Here is the real answer. You can annihilate the living hell out of somewhere with drones, missiles, nukes. But unless you have actual boots on the ground defending the position you’re in, that is not claimed territory.
Humanoid robots controlled by humans or AI, can defend territory until human troops secure an area and setup defenses.
Objects are carried by UGVs, they can carry 200-300 kilograms while being pretty small, small UGVs can carry up to 100 kilos with size of ~1m in every dimension. Unless you can explain to a very expensive and smart robot what you need to rotate and where and how to operate tools given, you’ll need a very competent pilot for these robots which with high probability would still be worse than dumbest of humans because they lack agility and require a lot of supportive infra to operate. Rich nations probably would try to make humanoid robots (like they did with robodogs) with questionable success.
Small ground drone on fiber optics that carry an antitank mine or a bomb can open doors alright. Also various artillery systems work great against static targets.
Yes but they can only open one door and that door doesnt even need to be enforced to be a problem and artillery is a very easy target for drones, because they are kinda easy to spot from air when they fire and are shown to be less and less effective.
You don’t really ‘need’ to open the door, it’s enough to destroy all exits.
Question is how cheap you can make biped drone and how cheap you can make a small rover capableof moving 10-15 kilos of explosives. Rover can be made as cheap as <$500 or so.
Artillery includes rocket artillery, but even ‘regular’ gun artillery can shoot for tens of kilometers with specialised shells, while being mobile at that.
anecdote
I’ve been of the opinion that arty is basically guns but big nothing special about it, but whitnessing modern artillery piece work changed it considerably, while yes they are just big guns, but they are big guns. Like you feel it in your bones when it shoots.
With drones on your side you dont really need exits and artillery is one of the main casualties of drones because even fiber optics drones are now up to 50km in range. Rover drones currently have problems with 1 meter ditches because they can’t cross them. The question is always logistics and having a drone that can cross hard terrain is always better than one that can’t. That’s why hover drones are so effective. They are cheap and able to traverse every terrain in a big radius of operations
Well, you actually need exits unless your plan always was ‘die in a bunker without exits’.
hover drones aren’t all that cheap and require either very good crpa gnss antenna, or some kind of visual inertial odometry. Or you’ll get althold at best, which isn’t really hovering more like flying with the wind. Flying drones are effective because they are cheap, hovering drones (the multi-use ones) are prone to dying to kamikadze drones, they are big, loud, hot, and not very good at transporting things compared to rovers (logistics as you mentioned), one successfull delivery by rover compares to 10-20 deliveries by flying drone.
Still not clear to me how exactly flying drone superiority when traversing hard terrain = bipedal robots are a good idea.
China is training robot soldiers. We should start developing EMPs.
Or maybe stop threatening and invading the other side of the planet? Pursue mutually beneficial research and trade instead?
I’m sure USA can do it. \s \s \s
DEPLOY THE TREBEUCHET. Maybe Einstein was correct to say no matter what ww3 will be fought with, ww4 will be sticks n stones.
The real answer is drones currently. Small, agile, cheap. What advantage does a humanoid robot have over drones?
Here is the real answer. You can annihilate the living hell out of somewhere with drones, missiles, nukes. But unless you have actual boots on the ground defending the position you’re in, that is not claimed territory.
Humanoid robots controlled by humans or AI, can defend territory until human troops secure an area and setup defenses.
Now let’s get going with that EMP!!!
There’s no reason that violent control needs to take a humanoid shape.
The empire can control people by murdering them with drones much more easily than murdering with “humanoids”.
Objects are carried by UGVs, they can carry 200-300 kilograms while being pretty small, small UGVs can carry up to 100 kilos with size of ~1m in every dimension. Unless you can explain to a very expensive and smart robot what you need to rotate and where and how to operate tools given, you’ll need a very competent pilot for these robots which with high probability would still be worse than dumbest of humans because they lack agility and require a lot of supportive infra to operate. Rich nations probably would try to make humanoid robots (like they did with robodogs) with questionable success.
Another revenue stream for the grift economy.
Opening doors for example currently drones are very good at open field warfare but have problems with for example bunkers
Small ground drone on fiber optics that carry an antitank mine or a bomb can open doors alright. Also various artillery systems work great against static targets.
Yes but they can only open one door and that door doesnt even need to be enforced to be a problem and artillery is a very easy target for drones, because they are kinda easy to spot from air when they fire and are shown to be less and less effective.
You don’t really ‘need’ to open the door, it’s enough to destroy all exits. Question is how cheap you can make biped drone and how cheap you can make a small rover capableof moving 10-15 kilos of explosives. Rover can be made as cheap as <$500 or so.
Artillery includes rocket artillery, but even ‘regular’ gun artillery can shoot for tens of kilometers with specialised shells, while being mobile at that.
anecdote
I’ve been of the opinion that arty is basically guns but big nothing special about it, but whitnessing modern artillery piece work changed it considerably, while yes they are just big guns, but they are big guns. Like you feel it in your bones when it shoots.
With drones on your side you dont really need exits and artillery is one of the main casualties of drones because even fiber optics drones are now up to 50km in range. Rover drones currently have problems with 1 meter ditches because they can’t cross them. The question is always logistics and having a drone that can cross hard terrain is always better than one that can’t. That’s why hover drones are so effective. They are cheap and able to traverse every terrain in a big radius of operations
Well, you actually need exits unless your plan always was ‘die in a bunker without exits’.
hover drones aren’t all that cheap and require either very good
crpagnss antenna, or some kind of visual inertial odometry. Or you’ll get althold at best, which isn’t really hovering more like flying with the wind. Flying drones are effective because they are cheap, hovering drones (the multi-use ones) are prone to dying to kamikadze drones, they are big, loud, hot, and not very good at transporting things compared to rovers (logistics as you mentioned), one successfull delivery by rover compares to 10-20 deliveries by flying drone.Still not clear to me how exactly flying drone superiority when traversing hard terrain = bipedal robots are a good idea.
I’m pretty sure that a robot on wheels can open a door as easily as a robot on legs.
Yes but a robot on wheels has a lot more problems with terrain