Unconventional Strategies for Defeating a Robotic Army in Urban Warfare

[James Holland]

A large number of robots needing to perform independent functions that vary with the circumstances would require huge memory capacity. Like zombies just bash em in the head/receiver. That aside robots have no self interest. Survival instincts ought to count for something.

well what if said head/receiver has armour? considering they are built fore war that shouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Drakkith]

A large number of robots needing to perform independent functions that vary with the circumstances would require huge memory capacity. Like zombies just bash em in the head/receiver.

It's a bit more difficult when the zombies are actually fast moving, quick-thinking war machines with autocannons, lasers, and missiles, who can hit harder and faster than a human ever could.

 

[GTOM]

It's a bit more difficult when the zombies are actually fast moving, quick-thinking war machines with autocannons, lasers, and missiles, who can hit harder and faster than a human ever could.

Human special forces abilities extended by powered battle armors, sensors, they can have targeting computers too. Cyberpunk style offers some soultions to reduce the slow chemical reactions in nerves bottleneck : eyeball targeted weapons, wired reflexes (send electric signals in arms and legs) and i speculate about very advanced EEG caps as an alternative to implants in brain, so the brain waves can directly control vehicles and weapon systems.

 

[Drakkith]

Human special forces abilities extended by powered battle armors, sensors, they can have targeting computers too. Cyberpunk style offers some soultions to reduce the slow chemical reactions in nerves bottleneck : eyeball targeted weapons, wired reflexes (send electric signals in arms and legs) and i speculate about very advanced EEG caps as an alternative to implants in brain, so the brain waves can directly control vehicles and weapon systems.

Sounds good to me. I was merely pointing out that comparing robots to zombies in this context is stretching the analogy a bit. Especially if they don't have a head and their main computer components are behind thick armor/shielding.

 

[James Holland]

A large number of robots needing to perform independent functions that vary with the circumstances would require huge memory capacity. Like zombies just bash em in the head/receiver. That aside robots have no self interest. Survival instincts ought to count for something.

just as a comment i don't understand the concept of making humanoid robots. as humans only survive because of their minds would it not be better to have something without a head maybe mildly reminiscent of a rhino without a head. because this would make them able to take more weight move faster and have more armour around their central electrics/circuitry.

 

[GTOM]

just as a comment i don't understand the concept of making humanoid robots. as humans only survive because of their minds would it not be better to have something without a head maybe mildly reminiscent of a rhino without a head. because this would make them able to take more weight move faster and have more armour around their central electrics/circuitry.

I also imagined main battle robots to be human like. Justifications : able to mimic every movement of operator for peace keeping, counter gerilla, police operations.
Legs fit for most type of terrain. Guns in arms, they can lean out of cover.
Head has the main image processing center. A hit by a coilgun (can be mounted by powered battle armor special troop) armor counts nothing.
Hit by plasma grenade (i speculate, that it could burn isotopes FAST with an alpha burst, such energy storage can power exoskeletons and space fighters dedicated for orbital combat too) armor counts nothing. AP rifle bullets, best defence don't get hit.
If engines in the body hit, everything inside the body is fryed, a head might need only minor maintenance before it could be reattached.

 

[James Holland]

e

able to mimic every movement of operator

i thought the point of a robotic army was to have large numbers without the need for human guidance individually.

a head might need only minor maintenance before it could be reattached.

not if a sniper has ripped a hole straight through it.

armor counts nothing.

maybe armour wouldn't be much use against grenades as they are made for targeting small groups or lightly armoured positions. But the ability to withstand small arms fire counts for a lot.

 

[GTOM]

e
i thought the point of a robotic army was to have large numbers without the need for human guidance individually.not if a sniper has ripped a hole straight through it.maybe armour wouldn't be much use against grenades as they are made for targeting small groups or lightly armoured positions. But the ability to withstand small arms fire counts for a lot.

I think they only need direct operator control for things like capture a guerilla, handcuff and search him. The head is smaller target than the body.
Due to developments of body armor and robots, i don't think any soldier would have lighter than AP bullets.

 

[James Holland]

well in that case you might want to adopt the fight light tactic that the British army is developing.
it works b giving every solider about 100 rounds (2-3 mags) and having a support quad bike that very quickly delivers ammo and other supplies to soldiers as and when they need it. as AP rounds are very heavy compared to regular rounds.

Due to developments of body armour and robots

as weapons improve armour improves as armour improves weapons improve. and so soon those AP bullets would be of little to no effect.

 

[Drakkith]

as weapons improve armour improves as armour improves weapons improve. and so soon those AP bullets would be of little to no effect.

It's not as black and white as that. There is a limit to how far you can take any particular type of armor or weapon before you hit a "softcap", the point where further improvement becomes overly expensive, complicated, logistically unmanageable, or something similar. Developing new types of armor or weapons to defeat the other takes time and resources and there's no guarantee that these new developments will be available when needed. If you haven't yet developed a clear-cut counter to the other then its entirely possible you're stuck in a deadlock of sorts, and factors other than pure performance, like cost or ease of use or maintenance, begin to dominate.

The best advice I can give when it comes to thinking about military weapons and armor (or any piece of equipment) is not to imagine them as standalone components, but as a single piece to a larger whole. A new type of rifle and/or ammunition may be able to penetrate more armor and at longer distances, but it may also be heavier, more expensive, more prone to misfires/failures, or any number of other things that would reduce its actual effectiveness. Perhaps its more difficult to use by soldiers, or it may just have a number of different traits which are simply a bad combination. In contrast, a weapon considered to be under-powered may be cheap, easy to use, or very reliable, drastically increasing its actual effectiveness relative to a supposed replacement (or rather it is the replacement that is not nearly as effective as its "performance characteristics" would imply).

A good example is the M4 Sherman tank of World War 2. It was initially (based on my limited reading) more than a match for German light and medium tanks in the North African theater. This changed by D-Day in 1944, where they were vastly outmatched by newer German tanks in terms of "performance". They were under armored, under gunned, and prone to fuel explosions when hit, unlike their German counterparts. They were also very cheap, reliable, and their widespread use meant that transportation on roads, rails, and ships was greatly simplified compared to what would have been required had several new tanks been developed and produced in large numbers during the war.

In addition, remember that weapons and armor do not operate in a vacuum. And I don't mean the physical kind of vacuum that boils the water off your tongue at the same time that it freezes. I mean that weapons and armor don't operate alone, but in concert with elements from many other weapons and equipment all at the same time. Part of the reason the U.S. was able to get away with using the M4 tank later in the war was because it had other weapons to take enemy tanks out with, such as tank destroyers, aircraft, and even some infantry weapons. Not to mention numbers, strategic bombing, and inept leadership at the top levels of German military command. The M4 was "good enough" to get by with given the state of the war at the time.

Everything is interconnected somehow. Remember that.

 

[GTOM]

well in that case you might want to adopt the fight light tactic that the British army is developing.
it works b giving every solider about 100 rounds (2-3 mags) and having a support quad bike that very quickly delivers ammo and other supplies to soldiers as and when they need it. as AP rounds are very heavy compared to regular rounds.

Good point, that they will need regular ammo supplies. As well as Drakkith's everything connected point.

I thought, while terminator like ones definitally scary, and versatile, but the most irritating ones can be small drones, that can literally dodge bullets.
If they hide between houses and trees even regular missiles can't just hit them.

I could think about three ways to counter them : other drones
get close enough so they can't dodge a supervelocity slug
use lasers... however, atmosphere quickly swallows short wavelengths, while longer wavelengths can be pretty well reflected.

I think there can be anti-flyer tanks with really strong lasers. otherwise the only thing that infantry could do against theese drones is rely on hide, camofluege, maybe active jammers, until drones get close enough, or vica versa.

 

[Drakkith]

I thought, while terminator like ones definitally scary, and versatile, but the most irritating ones can be small drones, that can literally dodge bullets.

Why would they be able to dodge bullets?

 

[James Holland]

the point of the drones that i was talking about was not to get close enough to the fighting to be targeted by anyone bar a little bit of infantry with small arms. they would be mostly in cover and only come out once they were at their destination.

 

[GTOM]

Why would they be able to dodge bullets?

My calculations are, drone at 300m, a really fast bullet could fly with a km/s. 1/3 sec for dodge, with 10g acceleration, it can make around 5m.

 

[Drakkith]

10g acceleration? For 1/3 of a second? That's a final velocity of about 300 m/s. That's almost mach 1. With that kind of maneuverability it doesn't need to worry about shot down by small arms fire.

 

[GTOM]

10g acceleration? For 1/3 of a second? That's a final velocity of about 300 m/s. That's almost mach 1. With that kind of maneuverability it doesn't need to worry about shot down by small arms fire.

Isnt it 30 m/s? Of course i don't think it could maintain that acceleration for so long.

 

[Drakkith]

Isnt it 30 m/s? Of course i don't think it could maintain that acceleration for so long.

You're right. I must have misstyped something into my calculator last night. 10g's is 98.1 m/s², and accelerating for 1/3 of a second is 98.1/3 = 32.7 m/s. Quite a difference!