep in mind that the cyborg would be incredibly fast and that unless the enemy was as fast with visual enhancements as well, it would be impossible to visually track the cyborg, much less land a hit.
However you hash it, once you put your cyborg in melee range, I get to use whatever melee-range tech I like back. Most of the proponents of the melee cyborg on this thread so far have acted as if the human opponents are blind, deaf, dumb, and using 1950's technology to boot.
Besides that, I think you vastly overestimate how fast we could push a cyborg. A robot, yes, but a cyborg's primary feature is their human brain. The limbs can move as fast as is mechanically possible, but we can't do much to improve the brain's reaction speed. This means that the cyborg can cover huge distances very quickly, but up close we are down to neural reaction time, and a well-trained body isn't *that much slower* to react than the mind.
All good points, however a CIWS deflecting projectiles in the atmosphere is much different than in vacuum. Bullets and missiles have to have aerodynamic shapes to efficiently fly through the air, bullets do this with their tapered form and spinning, disrupt either of those 2 factors and the bullet will bleed off kinetic energy spinning out of control. You don't need to deflect a bullet or a projectile mass for mass, you just need to disrupt its supersonic envelope or unbalance it causing it to spin wildly. There will be a threshold where the bullet becomes too large and you'll need more mass to affect it of course but were talking shells fired from tanks then, and not projectiles fired from mounted guns or rifles.
As for fixed turrets, mounted turrets, automated turrets, anything u can mount can potentially be carried by a cyber solider with their enhanced strength. Within the right environment a cyber solider carried weapon is much more mobile than one mounted on a jeep or tank or apc, I'll give the advantage to the cyber solider. Unless your fighting in open desert with perfect line of sight, yes long range weapon mounted vehicles will probably win, if they arn't destroyed instantly by air craft which will be hunting them.
I think stealth is a good angle, basically specialized commando units who infiltrate the enemy rear and disrupt their supply lines. Modern wars is all about supply lines. With their augmented abilities they will depend less on guns which require ammo either way and more on stealth, sounds reasonable.
Good Luck!
-ddn
As for fixed turrets, mounted turrets, automated turrets, anything u can mount can potentially be carried by a cyber solider with their enhanced strength. Within the right environment a cyber solider carried weapon is much more mobile than one mounted on a jeep or tank or apc, I'll give the advantage to the cyber solider. Unless your fighting in open desert with perfect line of sight, yes long range weapon mounted vehicles will probably win, if they arn't destroyed instantly by air craft which will be hunting them.
I think stealth is a good angle, basically specialized commando units who infiltrate the enemy rear and disrupt their supply lines. Modern wars is all about supply lines. With their augmented abilities they will depend less on guns which require ammo either way and more on stealth, sounds reasonable.
Good Luck!
-ddn
Quote:Original post by EdtharanQuote:That idea of a "small vector change and it misses!" works very well with asteroids and the like at half AU+ scales, but starts to break down at the range of 200 feet.
You are so wrong on many counts here. As an amateur astronomer and someone who did a double major in physics in collage, I can tell you exactly where you are wrong.
*Snip meaningless numbers*
Actually, what I said was still completely valid no matter what math you throw at it.
You have TIME at long range, and you can apply whatever force needed to deflect an asteroid, you don't have that at short ranges.
The vast majority of firefights take place at less than 200m, and for most rifles that means you have less than 0.5 seconds before impact at some of the best of times. And even then you're more likely to be facing 0.01, if not 0.005 second flight times. I don't care what you are using, but that isn't a lot of time to detect, track, compute deflection angle, aim, fire, and have the round make it to the incoming projectile in time to deflect it enough. Now do that against 10-20 rounds per second, incoming for 60 seconds at a time.
Then there is the issue of actually hitting them, and the angles we're dealing with. They're small bullets, and can be designed to make it harder to detect them and deflect them. In the case of smart ammo that is under development you will also have to not only deflect it so it doesn't hit you, but also either by enough that it can't correct, or hard enough to disable it.
But all that pales compared to the issue we still have to deal with, of just how much you can deflect. Long before I'm going to try stabbing you with a sword, I'm going to try shooting larger/more rounds your way. What this means is that you have to carry more defensive ammo than I carry of offensive ammo.
And as for current CIWS units destroying missiles, they on average do this with only one or two clean strikes before the missile is too badly damaged to remain effective. They're still firing 100-500 rounds to strike a large incoming missiles once or twice at 2+ miles.
I'd image a squad deployed CIWS of the future proably something akin to what you'll see on ships (radar dome and gun single body design), detects and fires incoming streams of high velocity flechette rounds which can defelect most medium calibre projectiles (see previous discussion, not by mass but by disrupting their aerodynamics). Mounted on spider legs robotic frame, (kinda like BigDog but with 6 legs instead of 4 see :
)
Follows the squad around, stays behind mostly. Cyber infantry equipped with mostly high velocity large calibre (120 mm) single shot weapons ( use to take out mostly slow moving targets like tanks, jeeps, staionary auto-turrets from long range ). They engage close range soft targets using CIWS support and other diversionary tactics (ie advance radar / heat / visual blocking smoke, active optical/infrared cammo using their enhanced speed and agility ). Close range weapons, non-conductive advance polymer composite long swords, spears and axe. Defensive items include heavy shields composed of 1 foot thick depleted uranium sloped to deflect most high velocity heavy rounds, light shield composed of mostly composite materials one time use.
Basically they are modern data cyber-ninjas! They are not going to bum rush a fixed turret or a mine field or a tank, they wills sneak behind u and stab u in the back with their non-conductive polymer sword! :D
Enjoy!
-ddn
)
Follows the squad around, stays behind mostly. Cyber infantry equipped with mostly high velocity large calibre (120 mm) single shot weapons ( use to take out mostly slow moving targets like tanks, jeeps, staionary auto-turrets from long range ). They engage close range soft targets using CIWS support and other diversionary tactics (ie advance radar / heat / visual blocking smoke, active optical/infrared cammo using their enhanced speed and agility ). Close range weapons, non-conductive advance polymer composite long swords, spears and axe. Defensive items include heavy shields composed of 1 foot thick depleted uranium sloped to deflect most high velocity heavy rounds, light shield composed of mostly composite materials one time use.
Basically they are modern data cyber-ninjas! They are not going to bum rush a fixed turret or a mine field or a tank, they wills sneak behind u and stab u in the back with their non-conductive polymer sword! :D
Enjoy!
-ddn
You guys all forget that if anyone comes up with cyborg ninja, then the chances of them fighting another cyborg are pretty much zero. More likely they'll be facing people with no money and low tech firearms, that are dressed as ordinary members of the public. Also the enemy won't ever attack the cyborgs directly, they'll target their families and the infrastructure of the country they're fighting in/against.
Future warfare will probably be increased scanning at airports and check points, facial recognition and detection, and a lot of support from communities such as local police, militia etc.
If you want the kind of thing that you're talking about to seem plausable, then go for a kind of Unreal Tournament style thing, where each person is using advanced technology but is competing under a fixed ruleset.
Future warfare will probably be increased scanning at airports and check points, facial recognition and detection, and a lot of support from communities such as local police, militia etc.
If you want the kind of thing that you're talking about to seem plausable, then go for a kind of Unreal Tournament style thing, where each person is using advanced technology but is competing under a fixed ruleset.
Original post by TalrothQuote:Original post by EdtharanQuote:That idea of a "small vector change and it misses!" works very well with asteroids and the like at half AU+ scales, but starts to break down at the range of 200 feet.
You are so wrong on many counts here. As an amateur astronomer and someone who did a double major in physics in collage, I can tell you exactly where you are wrong.
*Snip meaningless numbers*
They are not meaningless numbers, they prove that deflecting a bullet is very different from deflecting an asteroid. You tried to say that because we can't defelct an asteroid over a short distacne, we can not defelect bullets. That was your claim and the number prove you were wrong on that count.Quote:Original post by Talroth
Actually, what I said was still completely valid no matter what math you throw at it.
No.Quote:Original post by Talroth
You have TIME at long range, and you can apply whatever force needed to deflect an asteroid, you don't have that at short ranges.
The vast majority of firefights take place at less than 200m, and for most rifles that means you have less than 0.5 seconds before impact at some of the best of times. And even then you're more likely to be facing 0.01, if not 0.005 second flight times. I don't care what you are using, but that isn't a lot of time to detect, track, compute deflection angle, aim, fire, and have the round make it to the incoming projectile in time to deflect it enough. Now do that against 10-20 rounds per second, incoming for 60 seconds at a time.
And yet, they can do this today. It is technology that does exist today. Today, they can track and hit an incoming bullet fired from a gun. SO, if it can be done today, why could it not be done tomorrow? Dose history and the laws of physics change tomorrow and I wasn't told about it?
Sorry, that argument is invalid. It can be done and is has been done. Therefore we should be able to do it in the future as well.Quote:Original post by Talroth
Then there is the issue of actually hitting them, and the angles we're dealing with. They're small bullets, and can be designed to make it harder to detect them and deflect them. In the case of smart ammo that is under development you will also have to not only deflect it so it doesn't hit you, but also either by enough that it can't correct, or hard enough to disable it.
Smart ammo is more like a guided missile, the shots you fire to disrupt it will need to destroy it. One way would be to have mini emp devices in the bullets, or explosive warheads on them, or even a sticky head that would attack itself to the target bullet and disrupt its mass and therefore its guidance systems.Quote:Original post by Talroth
But all that pales compared to the issue we still have to deal with, of just how much you can deflect. Long before I'm going to try stabbing you with a sword, I'm going to try shooting larger/more rounds your way. What this means is that you have to carry more defensive ammo than I carry of offensive ammo.
Yes, as I said, they will not be 100% proof against attacks, but they will drastically reduce the chances of getting hit. As you get closer you will be more likely to be hit, but by then you can be using cover and such to get in range, or otehr devices, like flashbangs, or smoke grenades.
Once you are within 50 metres, having large, powerful guns can be a disadvantage. A Large gun has a lot of mass, and if I am dodging and weaving, it makes it much harder to bring the gun to bear on me. This is exhibited in dinosaurs.
They had long tails and long necks and when they were pursuing prey that was mobile or smaller than themselves (predators don't usually tackle prey bigger than themselves), then they would ahve to tuck their head and neck upwards to reduce the effective length in front and behind the body to make them more manoeuvrable.
SO one the gap has been closed to 50m then a combination of smoke and flash bang grenades, quick movements and the CIWS taking out the few lucky shots, I could close in and finish you off.Quote:Original post by Talroth
And as for current CIWS units destroying missiles, they on average do this with only one or two clean strikes before the missile is too badly damaged to remain effective. They're still firing 100-500 rounds to strike a large incoming missiles once or twice at 2+ miles.
At 2+ miles, a dumb fire bullet will have encountered wind and other factors that could throw it of course. That is why they have to fire so many: Because there is a lot of atmospheric disturbance over that 2+ mile distance.
Again you are tyring to compare apples and oranges.
Can you show me a single system that was used to track and intercept a small arms bullet? The only tests I've ever seen that were successful in interception are either artillery (100+mm), or pre-calculated rounds for proof of concept.
Basically for small arms the only tests I've ever heard of boiled down to "If we know where the bullet is going to be fired from, and when it is going to be fired, we might be able to hit it"
My point about the asteroid was we have TIME, we can detect it at long ranges, we can devise a plan, we can maybe build the needed equipment and get it there to change the course of the asteroid before it impacts. Mass and the actual sizes of the objects involved play very little in this, the TIME is the important thing. We have time to track it, time to acknowledge it is a threat, and time change its direction.
You will also notice that all the CIWS rely on range, and multiple systems. These start tracking at 10+ miles, most engage between 6 and 10 miles, and most have a minimum probable kill radius of well over a mile. (Meaning if something gets past that mile stage while traveling at high speed, the chances of interception drop to nearly zero.)
Basically for small arms the only tests I've ever heard of boiled down to "If we know where the bullet is going to be fired from, and when it is going to be fired, we might be able to hit it"
My point about the asteroid was we have TIME, we can detect it at long ranges, we can devise a plan, we can maybe build the needed equipment and get it there to change the course of the asteroid before it impacts. Mass and the actual sizes of the objects involved play very little in this, the TIME is the important thing. We have time to track it, time to acknowledge it is a threat, and time change its direction.
You will also notice that all the CIWS rely on range, and multiple systems. These start tracking at 10+ miles, most engage between 6 and 10 miles, and most have a minimum probable kill radius of well over a mile. (Meaning if something gets past that mile stage while traveling at high speed, the chances of interception drop to nearly zero.)
If you're going for a near-future setting then how about some sort of resource limitation? Perhaps something (environmental catastrophe?) has caused a global shortage of gunpowder (or whatever it is they're using these days) which means it's now tightly rationed and so projectile weapons are scarce and only used by the most important or most devastating range (at which point your one-man-army is buggered any way you cut the technology).
There doesn't exist any CIWS system which tracks and deflects small arms, since a single ground solder is currently not valuable enough to warrant such a system. We have CIWS for ships which cost 100's of millions to billions of dollars, some active armor for tanks and APCs (each in the multi-million dollar price tag), theater level missile defensive systems for high value targets like civilian population centers and command bases (invaluable price tag).
There are radars which can detect snipers, some patents on the books about using high frequency radar to track bullets etc.. It's all extrapolation of existing technology were discussing. I don't think its beyond reason that if we wanted to we can build a CIWS to intercept bullets, it's just not cost effective right now but may become so in the future.
-ddn
There are radars which can detect snipers, some patents on the books about using high frequency radar to track bullets etc.. It's all extrapolation of existing technology were discussing. I don't think its beyond reason that if we wanted to we can build a CIWS to intercept bullets, it's just not cost effective right now but may become so in the future.
-ddn
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
