bravo1102 wrote:I think that makes you more than qualified to sing a Beastie Boys number :-)
I don't have a singing voice so much as an off-key squawk so please look elsewhere.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Rant, moan, rave and share - for all your chatter, natter, ETCETERA!
@ozoneocean
lots and lots of love and lubricant!
I have sent emails to people asking for them to sing the Beasty song!
Some people I don't have e-mail for or can't recall it… so….
If ya wanna be part of it, PLEAE please send a recoprding of yourself singing Sabotage by the Beastie Boys to OZONEOCEAN AT YAHOO DOT COM
Here's a link to the BBs singing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE
And here are the lyrics:
I can't stand it, I know you planned it
I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate
I can't stand rocking when I'm in here
'Cause your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear
So while you sit back and wonder why
I got this fucking thorn in my side
Oh my God, it's a mirage
I'm tellin' y'all, it's a
sabotage
So, so, so, so listen up 'cause you can't say nothin'
You'll shut me down with a push of your button?
But you, I'm out and I'm gone
I'll tell you now, I keep it on and on
'Cause what you see you might not get
And we can bet, so don't you get souped yet
You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage
I'm trying to tell you now, it's sabotage
Why
Our backs are now against the wall?
Listen all y'all, it's a sabotage
Listen all y'all, it's a sabotage
Listen all y'all, it's a sabotage
Listen all y'all, it's a sabotage
I can't stand it, I know you planned it
I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate
Lord, I can't stand rockin' when I'm in this place
Because I feel disgrace because you're all in my face
But make no mistakes and switch up my channel
I'm Buddy Rich when I fly off the handle
What could it be, it's a mirage
You're scheming on a thing, that's
sabotage
Gunwallace and Gullas, if either of you guys wanna have a go at music for this I will love you forever!!! ^_^
ozoneocean wrote:Oz was lucky because at the time he sent his e-mail I'd already had a tall vodka martini. But it was fun. :P
I will take anything. ANYTHING! :)
Even just a simple riff :) :) :)
Tantz has already had a go and it was brilliant!
The thing is that you don't have to even do a straight adaption of the song. As liong as it's in time to the music, anything is ok.
@ Gunwallace - I would LOVE a baseline! ^___^
@Abt - man… so many can't or won't do a version. We need more glasses of Vodka!!!
All I have so far is a brilliant version by Tantz, a robot voice by Skool (she got her comp to sing instead) and a version by MEEEE!
Bravo says he's mute due to salt air at night, or the vapours or the weeping quinsey or some such thing, Banes has had a massive personal setback so he gets an automatic pass, Ayes says it's not goofy enough for her, Gullas is too time poor, Pit_Face is scared, and Abt is is jetting about living the highlife of an international celebrity.
:(
But never fear, I will make this work, even if I have to imitate evey last one of you >:)
Just another combattler V(ictory) vid but with a different soundtrack…
Combattler V Battlefield
I know Ozone is a fan of his "crotch rocket" though that weapon comes out of his stomach. I'm more fond of two of other weapons… namely the buzzsaw treads and the buzzsaw yoyos. You never expect the first one, and the second one is too hard to try and dodge.
I wonder though… aren't giant robots a tactucal disadvantage in an actual battle? First off the assembled form may have more power, but is a bigger target. Second the entire team has to be in sync… ALL THE TIME! Otherwise they will lose the battle if even one of them is having problems
I guess these are just many of the reasons why "Super Robots" are so rare. I mean… in one anime they tried to mass manufacture the Mazinger robot. A lot of soldiers died piloting them…
So I rested my voice for a couple of days and couldn't get through the first verse before my throat seized up.
So the only thing I'm doing is talking to the wife and coughing. My voice is gone. My rendition of anything the Beastie Boys did is the last thing I'm going to subject my voice to.
@ Lonne - Yeah, super robots make zero sense, even the more realistic combat bots in something like Gassaraki wouldn't really be that great in reality, although this vid with then VS tanks and other AFVs makes it look extremely one-sided:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4b-haPATmI&feature=related
- Dissecting that scene I think it's their advanced missiles that really make them superior. But the AFVs could also easily mount missiles like that too, and far more of them, or even just have a specialised AFV that just had a massive pod with them as well as super long-range sensitive sensors. Sure they can handle rougher terrain and move faster, but their armour would be negligible compared to any tank and they have a much higher profile making them easier to see and shoot at.
Out of all mecha in Anime I think Ghost in the Shell gets it right. They have very small, fast, many legged, heavily armoured Tachikomas, and massive, slow heavily armed, many legged tanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNdOUi61P4k&feature=related
They can handle more terrain types than a tracked or wheeled vehicles, be far more manoeuvrable, and the many heavy legs are far more robust than tracks or wheels.
——————–
Poor Bravo! :(
Well I recorded my own version. I see I'll have to imitate you then! >:]
Poor Bravo! :(
Well I recorded my own version. I see I'll have to imitate you then! >:]
Do Ironscarf, I'd love to hear that urbane British accent doing Beastie Boys!
And the legs versus tracks thing, the programming for legs over terrain is so complicated that it still is not practical. NASA has wanted to put it on every one of its rovers and ended up not because well sprung wheels are better mechanically. Witness the new generation of IED "proof" trucks used by the Brits and US and the success of the LAV chassis based vehicles. Walker's are clumsy by comparison whether based on elephants or spiders and the programming needs to be so exact and long for it to walk by itself that it's prohibitive.
Look at poor ED209 from Robocop falling down the stairs. That's the reality. Autonomous walkers over uneven and unpredictable terrain are not feasible with today's tech and will be helplessly over complicated into the foreseeable future.
And a walker is more fragile and harder to repair than just replacing a roadwheel or breaking track or even pulling a torsion bar. Trust me I maintained tracks things for over a decade. They are so easy to fix compared to legs and with proper track tension and weight distribution can go places a foot can't. What kind of ground pressure would you need to put a 60 ton vehicle over swampy terrain? An M60 could sink up to its road wheels and still go. How big you have to make the pad to get that kind of floatation out of a walker? So big it might as well be tracks.
For rough terrain walking you might want to look into Big Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBG-nSRcrQ
That's being trailed as a way to move heavy equipment over very rough terrain you can't get wheels over.
They also have a king size version now too in experimental trials for moving the serious loads. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xY42w1w0TWk#!
It's even possible to build crude walking machines as art-pieces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHI8o5ZOFk&feature=related
That one is hardly practical for anything, but it shows that legs aren't a mechanically difficult to design.
My point with legs being robust is that you can make them extremely sturdy and very hard to break, like armoured pillars, while tracks are tough, but very vulnerable to mishaps… I bow deeply to your experience here, but isn't it possible that the reason they're simple to fix is that they've had too be made that way to compensate for that very weakness? Tracks are certainly not simple things!
While legs might require more skill to fix they would be far less likely to suffer mishaps… And if they were prone to any particular issue couldn't they be engineered in such a way as to make those easier to address? Much like Tracks have been?
Your point about weight distribution though is killer! That would be a hard one to manage, I'm sure people with physics or engineering backgrounds could work that one out but I am absolutely and completely out of my depth there.
Ground pressure is mostly about how the weight is distributed and how much surface space is in contact with the ground. The classic example is the wide tracks of the Soviet T-34 having wonderful floatation over all kinds of terrain whereas the narrow tracks of the Panzer III got mired again and again. Each surface in contact with the ground has to be big to get good floatation or there has to be very little weight on them for the size like water skipping insects and amphibious reptiles. Is that practical for a tactical vehicle? Not as practical as wheels or tracks.
It's really easy to destroy a pillar with a modern shaped warhead. How you going to armor it to withstand heavy hits and not throw off the weight distribution and ground contact? You can make a big heavy wheel with a broad surface but it has worse floatation than a series of wheels so you'd probably have an insect or spider walker (or even a centipede) rather than an elephant or person. You want redunancy. You can lose a pile of road wheels and still roll. Track can be relinked. There's a spare tire or it's a run flat. But a leg? Who'd be carrying the extra? Too fragile.
Catapillar tracks are tough and easy to make. It's only stamped metal held together with pins with a rubber pad. A US track link is less than a dozen pieces. The block itslef is solid rubber around two heavy steel rods. An end connector is all of three forged metal pieces, the seperate center guide is five including the bolt and that's all. Soviet track is even simpler being one cast or forged hunk of metal and two pins. Add a bolt on piece of rubber padding to spare paved road surfaces and you have the essence of all track. Most problems with the design over the 100 years of tank design was weight distribution and a smooth gun platform but the Mark I of 1916 already had the track design in place that is still used.
Bipedal humans are a bad design as far as that goes being a compromise based on the meager resources evolutionary biology had to deal with.
Ah, yes… the Tracks vs Legs argument. Both have their merits, I think. I bet a lot of mecha have what I call the LPS (limb positioning system). It's just the same as when we use our legs. We don't think about positing the foot here or the knee here when we're moving fast. Our brain just gives that instruction to them and all we have to conciously think about is where we want to go and how we get there.
There's a reason why only one super robot is out there and why the military can't simply mass produce them. They're often created by a single team of people with lots of resources, and with care taken to make them very durable and the pilots are selected for their special qualiteis. Not any pilot can sit in the seat of a Super Robot. Military created versions of Super Robots never seem to fare as well. In the Mazinger series the tech was given to the military. They mass produced the technology, but using cheaper materials and less than qualified pilots. Or in the anime Gravion, where the tech was stolen by the government (via an insider). They tried to duplicate the tech only to find themselves outdone by the stranger alien enemy units and Gravion had to go in and save them
I'd say though that in the real world Pinky's two legged armed mech would be great as a shock trooper even if it is a giant target for rocket launchers and vulcan gatling guns…
In the real world Pinky's mech would look really cool up to its waist in soft sand or snow or mud until a KV-1 lumbered past with those marvelous wide tracks and destroyed it and then punched holes in a few mired tanks with narrow tracks.
Try playing Panzer commander rather than mechs sometime and find out why wide tracked tanks with heavy guns rule the battlefield and would shoot the legs off a mech at long range with ease. You could not armor the legs enough to stop tank rounds or ATGMs and still move. Impossible if you want any decent ground pressure.
Think lobster or crab on the ground as opposed to a mammal.
Lonnehart wrote:Maus with a 120mm main gun and a coaxial 75mm gun. There was also the E100 (for 100 ton tank) and the Allies not to be outdone the British built the Tortoise and the US the T-28. It led to a whole series of experimental US vehicles to see if 120mm and 155mm guns could be mounted on tanks as a practical weapon like on the JS-2/3. The French had the AMX-50 prototype.
Anyone remember that German attempt at a really REALLY HEAVY TANK? I think it was called "The Mouse" or something… the thing was so heavy it even sunk into the pavement… I forget what gun that thing had on it though…
Good books on it is R.P. Hunnicutt's Firepower: The History of the US Heavy tank and Pershing: The US T20 series.
Speer and Gudarian both considered the Maus and E100 cloud cuckooland flights of fancy and tried repeatedly to have that waste of resources cancelled. A chassis of the E100 was built and two or three Maus were built and used oerationally against the Russians in 1945. Considering the length the Russians had gone in wartime to develop the JS seeries heavies with their 122mm gun and the "Cat Killer" SU-152 it was really moot. Though it did lead tothe Allied scramble mentioned in the previous paragraph to build a 120mm gun armed tank.
You made some pretty faulty assumptions back there Bravo-
-I know about weight distribution, what I meant was that I don't know how to calculate it based on surface area… but I suppose it's not actually that difficult really, I just wasn't in the mood for maths at the time.
- Tracks are indeed very complex; not conceptually but technically. There are many, many moving connected parts. Things have to work right or they go wrong. They're only "simple" to fix because of decades of refinement and engineering to make it easy. And as you know they're prone to damage.
- Would legs be as prone to damage? As prom that you would have to carry spares?
100% speculative, but I don't think they would. You can build them to be extremely robust, have few moving parts, and to operate largely passively as has been shown in experimental builds of many legged robots.
- You're thinking of legs in the same was as tracks, that's not a good assumption. How many field repairs does your average tank crew have to do on the transverse mechanism of their turret or the elevation system of the main gun? The legs would fall into that category.
————-
Now Pinky's mecha is a little different.
My idea there isn't for Trompers to replace tanks in any way, there's no logic to that in the Pinky TA world. The idea is for them to have their own niche.
In the comic they're able to be amphibious and totally submersible. On land their speciality is picking creative paths through extremely rough and uneven terrain to get into places that you can't get any other vehicle. They're armed to go against infantry, light fortifications and light vehicles. (both versions seen in the comic so far: the SSV5 from the early chapters and the SBV6 from chapter 7 onwards)
Their armour is too light to go head to head with tanks - because of that submersible requirement - and they stand so high they're easy targets. In fact a few 20mm rounds would demolish them pretty fast. Even 50cal rounds if they're hit by enough in the right places (windows, rear hull, either gun pod, top hull).
The only time one goes up against a tank and wins is because it was a surprise attack, that any infantryman could make with a similar rocket weapon.
With Pinky's Trompers I was thinking about evolutionary weapons systems -
There is no be all and end all device, systems are always in competition and development. There's only a small window wnd specific circumstances when most things are ever really truly superior till something else comes along and changes everything.
My thoughts were focussed on the early tank development from WW1 onwards. Originally armoured vehicles were just a way to protect troops long enough to get them into position. Going into WW2 there were thousands of light tanks from the '30s vulnerable to man portable heavy rifles or small field guns and heavy machine guns!
Trompers are much like those.
As for being caught in the snow or some such - that sort of thing would be down to the pilot and their own ability and judgement. No weapons system is indestructible or immune from user error or accident or even back luck. There are right and wrong way to use things and even the most complicated well engineered and expensive systems get trashed all the time.
Trompers are probably about a similar level of complexity to a basic helicopter. ^_^
- For a totally made up weapons system!
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo