3 ms·
Reality is that adding armor is trivial, but hitting critical components (small parts) is not. EMP protection is standard for military systems. The military alr
by souprock 6y ago
Reality is that adding armor is trivial, but hitting critical components (small parts) is not. EMP protection is standard for military systems. The military already deals with the logistics problems related to batteries and fuel. The preferred energy choice might not be a battery.
Consistent usage of dumb tactics is unlikely. The robots aren't going to just run across a huge open field, straight toward the enemy, with plenty of warning to set up a defensive 50-cal gun. They could leap through a window or low-quality wall, in complete darkness, while the target is sleeping.
Enjoy your nightmare. :-)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dreamcompiler 6y agoAdding armor that blocks small arms fire is straightforward, although even this might add too much weight to a BD robot. Armor that blocks a .50 caliber rifle bullet is a completely different story; a Barrett 50 round will go through an engine block. If such a round hit the robot anywhere, it would almost certainly disable it. Detecting an approaching robot would be trivial with radar, IR (these things have to make heat), tripwires, etc. Not sure what you mean about "setting up" a 50 cal gun; a Barrett 50 is handheld. Setting it up takes about a second. Although in practice a perimeter would probably be established in advance with robotic guns using closed loop feedback. My point is that it would be a significant engineering challenge and at least an order of magnitude cost increase to design a BD-style robot to deal with even the most prosaic threats of a hostile battlefield. And the power supply would probably need to be a gasoline engine rather than batteries just for reasons of weight and endurance.