this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
97 points (94.5% liked)

Forgotten Weapons

1611 readers
2 users here now

This is a community dedicated to discussion around historical arms, mechanically unique arms, and Ian McCollum's Forgotten Weapons content. Posts requesting an identification of a particular gun (or other arm) are welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/@ForgottenWeapons

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/

Rules:

1) Treat Others in a Civil Manner. This is not the place to deride others for their race, sexuality, or etc. Personal insults of other members are not welcome here. Neither are calls for violence.

2) No Contemporary Politics Historical politics that influenced designs or adoption of designs are excluded from this rule. Acknowledgement of existing laws to explain designs is also permissable, so long as comments aren't in made to advocate or oppose a policy. Let's not make this a place where we battle over which color ties our politicians should have, or the issues of today.

3) No Advertising This rule doesn't apply to posting historical advertisements or showing more contemporary ads as a means of displaying information on an appropriate topic. The aim of this rule is to combat spam/irrelevant advertising campaigns.

4) Keep Post on Topic This rule will be enforced with leeway. Just keep it related to arms or Forgotten Weapons or closely adjacent content. If you feel you have something that's worth posting here that isn't about either of those (and doesn't violate other rules) feel free to reach out to a mod.

5) No NSFW Content Please refrain from posting uncensored extreme gore or sexualized content. If censored these posts may be fine.

Post Guide Lines

These are suggestions not rules.

-Provide a duration for videos. eg. [12:34]

-Provide a year to either indicate when a specific design was produced, patented, or released. If you have an older design being used in a recent conflict provide the year the picture was taken. Dates should be included to help contextualize, not necessarily give exact periods.

-Post a full URL, on mobile devices it can be hard to tell what you're clicking on if you only see "(Link)".

-Posts do not have to be just firearms. Blades, bows, etc. are also welcome.

Adjacent Communities

If you run a community that you feel might fit in dm a mod and we might add your's.

Want to Find a Museum Near You? Check out the mega thread: https://lemmy.world/post/9699481

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
FireTower
setsneedtofeed
97
Actual Propaganda - FEDOR (2017) (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by FireTower to c/forgottenweapons
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seven years ago a video went viral of a prototype Russian robot, the 'FODOR', dual weilding Glock pistols. For those of us not paying attention at home this technology is notably absent from the war in Ukraine. This is a subtle nod to the fact that the idea of humanoid robots fighting wars is stupid.

Russia has been developing a humanoid robot for several years now. Its primary purpose is to help astronauts during space missions. Since its appearance in the media, there were discussions of how it can be used for military applications. And just recently a video appeared on the internet released by the Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin on his social media pages. In the video, they are testing that robot in a course of several unmanned vehicles tests...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/21/russian-robot-dual-wielding-glock-pistols/

https://youtu.be/HTPIED6jUdU?si=

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RightHandOfIkaros 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Mecha will always be vastly more impractical in warfare than tanks. But that doesn't mean mecha are not cooler than tanks. I think it's kinda the same idea here.

Humanoid robots are wildly impractical. But they are cool. And cool points win the real war, afterall.

If only wars could be settled in something like a cheesy 90s dance off.

[–] Anticorp 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Humanoid robots are wildly impractical.

Right? An actual battle-bot would have whatever shape renders it most effective at covering terrain, and killing people. It would look nothing like a person.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Kinda wrong tho .. there is a reason why humanity is still the apex predator

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Lol, no, we're the apex predator because we have efficient cooling, can convey complex ideas to each other, and can make and use tools.

[–] Fungah 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We can also eat pretty much anything.. that's a big advantage. Plenty of our favourite foods are poisonous tonamnynsnimals. Chocolate, spicy peppersz.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I was under the impression that surviving poisonous foods was entirely down to either specialisation or mass. Are you saying humans have a generalised immunity beyond our mass?

Fascinating!

Would you be able to provide a search term or link some reading on the topic?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

It's because of our brains and ability to design tools. The only real physical upper hand we have on any animals is our endurance which is made obselete by anything resembling wheels.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because tracks and/or quad rotors are hard to do biologically.

[–] htrayl 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Something like a 6-8 leg mech will likely be extremely practical:

  • Can climb stairs and other obstacles
  • Can manipulate the environment (open doors, move objects, etc.)
  • Can jump (very well, if spiders are a good baseline)
  • Redundancy (losing one leg doesn't prevent the mech from continuing)
  • Can go prone
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Don’t need to open doors or traverse stairs if you shell the building into a pile of rubble.

In the economics of war, if you did need to sweep a building rather than destroy it, risking a few human lives is probably considered an acceptable loss compared to the cost of humanoid robot development and deployment.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You make some interesting points, but allow me to play devils advocate for tanks with tracks:

  • Can climb stairs and other obstacles (tracks can already do this)

  • Can manipulate the environment (why open a door when you can just level the whole building, tanks can push objects out of the way especially if fitted with some sort of dozer front attachment, etc)

  • Cannot jump (armored mechanized vehicles are very very heavy, and getting the kinetic energy required to launch one into the air in a controlled manner will take a lot of energy, batteries would need to be huge or some sort of nuclear power generator will need to be installed, definitely don't use an engine for that because those forces on an engine will cause catastrophic damage)

  • Not redundant (while losing a track means the tank will be stuck, it is doubtful that a mech with legs would be able to perform much better. If the mech had more than four legs then maybe, but why cant the tank have 4 tracks? Losing one wouldnt stop the tank either, as it can still make enough contact with 3 to continue in most situations)

  • Is always prone (mechs with legs will have a taller profile than tanks in most situations, and in cases where a legged mech can go prone to reduce the combat profile the tank will be able to do basically the same thing with a much greater movement speed)

Also, for a moment consider cost. Tanks with tracks are expensive. Theyre expensive to buy and to maintain. However, in comparison to a six legged mecha a tank with tracks will cost comparatively like an econobox car compared to a Maybach.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I think tank tracks and wheels are more vulnerable than armored mecha legs. There are just problems with weight distribution and terrain, but those will be solved at some point by advancements in materials and move by wire software. We'll probably see Star Wars like 6 legged tanks first and later 4 and 2 legged mechas.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think tracks with a variable shape is more practical. Mecha with legs are vulnerable to falling over too easily when they lose a leg, especially with only two. I mean, the best would be a hovertank, but technology isn't quite there yet.

Either way, a bipedal mech will lose out on nearly everything except cool factor versus a tank. Especially in cost.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The problem with tracks is, they are made of exposed complex small parts that can be damaged more easily than anything else on a tank. To make them more sturdy means you have to upscale them, but then the tank becomes heavier and also much slower, because centripetal and centrifugal forces would become insane at speeds tanks drive. The tracks don't go in a circle after all, but centrifugal force wants to make them.

A walking tank can still limp with part of a leg missing, but a tracked tank will be stuck the moment one part of the tracks fails.

And wheeled tanks need lots of space to turn.

This is why the next steps in tank evolution will be legs or hover, but hover has exposed air intakes and exhausts and needs too much energy for the forseeable future. Legs, however, do not.

Also legs may give the opportunity to jump. That would be an enormous advantage over current tank propulsion.

[–] ours 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And how are delicate, long legs not a worst and more vulnerable target that tracks?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

you can add armor to legs, but not to tracks.

[–] ours 4 points 7 months ago

Can you?

How simple do you think would mech legs be?

[–] CookieOfFortune 2 points 7 months ago

One option is if you can reduce the need for armor by being able to detect and dodge missiles and shells. You’d theoretically be able to react much faster with legs in short bursts.

[–] steakmeout 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Imagine believing this fake propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

SO many people are falling for the fake Tesla robot scam though, despite the hundreds of glaringly obvious lies about. They had the operators hands in the picture, and people still think it's amazing.

[–] Anticorp 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Propaganda is easy to make. Functional battle-bots, not so much. The first indication that it's BS are the flashlights attached to the Glocks. Why would a robot which can have several different types of night vision need flashlights?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Also, why would a robot need the guns in the first place when they could just be built into the robot itself?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Didn't they also build a big fake Mechwarrior?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I know some Japanese company has a small real mech suit (Gundam inspired more than MechWarrior but same concept really). You can buy one for like two mil or something. It's essentially the most gnarly Halloween costume ever, but it's entirely operational.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

DARPA does the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Of course they do, otherwise it wouldn't be an arms race, now would it?