One of the most relatable things in Expanse is Miller's futuristic phone thingy with a cracked screen. Even 300 years from now that's apparently still an issue.
I doubt it will be with the material science progress we've already made -- but, I really like for the Miller character that he had a cracked screen. The guy is cemented in stone and replaces all other space gumshoes for me!
@@thomasb1889 Agreed. I really LOVE that they treated him that way. It made in a bit surreal -- but, it also made the true strangeness of the "dimension defying" crystal virus seem a bit more real. All the other Sci-Fi seems firmly planted in physics, except for the virus -- and all the "too far beyond us" tech of the ring building aliens.
@@mpjstuff Keeping most of the physics firmly planted in what we know helps a lot. Even the ring gate is possible as scientists theorize that worm holes could be used for interstellar travel. Even the proto-molecules ability to travel so fast may be explainable as it may be using some form of warp which scientists also think is possible so what is inside the bubble follows all the rules of the universe but the bubble can move many times faster.
Regular armor = regular armor. Exoskeleton = weak or unruly mechanical outerwear that increases strength and or speed. Power armor = a perfect mix between armor and exoskeleton that mostly provides protection and strength. Mech = a robot that is controlled from the inside.
@@uwetheiss970 your right I totally fucked up, but I feel like my phone's speech to text messed up more. I should always proofread my comments if I use stt.
That’s it, I’m doing it too. I came to the comments because I want to watch this show now having never seen it just because of the vids here and apparently I’m not alone. Nice.
The lack of the Armored vehicles is just a thing in the TV show. In books martians actually use some kind of... ehm... i think i was a big walker or something like that during Ganymede incident where it got just ripped apart by hybrid when he was casually reducing MMC present to zero.
I am rewatching the Expanse and I am noticing so many things that I didn't before. Like the fact that James Holden is obsessed with Coffe because of his Girlfriend on the Canterbury who introduced him to it.
She didn't introduce him to coffee. He's from earth, he grew up with real coffee. She only gave him some tips on how to make crap coffee slightly better.
She's not his GF, Ade is a hookup, she breaks up with him before he boards the "knight " . Ade shows him to add a pinch of sulfur to reduce the acidity of poor quality coffee beans. Been an expanse nerd for a decade.. love it
I have to disagree with the fixed hand mounted weapon being a superior alternative: 1) If it malfunctions you can't access it easily to fix the malfunction. There will always be malfunctions. 2) You also can't discard yours at all and you can't get another one from an ally easily. 3) If it's out of ammo you cannot use it as a mele weapon, it may not be as strong as your powersuit but the extra reach you can get from a handheld may be helpful. 4) Sure you can use the camera to see around the corner but you can shoot around the corner a lot faster and safer with a handheld that has a camera on it than you can with a wrist mounted weapon. You'd onlyb e exposing your hand and not your entire forearm and the suit could still adsorb the recoil. 5) You shouldn't really be trying to do other things while you are firing at people, it makes it more likely that you will lose control of the weapon and can cause friendly fire incidents. And if you need both hands free you have slings for hand helds that get them out of the way. 6) Humans use hands gestures quite a lot in conversations, having a weapon literally bolted onto one will increase the risks of accidents. Yea automatic IFF trigger blockers could be a thing, but they would never be as reliable as not pointing your gun at a friend. 7) You have far more control, flexibility, reach and accuracy with your hand than your wrist, you can do more things better with a handheld than you could with a wristmount. For example if you are trying to shoot above a wall you'll only be able to extend your hand halfway up to fire a wristmount while you could extend your entire arm to poke it over a taller wall and it will also again be safer for you. 8) Any damage that affects you can also affect the weapon, vibrations will travel down your suit and affect it and the weapon a lot more than it would with a handheld. 9) The weapon it self is more likely to be mishandled, abused and damaged while you are using your hands for other tasks. A handheld can be set aside. 10) The wristmount would get in the way, it'll always be there and you can get used to it but it'll still be bulking out of it's mount. A handheld can always be set aside and out of the way. 11) Fixed mounts limit the ease and capacity for upgrades. You can always get a bigger hand held, you can't always get a bigger fixed weapon if it doesn't have room in the mount, and if it does fit it'll have a different weight, recoil and characteristics than what the suit was designed for.
Just wanted to add some thoughts to some those, largely based on the books: 1. Maintenance and modularity is still designed into the suit. Draper is described many times throughout the series dismantling and performing maintenance repairs on her main weapon, and in at least one instance totally replaces it with a new unit (after leaving Earth with Avasarala). The impression is given that this is a relatively simple thing to access, even when out on operations (as with other parts of the suit, such as the leg joint Draper is having inspected on patrol before the s**t hits the fan on Ganymede) 2. This is definitely a good point, and one that comes up repeatedly. However just because you have the wrist mounted weapon doesn't mean you can't use others too. On a few occasions Bobby takes weapons off other people and uses them - although she generally had to break off the trigger guard to get her power armour glove around it. Also, because of the size of the power armour you'd still be as limited as they are now in the choice of weapons they could use normally - it would only be other Power Armour users, which yeah is better than nothing, but why not just have both? 3. Yeah true, but as you say when you're wearing a suit like that you're already a better melee weapon than anything you could hold.... 4. Also true but in CQC in the Expanse universe there is nothing that can penetrate the Goliath armour, in the tactics of the books etc. they generally don't bother with feeble things like corners, they are their own cover. 6. Interesting one, as especially in vacuum environments hand gestures would be a big thing 7. The point with the wrist mount vs. held is the stability. The Goliath can fire sustained bursts of high-velocity rounds from the minigun while maintaining perfect accuracy even on the move, thanks to its targeting computer. It's unlikely you'd be able to achieve that I'd think with a held weapon without breaking your wrist, even with the suit, as the gloves need to have more flexibility and so don't have the direct structural support that building it directly into the arm gives. 8. Yeah, but again the stability benefits coupled with the computer's ability to make up for vibration etc, it probably balances out 9. The gun has both software and physical safeties. For someone as highly trained as them it should be almost impossible to discharge it accidentally, especially bearing in mind the status is constantly displayed through the HUD. 11. Yeah you can't upgrade it, but do you really need to upgrade a handheld gatling gun?? You can always carry specialised heavy weapons as well, and it is made clear in the series that they also have multiple ammo types for the wrist mounted weapon, including armour piercing, incendiary and explosive rounds
There is a single simple thing you missed. Ammunition feeds. A built in wrist mounted weapon has to, by its design have an internal ammunition feed. Without ease of access, you can't clear a jam or a failure to feed/eject. Also, were is the ammunition stored, that's a minigun. A 100 round box magazine would be the size of her arm, and they fire off thousands of rounds. The only practical storage for that amount of ammunition would be on the back, and then you'd need a feed setup that runs over the shoulder, down the arm, and into the gun, that's exceptionally complicated especially since it has to also deal with the arm moving. A better setup would be a shoulder mounted weapon, on an extendable mount. This would let you fire over obstacles, use cover, and have better lines of sight, oh and an ammo feed would work better. If you insist on arm mounted weapons, have an external hardpoint you can connect a weapon to, that way you can swap out weapons rapidly depending on mission type, ammo availability or damage. Basically you want the armour of the suit, with the weapons setup from the film "The edge of tomorrow", modular hardpoints.
Your barrel can only be as long as a little longer than your firearm. Even if IFF is perfect you’d still have to manipulate other things, other people that aren’t already programmed in the computer. Imagine an unknown contact, say a civilian is hurt and you have to perform medical attention and you accidentally hit them with the brrrtttt to the chest.
@@kolinmartz I think in Expanse the safety is presumed on - so it's not like the gun locks when it identifies a civilian/unarmed/etc. - it unlocks only on designated targets or with a manual override from the user.
Not a fan of integrating weapons into an armoured suits arms. One of the things that's pounded into a soldier's head during basic and especially rifle intro is safety. With an arm mounted weapon system, every movement that doesn't involve shooting will be flagging team mates, allies and non combatants with the gun's muzzle. It's even more dangerous when you factor in how the weapon is fired. If the trigger is integrated into the gauntlet, all it would take is the wrong twitch of the soldier's hand at the worst time and congratulations, you have a negligent discharge. If it's one of those "think about shooting to shoot" type deals then you better have some powered armour trooper with extensive mental prep, in many ways a mental trigger is worse than a physical one. I feel when powered armour becomes a thing it would make more sense to arm them with separate hand carried weapons for the general purpose anti personnel work. Big armour piercing and Hi-Ex weapons could be mounted on the suits back - think Day After Tomorrow - and be stowed out of the way when not in use.
I mean the RECON Marines are literally the most elite force there is, so yeah they get all the training. I've always presumed that there's a a physical trigger bun electronic safety that has to be disengaged first. If you watch the movements in the show, there's not really a lot of gesticulating done, but given the amount of IFF stuff, I could imagine they also have additional steps to take if they want to shoot at a friendly/ neutral, on multiple occasions armed people surrender to a single unarmed marine based purely on reputation alone so they have the training. Back mounted guns that poke up over the shoulder are not really practical for the ship and station combat which is the main form of combat, though they do have a rocket launcher which is only ever used outdoors. I'm not sure having them carry guns in combat directly is an advantage, aside from the fact that they might well be carrying tools for boarding or other things and in the time it takes for them to reload, the could probably have just used the gun to club all the adversaries to a pulp. I'm honestly not even sure if they can grip a normal gun while in power armour. And just to answer a bunch of other comments I've seen (seeing as I presume you probably have similar ideas) the entire suit can be stripped down, and the gun and individual parts removed as well as varied ammo types, In the book a single suit is repaired and maintained for well over 40 years. They also have the option of not wearing the powered armour if they think that's going to be overkill and using conventional weapons. As for the mounting, I assume it's on the wrist so that they don't shoot off their thumb, while for the stability and accuracy of the shot, the servos are more than enough to keep the gun on target, if they can make the suit move the way it does.
Mac McCauley just because you’re elite doesn’t mean you no longer have to be safe. I stopped reading after the first sentence because you started your argument with a logical fallacy.
In space, regular guns can just float away or knocked away. straps don't help if you're flung around. Also the wrist mounted guns are apparently modular. also the whole suit operating in 0G doesn't make sense, since the expanse has made it very clear that in space, marines are expected to fight in anywhere from 0G to like 30Gs
@@kolinmartz I was responding to the comment that the troopers would need extensive mental prep, I never said they had perfect trigger discipline. That fact in itself is central to part of the plot.
I think Force Recon armour makes more sense in the books, mainly because it's considerably bulkier and more tank-like. Kind of like fallour power armour. It also doesn't need to show off the actor's face so has a much more limited viewport. I'd still have liked to see it with an armoured opaque visor and internal VR/AR screens, so the visor could come down for combat but be flipped up for moving about or if it was damaged. Kind of like having a tank commander's hatch open. The reason Bobby's pretty much invulnerable in those scenes is not because it's impenetrable, but because most shipboard weapons use plastic bullets to avoid damaging critical systems. Since she's better armoured than the hull, she is basically completely safe from their small arms. Most small arms in space also don't fire bullets in the same sense that modern guns do, because as the book notes, firing a 9mm in microgravity will basically send you spinning off into space, or if you're weaing mag boots it'll have you swinging about like a weebl. Instead they loose small rocket-powered bullets. Basically firing the whole cartridge but where the primer kicks it out and then the propellant fires out of a hole in the back of the casing. This concept was actually tried in real life back in the early 1960s but it was a bit shit. Makes more sense with modern tech and space.
When channel after channel has to clarify that they are not supported by The Expanse creators, then you should watch it. The Expanse and it's fan base is like Firefly, but in a more modern time with streaming services.
@@meisterproper8304 Yes. It gets better. It really starts to dig its claws in you once you get past the world building, peel back some character layers, and dive into the main plot. ...which is about where the series got cancelled. Thankfully, you've got the movie to tie up most of those loose ends. So, stick with it. Most people see the show's robbed potential in the final episodes. It was really heading somewhere interesting and then it got the axe. The movie, though? ** chef's kiss **
The landing armored pod from the MSR in the background is the most similar to a ground vehicle in the show. It's heavily armed to protect the landing area while deploying troops on the surface, and can evacuate them to space again.
Yeah, you're right about armored vehicles. But, The Expanse doesn't have galaxy spanning conflict.. Yet In such a conflict, there are a lot more planets, ships, people etc. So, I guess, tanks and artillery are going to be used
In order to make ground combat vehicles worth it planets require planetary shields and massive banks of long range anti-ship turrets and, even then, the casualties you'll see just from the invasion is insane and your ground forces will automatically be encircled. Otherwise? Just use rods from god to destroy your enemy.
Well, have you read or skimmed the later Expanse books? Later on they develop a weapon that can render an entire solar system and every single living thing in it unconscious. Granted that's more of an unintended side effect, but yeah they tech up pretty fast once the rings come online.
Ryanowning Anti orbital missiles could keep space ships at a distance from the planet have small mobile launchers. Using mobile aa systems would prevent long range missile strikes. So at that point you would be good for anything other than a kinetic strike, which would be less accurate and devastating than a missile.
@@djcy9219 generation kill is actually pretty shitty in terms of depicting real world. it is very hollywood in its view of how things are. there is some stuff which is good, like the mustache thing at the beginning, but the rest is actually rather poor.
I found it to be very true, not so much on tactics or realism of engagements maybe, (this I can't judge for the early days of the second golf war, as I have no first hand experience on that) but the hole behaviourale side of military personal in rest or combat mode is really accurate from my point of view. It has a stronger focus on the confusion and disorder of ground combat.
@@djcy9219 "as I have no first hand experience on that" that is exactly my point. holly wood takes reports about things and then imagines how it would be like, almost always getting it wrong because they have no clue how things are other than via tropes. i wasn't in the second gulf war, but i have served with those that did, and how generation kill depicts things is pretty wrong. the individual soldiers up-armoring their humvees didn't happen like that. they would have been at a forward base, and not a makeshift camp (strip of desert with tents put down, though even if they did put down tents there would have been a lot of other support stuff there as well). the up-armoring would have been out of a base nearby, with the ability to get large packages and a workshop with tools. they would have seen what was coming down the line and figured out that they weren't going to get the up-armor, which means that it wouldn't have been the first group unless it was the commanding officer that foresaw this (as he has advance notice of things and can see more of the politics messing with his unit), and he would have quietly let his NCOs know, which technically would get him in hot water. the NCOs would then figure out how they were going to proceed, either by footing the bill themselves or sharing with his squad the problem and them pooling their resources. of course this is all against regulation and they can all get in trouble, though the higher ups (above the CO) will look bad so they will turn a blind eye. of course all of this is well before the start of the movie, and doesn't show how all of the craziness is the result of washington politics filtering down the grunts on the ground. it also doesn't show how backroom social connections is how the military manages to keep working when politics fucks everything up. that is just that small bit about them up-armoring their own vehicle, but it shows how things are not shown very accurately. i guess i could rewatch the whole thing and go over everything they depicted quite a bit wrong, but that is a lot of time to waste. the mustache thing is the best thing to take from it. the Senior Enlisted Leader is right up there to the CO, disconnected from his troops and he cracks the whip on some small stupid pointless thing that relative to everything that the troops are worrying about is completely meaningless. he does so because he feels that it would help the situation. you can take that one thing and apply it to almost everything in the military and get closer to how things go down than most movies/shows/whatever. if you are able to do that then you will understand why the troops didn't want to leave vietnam even if they didn't believe in the war. you also can figure out why the marines that got back end up with a dark sense of humor, it isn't about the death they see exactly.
It was based off the book made by Evan Wright who at the time, was a combat correspondent who was embedded with the 1st Recon Battalion. So, maybe not everything is accurate but moreover from what I've heard, the mannerisms of the marines depicted in the show are more accurate than how the politics are. Obviously, I trust you're more informed opinion on the matter considering you've served and more importantly, spoken and served alongside men who were there and participated in that war.
06:25 You said INTERDICTION when I think you meant BOARDING ACTION. An interdiction (in general) is the mission of intercepting a force en route to its objective or staging area, thereby allowing you to attack before it can aggregate its combat power. The definition you have gave is the definition of boarding and seizing a vessel.
I disagree on that weapons integrated in arms' armor is a good thing. Aside from innumerable points mentioned before, having that is just bad science. There's been a video analysis of the Edge of Tommorow exoskeletons that mentioned the incomparably less controllable recoil such weapon positioning has. Moreover the possible "compensation" exoskeleton should provide for this recoil does not excuse the unimaginable wear and tear it has on the suit itself. To have such compact, intricate and extremely important part of the battlesuit be under unnecessarily extreme stresz is just plain stupid.
I am not sure if they did this in the show, but in the novels their guns are noted to be recoil free, having a tiny rocket engine in the bullet. This would prevent the suit from going haywire when firing in 0G, and also prevents the recoil problem.
Even if combat suits are being used in situations where they have less weight, they are still going to have their original mass and therefore inertia. So to my mind that means if you were to have a low power mode for combat in low gravity, as you propose, you would lose controlability.
As long as they stick to scifi, its tolerable. Histroy Channel was once nicknamed the Hitler Channel. When they changed, they hardly have historical shows.
Integrated weapons have many issues. Ammo and size. A GATTLING gun for a forearm integrated weapon is the the WORST choice you could make. A laser or something that uses up less ammo is a far better choice.
a laser would theoretically need a much larger and heavier power cell than any ammo you would carry for a gun. i agree with you on integrated guns though
@@phalanx4690 yeah both gattling gun and laser better suited for vehicles. They just need more of those lock-on rockets for long range and smg for short range in my opinion
and lets not forget adaptability issues, unless you develop a multi weapon system that can adapt to different situations such weapons are become impractical. an example could be used in the expanse itself with ship combat. the heavier power armour's Gatling gun could easily over penetrate and put the ships integrity at risk or need smaller calibres that would work better with other weapon systems and lets not even talk rate of fire. in CQC while rate of fire is a important factor it can also be a determent if you are trying to secure object or people of importance as one stray shot from automatic fire could damage your intended objective. truthfully integrated weapons are more of a determent for logistic and the soldier using them. if a weapon in such a platform breaks you'd have to possibly send the entire suit to be repaired and if the soldier was on a battlefield when it broke it would extra weight that they would have to carry AND possibly leave your troop weaponless. more traditional fire arms for the most part don't have these troubles. a modern soldiers rifle is broken and is sent to a logistics officer while they are given another which is more likely cheaper that a full power armour set and if their rifle broke on the battle field they could possibly take one off the enemy or grab a spare from a near by ally if they use non-integrated systems. some weapon systems may work well integrated into armour systems but most don't especially if they are designed for infantry and boarding usage. such armour and weapon systems would possibly work better of larger power armours for things like urban environments where traditional armoured vehicles can't be as mobile or in area's where damage limitation is a non-factor like the expanse for example, low-g, vacuum planetoid that can't that cant have heavier vehicles brought to it. also kind of disagree with idea armour vehicle would be classed as obsolete as being able to bring powerful weapons is always going to be a factor in warfare and using a ship that maybe under attack or attacking another to gain or keep control over the planet to destroy a single vehicle that may half way across the planet for them could be a pain. and even today in modern warfare there are increasing number anti missile systems that protect the vehicles very well, it would be a stretch to see these thing become increasingly common as time goes on so infantry anti-tank weapons may not be as effective as the appear to be.
@@phalanx4690 If you have a power cell that can supply power armor, you should be good. Anyway, integrated weapons are almost always stupid. Too many downsides for too few benefits.
@@TheTallGuy1992 plus while transporting armoured vehicles might be expensive for single nations the ones in the expanse are WORLD GOVERNMENTS! They’re probably gonna have a lot more resources to work with.
I love The Expanse but the Martian Recon Marines have always bugged me. Scifi seems to be guilty of this a lot, telling us how badass and elite units are but they act like complete amateurs. Great technology and extreme physical toughness is cool and all but doesn't make an elite soldier. Now I can only speak on the show, I'm still working on the first book, but Bobbie is portrayed as this untested young Marine, who is somehow a Gunnery Sgt and in charge of an elite team who seem equally raw. They are still learning to work as a unit but are sent on missions that could plunge the solar system into war with very little oversight. Her arc makes a lot more sense as the new girl on the squad because that would explain her inexperience and stupid tactical decisions. She does get better as the show goes on to my memory and I do like the character, I just wish writers and directors would stop telling us that a unit is the most elite group in the universe just because they have some fancy tech.
I agree. It's show, don't tell. All it takes really is one day on a tac range to show the actors playing this elites the fundamentals of things like room clearing, etc. And the authenticity increased tenfold. Rather than watching actors in costumes act like actors in costumes.
ScepticalCynic I’m not sure you read my comment through. My whole point is that yes, they tell us that they are supposed to be the best of the best, and yet they act like new recruits and their tactics are amateur level. The only thing they have going for them is excellent equipment. A lot of shows do that is my point, they just say “hey these people are super elite” without ever having them behave like an elite unit and we are supposed to just take their word for it.
its not their tactics that bug me, it's the obvious lack of going through basic training and acting like a bunch of punks. That said, i suppose its realistic in that they did get their asses handed to them lol
People have been saying tanks and other large AFVs are outdated for decades. Still, they're in service with many of the world's nations, with ever-improving technology such as APS systems. No other platform can provide heavy armor and big guns will still bring relatively mobile, especially in atmospheric conditions that support aircraft can't operate in. Apps and IFVs can get people where they need to be, quickly, while having one hell of a punch and having more armor than an aircraft.
I've never seen a show that didn't annoy me to distraction with the tech -- but Expanse seems to get everything right. Even when some people criticize what they THINK was wrong -- usually turns out someone thought about that as well. I'm still blown away by that shot where the move the cockpit section onto a tram and then treat it like an elevator to deliver the pilots. One seamless shot and it was background while the actors were talking -- as if by afterthought.
There’s no way in hell that you can fit enough armor onto a person to stop anything larger than a 7.62 NATO, and still have the mobility to be infantry. Armored vehicles have every reason to exist because infantry just don’t have the adequate protection. Not to mention where is the feed mechanism for the minigun on recon marines and where is that ammo stored?
ソウタ.ブリーズ assuming it fires the “usual” 4000 rpm you might have a 1-2 second burst before you’d need an obvious ammo storage container somewhere your person. Which could become an inviting target given the ammo is case-less.
Coment Nine since the wiki says the minigun fires 5mm case less ammo, I don’t think there’s enough propellant mass in those rounds, or enough rounds for that to pose a threat to the users health. But those RPGs on the back. That’s a pretty target.
@@Imperialist_Hotdog @Coment Nine I haven't read the books, but it is likely that the miniguns are not using gunpowder. It is probably a railgun. That would cut out a lot of needed space and liability with gunpowder although there still isn't enough space in the suit to store much ammo.
That last minute, regarding no need to have armored vehicles, is simply ignoring thermodynamics. Whatever armor you might have on a suit, could be overpowered by a larger, more powerful weapon system. which in turn leads to needing thicker armor. In terms of energy capacity, thermal dissipation capacity etc. referring to both energy storage and the ability to deploy said energy - Whatever you can mount on the back of a human, you could mount many times more on a vehicle. So, unless something brakes Newtonian physics and thermodynamics completely, evening out the playing field so that size truly does not matter anymore, there will always be an advantage to be had using combat vehicles.
You ignored the fact that recon marines can just destroy tanks with one of those heavy missiles or two. Plus I imagine in such an advanced tech age uavs would be used to snipe targets with heavy missiles.
@@floseatyard8063 Infantry AT units (not really recon marines's main objective honestly) use very heavy javelin missiles, which take a two man squad just to haul around since they weigh a lot (and cost a lot). Those are able to take out older tanks with older armor, think t-72 or older, chobam style armor that's usually weak up top. They usually will have one man carry the launcher and another man carry 4 payloads, so a two man squad can fire 4 missiles, a three has 8 and so on. This doesn't challenge the advantages of armored vehicles, as they have a lot more armor than any marine, have better firepower then javelin missiles, can go longer, faster, don't get tired etc.
@@mickeynissan9887 first this series takes place in 2530 something if I'm not mistaken and things are WAY more portable. 2nd if you watched the video, recon marines have missile launchers on their backs which can absolutely annihilate big missile launchers in 1 hit. Its not ridiculous to assume 2 or 3 could take out a heavy tank.
@@mickeynissan9887 but to be fair this tech advantage also gives defense against missiles like lasers and PDCs so I imagine a few marines would have to swarm a tank to actually destroy it with missiles. A 1v1 would mean a marine lost
From what I've heard is that a lot of soldiers are pretty against exoskeletons, as 1: more stuff to carry, 2:more stuff to fail, and 3: more stuff to get in the way. From what I hear is that quite a few soldiers actually dislike the R&D people as they are making stuff for soldiers, but don't have a clue on how to soldier.
As you pointed out, any land based vehicle can just be pummeled to scrap be even the smallest military ship in orbit. Once you win the space battle (modern equivalent would be gaining air superiority) and if you want to control the ship/station/planet you need boots on the ground. I think land based military vehicles are the luxury of police actions where you're more afraid of guerilla forces by criminal elements. Also, hacking makes even drones an iffy proposition where your own weapons can be turned against you. You guys are doing a great job. Suggestion for your next Expanse video would be the biology where they're using I think Chameleon DNA for regrowing limbs.
@@JohnSmith-qz6xb yes but the cost/effect calculation is a different one. A vehicle is way easier to detect. If you want to use air(space)superiority on single infantry you ether have to put insane amounts of resources in targeting/target recognition and tracking or bombard the hole thing. If you aren't fighting in space in the first place that probably means there is something down there you want to obtain, so bombarding that seems counterproductive.
In anti Guerilla actions armored vehicles might be rather useless too, at least as long as it takes place in dense urban environments were infantry based anti armor weapons are to easily deployed.
@@scelonferdi Armored vehicles are only really vulnerable in an urban environment when operating alone. If they're operating with infantry acting as their eyes and ears , then they're far less vulnerable as long as the infantry don't operate from APCs or trucks and refuse to get out and properly screen the other vehicles.
Another interesting aspect of the ship boardings which really comes out in the books is just how suicidally dangerous it is to attempt in a combat scenario. As the Amun-Ra ships found when attacking the Donnager, it immediately becomes a race for the boarding party to secure engineering and the command deck before the defending crew of the ship commit to scuttling it to prevent capture of the CIC's computers and data. For that reason it's generally almost never actually attempted outside of relatively low-stakes anti-piracy/customs enforcement boardings.
i can testify from a prop standpoint that they got some things not so perfect, as I've got my own set of martian light armour. I had to put one hell of a riser to actually be able to aim down the rifle sights with the helmet in the way. You can even see this in the show that the actors can't actually look down the sights of their rifles.
If you haven’t already watched this show be very very careful, one episode in you will end up binging the whole 4 seasons. I remember binging the show in two weeks, I couldn’t put my phone down, I’d watch on the bus, at work, at the grocery store, on the toilet. It’s so good that I had to go buy the books on amazon(thank you amazon for saving the expanse) start the show and enjoy!!!!!
Actually, in the books there are mechs. Martians used a mech in the Ganymede fight, makes the hybrid even more terrifying considering it shredded the mech too. I guess the show did not have the budget for mechs.
@@frankg2790 Also Miller was supposed to be using a big alien maintenance mech extensively in season 4, cutting the ruins and fighting other protomolecule machines. Was super pumped for that scene, was kinda disappointed the mech was so small with so little screen time. But I get it, it would have been SUPA expensive...
Yep, a futuristic (Expanse era) APC could carry a trophy like system to deter guided munitions and an autocannon to shred exosuits. Bigger platform, bigger systems. Plus vehicles still play logistic, command and control and medical roles a exosuit cant do.
You vastly underestimate survivability of modern tanks. Taking one out is really, really hard if you don't have tanks of your own. E.g. RPG you've show in the video... It evidently takes many hits to disable even not so modern tank like T-64 with one, unless we are talking about lucky hit. However tanks are used in ground warfare and in urban warfare (yes; their vulnerability in urban warfare is an outdated concept: modern tanks are built with that kind of threats in mind). So obviously tanks won't be used in in boarding action.
If I recall, rpgs can't take out tanks not because of the armor, but because they cover tanks with screens; the grenade is on a delayed fuse and otherwise would rip into the tank easily so the screen triggers the fuse and the round blows up while still outside.
@@Burt1038 you are correct for 1950-ies tank, but the modern ones have composite armor that works even better than screens, e.g. Abrams front armour resistance against HEAT projectiles is equivalent to over 2 meters of steel. Today screens are used on APCs that don't carry nearly as much armor as tanks.
@@Andy-kw2zm ATGM work well only against incompetent tank crews e.g. Saudi or in case of lucky ambush scenario (e.g. nearly every single Merkava lost to arabs). Competent tank crew will either use terrain or deploy smokescreen (more like aerosol today) or simply kill ATGM team before they have a chance to fire because tank have a range advantage. Recoil less "rifles" (LOL) like Gustav are more dangerous to tanks... but you are not going to penetrate front armour of any decent tank with one (plus its really heavy). Furthermore heat seaking ATGMs that attack from above are relatively new development (yes you are correct that modern tanks were developed in the 1980-ies when such weapons simply didn't existed) but they are not available to most of armies of the world. Laser-guided or even wire-guided ATGMs are used by most of the armies. Still active defense systems have been installed on tanks that have to endure this kind of threats so my point holds: if you are an infantry man you most likely can not do anything to a tank. There was a video that UA-cam deleted of how single Ukrainian tank takes out 2 squads of advancing Russian mercenaries that had 2 APCs with them... Tank simply appeared out of the hills, deploys smoke, destroys both APCs and makes mercenaries running. It all happened in the matter of seconds. Anti-armor shell of 120mm howitzer or similar 100mm mortar shell can take out a tank obviously but scoring such hit on a very fast and very agile target is a big challenge. Similarly if complete air superiority is achieved than yes ground attack planes can begin to hunt down tanks. Helicopters work too but they have quite a lot more troubles because they are very vulnerable to MANPADS (especially vehicle-mounted ones... I'm not sure what is the correct term in English for that kind of vehicles - the ones that carry dozens of heat-seaking missiles).
They tried a realistic approach, but there are still lights IN THE HELMET. They could have made it like in Alien 1 with a light outside of the helmet that also illuminates the face.
Using any sort gatling type weapon in a vacuum would have heating an lubrication problems. I would say using a metal storm system with a gas cooling and anti-recoil system would be the way to go. the only moving part is the bulliat.
What about "eyes in the back of the head" ? 360-degree situation awareness? Tech that would allow fighters to engage targets in their front and rear simultaneously. A weapon that can fire to the front and the rear simultaneously. And bend to shoot around corners.
I don't agree that ground vehicles would disappear from the battlefield, it would increase the mobility and range drastically, and unmanned weaponized armored rovers would cool af.
Ive tried watching the expanse but after a few episodes quit. I like how you say it gets space combat right. Well thats based on our current knowledge of space travel. Who's to say that we wont be flying around in ships like the Enterprise or Star Destroyer or SG1 in the future? Keep in mind prior to 1947 it was science fact the sound barrier couldnt be broken. Look at current designs of ships for moon and Mars missions. They dont look like truck trailers or buildings. Granted in the future when we can start building them in space they may look a little different but they're not going to look like the Chrysler building.
Richard Button You should try watching the Expanse again. I like you gave up after watching a couple of episodes it was too slow and didn’t catch me. I tried again after a friend convinced me it was worth another go and now I’m hooked and can’t wait for the next series. The first 3-4 episodes are slow but after that it really takes off and gets better and better.
I mean, in terms of transporting an armored vehicle through space, you could theoretically bolt it to the outside of the ship provided you don't block any exhaust ports or whatnot. Sure, you may have to patch it up a bit after, but it saves room inside the ship and even gives it a bit more protection from hull breaches.
If politicians watched the expanse my feelings is the thing they would most likely take away from it is that orbit is the ultimate high ground and being able to rock or rod a enemy city and prevent others from being able to do it to them would become a much bigger priority than it is now.
I fee that land vehicles If some sort still could serve some use in terms of still having the provided mobility, especially if it's a situation where air support/transport is unavailable or unable to help, such as if there is heavy anti air, or if you wish to move more undetected along the surface, but still move quickly. I do agree that large big targets would not be of much use, but smaller, lighter, and faster Vehicles could still serve a purpose.
Love and recommend your videos, thought I'd offer a helpful point as I've heard this mistake twice now. Electrifying is running current through a surface or other inanimate object. Electrocution is current running through a life form.
Well the Goliath armor doesn’t protect against direct explosions, I say this because if they are hit directly with a high velocity explosive (RPG or a cannon round) it would maybe bounce off but the force from the round, and the explosions concussive effect would probably turn their brains to mush and even then if they get hit in the chest they would probably break a lot of bones.
Actually there is a way to kill Marines. in Abbadons Gate a MMC Marine takes out 3 OPA thugs in powerarmour because he uses an anty material sniper, aiming for the visor that's left open. (That's why I like the Laconian variant which is completely with camera and dosent have a visor at all )
funny thing: when you're working in low-g you actually need to work harder most of the time, short version is that your body is designed to function in 1g, it can still work fine in a decent range around that with some practice and ideally the opportunity to condition yourself for the altered environment but it's all designed to function in relation to a global directional acceleration. when that acceleration goes up you can pretty much just push harder to compensate (up to the point where you need to start worrying about your skeleton anyways) it's not ideal but it works. when you are in a situation where there's no gravity to act against though you end up having to constantly counteract any force you apply, meaning that if you want to work remotely quickly then you need to put out twice as much work to do it.
Pretty much. Gravity is rather annoying in large scale especially in rockets escaping from earth to space. However in a lot of things especially the small ones, gravity helps a lot in reducing the amount to work/energy needed to do things. For example, cars. Without gravity, normal cars would be useless and you'd have to invent miniature spacecraft and has to consider 3d movement, and counteracting forces. But with gravity, it helped push the car down and contact with the earth. We just only need to concern with moving the car one way. And that's just one aspect of daily life!
The one thing they didn´t get right, imo, is the use of drones. In the Expanse they are mostly used for survalence and mainly from a ship. I would guess a normal Solider will have a swarm of support drones with many purposes with them. But i guess its cheaper to just not show them ;)
@@frankg2790 Well, i hope future military leaders dont try to invade a planet without their firewall and virusprotection. If you can hack an drone you could hack a suit, too. Thats just an other armsrace between hacking/protection, like any other type of battlefield
Walkers are a dissapointing part of Sci-Fi. Giving tanks legs is the worst idea. But tanks themselves are excellent ideas. They can provide more stability to a front line, and can be provided with a set of Active Protection Systems that can intercept oncoming fire.
Wydm by marketable? A mobile scout platform can be filled just as well or better by a LAV. Being tall isn't good for scouting, it just makes you visible and a target.
Shaping your exoskeleton to completely fit human body (pretty, like Iron man) is kinda not practical... But I understand it's much harder to be made into film, so I let that slide. But built your entire weaponry into your body (especially your main weapons into your arms) isn't a good idea either. It's okay to have some small firearms built into arms for emergency purpose. But it's much better to carry weapon in form of handheld weapons. It has more room, longer barrel, sturdier design, more ammo, more flexible design, can be let destroyed/disposed easily, etc etc. And they can be small too... since it's a future, then a gatling gun in form of P90 would look awesome and more realistic than building gatling gun into your arms. And, I also understand because "this is a movie"... But in the future where we already build spaceship, colonize planets, and have the "luxury" of having space marines... Ground and CQC battle won't be fight by men anymore... They will be fight by machines. Even right now we already have drones and in the process of building unmanned jet fighters/bombers, and then unmanned tanks. In near future, we will probably replace most of infantry men too. Or at least, one human will be accompanied with dozens of high performance disposable biped humanoid robots (which could be AI controlled... or controlled by human operator). But hey, human wearing exoskeleton suit is much cooler on movies, RIGHT!?
One note is that the power source of the suits is probably designed to operate in earth gravity long term since the marines are said to train in earth gravity. Since mars was prepared for the war with earth you can assume they would want to pull off a ground invasion so the suits would need to work for a long period of time in earth gravity.
In an space scenario where the supply is not very stable I think crossbow bolt's would be an good choice because you can shoot it (like crossbow or like a railgun ) and after the conflict you can get your bolt's back for the next use.
The reason they don't often take cover is because the rounds being shot out of most guns in the expanse universe are plastic. They'll tear through flesh at the speeds they're fired but against anything metal , like a ship/station hull, or that suit and the round just flattens. The rounds used at talked about at length in book 1, probably 6+ different spots. Lightly mentioned the details of different rounds sprinkled throughout after book 1 as well. I believe the power armor can deflect some small arms fire of a lead round as well but there's still weapons that can tear through it. See S6 when Clarissa had to save bobby on the azure dragon hull.
It’s a year 2400 plus, and NO ONE HAS a propulsion unit on a space suits, the one is used to move an astronaut relative to the spaceship during a spacewalk. Anyone in space should have it by default same as breathing systems.
I think being immune to small arms fire is fairly realistic. AR-500 steel can take hundreds of rounds of pistol fire before being defeated and we're on the verge of having transparent aluminum. That combined with advanced power packs makes that pretty realistic IMHO
Gravity of course is an important factor, but 1/3 gravity doesn't mean that everything is 3x easier. Objects still have inertia. Accelerating perpendicular to the pull of gravity still takes the same energy, at least before accounting for lower air resistance (which in turns makes deceleration/turning/braking harder). A 400 lb suit would still be expensive to move around.
You should make video about the OPA Navy and Belt Factions. Drummer really should in charge of Fred n Anderson, she has the experience to understand sacrifice and is the most trusted of the Belters. Her and Ashford would have made great leadership team in the future.
Your wrong about the need for heavy armor and weapons on the ground. First off any space based weapons would hit like a nuke, with both an impact and blast radius. And then there's when you don't want to bring the building or mountain down. But heavy armor would bring heavy damage to line of sight. An example would be someplace like Cheyenne mountain, an orbital weapon would destroy the mountain. But you put a tank at the door, it would take only the door down.
Granted I've yet to watch the whole story but so far the only tactic I've seen is to attack in line & defend in line. .. buddy if you think that's getting ground combat right then clearly you haven't experienced the two way range. I don't care how much tech has changed in this timeline , fire & maneuver along with using hard cover for the Infantry will never be obsolete.
Well you were right, about it being scientific coorect tillnami jumped out into vacuum/absolute zero, with no suit. 4-20 seconds till death, the jump last 50 seconds. She injects her self with the blood oxangizerner after 30 seconds..
One of the most relatable things in Expanse is Miller's futuristic phone thingy with a cracked screen. Even 300 years from now that's apparently still an issue.
I doubt it will be with the material science progress we've already made -- but, I really like for the Miller character that he had a cracked screen. The guy is cemented in stone and replaces all other space gumshoes for me!
Hes an alcoholic .. he definitely drops it or falls on it
@@mpjstuff Miller is the best noir character since Bogart in The Big Sleep.
@@thomasb1889 Agreed. I really LOVE that they treated him that way. It made in a bit surreal -- but, it also made the true strangeness of the "dimension defying" crystal virus seem a bit more real. All the other Sci-Fi seems firmly planted in physics, except for the virus -- and all the "too far beyond us" tech of the ring building aliens.
@@mpjstuff Keeping most of the physics firmly planted in what we know helps a lot. Even the ring gate is possible as scientists theorize that worm holes could be used for interstellar travel. Even the proto-molecules ability to travel so fast may be explainable as it may be using some form of warp which scientists also think is possible so what is inside the bubble follows all the rules of the universe but the bubble can move many times faster.
Regular armor = regular armor.
Exoskeleton = weak or unruly mechanical outerwear that increases strength and or speed.
Power armor = a perfect mix between armor and exoskeleton that mostly provides protection and strength.
Mech = a robot that is controlled from the inside.
Every armor increases weight as long as it has mass.
@@uwetheiss970 what does that have to do with my corrective explanation of protective/utility equipment?
@@BlueTeam-John-Fred-Linda-Kelly You said that only an exoskeleton may increases weight. That is wrong. Every armor increases weight.
@@uwetheiss970 your right I totally fucked up, but I feel like my phone's speech to text messed up more. I should always proofread my comments if I use stt.
Nice name
I binged all 4 seasons in a week after watching an Expanse video on here and I can't wait for the 5th season to come out.
I watched it in 2 days for the same reason......
Same here
As did I. BTW, when does Season 5 air?
Apparently we're still getting next season this year, despite current events.
That’s it, I’m doing it too. I came to the comments because I want to watch this show now having never seen it just because of the vids here and apparently I’m not alone. Nice.
The lack of the Armored vehicles is just a thing in the TV show. In books martians actually use some kind of... ehm... i think i was a big walker or something like that during Ganymede incident where it got just ripped apart by hybrid when he was casually reducing MMC present to zero.
Gen Films should do a video on Voltron: Legendary Defender.
One of the many scenes from the books I wish was in the show...budget cuts are a bitch
Belter Lives Matter
Ugh, why build a walker? Walkers are shite compared to wheeled vehicles.
Rockspoon
And tanks are better than walkers due to a smaller profile and having a proven design point.
5:50 you mean Keanu Reeves as Darth Revan so that he is John Wick, but both a Sith and Jedi. Most OP being in the universe.
I am rewatching the Expanse and I am noticing so many things that I didn't before. Like the fact that James Holden is obsessed with Coffe because of his Girlfriend on the Canterbury who introduced him to it.
She didn't introduce him to coffee. He's from earth, he grew up with real coffee. She only gave him some tips on how to make crap coffee slightly better.
@@somefuckstolemynick yes, but it really coffee when you don't taste the right version of it.
She's not his GF, Ade is a hookup, she breaks up with him before he boards the "knight " . Ade shows him to add a pinch of sulfur to reduce the acidity of poor quality coffee beans. Been an expanse nerd for a decade.. love it
I have to disagree with the fixed hand mounted weapon being a superior alternative:
1) If it malfunctions you can't access it easily to fix the malfunction. There will always be malfunctions.
2) You also can't discard yours at all and you can't get another one from an ally easily.
3) If it's out of ammo you cannot use it as a mele weapon, it may not be as strong as your powersuit but the extra reach you can get from a handheld may be helpful.
4) Sure you can use the camera to see around the corner but you can shoot around the corner a lot faster and safer with a handheld that has a camera on it than you can with a wrist mounted weapon. You'd onlyb e exposing your hand and not your entire forearm and the suit could still adsorb the recoil.
5) You shouldn't really be trying to do other things while you are firing at people, it makes it more likely that you will lose control of the weapon and can cause friendly fire incidents. And if you need both hands free you have slings for hand helds that get them out of the way.
6) Humans use hands gestures quite a lot in conversations, having a weapon literally bolted onto one will increase the risks of accidents. Yea automatic IFF trigger blockers could be a thing, but they would never be as reliable as not pointing your gun at a friend.
7) You have far more control, flexibility, reach and accuracy with your hand than your wrist, you can do more things better with a handheld than you could with a wristmount. For example if you are trying to shoot above a wall you'll only be able to extend your hand halfway up to fire a wristmount while you could extend your entire arm to poke it over a taller wall and it will also again be safer for you.
8) Any damage that affects you can also affect the weapon, vibrations will travel down your suit and affect it and the weapon a lot more than it would with a handheld.
9) The weapon it self is more likely to be mishandled, abused and damaged while you are using your hands for other tasks. A handheld can be set aside.
10) The wristmount would get in the way, it'll always be there and you can get used to it but it'll still be bulking out of it's mount. A handheld can always be set aside and out of the way.
11) Fixed mounts limit the ease and capacity for upgrades. You can always get a bigger hand held, you can't always get a bigger fixed weapon if it doesn't have room in the mount, and if it does fit it'll have a different weight, recoil and characteristics than what the suit was designed for.
Just wanted to add some thoughts to some those, largely based on the books:
1. Maintenance and modularity is still designed into the suit. Draper is described many times throughout the series dismantling and performing maintenance repairs on her main weapon, and in at least one instance totally replaces it with a new unit (after leaving Earth with Avasarala). The impression is given that this is a relatively simple thing to access, even when out on operations (as with other parts of the suit, such as the leg joint Draper is having inspected on patrol before the s**t hits the fan on Ganymede)
2. This is definitely a good point, and one that comes up repeatedly. However just because you have the wrist mounted weapon doesn't mean you can't use others too. On a few occasions Bobby takes weapons off other people and uses them - although she generally had to break off the trigger guard to get her power armour glove around it. Also, because of the size of the power armour you'd still be as limited as they are now in the choice of weapons they could use normally - it would only be other Power Armour users, which yeah is better than nothing, but why not just have both?
3. Yeah true, but as you say when you're wearing a suit like that you're already a better melee weapon than anything you could hold....
4. Also true but in CQC in the Expanse universe there is nothing that can penetrate the Goliath armour, in the tactics of the books etc. they generally don't bother with feeble things like corners, they are their own cover.
6. Interesting one, as especially in vacuum environments hand gestures would be a big thing
7. The point with the wrist mount vs. held is the stability. The Goliath can fire sustained bursts of high-velocity rounds from the minigun while maintaining perfect accuracy even on the move, thanks to its targeting computer. It's unlikely you'd be able to achieve that I'd think with a held weapon without breaking your wrist, even with the suit, as the gloves need to have more flexibility and so don't have the direct structural support that building it directly into the arm gives.
8. Yeah, but again the stability benefits coupled with the computer's ability to make up for vibration etc, it probably balances out
9. The gun has both software and physical safeties. For someone as highly trained as them it should be almost impossible to discharge it accidentally, especially bearing in mind the status is constantly displayed through the HUD.
11. Yeah you can't upgrade it, but do you really need to upgrade a handheld gatling gun?? You can always carry specialised heavy weapons as well, and it is made clear in the series that they also have multiple ammo types for the wrist mounted weapon, including armour piercing, incendiary and explosive rounds
There is a single simple thing you missed.
Ammunition feeds. A built in wrist mounted weapon has to, by its design have an internal ammunition feed. Without ease of access, you can't clear a jam or a failure to feed/eject.
Also, were is the ammunition stored, that's a minigun. A 100 round box magazine would be the size of her arm, and they fire off thousands of rounds. The only practical storage for that amount of ammunition would be on the back, and then you'd need a feed setup that runs over the shoulder, down the arm, and into the gun, that's exceptionally complicated especially since it has to also deal with the arm moving. A better setup would be a shoulder mounted weapon, on an extendable mount. This would let you fire over obstacles, use cover, and have better lines of sight, oh and an ammo feed would work better.
If you insist on arm mounted weapons, have an external hardpoint you can connect a weapon to, that way you can swap out weapons rapidly depending on mission type, ammo availability or damage.
Basically you want the armour of the suit, with the weapons setup from the film "The edge of tomorrow", modular hardpoints.
Your barrel can only be as long as a little longer than your firearm.
Even if IFF is perfect you’d still have to manipulate other things, other people that aren’t already programmed in the computer.
Imagine an unknown contact, say a civilian is hurt and you have to perform medical attention and you accidentally hit them with the brrrtttt to the chest.
@@kolinmartz Well... Problem solved then.
@@kolinmartz I think in Expanse the safety is presumed on - so it's not like the gun locks when it identifies a civilian/unarmed/etc. - it unlocks only on designated targets or with a manual override from the user.
Not a fan of integrating weapons into an armoured suits arms. One of the things that's pounded into a soldier's head during basic and especially rifle intro is safety. With an arm mounted weapon system, every movement that doesn't involve shooting will be flagging team mates, allies and non combatants with the gun's muzzle. It's even more dangerous when you factor in how the weapon is fired. If the trigger is integrated into the gauntlet, all it would take is the wrong twitch of the soldier's hand at the worst time and congratulations, you have a negligent discharge. If it's one of those "think about shooting to shoot" type deals then you better have some powered armour trooper with extensive mental prep, in many ways a mental trigger is worse than a physical one. I feel when powered armour becomes a thing it would make more sense to arm them with separate hand carried weapons for the general purpose anti personnel work. Big armour piercing and Hi-Ex weapons could be mounted on the suits back - think Day After Tomorrow - and be stowed out of the way when not in use.
I mean the RECON Marines are literally the most elite force there is, so yeah they get all the training. I've always presumed that there's a a physical trigger bun electronic safety that has to be disengaged first. If you watch the movements in the show, there's not really a lot of gesticulating done, but given the amount of IFF stuff, I could imagine they also have additional steps to take if they want to shoot at a friendly/ neutral, on multiple occasions armed people surrender to a single unarmed marine based purely on reputation alone so they have the training.
Back mounted guns that poke up over the shoulder are not really practical for the ship and station combat which is the main form of combat, though they do have a rocket launcher which is only ever used outdoors. I'm not sure having them carry guns in combat directly is an advantage, aside from the fact that they might well be carrying tools for boarding or other things and in the time it takes for them to reload, the could probably have just used the gun to club all the adversaries to a pulp. I'm honestly not even sure if they can grip a normal gun while in power armour.
And just to answer a bunch of other comments I've seen (seeing as I presume you probably have similar ideas) the entire suit can be stripped down, and the gun and individual parts removed as well as varied ammo types, In the book a single suit is repaired and maintained for well over 40 years. They also have the option of not wearing the powered armour if they think that's going to be overkill and using conventional weapons. As for the mounting, I assume it's on the wrist so that they don't shoot off their thumb, while for the stability and accuracy of the shot, the servos are more than enough to keep the gun on target, if they can make the suit move the way it does.
Mac McCauley just because you’re elite doesn’t mean you no longer have to be safe. I stopped reading after the first sentence because you started your argument with a logical fallacy.
In space, regular guns can just float away or knocked away. straps don't help if you're flung around. Also the wrist mounted guns are apparently modular.
also the whole suit operating in 0G doesn't make sense, since the expanse has made it very clear that in space, marines are expected to fight in anywhere from 0G to like 30Gs
@@kolinmartz I was responding to the comment that the troopers would need extensive mental prep, I never said they had perfect trigger discipline. That fact in itself is central to part of the plot.
Day After Tomorrow or do you mean Edge of Tomorrow?
I think Force Recon armour makes more sense in the books, mainly because it's considerably bulkier and more tank-like. Kind of like fallour power armour. It also doesn't need to show off the actor's face so has a much more limited viewport. I'd still have liked to see it with an armoured opaque visor and internal VR/AR screens, so the visor could come down for combat but be flipped up for moving about or if it was damaged. Kind of like having a tank commander's hatch open.
The reason Bobby's pretty much invulnerable in those scenes is not because it's impenetrable, but because most shipboard weapons use plastic bullets to avoid damaging critical systems. Since she's better armoured than the hull, she is basically completely safe from their small arms.
Most small arms in space also don't fire bullets in the same sense that modern guns do, because as the book notes, firing a 9mm in microgravity will basically send you spinning off into space, or if you're weaing mag boots it'll have you swinging about like a weebl. Instead they loose small rocket-powered bullets. Basically firing the whole cartridge but where the primer kicks it out and then the propellant fires out of a hole in the back of the casing. This concept was actually tried in real life back in the early 1960s but it was a bit shit. Makes more sense with modern tech and space.
When channel after channel has to clarify that they are not supported by The Expanse creators, then you should watch it. The Expanse and it's fan base is like Firefly, but in a more modern time with streaming services.
Just bought the first 03 seasons. I've just needed to support this pure Si-Fi Gem.
I just started firefly, while it's entertaining, i don't understand how it got such loyal fanbase. Does it get better later or something?
plus, Expanse has actual funding, unlike Firefly did.
@@meisterproper8304 It has snappy dialogue, tight plotting, and good acting, but if it's not for you, it's not for you.
@@meisterproper8304 Yes. It gets better. It really starts to dig its claws in you once you get past the world building, peel back some character layers, and dive into the main plot.
...which is about where the series got cancelled.
Thankfully, you've got the movie to tie up most of those loose ends. So, stick with it. Most people see the show's robbed potential in the final episodes. It was really heading somewhere interesting and then it got the axe.
The movie, though? ** chef's kiss **
The landing armored pod from the MSR in the background is the most similar to a ground vehicle in the show. It's heavily armed to protect the landing area while deploying troops on the surface, and can evacuate them to space again.
Yeah, you're right about armored vehicles.
But, The Expanse doesn't have galaxy spanning conflict.. Yet
In such a conflict, there are a lot more planets, ships, people etc. So, I guess, tanks and artillery are going to be used
Why use tank and artillery when you have rail guns and torpedoes on your ships
In order to make ground combat vehicles worth it planets require planetary shields and massive banks of long range anti-ship turrets and, even then, the casualties you'll see just from the invasion is insane and your ground forces will automatically be encircled. Otherwise? Just use rods from god to destroy your enemy.
Well, have you read or skimmed the later Expanse books? Later on they develop a weapon that can render an entire solar system and every single living thing in it unconscious. Granted that's more of an unintended side effect, but yeah they tech up pretty fast once the rings come online.
@Ralph's Place well yes infantry and armored vehicles will be relevant but tanks and artillery not so much. We will see in 200 hundred years I guess
Ryanowning Anti orbital missiles could keep space ships at a distance from the planet have small mobile launchers. Using mobile aa systems would prevent long range missile strikes. So at that point you would be good for anything other than a kinetic strike, which would be less accurate and devastating than a missile.
Correction: Sci-Fi Ground Combat. If you guys want proper Ground Combat, you CAN search for vids of it (if any) in YT.
For the greatest depiction of ground combat watch Generation Kill
@@djcy9219 generation kill is actually pretty shitty in terms of depicting real world. it is very hollywood in its view of how things are. there is some stuff which is good, like the mustache thing at the beginning, but the rest is actually rather poor.
I found it to be very true, not so much on tactics or realism of engagements maybe, (this I can't judge for the early days of the second golf war, as I have no first hand experience on that) but the hole behaviourale side of military personal in rest or combat mode is really accurate from my point of view. It has a stronger focus on the confusion and disorder of ground combat.
@@djcy9219 "as I have no first hand experience on that" that is exactly my point. holly wood takes reports about things and then imagines how it would be like, almost always getting it wrong because they have no clue how things are other than via tropes. i wasn't in the second gulf war, but i have served with those that did, and how generation kill depicts things is pretty wrong.
the individual soldiers up-armoring their humvees didn't happen like that. they would have been at a forward base, and not a makeshift camp (strip of desert with tents put down, though even if they did put down tents there would have been a lot of other support stuff there as well). the up-armoring would have been out of a base nearby, with the ability to get large packages and a workshop with tools. they would have seen what was coming down the line and figured out that they weren't going to get the up-armor, which means that it wouldn't have been the first group unless it was the commanding officer that foresaw this (as he has advance notice of things and can see more of the politics messing with his unit), and he would have quietly let his NCOs know, which technically would get him in hot water. the NCOs would then figure out how they were going to proceed, either by footing the bill themselves or sharing with his squad the problem and them pooling their resources. of course this is all against regulation and they can all get in trouble, though the higher ups (above the CO) will look bad so they will turn a blind eye. of course all of this is well before the start of the movie, and doesn't show how all of the craziness is the result of washington politics filtering down the grunts on the ground. it also doesn't show how backroom social connections is how the military manages to keep working when politics fucks everything up. that is just that small bit about them up-armoring their own vehicle, but it shows how things are not shown very accurately. i guess i could rewatch the whole thing and go over everything they depicted quite a bit wrong, but that is a lot of time to waste.
the mustache thing is the best thing to take from it. the Senior Enlisted Leader is right up there to the CO, disconnected from his troops and he cracks the whip on some small stupid pointless thing that relative to everything that the troops are worrying about is completely meaningless. he does so because he feels that it would help the situation. you can take that one thing and apply it to almost everything in the military and get closer to how things go down than most movies/shows/whatever. if you are able to do that then you will understand why the troops didn't want to leave vietnam even if they didn't believe in the war. you also can figure out why the marines that got back end up with a dark sense of humor, it isn't about the death they see exactly.
It was based off the book made by Evan Wright who at the time, was a combat correspondent who was embedded with the 1st Recon Battalion. So, maybe not everything is accurate but moreover from what I've heard, the mannerisms of the marines depicted in the show are more accurate than how the politics are. Obviously, I trust you're more informed opinion on the matter considering you've served and more importantly, spoken and served alongside men who were there and participated in that war.
06:25 You said INTERDICTION when I think you meant BOARDING ACTION. An interdiction (in general) is the mission of intercepting a force en route to its objective or staging area, thereby allowing you to attack before it can aggregate its combat power. The definition you have gave is the definition of boarding and seizing a vessel.
*have given ;)
I disagree on that weapons integrated in arms' armor is a good thing. Aside from innumerable points mentioned before, having that is just bad science. There's been a video analysis of the Edge of Tommorow exoskeletons that mentioned the incomparably less controllable recoil such weapon positioning has. Moreover the possible "compensation" exoskeleton should provide for this recoil does not excuse the unimaginable wear and tear it has on the suit itself. To have such compact, intricate and extremely important part of the battlesuit be under unnecessarily extreme stresz is just plain stupid.
I am not sure if they did this in the show, but in the novels their guns are noted to be recoil free, having a tiny rocket engine in the bullet. This would prevent the suit from going haywire when firing in 0G, and also prevents the recoil problem.
Even if combat suits are being used in situations where they have less weight, they are still going to have their original mass and therefore inertia. So to my mind that means if you were to have a low power mode for combat in low gravity, as you propose, you would lose controlability.
That's a good point. One over enthusiastic gesticulation and you may be tumbling into the void, never to return. :(
Welcome back to the Expanse channel guys
As long as they stick to scifi, its tolerable. Histroy Channel was once nicknamed the Hitler Channel. When they changed, they hardly have historical shows.
Ain't nothing wrong with that
They are making up for years of list time.
Orest Markheva oh don’t mistake me The Expanse is my favorite show on right now, but just change the name of the channel now
Belter Lives Matter
Integrated weapons have many issues. Ammo and size. A GATTLING gun for a forearm integrated weapon is the the WORST choice you could make.
A laser or something that uses up less ammo is a far better choice.
a laser would theoretically need a much larger and heavier power cell than any ammo you would carry for a gun. i agree with you on integrated guns though
@@phalanx4690 yeah both gattling gun and laser better suited for vehicles. They just need more of those lock-on rockets for long range and smg for short range in my opinion
and lets not forget adaptability issues, unless you develop a multi weapon system that can adapt to different situations such weapons are become impractical. an example could be used in the expanse itself with ship combat. the heavier power armour's Gatling gun could easily over penetrate and put the ships integrity at risk or need smaller calibres that would work better with other weapon systems and lets not even talk rate of fire. in CQC while rate of fire is a important factor it can also be a determent if you are trying to secure object or people of importance as one stray shot from automatic fire could damage your intended objective.
truthfully integrated weapons are more of a determent for logistic and the soldier using them. if a weapon in such a platform breaks you'd have to possibly send the entire suit to be repaired and if the soldier was on a battlefield when it broke it would extra weight that they would have to carry AND possibly leave your troop weaponless. more traditional fire arms for the most part don't have these troubles. a modern soldiers rifle is broken and is sent to a logistics officer while they are given another which is more likely cheaper that a full power armour set and if their rifle broke on the battle field they could possibly take one off the enemy or grab a spare from a near by ally if they use non-integrated systems.
some weapon systems may work well integrated into armour systems but most don't especially if they are designed for infantry and boarding usage. such armour and weapon systems would possibly work better of larger power armours for things like urban environments where traditional armoured vehicles can't be as mobile or in area's where damage limitation is a non-factor like the expanse for example, low-g, vacuum planetoid that can't that cant have heavier vehicles brought to it. also kind of disagree with idea armour vehicle would be classed as obsolete as being able to bring powerful weapons is always going to be a factor in warfare and using a ship that maybe under attack or attacking another to gain or keep control over the planet to destroy a single vehicle that may half way across the planet for them could be a pain. and even today in modern warfare there are increasing number anti missile systems that protect the vehicles very well, it would be a stretch to see these thing become increasingly common as time goes on so infantry anti-tank weapons may not be as effective as the appear to be.
@@phalanx4690 If you have a power cell that can supply power armor, you should be good. Anyway, integrated weapons are almost always stupid. Too many downsides for too few benefits.
@@TheTallGuy1992 plus while transporting armoured vehicles might be expensive for single nations the ones in the expanse are WORLD GOVERNMENTS! They’re probably gonna have a lot more resources to work with.
The blast wave you mention is always there. It doesn't care about your armor, how fast you can move. It is there and will mess you up.
I love The Expanse but the Martian Recon Marines have always bugged me. Scifi seems to be guilty of this a lot, telling us how badass and elite units are but they act like complete amateurs. Great technology and extreme physical toughness is cool and all but doesn't make an elite soldier. Now I can only speak on the show, I'm still working on the first book, but Bobbie is portrayed as this untested young Marine, who is somehow a Gunnery Sgt and in charge of an elite team who seem equally raw. They are still learning to work as a unit but are sent on missions that could plunge the solar system into war with very little oversight. Her arc makes a lot more sense as the new girl on the squad because that would explain her inexperience and stupid tactical decisions. She does get better as the show goes on to my memory and I do like the character, I just wish writers and directors would stop telling us that a unit is the most elite group in the universe just because they have some fancy tech.
I agree. It's show, don't tell. All it takes really is one day on a tac range to show the actors playing this elites the fundamentals of things like room clearing, etc. And the authenticity increased tenfold. Rather than watching actors in costumes act like actors in costumes.
ScepticalCynic I’m not sure you read my comment through. My whole point is that yes, they tell us that they are supposed to be the best of the best, and yet they act like new recruits and their tactics are amateur level. The only thing they have going for them is excellent equipment. A lot of shows do that is my point, they just say “hey these people are super elite” without ever having them behave like an elite unit and we are supposed to just take their word for it.
Alex Wilkinson Bobbi is alot better in the second book, def recommend reading the entire series
its not their tactics that bug me, it's the obvious lack of going through basic training and acting like a bunch of punks.
That said, i suppose its realistic in that they did get their asses handed to them lol
Navy Seals and Spetsnazs would also be massacred by the alien-hybrid
People have been saying tanks and other large AFVs are outdated for decades. Still, they're in service with many of the world's nations, with ever-improving technology such as APS systems. No other platform can provide heavy armor and big guns will still bring relatively mobile, especially in atmospheric conditions that support aircraft can't operate in. Apps and IFVs can get people where they need to be, quickly, while having one hell of a punch and having more armor than an aircraft.
Thanks, the Expanse is a great series. Halfway through the fifth season.
I've never seen a show that didn't annoy me to distraction with the tech -- but Expanse seems to get everything right. Even when some people criticize what they THINK was wrong -- usually turns out someone thought about that as well. I'm still blown away by that shot where the move the cockpit section onto a tram and then treat it like an elevator to deliver the pilots. One seamless shot and it was background while the actors were talking -- as if by afterthought.
Remember American Bens joke?
"Nothing says fedex like throwing payloads at their target at full speed"
Edit: thanks for the likes!
thanks for these fake internet points that have been bestowed upon me! I yearn for nothing, but more internet points
"Doors and corners, kid."
"The Legend of Galactic Heroes" is the answer to all of this.
Thanks for the new show Gen films!!
Nvm the cgi isint very eye candy to me
Had to rewatch it again after you guys started making these videos. One of my favorite scifi shows of all time.
There’s no way in hell that you can fit enough armor onto a person to stop anything larger than a 7.62 NATO, and still have the mobility to be infantry. Armored vehicles have every reason to exist because infantry just don’t have the adequate protection. Not to mention where is the feed mechanism for the minigun on recon marines and where is that ammo stored?
There’s also the parental risk of the enemy hitting the stored ammunition.
How you have more than a couple seconds of ammo on your forearm for a minigun is beyond me.
ソウタ.ブリーズ assuming it fires the “usual” 4000 rpm you might have a 1-2 second burst before you’d need an obvious ammo storage container somewhere your person. Which could become an inviting target given the ammo is case-less.
Coment Nine since the wiki says the minigun fires 5mm case less ammo, I don’t think there’s enough propellant mass in those rounds, or enough rounds for that to pose a threat to the users health. But those RPGs on the back. That’s a pretty target.
@@Imperialist_Hotdog @Coment Nine I haven't read the books, but it is likely that the miniguns are not using gunpowder. It is probably a railgun. That would cut out a lot of needed space and liability with gunpowder although there still isn't enough space in the suit to store much ammo.
That last minute, regarding no need to have armored vehicles, is simply ignoring thermodynamics.
Whatever armor you might have on a suit, could be overpowered by a larger, more powerful weapon system. which in turn leads to needing thicker armor.
In terms of energy capacity, thermal dissipation capacity etc. referring to both energy storage and the ability to deploy said energy -
Whatever you can mount on the back of a human, you could mount many times more on a vehicle.
So, unless something brakes Newtonian physics and thermodynamics completely, evening out the playing field so that size truly does not matter anymore, there will always be an advantage to be had using combat vehicles.
You ignored the fact that recon marines can just destroy tanks with one of those heavy missiles or two. Plus I imagine in such an advanced tech age uavs would be used to snipe targets with heavy missiles.
@@floseatyard8063
Infantry AT units (not really recon marines's main objective honestly) use very heavy javelin missiles, which take a two man squad just to haul around since they weigh a lot (and cost a lot). Those are able to take out older tanks with older armor, think t-72 or older, chobam style armor that's usually weak up top.
They usually will have one man carry the launcher and another man carry 4 payloads, so a two man squad can fire 4 missiles, a three has 8 and so on.
This doesn't challenge the advantages of armored vehicles, as they have a lot more armor than any marine, have better firepower then javelin missiles, can go longer, faster, don't get tired etc.
@@mickeynissan9887 first this series takes place in 2530 something if I'm not mistaken and things are WAY more portable. 2nd if you watched the video, recon marines have missile launchers on their backs which can absolutely annihilate big missile launchers in 1 hit. Its not ridiculous to assume 2 or 3 could take out a heavy tank.
@@mickeynissan9887 but to be fair this tech advantage also gives defense against missiles like lasers and PDCs so I imagine a few marines would have to swarm a tank to actually destroy it with missiles. A 1v1 would mean a marine lost
@@floseatyard8063
Economy and logistics are a major part though, and a marine costs less then a tank with four marines in it.
Excellent series!
From what I've heard is that a lot of soldiers are pretty against exoskeletons, as 1: more stuff to carry, 2:more stuff to fail, and 3: more stuff to get in the way. From what I hear is that quite a few soldiers actually dislike the R&D people as they are making stuff for soldiers, but don't have a clue on how to soldier.
As you pointed out, any land based vehicle can just be pummeled to scrap be even the smallest military ship in orbit. Once you win the space battle (modern equivalent would be gaining air superiority) and if you want to control the ship/station/planet you need boots on the ground. I think land based military vehicles are the luxury of police actions where you're more afraid of guerilla forces by criminal elements. Also, hacking makes even drones an iffy proposition where your own weapons can be turned against you. You guys are doing a great job. Suggestion for your next Expanse video would be the biology where they're using I think Chameleon DNA for regrowing limbs.
Ship could also bombard ANY ground forces
@@JohnSmith-qz6xb yes but the cost/effect calculation is a different one. A vehicle is way easier to detect. If you want to use air(space)superiority on single infantry you ether have to put insane amounts of resources in targeting/target recognition and tracking or bombard the hole thing. If you aren't fighting in space in the first place that probably means there is something down there you want to obtain, so bombarding that seems counterproductive.
In anti Guerilla actions armored vehicles might be rather useless too, at least as long as it takes place in dense urban environments were infantry based anti armor weapons are to easily deployed.
djcy9219 exactly why vehicles would be present
@@scelonferdi Armored vehicles are only really vulnerable in an urban environment when operating alone. If they're operating with infantry acting as their eyes and ears , then they're far less vulnerable as long as the infantry don't operate from APCs or trucks and refuse to get out and properly screen the other vehicles.
Another interesting aspect of the ship boardings which really comes out in the books is just how suicidally dangerous it is to attempt in a combat scenario. As the Amun-Ra ships found when attacking the Donnager, it immediately becomes a race for the boarding party to secure engineering and the command deck before the defending crew of the ship commit to scuttling it to prevent capture of the CIC's computers and data. For that reason it's generally almost never actually attempted outside of relatively low-stakes anti-piracy/customs enforcement boardings.
Ok ok for real, this and generation tech are quickly becoming my new favorite channels
7:45 I forgot about the magic sci-di principle of no-recoil, locked slide sidearms. Very realistic.
"... unless your enemy has a lightsaber... or is John Wick... or is John Wick with a lightsaber..." EPIC...
Just started binge watching it now. I must say that I’m impressed and enjoying it.
i can testify from a prop standpoint that they got some things not so perfect, as I've got my own set of martian light armour.
I had to put one hell of a riser to actually be able to aim down the rifle sights with the helmet in the way. You can even see this in the show that the actors can't actually look down the sights of their rifles.
If you haven’t already watched this show be very very careful, one episode in you will end up binging the whole 4 seasons. I remember binging the show in two weeks, I couldn’t put my phone down, I’d watch on the bus, at work, at the grocery store, on the toilet. It’s so good that I had to go buy the books on amazon(thank you amazon for saving the expanse) start the show and enjoy!!!!!
Actually, in the books there are mechs. Martians used a mech in the Ganymede fight, makes the hybrid even more terrifying considering it shredded the mech too. I guess the show did not have the budget for mechs.
CGI is expensive.
@@frankg2790
Also Miller was supposed to be using a big alien maintenance mech extensively in season 4, cutting the ruins and fighting other protomolecule machines. Was super pumped for that scene, was kinda disappointed the mech was so small with so little screen time. But I get it, it would have been SUPA expensive...
Allen's delivery with his jokes are so funny
It would be awesome to see you guys do a small series about the best ships and soldiers from Stargate sg1, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate universe!!
I guess Kull Warriors would win
@@nobleman9393 no definitely an ascended being if the others didn't step in!!
2:07 Was that a scene from Space Force? XD
I so hope we get another season lol
Every bit of design in the expanse is so fucking cool
8:33 Isn't that something people have been saying for decades now?
Yep, a futuristic (Expanse era) APC could carry a trophy like system to deter guided munitions and an autocannon to shred exosuits.
Bigger platform, bigger systems.
Plus vehicles still play logistic, command and control and medical roles a exosuit cant do.
I've just finished watching Expanse S4 today . really awesome realistic show .
thanks for suggesting .❤️
i re-watched season 1 straight back to season 4 episode 2 i loved it even more.
I've read the books and there was nothing about low power setting for the suits but it makes great sense.
2:06
You seriously need to do a video on the Space Force Netflix series.
Eh. That series is a disappointment.
@@thatchanguy It's pretty bad, I agree 100
Chris C Just like the real Space Force.
You vastly underestimate survivability of modern tanks. Taking one out is really, really hard if you don't have tanks of your own. E.g. RPG you've show in the video... It evidently takes many hits to disable even not so modern tank like T-64 with one, unless we are talking about lucky hit.
However tanks are used in ground warfare and in urban warfare (yes; their vulnerability in urban warfare is an outdated concept: modern tanks are built with that kind of threats in mind). So obviously tanks won't be used in in boarding action.
If I recall, rpgs can't take out tanks not because of the armor, but because they cover tanks with screens; the grenade is on a delayed fuse and otherwise would rip into the tank easily so the screen triggers the fuse and the round blows up while still outside.
@@Burt1038 you are correct for 1950-ies tank, but the modern ones have composite armor that works even better than screens, e.g. Abrams front armour resistance against HEAT projectiles is equivalent to over 2 meters of steel. Today screens are used on APCs that don't carry nearly as much armor as tanks.
@@Andy-kw2zm ATGM work well only against incompetent tank crews e.g. Saudi or in case of lucky ambush scenario (e.g. nearly every single Merkava lost to arabs).
Competent tank crew will either use terrain or deploy smokescreen (more like aerosol today) or simply kill ATGM team before they have a chance to fire because tank have a range advantage. Recoil less "rifles" (LOL) like Gustav are more dangerous to tanks... but you are not going to penetrate front armour of any decent tank with one (plus its really heavy).
Furthermore heat seaking ATGMs that attack from above are relatively new development (yes you are correct that modern tanks were developed in the 1980-ies when such weapons simply didn't existed) but they are not available to most of armies of the world. Laser-guided or even wire-guided ATGMs are used by most of the armies. Still active defense systems have been installed on tanks that have to endure this kind of threats so my point holds: if you are an infantry man you most likely can not do anything to a tank.
There was a video that UA-cam deleted of how single Ukrainian tank takes out 2 squads of advancing Russian mercenaries that had 2 APCs with them... Tank simply appeared out of the hills, deploys smoke, destroys both APCs and makes mercenaries running. It all happened in the matter of seconds.
Anti-armor shell of 120mm howitzer or similar 100mm mortar shell can take out a tank obviously but scoring such hit on a very fast and very agile target is a big challenge.
Similarly if complete air superiority is achieved than yes ground attack planes can begin to hunt down tanks. Helicopters work too but they have quite a lot more troubles because they are very vulnerable to MANPADS (especially vehicle-mounted ones... I'm not sure what is the correct term in English for that kind of vehicles - the ones that carry dozens of heat-seaking missiles).
Actually the MMC has heavy Mec suits (one of them is killed by the Protomolecule hybrid on Ganymede)
can you analyze how realistic of Legend of the Galactic Heroes 2018
They tried a realistic approach, but there are still lights IN THE HELMET. They could have made it like in Alien 1 with a light outside of the helmet that also illuminates the face.
I really need to watch this damn show.
Using any sort gatling type weapon in a vacuum would have heating an lubrication problems. I would say using a metal storm system with a gas cooling and anti-recoil system would be the way to go. the only moving part is the bulliat.
What about "eyes in the back of the head" ?
360-degree situation awareness? Tech that would allow fighters to engage targets in their front and rear simultaneously.
A weapon that can fire to the front and the rear simultaneously. And bend to shoot around corners.
was waiting for him to mention the recoilless self propelled bullets from small arms.
John Wick with a lightsaber is a weapon of mass destruction
Comes from the books, I hear it’s all on point!
Love this show, and the Expanse! But seriously keep up the vids GenFilms/Tech.
I don't agree that ground vehicles would disappear from the battlefield, it would increase the mobility and range drastically, and unmanned weaponized armored rovers would cool af.
Ive tried watching the expanse but after a few episodes quit. I like how you say it gets space combat right. Well thats based on our current knowledge of space travel. Who's to say that we wont be flying around in ships like the Enterprise or Star Destroyer or SG1 in the future? Keep in mind prior to 1947 it was science fact the sound barrier couldnt be broken. Look at current designs of ships for moon and Mars missions. They dont look like truck trailers or buildings. Granted in the future when we can start building them in space they may look a little different but they're not going to look like the Chrysler building.
What? V-2 rockets flew faster than sound.
Richard Button You should try watching the Expanse again. I like you gave up after watching a couple of episodes it was too slow and didn’t catch me. I tried again after a friend convinced me it was worth another go and now I’m hooked and can’t wait for the next series. The first 3-4 episodes are slow but after that it really takes off and gets better and better.
Yeah I stoped after first 3 too. But I came back and now I watching it as soon as I have free time
@@nobleman9393 Didnt think of that my bad but Im sure you get my point anyway
It is also based more on our knowledge of physics and a little less hand waving.
There were mechs and tanks in the Io engagement in the expanse novels.
I mean, in terms of transporting an armored vehicle through space, you could theoretically bolt it to the outside of the ship provided you don't block any exhaust ports or whatnot. Sure, you may have to patch it up a bit after, but it saves room inside the ship and even gives it a bit more protection from hull breaches.
Sadly not many UA-camrs reviews this amazing series. Whyyyy..... !!!!????
It's not a Gatling gun (hand cranked). It's a minigun that fires a very tiny and fast round that probably makes recoil negligent anyway.
If politicians watched the expanse my feelings is the thing they would most likely take away from it is that orbit is the ultimate high ground and being able to rock or rod a enemy city and prevent others from being able to do it to them would become a much bigger priority than it is now.
I fee that land vehicles If some sort still could serve some use in terms of still having the provided mobility, especially if it's a situation where air support/transport is unavailable or unable to help, such as if there is heavy anti air, or if you wish to move more undetected along the surface, but still move quickly. I do agree that large big targets would not be of much use, but smaller, lighter, and faster Vehicles could still serve a purpose.
There are light weight buggies used on Ilus for what it’s worth
Love and recommend your videos, thought I'd offer a helpful point as I've heard this mistake twice now. Electrifying is running current through a surface or other inanimate object. Electrocution is current running through a life form.
Well the Goliath armor doesn’t protect against direct explosions, I say this because if they are hit directly with a high velocity explosive (RPG or a cannon round) it would maybe bounce off but the force from the round, and the explosions concussive effect would probably turn their brains to mush and even then if they get hit in the chest they would probably break a lot of bones.
Actually there is a way to kill Marines. in Abbadons Gate a MMC Marine takes out 3 OPA thugs in powerarmour because he uses an anty material sniper, aiming for the visor that's left open. (That's why I like the Laconian variant which is completely with camera and dosent have a visor at all )
Cool video. Keep it up mate!
funny thing: when you're working in low-g you actually need to work harder most of the time, short version is that your body is designed to function in 1g, it can still work fine in a decent range around that with some practice and ideally the opportunity to condition yourself for the altered environment but it's all designed to function in relation to a global directional acceleration.
when that acceleration goes up you can pretty much just push harder to compensate (up to the point where you need to start worrying about your skeleton anyways) it's not ideal but it works.
when you are in a situation where there's no gravity to act against though you end up having to constantly counteract any force you apply, meaning that if you want to work remotely quickly then you need to put out twice as much work to do it.
Pretty much. Gravity is rather annoying in large scale especially in rockets escaping from earth to space. However in a lot of things especially the small ones, gravity helps a lot in reducing the amount to work/energy needed to do things.
For example, cars. Without gravity, normal cars would be useless and you'd have to invent miniature spacecraft and has to consider 3d movement, and counteracting forces.
But with gravity, it helped push the car down and contact with the earth. We just only need to concern with moving the car one way. And that's just one aspect of daily life!
@@secondsein7749anything involving fluids + gravity 0.0
The one thing they didn´t get right, imo, is the use of drones. In the Expanse they are mostly used for survalence and mainly from a ship. I would guess a normal Solider will have a swarm of support drones with many purposes with them. But i guess its cheaper to just not show them ;)
Not to mention that drones can be hacked, meaning that the enemy can easily turn them against you.
@@frankg2790 Well, i hope future military leaders dont try to invade a planet without their firewall and virusprotection. If you can hack an drone you could hack a suit, too. Thats just an other armsrace between hacking/protection, like any other type of battlefield
Walkers are a dissapointing part of Sci-Fi. Giving tanks legs is the worst idea. But tanks themselves are excellent ideas. They can provide more stability to a front line, and can be provided with a set of Active Protection Systems that can intercept oncoming fire.
Walkers are not only marketable, but they are also mobile vantage points perfect for scouting missions.
Wydm by marketable? A mobile scout platform can be filled just as well or better by a LAV. Being tall isn't good for scouting, it just makes you visible and a target.
@@thunderbladen8692 in terrain that is more steep and much more uneven, a mech with 4+ legs would make sense, but they shouldn't be massive .
Shaping your exoskeleton to completely fit human body (pretty, like Iron man) is kinda not practical... But I understand it's much harder to be made into film, so I let that slide.
But built your entire weaponry into your body (especially your main weapons into your arms) isn't a good idea either. It's okay to have some small firearms built into arms for emergency purpose. But it's much better to carry weapon in form of handheld weapons. It has more room, longer barrel, sturdier design, more ammo, more flexible design, can be let destroyed/disposed easily, etc etc. And they can be small too... since it's a future, then a gatling gun in form of P90 would look awesome and more realistic than building gatling gun into your arms.
And, I also understand because "this is a movie"... But in the future where we already build spaceship, colonize planets, and have the "luxury" of having space marines... Ground and CQC battle won't be fight by men anymore... They will be fight by machines. Even right now we already have drones and in the process of building unmanned jet fighters/bombers, and then unmanned tanks. In near future, we will probably replace most of infantry men too. Or at least, one human will be accompanied with dozens of high performance disposable biped humanoid robots (which could be AI controlled... or controlled by human operator).
But hey, human wearing exoskeleton suit is much cooler on movies, RIGHT!?
I would love to see one of the worlds in the ring gate be a a "ring world" for a Halo crossover, GIVE ME DRAPPER IN SPARTAN ARMOR!!
One note is that the power source of the suits is probably designed to operate in earth gravity long term since the marines are said to train in earth gravity. Since mars was prepared for the war with earth you can assume they would want to pull off a ground invasion so the suits would need to work for a long period of time in earth gravity.
In an space scenario where the supply is not very stable I think crossbow bolt's would be an good choice because you can shoot it
(like crossbow or like a railgun ) and after the conflict you can get your bolt's back for the next use.
The (arguably quite old) game TerraNova: Strike Force Centauri had power armor quite similar to the one depicted in the show. It's a good one.
The reason they don't often take cover is because the rounds being shot out of most guns in the expanse universe are plastic. They'll tear through flesh at the speeds they're fired but against anything metal , like a ship/station hull, or that suit and the round just flattens. The rounds used at talked about at length in book 1, probably 6+ different spots. Lightly mentioned the details of different rounds sprinkled throughout after book 1 as well. I believe the power armor can deflect some small arms fire of a lead round as well but there's still weapons that can tear through it. See S6 when Clarissa had to save bobby on the azure dragon hull.
I can't blame American Ben...
Bobby is dragon approved!
Thank to all your clip about The Expanse i have watched all 4ss in 1 week ))
Power armor is badass.
It’s a year 2400 plus, and NO ONE HAS a propulsion unit on a space suits, the one is used to move an astronaut relative to the spaceship during a spacewalk.
Anyone in space should have it by default same as breathing systems.
I think being immune to small arms fire is fairly realistic. AR-500 steel can take hundreds of rounds of pistol fire before being defeated and we're on the verge of having transparent aluminum. That combined with advanced power packs makes that pretty realistic IMHO
Guns on the forearm of the exoskeleton, reminds me of something from the first GI Joe live action movie, aside from War Machine
Gravity of course is an important factor, but 1/3 gravity doesn't mean that everything is 3x easier. Objects still have inertia. Accelerating perpendicular to the pull of gravity still takes the same energy, at least before accounting for lower air resistance (which in turns makes deceleration/turning/braking harder). A 400 lb suit would still be expensive to move around.
You should make video about the OPA Navy and Belt Factions. Drummer really should in charge of Fred n Anderson, she has the experience to understand sacrifice and is the most trusted of the Belters. Her and Ashford would have made great leadership team in the future.
6:13
"Canoe Reeves will keep us all afloat in this raging river called life. Keanu 4 Prez."
Alan love the Miller hairstyle you’re rocking!
Ive got a fever and the only prescription is more Expanse videos
The dropship is shown in the background.
I have not seen such a Show ...
I was hoping to find out something about him too ..
@AskGF - Have you ever compared the foot soldiers in the Expanse to Space: Above and Beyond?
Your wrong about the need for heavy armor and weapons on the ground. First off any space based weapons would hit like a nuke, with both an impact and blast radius. And then there's when you don't want to bring the building or mountain down. But heavy armor would bring heavy damage to line of sight. An example would be someplace like Cheyenne mountain, an orbital weapon would destroy the mountain. But you put a tank at the door, it would take only the door down.
You can't win a war by bombing the enemy into submission.
Granted I've yet to watch the whole story but so far the only tactic I've seen is to attack in line & defend in line. .. buddy if you think that's getting ground combat right then clearly you haven't experienced the two way range. I don't care how much tech has changed in this timeline , fire & maneuver along with using hard cover for the Infantry will never be obsolete.
Well you were right, about it being scientific coorect tillnami jumped out into vacuum/absolute zero, with no suit. 4-20 seconds till death, the jump last 50 seconds. She injects her self with the blood oxangizerner after 30 seconds..
John Wick with a light saber is called Revan