Predators vs. Military

[Nolgroth]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

As far as a military squad vs. a Predator... wasn't that the whole basis of the first movie? Not just any random squad' date=' but an elite squad of troubleshooter special forces types vs. one trophy-hunting Predator? And didn't the squad get it's ass handed back to them?[/quote']Perhaps I misread the intent, but in this case the soldiers would have at least the knowledge that there is some alien force and a general idea of its capabilities. Part of why the Predator won is because the soldiers had no idea what they were going up and what it could do.

[Yansuf]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Okay, let's try their minimum 'probable spaceship' vs. our current spaceships...

 

We set something - anything - up on the pad to launch it. They drop a 2-ton satellite on it. Whoops.

 

 

As far as a military squad vs. a Predator... wasn't that the whole basis of the first movie? Not just any random squad, but an elite squad of troubleshooter special forces types vs. one trophy-hunting Predator? And didn't the squad get it's ass handed back to them?

 

If it hadn't been for writer's fiat, it would have been a complete wipeout. The military simply has no chance at all, one on one. A platoon would be needed, minimum, to take one on, and I'd still give good odds to the Predator. Why? Because it can choose where and when to strike, and there is didilly-squat the platoon can do about it.

 

Please note that the situation is VERY different if the soldiers have sensors that can detect the predator.

[Yansuf]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

So' date=' no one should get too concerned about being "right." [/quote']

 

Again, true.

And this is different from any other topic on this board in what way?

[Badger]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Please note that the situation is VERY different if the soldiers have sensors that can detect the predator.

 

But, do we have any real world equivalent to said sensors?

[Yansuf]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

But' date=' do we have any real world equivalent to said sensors?[/quote']

 

Unknown.

We have thermal imagery goggles, radar, sonar, and EM field sensors. Would any of these work? And if so, how well? Since the predator stealth system is fictional, and we do not know how it works, we cannot evaluate what would counter it.

But if we assume that one or more of these will work (or some other sensor that I cannot think of at the moment will), we can extrapolate from there.

However, Lord Liaden is correct about there not being any "right" answer.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

If only the troops had access to some sort of airborne observation drone. An armed one would be even better, but I'm not sure what it would be called...

[Manic Typist]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Source? That states that Predator nukes are only tac-nukes?

 

Because Arnold survived. he MAYBE, MAYBE ran a few hundred feet (if we're being generous) before it detonated. It didn't destroy the helicopter OR knock it out of the air with EMP, and the helicopter was within visual range of detonation.

 

Plus, nothing that I recall says IT is a nuclear device period, let alone a full bore nuke as opposed to a tactical device.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-nuke:

"Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

 

Ok.

 

You're still looking at a kill-ratio, and destruction ratio which (most likely) favors the Predators. Yes, you can quibble about how expensive it is for the Predators to come here, and that higher loses on humanity's part are an acceptable trade-off (like arguing that trading a scud for a cruise missile is favorable to the scud, because of the expense of cruise missiles). But, without real numbers to know how populous the Predator regime is, or how much of their industrial capacity is taken up by preparing ships/weapons, that's a pretty slender straw to wave around.

 

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that THAT contention within your overall argument is invalid. If my statement is correct (which I believe that it is, given the hypotheticals we're discussing), we don't "lose a city" every time a Predator is killed (or rather, every time a Predator has the time to arm the device. An important distinction, since we've seen Predators be killed and this hasn't happened).

 

We instead lose a couple of city blocks. Which I agree is devastating and an unacceptably high cost in a fight against them. But it IS different.

 

Finally, Predators win because of spaceships. THAT is their most significant advantage and the one that we cannot yet beat.

[General Markov]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Does anyone as a good write up of a Predator? I've seen a character using his equipement in one of Edsel campaign log, but I can't seem to find a decent write up of the beast itself.....

[Vulcan]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Please note that the situation is VERY different if the soldiers have sensors that can detect the predator.

 

By which time we would also have other more advanced equipment; trying to guess what forms that might take pretty much takes us out of the 'Predator vs. Military' realm and into 'how do we give the military the best shot against Predators.'

 

It's HIGHLY unlikely we would be able to randomly develop a battlefield sensor that can pick up invisible attackers anytime soon, there simply is no need. So you are likely to see a TOTAL overhaul of equipment and tactics - and quite possibly basic weapons technology - long before anyone would want something as esoteric as wanting to give individual troopers the ability to spot something that was effectively invisible.

 

In fact, the most likely way for the R&D to be allocated for it, is if someone comes up with the same sort of chameleon invisibilty that was usable on the battlefield... at which point we have two invisible opponents, presumably with one side (ours) having the ability to sense through it. And that leaves us with a Predator Turkey Shoot.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

You know, while I was watching the second AvP film, I was struck by the difference between the Predator POV shots and the humans-with-NVGs POV shots. I found it MUCH easier to tell what I was looking at when I was given the human viewpoint. To me, this suggests that Predator vision system technology isn't as advanced as you'd think, or that they have pretty bad vision in general (which seems odd for a predator species, but maybe they're not sight hunters?). I would think that if you left the spaceships out of it (very important) AND the human forces knew what they were up against and could select appropriate equipment, they'd hold their own against Predators.

[Yansuf]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

By which time we would also have other more advanced equipment; trying to guess what forms that might take pretty much takes us out of the 'Predator vs. Military' realm and into 'how do we give the military the best shot against Predators.'

 

It's HIGHLY unlikely we would be able to randomly develop a battlefield sensor that can pick up invisible attackers anytime soon, there simply is no need. So you are likely to see a TOTAL overhaul of equipment and tactics - and quite possibly basic weapons technology - long before anyone would want something as esoteric as wanting to give individual troopers the ability to spot something that was effectively invisible.

 

In fact, the most likely way for the R&D to be allocated for it, is if someone comes up with the same sort of chameleon invisibilty that was usable on the battlefield... at which point we have two invisible opponents, presumably with one side (ours) having the ability to sense through it. And that leaves us with a Predator Turkey Shoot.

 

Randomly develop? I have mentioned 4 existing sensors (thermal imagery, radar, sonar, and EM field detectors) that might work.

And work on better sensors is continuous today.

[Curufea]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

You know' date=' while I was watching the second AvP film, I was struck by the difference between the Predator POV shots and the humans-with-NVGs POV shots. I found it MUCH easier to tell what I was looking at when I was given the human viewpoint. To me, this suggests that Predator vision system technology isn't as advanced as you'd think, or that they have pretty bad vision in general (which seems odd for a predator species, but maybe they're not sight hunters?). I would think that if you left the spaceships out of it (very important) AND the human forces knew what they were up against and could select appropriate equipment, they'd hold their own against Predators.[/quote']

 

No - the "Predator Vision" has always meant to be "monster vision" in the movies. The intent being to imply that the creature sees things differently from humans and is an alien. This does not mean it sees worse than human, just differently and in an alien manner.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Can't believe I didn't think of this sooner-

 

Regarding invisibility- one, it wasn't water proof, at least in the first movie. It shorted out and malfunctioned when exposed to water.

 

Second- flour. Seriously. Any fine grain particulate would stick to the Predator (like the water did) and reveal him. Classic invisibility counter measure. Once you know Predators are in an area, you can dust the area with a special compound to cling to them and make them visible. Not perfect, sure, but I bet it could be very effective overall... and soldiers could improvise on their own, which increases their ability to counter the Predators.

[Curufea]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Yeah, because particulate matter in the air is never a problem in modern warfare....

[Manic Typist]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Yeah' date=' because particulate matter in the air is never a problem in modern warfare....[/quote']

 

Of course, but it tends to be a greater problem for the more technologically advanced force, yes?

 

Dollars to dimes we'd have more experience dealing with it since our tech is lower and likely to be LESS sensitive, and we're probably more used to fighting pitched battles in the stuff (theoretically the Predators have left that behind?)

[Curufea]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

I'm mostly thinking, dust, smoke, fog and now flour - you're just assisting a race that specialises in hand to hand or close combat with additional ways for them to sneak up on you.

Who needs invisibility when you can't see 3 feet in front of you?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

I can't see you? I can't see you? **** it, NO ONE SEES ANYONE!

 

 

HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT, MR. SMARTYFANGS?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

I'm mostly thinking, dust, smoke, fog and now flour - you're just assisting a race that specialises in hand to hand or close combat with additional ways for them to sneak up on you.

Who needs invisibility when you can't see 3 feet in front of you?

 

I don't think it'd play out that way though. Most of it would settle or be blown away, and even to the extent that the dust/flour (not fog or smoke as those would not really STICK, which is the point) obscured visibility I suspect it would be far outweighed by being able to clearly see the profiles of the Predators.

[Curufea]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

"Wait"

"The enemy are advancing sir, it's obvious!"

"Wait"

"Sir!"

"Wait for the dust to settle!"

 

Wars are typically noted for movement of large groups of people and vehicles - are you suggesting that these groups won't move, won't be large, or will move in such a way they'll never move dust around?

Possibly if the war occurs inside cities on all occasions or other locations with tar or concrete floors. But if you're already fighting in cities, you've pretty much lost by that stage.

[Vulcan]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Randomly develop? I have mentioned 4 existing sensors (thermal imagery, radar, sonar, and EM field detectors) that might work.

And work on better sensors is continuous today.

 

Have we seen if they work or not? No? Then we are working with whatever the writer decides will work according to his needs for the story. And frankly, only one of them - thermal - is currently practical for use by an individual soldier for targeting... the one most similar to the raw visual apparatus of the Predators themselves (as demonstrated in the first movie).

 

Anyone want to bet on whether the Predators have considered cloaking themselves from other Predators, or other creatures sharing an common evolutionary background with them? You know, the type of creatures they used to hunt well before the got advanced technology...

[Yansuf]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Have we seen if they work or not? No? Then we are working with whatever the writer decides will work according to his needs for the story. And frankly' date=' only [i']one[/i] of them - thermal - is currently practical for use by an individual soldier for targeting... the one most similar to the raw visual apparatus of the Predators themselves (as demonstrated in the first movie).

 

Anyone want to bet on whether the Predators have considered cloaking themselves from other Predators, or other creatures sharing an common evolutionary background with them? You know, the type of creatures they used to hunt well before the got advanced technology...

 

Well, OF COURSE it depends on what the writer decides; this is true of ALL fiction.

 

I must disagree with your statement on sensors. If we wanted to spend the money, we could incorporate radar and/or sonar sights on weapons, similar tp the old "snooperscope," today. (Current sonar for such would probably be short range only.) I have no useful information on the status of EM field sensors; do you?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

The Preds still have an odor, and they still make noise--and their beam weapons are visible and audible. If we're talking squad or platoon level combat, a couple unmanned aerial drones, some concealed and mounted directional mics, and a few bloodhounds would work wonders at tracking them down.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Didn't they have pheromone sensors in Predator 2?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

"Wait"

"The enemy are advancing sir, it's obvious!"

"Wait"

"Sir!"

"Wait for the dust to settle!"

 

Wars are typically noted for movement of large groups of people and vehicles - are you suggesting that these groups won't move, won't be large, or will move in such a way they'll never move dust around?

Possibly if the war occurs inside cities on all occasions or other locations with tar or concrete floors. But if you're already fighting in cities, you've pretty much lost by that stage.

 

And there's a very strong correlation between successful WWI attacks and morning fogs. Which is why everyone invested so much effort in smoke ammunition between the wars, and why the Brits were able to make so much use of their better overall training level in night attacks on the barely-trained German infantry in WWII. (Hey, look at me make controversy!)

I gather that they still use that stuff, and some armies even practice fighting at night. Sounds like good anti-Predator tactics to me.

[Curufea]

Re: Predators vs. Military

 

Well, OF COURSE it depends on what the writer decides; this is true of ALL fiction.

 

I must disagree with your statement on sensors. If we wanted to spend the money, we could incorporate radar and/or sonar sights on weapons, similar tp the old "snooperscope," today. (Current sonar for such would probably be short range only.) I have no useful information on the status of EM field sensors; do you?

 

The problem then would be sheer volume of noise, not to mention the side effects of these active sensor systems. Sonar generates noise - Radar generates microwave radiation.