Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Going back briefly to the Walker Gear discussion, one major advantage I can see is that it seems like it could be airlifted very easily. Still needs more flak protection though.

Anyways, I've been playing a lot of Halo, and it got me thinking about the Scorpion tank. Specifically, its tracks. They have this weird arrangement with both sides having two different tracks in... pods, I guess, I don't really know the proper term. These pods move independently, and seem like they would allow the tank to move over rough terrain easier. But would they really provide such an advantage, or any others? If so, why don't we use them? (Too expensive/maintenance intensive would be my guess) Or is it just there to look more future-y in the midst of all of Halo's bizarrely primitive small arms?

edited 31st Jul '16 3:51:31 PM by Captain_Cactus

Quad track systems with independent suspensions for each would provide a number of advantages. Firstly it provides mechanical redundancy. If your front left track gets blown off or malfunctions the other three can keep you going until you get repairs...if you last long enough. Secondly it could create better ground pressure distribution. Four points of contact with the ground creates less pressure for the same mass as two. Of course given that tracked vehicles can produce some of the lightest ground pressures made on a vehicle that's not a decisive factor. Object traversal as mentioned is also an advantage. Four tracks like that offer better capabilities against the same obstacle relative to a traditional two track system.

The biggest disadvantage to such a system is the maintenance of it. Harder, more complex, more expensive, makes tanker crews and mechanics look like knuckle dragging idiots because they complain about having to do more , that sort of thing.

The biggest reasons why it hasn't taken off yet in modern tanks is knuckle dragging morons of brass stuck on conservative tank design principles and until recently independent quad-suspension systems weren't that good mechanically and reliability-wise.

edited 30th Jul '16 6:39:20 PM by MajorTom

They use quad tracks on some trucks and other vehicles meant to move around on the snow so they likely work just fine for most mobility needs. The more surface area contact you have for your propulsion the smaller your ground pressure foot print.

How much explosive is needed to well... hurt any thing with the explode?

Trying to design a weapon that is mostly rule of cool, but still has some belivibility in psibly being lethal and was wondering if thumb sized micro-missiles could reasonably do anti-infantry?

They are not suposed to be super long ranged, infact quite the oppisite it is a short ranged weapon that is basicly an aim hack for room clearing, and urban enviroments, but could you pack enough explosives or some kind of other warhead in that much space to kill infantry?

edited 31st Jul '16 10:32:19 PM by Imca

That depends on a lot of factor, but mind this: frag grenades and sharpnel bomb (the ones used by most terrorist nowadays) aren't really using powerful explosive; they are dangerous because they created lots of high-velocity, solid sharpnel. So, you can pack a little bit of explosives to have great killing power, you just had to mind what things those explosives applied to.

Immy: There is simply no real way to answer that. It depends on what you are blowing up and what you are trying to blow it up with.

Infantry, I am just trying to pack as much squishy target killing power into as small of an explosive posible.

THESE!

edited 1st Aug '16 10:24:30 AM by AngelusNox

Immy: The go to weapon for anti-personnel is fragmentation based weapons. There are several ways to create a fragmentation from the classic spherical projection, directional fragmentation, and EFP based weapons. Incendiaries like the above thermobarics or napalm do a number on infantry as well. Fragmentation can be potent enough to damage even a tank and if fitted to the right weapon and right fusing can circumvent things like entrenchments and bunkers if it uses directional fragementation.

Shotgun shells are thumb sized, some of them, and they kill people all the time.

I.... some how forgot about the frag 12's existance, I feel dumb now. >.<

Immy: Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions fit in the palm of your. They can penetrate 2-4" of RHA and have a fragmentation radius for infantry of about 3-4m. You drop hundreds to thousands of them on a target in most commonly used carrier projectiles.

Another Robot Tatooist This one is made from a modified industrial robot. Pretty neat and they tested it on a live volunteer. Not perfect but it does a decent job. There is another one that uses a modified 3D printer.

Pokémon Go company wants AR contact lenses Of all the bloody things to spur AR equipment Pokémon Go was the thing to goad it for a commercial endeavor.

For those looking for "bug societies" a look into social spiders. A related article as to why some of these colonies collapse and die off.

Speaking of societies, this gotta be one of the most inspirational studies for creating sci-fi settings.

Ah Universe 25 an interesting read and that is one of the better articles on it.

I've been thinking about Power Armor ala Iron Man and I've been looking back at the Iron Man Films.

I've noticed something about the Mark 3 compared to the Mark 45 and Mark 46. It's a hell of a lot more durable. It tanks a... well a Tank round (appears to be HE from the effect) and Tony gets back up just fine.

But in Civil War it's getting slowly worn apart by two Super humans.

Think this might be a structural issue? Tony did make it so he could literally walk in and out of the later versions.

That would make sense. Didn't the Mark II and Mark III require an assembly line of robot arms both to assemble it on him and remove it afterwards?

Yeah, so did the Mark 6 or Mark 5.

Also, mobility almost always comes at expense of protection. Even Lucius Fox had to give in to those limitations.

Really though, I think it's because the studios payed enough for Robert Downey, Jr. that they want to make sure we can see him, so the faceplate always gets ripped off.

Not in the first one.

We're trying to explain why the Iron Man armor went from shrugging off HE tank shells to being torn apart by Super humans who can't punch like a tank.

You answered the question already. Super Humans. They often have abilities that might typically defy common sense or operate in a unique way. There is also more then one way to damage and destroy armor.

Blast, heat, and over pressure provide different stressors then say the hulk giving you a fist to the chest and in a different way. Energy blasts as we have discussed even in a hard sci-fi sense can cause damage in a multitude of ways depending on what sort of energy weapon we are talking about. Kinetic projectiles depends greatly on mass, shape, velocity, and strike angles. HEAT shells are combination of heat, pressure, and high velocity fine particles, molten, and semi-molten metal blasted against the target. Getting smacked by Thor's hammer could have its own unique considerations because of its exotic nature. Then there is the interaction of fictional exotic materials to consider.

Iron Man's armor is supposed to be tough not impervious. Compared to threats from Meta/Super humans a tank shell is pretty low on the threat index by comparison.

Said Superhumans were Steve Rogers and James Barnes. Aka, the two guys who only have super strength compared to the average joe.

And if you paid attention to that particular scene both of them are beating on him not just with their super strength but also Caps shield which is made of an exotic material.

Fair enough. It does seem like the later suits do come apart a bit easier now.