sebster wrote:
Was that the question? Fraz just announced 'helicopters kill them both', it didn't seem to be in response to anything specific. You agreed and I just thought I'd point out that while it's true, we still have tanks in the field because they do something that no other unit can do.

Confusion aside, I think we agree on this in general, yeah?

Indeed. Helos kill tanks and mechs good, but you need tanks, infantry, arty, air support, and anything else you can get your hands on working in conjunction to launch a succesfull attack.

Though all bets are off if the enemy has some pre-teen pilots/drivers/commanders at the helm...

Actually, if you adopt a "leave none alive" policy, you only need artillery and helicopters.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:Actually, if you adopt a "leave none alive" policy, you only need artillery and helicopters.

Or one really big bomb... or 1 super virus cell

Platuan4th wrote:Spock and Kirk OTP!

Yeah but who's the top and who's the bottom?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Heavy Gear attempts to reconcile many of the physical constraints on mecha to the near-modern battlefield, albeit with some glaringly silly side-effects. Their mecha are all basically 3-4m IFVs, and are deployed as essentially Infantry+. Even then there's lots of side-concessions to the idea that these things are basically extant because of the rule of cool, more than major practicality.

Tyyr wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Spock and Kirk OTP!

Yeah but who's the top and who's the bottom?

Kirk's top.

I mean, look at his personality!

For almost all military tech theres really only one reason for it's existance (except for war etc offcourse) it's a counter to something.

Tanks started as anti-infantry fortresses, when everyone started using them, they we'r anti-infantry and other armoured vehicles.

Nowadays tank's are countered mostly by the airforce. So what is their specific role?

But following this line of thought. Name one thing a mech could counter that something we already have can't do? (better)

Track's are a much better platform for heavy weapons due to stability compared to anything bipedal. So if your gonna make huge ass mecha, you might as well make a huge ass tank that does the job better.

Gettin transports on 2 legs would be even dumber since you just painted a giant bullseye on your troop compartment.

In the case of recoilless energy weapons, your better off using light and speedy vehicles to capitalize on the lack of recoil.

Missiles can be fitted on most things so thats a no go too.

Armor on mechs would never be superior to tanks due to weight distribution.

So... did I miss something? Or can we put the final nail in the mechs coffin?

Rule of cool it is.

I'd go for rough terrain and urban combat as things that walkers can do that crawlers can't do well. During the First Chechen War's siege of Grozny the Chechnyans got some great mileage using tall buildings to shoot through the thin-top armour of Soviet armour.

Likewise the development of walker platforms like Big Dog shows the utility of infantry-level mobility. A Predator or similar close support aircraft may be able to loiter for hours and deliver heavy firepower, but they're useless against anyone with decent AA capability, and require a brutally long logistical tail.

One of the obstacles to the development of Big Dog was a fuel efficient engine since it was intended to make up for the logistical difficulties of mountainous terrain combined with donkeys. Abrams' tank are notorious for being both fuel hogs, and sucking up kerosene rather than diesel. Their weight and shape makes deployment of engineering vehicles a necessity since they can't move sideways, but tend to slide sideways on roads that can't support their weight.

Humanoid walkers I can understand why people might be skeptical, especially since the human form is so obviously not intelligently designed (but pretty fashionable, which makes up for it). Walkers based on arachnids and bugs, like the tachikomas would make better armour than the traditional tractor.

Fair enough, multi legs would be somewhat better. But would never be able to keep up with tracks, and lots of the same issues still come up.

And is a tank with legs really a mech?

As for the fuel efficient engine..... if they could make something like that now, they wouldn't waste it on a mech.

Wouldn't the legs be even more vulnerable to fire?

Deleted

Tracks can't keep up with ground-effect, wheels on roads, or helicopters. It doesn't seem to be an issue.
***Treads are substantially faster than wheels on terrain, and wheels in mud, which seems to occur any time there's conflict, especially with the Russians.

There are fuel-efficient engines. Given that war is about logistics, mechs (and other battlefield vehicles) are precisely what would benefit from them. Take the Abrams, its gas-guzzling turbine was chosen based on performance, not its safety, ease of use, or what have you (some claim that using kerosene simplifies supply-chain management: sure, if your tanks are being run by the airforce...). It was chosen for power and performance in order to fit with the popular "Shock and Awe" doctrine popular in Pentagon planning circles - the same doctrine that left the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan under-equipped and under-manned to hold the territory they had captured.
***Why would a mech be more fuel efficient?

Given the methods of procurement for US military equipment, 'waste' isn't really an issue. The US is full of contractors and suppliers that sell equipment made by the lowest bidder and priced to sell to people who aren't spending their own money. Heck, if you want an entertaining example of the US military's emphasis on efficiency, take a look at the M4 carbine. Ask a circle of gun nuts to discuss it and the only thing they'll all agree on will be that 'efficiency' clearly was not the top priority in its design.
***really? define efficiency in regards to combat rifles. There are manufacturers that make them generally on par with good AKs (not crap Paki ones) on the price front. They were specifically designed to be more efficient in terms of weight and ammo and hence supply chain.

I don't think we should tanks at Mecca. Already enough problems in the region.

Frazzled wrote:Wouldn't the legs be even more vulnerable to fire?

Yes and no, it would be easier to take out an individual leg, but if your going for an arachnid build, taking out a single leg wouldn't hurt it as much as taking out a track.

Nurglitch wrote: Heck, if you want an entertaining example of the US military's emphasis on efficiency, take a look at the M4 carbine. Ask a circle of gun nuts to discuss it and the only thing they'll all agree on will be that 'efficiency' clearly was not the top priority in its design.

I'll just leave this here...

To be fair Dogma, that was forced on the military by Congress. I know the Marines tried to kill it at least twice.
Can it even land conventually - looks to be a manipulated cabin so that it might, but those rotors still look to big for a runway landing. Yergh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wouldn't the legs be even more vulnerable to fire?

Yes and no, it would be easier to take out an individual leg, but if your going for an arachnid build, taking out a single leg wouldn't hurt it as much as taking out a track.

COurse if you take out two legs on a sid you toplle it, which is worse than just getting the tank stuck in.

Frazzled wrote:To be fair Dogma, that was forced on the military by Congress. I know the Marines tried to kill it at least twice.
Can it even land conventually - looks to be a manipulated cabin so that it might, but those rotors still look to big for a runway landing. Yergh.

The biggest issue is that its a vehicle designed for hot landings that cannot jink.

Deleted

BigDog is, however, a logistical support vehicle. Which is probably the best place for anything moving on legs...moving loads too hevy for the infantry through terrain too rough for vehicles. Spider APCs and mechanical mules are probably the most mech~esque we'd get in the real world.

Nurglitch wrote:
Actually the Osprey is yet another example of technology advancing to satisfy specifications. It's not like there were a bunch of tilt-wing aircraft lying around and someone said: "Hey, think we can sell excess stock to the Pentagon?"

But the Osprey was developed in accordance with a request for a vehicle that could "...take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed..." not a request for a tilt-rotor aircraft. Though, admittedly, that sort of design follows easily.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:To be fair Dogma, that was forced on the military by Congress. I know the Marines tried to kill it at least twice.
Can it even land conventually - looks to be a manipulated cabin so that it might, but those rotors still look to big for a runway landing. Yergh.

The biggest issue is that its a vehicle designed for hot landings that cannot jink.

Or deccelerate and land...

Or take off and accelerate...

Calling C&C, we need Orca's !

Nurglitch wrote:Ah yes, the Osprey. So efficient not even Dick Cheney could kill it.

Military applications for walkers?

Meh
This is faster, stronger, longer distance, cheaper, from existing current technology, and chicks dig it.
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/products/modelhome/66/0/home.aspx
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/products/modelfeatures/66/0/features.aspx

Nurglitch wrote:Nuclear frickin' weapons, where the amount of fear is equal to the megatons of feth you that the weapon is designed to convey.

They're scary because they can kill you. Not because they look scary.

The argument put forward by people in this thread is that mechs would be valuable because they look scary, and I countered with the point that there isn't a single weapon in use or on the design table right now which has 'look scary' as part of it's design.

Because soldiers aren't stupid, and as such they're more afraid of lethal weapons than they are of scary looking ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:Actually, if you adopt a "leave none alive" policy, you only need artillery and helicopters.

Not really, no.

Saturation bombing has proven quite ineffective at actually killing the enemy. It is wonderful at stopping his ability to manouvre, taking out his major hardware, and at suppressing him, but once the enemy has gone to ground the majority of his troops are likely to survive whatever bombs and missiles you throw into the area. Look at the Battle of the Somme, the Allied artillery was incredible and turned the place into a moonscape, but when the assault began it was found almost all the German forces were still alive and well.

If you want to actually defeat an enemy who is willing to dig holes in the ground and sit there until you stop firing artillery, you need infantry and tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:For almost all military tech theres really only one reason for it's existance (except for war etc offcourse) it's a counter to something.

To flip that around a little, I'd argue new platforms are developed to achieve something, which may or may not be blowing up another type of unit.

Tanks were developed as a way of increasing the chances of a breakthrough against an infantry line. The capabilities of the tank have changed, as has the range of possible counters, but it fundamentally performs the same role now as it did then.

If you want to assault a hardened enemy position, then artillery and helicopters are great, but limited in what they can offer to the infantry who are doing the hard yards. In the course of that assault you will want a platform that can dominate an area and destroy anything that comes into it, and that means you will want a tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:I'd go for rough terrain and urban combat as things that walkers can do that crawlers can't do well. During the First Chechen War's siege of Grozny the Chechnyans got some great mileage using tall buildings to shoot through the thin-top armour of Soviet armour.

But putting a unit on legs doesn't change that vulnerability.

Humanoid walkers I can understand why people might be skeptical, especially since the human form is so obviously not intelligently designed (but pretty fashionable, which makes up for it). Walkers based on arachnids and bugs, like the tachikomas would make better armour than the traditional tractor.

Multiple legs are more practical, as are much, much smaller mechs. As in, man sized or thereabouts, might be practical. But then you're looking at walkers that are replacing infantry, not ones that are replacing tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Tracks can't keep up with ground-effect, wheels on roads, or helicopters. It doesn't seem to be an issue.

You don't build an infantry force around the requirement to keep up with helicopters. That doesn't make any sense.

The majority of troops are brought forward in APCs, that's what you want to keep pace with. Tanks do this. A walker doesn't.

You could, possibly, consider a walker that can be carried to the front in an APC, but as I pointed out above you're still talking about a weapon that is replacing infantry, not one that is replacing tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'll just leave this here...

(img snipped)

And I'll just leave this...




So yeah, the US military has wasted a load of money on all kinds of projects. But if 'they've wasted money on useless crap before' is the biggest reason to predict mechs in the future, I'm not sure the case is that likely.

sebster wrote:
The argument put forward by people in this thread is that mechs would be valuable because they look scary, and I countered with the point that there isn't a single weapon in use or on the design table right now which has 'look scary' as part of it's design.

Way to not get it.

Only Kan made the argument that they're scary because they "look scary". Mechs are scary because they tap into human psychology in addition to being generally intimidating. There's a reason that the majority of monsters in mythology are large to outright enormous beings. Humanity has an inborn fear to things significantly larger than ourselves, and people have used that to their advantage in war for centuries, such as Hannibal and his elephants(which were only effective until the Romans were used to seeing them) and tanks in WW1. WW2 Germany didn't try to build a super-heavy tank for its effectiveness.

Platuan4th wrote:Way to not get it.

Only Kan made the argument that they're scary because they "look scary". Mechs are scary because they tap into human psychology in addition to being generally intimidating.

That's what looking scary is.

There's a reason that the majority of monsters in mythology are large to outright enormous beings. Humanity has an inborn fear to things significantly larger than ourselves, and people have used that to their advantage in war for centuries, such as Hannibal and his elephants(which were only effective until the Romans were used to seeing them) and tanks in WW1. WW2 Germany didn't try to build a super-heavy tank for its effectiveness.

The Nazis didn't do much on the basis of effectiveness, particularly in the latter half of the war. As a result they squandered the industrial capacity of almost all of continential Europe to end up getting beat by a bunch of communists.

And again, please provide an example of one, just one weapon currently operating in the world today, or on the design table of any weapons developer, that has 'looking scary' (or 'taps into human psychology in addition to being generally intimidating' if you want to pretend that's somehow different) as an element of it's design.

You scare people by threatening to kill them, and the fear that comes from that can't ever be met by 'tapping into human psychology in addition to being generally intimidating'.

sebster wrote:The argument put forward by people in this thread is that mechs would be valuable because they look scary, and I countered with the point that there isn't a single weapon in use or on the design table right now which has 'look scary' as part of it's design.

Between two things able to weather any small arms fire you're able to bring against it and bring enough firepower to tear you apart in the blink of an eye, which is going to have more of an impact: a large tracked vehicle that can't operate effectively in narrow streets, and has a low vantage point, or the fifteen foot tall walker no wider than a car, with a vantage point comparable to a sniper on a rooftop?

Because soldiers aren't stupid, and as such they're more afraid of lethal weapons than they are of scary looking ones.

In this day age, most of the combat isn't against soldiers, it's against glorified gangsters who are particularly known for being superstitious. Against any conventional army, we have such things as cluster bombs able to wipe out an entire tank column, and non-nuclear munitions able to level city blocks.

Saturation bombing has proven quite ineffective at actually killing the enemy. It is wonderful at stopping his ability to manouvre, taking out his major hardware, and at suppressing him, but once the enemy has gone to ground the majority of his troops are likely to survive whatever bombs and missiles you throw into the area. Look at the Battle of the Somme, the Allied artillery was incredible and turned the place into a moonscape, but when the assault began it was found almost all the German forces were still alive and well.

Wasn't that artillery rather inaccurate and primitive compared to modern artillery and ordnance?

You could, possibly, consider a walker that can be carried to the front in an APC, but as I pointed out above you're still talking about a weapon that is replacing infantry, not one that is replacing tanks.

Since this whole thing is predicated on the idea of having functional legs, why not airdropping them at/near their destination? If we assume a powerplant based around a jet engine, like you have with the Abrams, or just the inclusion of a jet engine for this specific purpose, I don't think it's infeasible to assume it could also be designed to provide downwards thrust, cushioning a fall to the extent that the legs could manage the impact, literally hitting the ground running, as the case may be.

sebster wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Way to not get it.

Only Kan made the argument that they're scary because they "look scary". Mechs are scary because they tap into human psychology in addition to being generally intimidating.

That's what looking scary is.

Building something as a representation of death/the grim reaper is looking scary. Scary by dint of existing is being scary.

Returning to the elephant example, elephants don't look scary. However, most people would piss themselves if charged by an enraged elephant or be apprehensive if they'd never seen one before.

I don't think a Gundam would have quite the psychological impact being described here, or at least not a measurable different than being assaulted by tanks, which is not a pleasant experience either. So in the end it doesn't seem to have an advantage over and elephant or a tank so I don't see why it would be superior in this regard.

Now a flame thrower is a psychological weapon. Watch a guy running on fire and it sticks with you.

Ahtman wrote:I don't think a Gundam would have quite the psychological impact being described here, or at least not a measurable different than being assaulted by tanks, which is not a pleasant experience either. So in the end it doesn't seem to have an advantage over and elephant or a tank so I don't see why it would be superior in this regard.

Read anything on the beginning of the One Year War from the original series and the terror that people associated with the Zaku I before the Federation started fielding their own Mobile Suits.

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think a Gundam would have quite the psychological impact being described here, or at least not a measurable different than being assaulted by tanks, which is not a pleasant experience either. So in the end it doesn't seem to have an advantage over and elephant or a tank so I don't see why it would be superior in this regard.

Read anything on the beginning of the One Year War from the original series and the terror that people associated with the Zaku I before the Federation started fielding their own Mobile Suits.

I'm not sure if you are just offering that up as a good read or trying to use a fictional manga as a reference source in the same vien as the War College Journal or a Jane's manual.

I'm not sure that fiction is the best means of assessing the psychological effect of any sort of mechanized vehicle.

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think a Gundam would have quite the psychological impact being described here, or at least not a measurable different than being assaulted by tanks, which is not a pleasant experience either. So in the end it doesn't seem to have an advantage over and elephant or a tank so I don't see why it would be superior in this regard.

Read anything on the beginning of the One Year War from the original series and the terror that people associated with the Zaku I before the Federation started fielding their own Mobile Suits.

I'm not sure if you are just offering that up as a good read or trying to use a fictional manga as a reference source in the same vien as the War College Journal or a Jane's manual.

Mostly a good read, but it's an in universe example of the psychology they could possibly inflict on enemy troops.

We won't know without real mechs whether it's a true phenomenon or not, though.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Between two things able to weather any small arms fire you're able to bring against it and bring enough firepower to tear you apart in the blink of an eye, which is going to have more of an impact: a large tracked vehicle that can't operate effectively in narrow streets, and has a low vantage point, or the fifteen foot tall walker no wider than a car, with a vantage point comparable to a sniper on a rooftop?

You're not commenting on the problems with the 'scary' issue at all, instead you're just repeating your original point, the problems with which I'd already explained in an earlier post, and that you hadn't bothered to respond to. I'll just repeat what I said last time, then;

"There is a limit on feasible speeds. That limit is not 20 or 30 miles an hour. At which point you're looking at a highly specialised piece of gear that can't move to the conflict site at the same speed as the troops in the APCs, and can't bug out at the same speed."

In this day age, most of the combat isn't against soldiers, it's against glorified gangsters who are particularly known for being superstitious.

Uh huh. They're not trained soldiers, therefore they're more likely to be scared of tall things than of deadly things.

That sounds a lot like Batman's idea, that criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot, prone to fear of powerful symbols. Which was such a powerful idea that it quickly transitioned from comic books into the real world, and explained why crime has dropped in so many major cities because they're protected by vigilantes dressed as bats.

Or maybe, possibly, people aren't stupid. Even people in underdeveloped countries.

Wasn't that artillery rather inaccurate and primitive compared to modern artillery and ordnance?

Yes. Artillery is more accurate now, to the point where we can fire a whole lot less of it in order to confident that most of it is landing on target.

But it isn't so accurate that we can drop it on individual enemy troops.

More importantly, our non-infantry recon is nowhere near capable of identifying where individual enemy troops are, so artillery is still very limited at taking out significant numbers of enemy troops dug into the ground.

Since this whole thing is predicated on the idea of having functional legs, why not airdropping them at/near their destination? If we assume a powerplant based around a jet engine, like you have with the Abrams, or just the inclusion of a jet engine for this specific purpose, I don't think it's infeasible to assume it could also be designed to provide downwards thrust, cushioning a fall to the extent that the legs could manage the impact, literally hitting the ground running, as the case may be.

The engine of an abrams, powerful as it is, wouldn't be capable of significantly slowing it's descent.

But whatever, the proposed mech would be lighter (and therefore have a lot less momentum to reverse) and we can project improvements in engine design. You could also use parachutes and other things.

Problem is, though, you've got a specialist means of rapidly dropping a unit into a combat zone. But how do you maintain that capacity? Do you always have mechs loaded up on air transport, ready to be deployed wherever there's fighting?

And how do you get them out with any speed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:Building something as a representation of death/the grim reaper is looking scary. Scary by dint of existing is being scary.

Returning to the elephant example, elephants don't look scary. However, most people would piss themselves if charged by an enraged elephant or be apprehensive if they'd never seen one before.

Most anything with one or more guns on it advancing on your position is scary. Standing in the way of an advancing tank column is about as scary as things get, it doesn't get more scary because the tanks are walking. On the scale of things to be scared about 'it is big and on legs' might score some points, but those points will be made entirely immaterial compared to the ton of points scored by 'it has multiple weapon systems that are throwing all kinds of lethal projectiles into my area'.

But if your idea has grounds, then surely you'd be able to provide an example of one weapon system that is currently in use or in development that has 'being scary' as a primary element of it's design.

Just one. If you can't, then maybe you have to consider that 'being scary' just isn't as important as 'being deadly', given that 'being deadly' includes 'being scary' by definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I'm not sure if you are just offering that up as a good read or trying to use a fictional manga as a reference source in the same vien as the War College Journal or a Jane's manual.

Well we've already had people using Battletech field manuals to explain the inherent advantages of mechs, so I guess this is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:We won't know without real mechs whether it's a true phenomenon or not, though.

We can speculate though, and it is fairly simple to predict 'they're shooting at me' is probably almost exactly as scary as 'they're shooting at me from a thing that's walking'

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think a Gundam would have quite the psychological impact being described here, or at least not a measurable different than being assaulted by tanks, which is not a pleasant experience either. So in the end it doesn't seem to have an advantage over and elephant or a tank so I don't see why it would be superior in this regard.

Read anything on the beginning of the One Year War from the original series and the terror that people associated with the Zaku I before the Federation started fielding their own Mobile Suits.

I'm not sure if you are just offering that up as a good read or trying to use a fictional manga as a reference source in the same vien as the War College Journal or a Jane's manual.

Mostly a good read, but it's an in universe example of the psychology they could possibly inflict on enemy troops.

We won't know without real mechs whether it's a true phenomenon or not, though.

It's fiction.

I could write a story about all the Earth troops falling around laughing because they tripped up the enemy mechs with a trip wire. It would be just as valid as a source of research data.

sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Between two things able to weather any small arms fire you're able to bring against it and bring enough firepower to tear you apart in the blink of an eye, which is going to have more of an impact: a large tracked vehicle that can't operate effectively in narrow streets, and has a low vantage point, or the fifteen foot tall walker no wider than a car, with a vantage point comparable to a sniper on a rooftop?

You're not commenting on the problems with the 'scary' issue at all, instead you're just repeating your original point, the problems with which I'd already explained in an earlier post, and that you hadn't bothered to respond to. I'll just repeat what I said last time, then;

Assuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

In this day age, most of the combat isn't against soldiers, it's against glorified gangsters who are particularly known for being superstitious.

Uh huh. They're not trained soldiers, therefore they're more likely to be scared of tall things than of deadly things.

You're trying to push a false dichotomy of "either deadly or a walker". Even if the lighter vehicle wouldn't stand up to a tank on open ground, it would be more than enough against anything infantry could bring to bear, and you have other things that are far, far better at dealing with enemy armor than tanks, namely air support. Against infantry, when incoming fire isn't a concern, a higher vantage point would be an advantage, limiting potential cover and extending the area in which it can bring its weapons to bear in a close environment, and you don't need a giant cannon that's capable of hitting and killing a tank from two miles away when you're fighting infantry holed up in civilian buildings less than a few hundred yards away.

Since this whole thing is predicated on the idea of having functional legs, why not airdropping them at/near their destination? If we assume a powerplant based around a jet engine, like you have with the Abrams, or just the inclusion of a jet engine for this specific purpose, I don't think it's infeasible to assume it could also be designed to provide downwards thrust, cushioning a fall to the extent that the legs could manage the impact, literally hitting the ground running, as the case may be.

The engine of an abrams, powerful as it is, wouldn't be capable of significantly slowing it's descent.

But whatever, the proposed mech would be lighter (and therefore have a lot less momentum to reverse) and we can project improvements in engine design. You could also use parachutes and other things.

The Abrams is also about seven times the weight I proposed as a requirement for getting over the issue of less weight distribution impairing mobility due to soft or fragile ground. How much thrust would be necessary would depend on how high you want to be able to deploy them from. If you just want an improvement over having to effectively land a transport helicopter, then it could probably be brought in low, with the transport decelerating just long enough to drop it at a safe speed, before racing off again to avoid ground to air fire.

Problem is, though, you've got a specialist means of rapidly dropping a unit into a combat zone. But how do you maintain that capacity? Do you always have mechs loaded up on air transport, ready to be deployed wherever there's fighting?

If you're intending to deploy them, presumably...

And how do you get them out with any speed?

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Assuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Armor is generally outpaced by weaponry, by and large. You're making the major assumption that you can design an armor that can defeat the increasingly powerful weapons available. And you are assuming that tank designers in the future are stupid enough to continue to make their top armor vulnerable to mechs. And this assumes the buildings are sufficiently large enough to provide enough coverage for your walker, and that sensors aren't sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate those buildings.

Walkers in a tank role are generally suboptimal to a tank because of their greater exposure to attack helicopters and guided artillery (missile or otherwise), and offer very few advantages over the tank. Mechs might make sense in a zero-g environment, or as basically larger scale infantry, but they just can't be armored as reliably as a tank can. You won't get the same depth of armor coverage due to the need to have joints (which can't be sufficiently protected), and they are going to have very limited deployment profiles due to their relatively large ground pressure.

Battlemechs just don't work. Heavy Gears push the limits of believability, and they are basically glorified power armor. Anything bigger and you have to start wondering why airforces around the world don't start rejoicing.

This is why Heavy Gear works. They aren't the lumbering behemoths of Battletech, but essentially something between infantry and tanks that fulfill a specific role with both walking and secondary movement. Also, I like it better.

Hands seem a little bit stupid on a mech no matter what.

Ahtman wrote:This is why Heavy Gear works. They aren't the lumbering behemoths of Battletech, but essentially something between infantry and tanks that fulfill a specific role with both walking and secondary movement. Also, I like it better.

I must admit, I like that way better than a GW dreadnought.

Thats pretty big though isn't it?

Do its feet have tracks built in? o.O

And it's def much bigger than a Dreadnought. Looks somewhere like....Dreadknight height?

Yes and yes. In the game you could ride them at considerable speeds.

Ahtman wrote:This is why Heavy Gear works. They aren't the lumbering behemoths of Battletech, but essentially something between infantry and tanks that fulfill a specific role with both walking and secondary movement. Also, I like it better.

Eh... works is a bit strong of a word, since we're talking about realism here. They are still more expensive than comparable vehicles, which mount better armor and weapons, and yet the more expensive platform is common as dirt. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the setting, and Gears are probably the most 'realistic' mecha outside of power armor, but even they have their facepalm moments. Especially since laser weaponry is so prevalent...

ChrisWWII wrote:Do its feet have tracks built in? o.O

Yeah. It's one of those odd things about the setting I mentioned. The rationale is that it gives you faster speed than a walker could normally get (which is reasonable), but the clearances would only allow it to work on blacktop or very firmly packed mud. Neat idea, poor execution on most of the models.

ChrisWWII wrote:And it's def much bigger than a Dreadnought. Looks somewhere like....Dreadknight height?

IIRC, between most are between 4-6m (~ 12-18ft) in height.

IceRaptor wrote:Eh... works is a bit strong of a word

Not to me. Read the last sentence in my statement again.

IceRaptor wrote:since we're talking about realism here.

And here I thought we were talking about Mechs.

Ahtman wrote:And here I thought we were talking about Mechs.

HG works for me as well, as a game (it's my primary wargame). But I thought we were talking about if mecha were realistic in the last few pages. Gears are great, but there are many places where they did things by the rule of cool.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Yes, and if I had the technology to fire invisible psychic mind lasers that can destroy the mind of the operator of mechs, whether present or remote, biological or synthetic, then I could kill all mechs with a thought.

Or to put it another way: if my aunt had a cock and balls, she'd be my uncle

Still going with this?

I've come to the conclusion that Mechs as we are talking about them probably have far less tactical flexibility than a power-armored force backed up by mechanized transports and tanks.

I can just imagine a 30 foot tall mech falling over after it gets a missile in the knee joint, that thing will be down for the count unless they get cranes in to pick it up. I'd say the Heavy Gear mechs are about as close to what we'd ever get, realistically.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:ssuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

You're assuming a light walker with equivalent resilience and usable firepower to a heavy tank. Your assumption is completely ludicrous.

Try again, this time thinking about the tonnage of your walker, and what vehicles in that weight group actually bring into the battlefield. That is, what light platforms currently have the capability to carry AMS, or resist multiple rocket hits, or even remain entirely immune to small arms fire?

You're trying to push a false dichotomy of "either deadly or a walker".

No, I'm not. For the sake of this point I've been willing to grant you the possibilty of an effective, deadly walker. Meanwhile I've been trying to explain to you, with far more patience than you've justified, that a deadly weapons platform is very, very scary, whether it's or walker not. Once there's a unit advancing on your position with a cannon and multiple HMGs, it's terrifying whether it is on legs or not.

Do you get that?

I think you do, because you still haven't even attempted to provide one weapons platform, either in use today or in development, that has 'being scary' as a major design element. Because there aren't any. Because 'being scary' is a completely stupid design goal, when you design something to be deadly and scary will just happen because of that.

The Abrams is also about seven times the weight I proposed as a requirement for getting over the issue of less weight distribution impairing mobility due to soft or fragile ground.

Which I noted, as I was granting you the technological capability to do what you proposed, before I went on to question the practicality of actually doing it. Read.

If you're intending to deploy them, presumably...

So you propose to have aircraft on runways, constantly prepped for flight, with walker cargo... at all times. And you consider this unit designed for low intensity urban conlict against paramilitaries...

Do I have to explain why that's as impractical as it is?

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

You expect choppers to come in, and perform this operation during combat? This really, realy doesn't sound as sensible as a tracked vehicle driving out of the area under its own power, does it?

Anything mechs can do helicopters can do better. Their only advantage is uneven urban terrain too small for similarly weighted vehicles, and thats really just indoors. For payload, maneuverability, battlefield position dominance, and virtually anything science fiction fakemechs are good at you can just use a helo.

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

Why don't we make the helicopter bigger and just use that?

You expect choppers to come in, and perform this operation during combat? This really, realy doesn't sound as sensible as a tracked vehicle driving out of the area under its own power, does it?

Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!



Really, the most feasible kind of walker that we'd likely see is something the size of a Sentinel. It's easily transported, it can fill a gap between a LAV and a FAV, and it can be uparmored more than a HMMV or another FAV can, while also allowing for a single operator rather than requiring a full fireteam to operate at peak efficiency.

Bonus: they could be deployed like that image.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Still going with this?

I've come to the conclusion that Mechs as we are talking about them probably have far less tactical flexibility than a power-armored force backed up by mechanized transports and tanks.

I can just imagine a 30 foot tall mech falling over after it gets a missile in the knee joint, that thing will be down for the count unless they get cranes in to pick it up. I'd say the Heavy Gear mechs are about as close to what we'd ever get, realistically.

A 30 foot mech would take a missile in the face from an apache or f22. Or it would just fall over because it misjudged the load tolerance of a road or something. Either way, non redundant walking platforms of any size that can't fit in a building is foolish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

You expect choppers to come in, and perform this operation during combat? This really, realy doesn't sound as sensible as a tracked vehicle driving out of the area under its own power, does it?

Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!



Really, the most feasible kind of walker that we'd likely see is something the size of a Sentinel. It's easily transported, it can fill a gap between a LAV and a FAV, and it can be uparmored more than a HMMV or another FAV can, while also allowing for a single operator rather than requiring a full fireteam to operate at peak efficiency.

Bonus: they could be deployed like that image.

Why would a sentinel, which is smaller then a HMMV be more heavily armored then one? The weighty leg systems which are highly complicated and totally lack redundancy don't exactly let it have more armor then wheels or tracks. Logically it would significantly reduce the available weight load for armoring while increasing the visible damageable important 'bits (and could fall over with less carry room while being a much less stable weapons platform).

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would a sentinel, which is smaller then a HMMV be less armored then one? The weighty leg systems which are highly complicated and totally lack redundancy don't exactly let it have more armor then wheels or tracks. Logically it would significantly reduce the available weight load for armoring while increasing the visible damageable important 'bits.

You mean "more armored" than one, right?

Simply put: if you were to look at how the 'armored' Sentinels have been described, they put an armored sheath over the legplates, they uparmor the canopy, they uparmor the underbelly, and uparmor the engine compartment as well.

The point, however, wasn't just that it can be uparmored to be a smidge more protected than a HMMV.

The point was that if you were to weigh the benefits/downsides, a walker the size of a Sentinel could easily weasel its way on top. Easily altered weaponry loadout, packing the punch of a light armored vehicle on something that can move as quick as a guntruck?

Yeah. That'd definitely have a role on the battlefield.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!

(img snipped)

The part of my post you quoted element was asking how you plan to get the weapons platform out of an area you'd dropped it into. Read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:You mean "more armored" than one, right?

Simply put: if you were to look at how the 'armored' Sentinels have been described, they put an armored sheath over the legplates, they uparmor the canopy, they uparmor the underbelly, and uparmor the engine compartment as well.

At which point all you've done is identified two new areas that need armour protection, the legs and the exposed underbelly. While it is theoretically possible to armour these areas, that will increase the weight and cost of the platform.

The point, however, wasn't just that it can be uparmored to be a smidge more protected than a HMMV.

The point being you can just uparmour the future alternative to the HMMV. You really don't need legs and all the related problems in order to do this.

The point was that if you were to weigh the benefits/downsides, a walker the size of a Sentinel could easily weasel its way on top. Easily altered weaponry loadout, packing the punch of a light armored vehicle on something that can move as quick as a guntruck?

There is nothing inherent in the action of giving a weapons platform legs that makes the weapons loadout more easily alterable.

You cannot assume it will move as fast as a gun truck. It is a basic element of physics legs are a less efficient than wheels at turning power into motion. Any engine capable of moving a legged platform as fast as a guntruck would make a light vehicle move very, very quickly indeed.

These are both points that have been explained many times in this thread. Please stop pretending they're not there, because it stops you imagining the mechs of the future. It makes this thread more than a little tedious.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!

(img snipped)

The part of my post you quoted element was asking how you plan to get the weapons platform out of an area you'd dropped it into. Read.

It was my fault, I forgot to add your earlier quote. It's a perfectly acceptable image considering your question of:

So you propose to have aircraft on runways, constantly prepped for flight, with walker cargo... at all times. And you consider this unit designed for low intensity urban conlict against paramilitaries...

Do I have to explain why that's as impractical as it is?

How do you think tanks are deployed to warzones? Just because they "drive out of the engagement zone" sure as hell doesn't mean they "drove to the warzone". They get flown there or shipped there via boat.

But for that matter, what's going to stop a mech/walker from walking on out of the engagement zone?

But, since we're pretty much going to have to rely on fictional examples:
Let's look at the Elysian Sentinel as an example of a walker for 'low intensity urban conflicts against paramilitaries'.
It's relatively lightly armored, packs a hell of a punch and is equipped and designed to support infantry pushes.

The biggest part of it?
It's deployed almost exactly like the image I posted.
Hell, they even do that with Tarantula Sentry Guns.

You mean "more armored" than one, right?

Simply put: if you were to look at how the 'armored' Sentinels have been described, they put an armored sheath over the legplates, they uparmor the canopy, they uparmor the underbelly, and uparmor the engine compartment as well.

The point, however, wasn't just that it can be uparmored to be a smidge more protected than a HMMV.

So a theoretically real light walker would be more heavily armored because a fictional one is, despite being visibly identical to the less well armored one? No.

The point was that if you were to weigh the benefits/downsides, a walker the size of a Sentinel could easily weasel its way on top. Easily altered weaponry loadout, packing the punch of a light armored vehicle on something that can move as quick as a guntruck?

Why are its weapons easily altered compared to a hmmv? Why is it as fast as a gunntruck when wheeled vehicles outrun every legged creature on the planet? Having comparable weapons and speed to a light armored vehicle while being vulnerable to falling down and walking into power lines doesn't weasel it to the top. You haven't listed a tangible benefit of the platform itself, just alluded to its ability to compete in vague ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

But, since we're pretty much going to have to rely on fictional examples:

Isn't the entire point of this thread to look at these things realistically? I mean, I could argue for the sheer dominance o the 6,000 tonne steampunk clockwork crab palace, but I don't think arguing that a fictional videogame with a fictional davinci segues into realistic conversations well.

Kanluwen wrote:You mean "more armored" than one, right?

Simply put: if you were to look at how the 'armored' Sentinels have been described, they put an armored sheath over the legplates, they uparmor the canopy, they uparmor the underbelly, and uparmor the engine compartment as well.

At which point all you've done is identified two new areas that need armour protection, the legs and the exposed underbelly. While it is theoretically possible to armour these areas, that will increase the weight and cost of the platform.

Yes, because it was so expensive and effective to uparmor the HMMVs and Land Rovers for Iraq/Afghanistan, right?

The point, however, wasn't just that it can be uparmored to be a smidge more protected than a HMMV.

The point being you can just uparmour the future alternative to the HMMV. You really don't need legs and all the related problems in order to do this.

Of course you can uparmor the future alternative to the HMMV. But it doesn't negate the fact that a single operator versus a fireteam(or at the bare minimum two persons) would be a benefit.

The point was that if you were to weigh the benefits/downsides, a walker the size of a Sentinel could easily weasel its way on top. Easily altered weaponry loadout, packing the punch of a light armored vehicle on something that can move as quick as a guntruck?

There is nothing inherent in the action of giving a weapons platform legs that makes the weapons loadout more easily alterable.

Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because it was so expensive and effective to uparmor the HMMVs and Land Rovers for Iraq/Afghanistan, right?

The point is that the physical laws governing mass and motion don't allow for your hypothetical vehicle to exist.

And it's been pointed out repeatedly that mechs or walkers necessarily aren't going to be the most 'effective', but they'll be 'reasonably useful' as an alternative to multiple various roles performed by many different vehicles deployed now.

And I'm sure the alternatives 'then' would see the mechs relegated to dreams, mothballs or construction equipment just as our lack of technology sees them now. Any technology that fundamentally makes the flawed concept of a tall legged fighting vehicle useful would serve to just as likely make alternates to it superior for not possessing such flaws. Mechs are the new flying saucers. It's a form searching for a function.

I did a 12 hour power drive across my state and back and I saw two Bradley's on two tractor trailers, tanks are cool because you can put them on trucks. I also saw a Stuart in front of a VFW building, it was also cool. I didn't see any robots until I looked around a hobby store and saw that they had 40k stuff for sale and I bought an imperial armor and a set of Gaunt's Ghosts, but I didn't buy any robots because robots suck and Gaunt is cool.

Kanluwen wrote:It was my fault, I forgot to add your earlier quote. It's a perfectly acceptable image considering your question of:

Ah, cool, your point makes more sense... I still don't agree, but it makes more sense

How do you think tanks are deployed to warzones? Just because they "drive out of the engagement zone" sure as hell doesn't mean they "drove to the warzone". They get flown there or shipped there via boat.

Yes, all vehicles will be transported into the theatre via plane or boat. The issue is once in theatre, how does it rapidly deploy to reach a conflict point quickly. It is an option for tanks to be deployed from air drop,, this can be very effective when launching an offensive.

So it was proposed that walkers could make up for their low speed by being airdropped. Except that the stated role of these walkers was as infantry support in low intensity conflict. Which would require having a number of aircraft prepped and loaded on the runway at all times, waiting for conflict to break out to react to it. Which is incredibly expensive, and a huge investment of time, equipment and airspace.

Or we can just drive tracked and wheeled vehicles to the combat. Certainly not as cool, but actually practical.

But for that matter, what's going to stop a mech/walker from walking on out of the engagement zone?

Speed. It's top speed would be a fraction of the speed of an equivalent weight, equivalent motor wheeled or tracked vehicle.

But, since we're pretty much going to have to rely on fictional examples:

There is nothing to be gained from fictional examples. They're invented with the end game in mind - having mechs on the future battlefield. They assume away all the problems inherent in the designs for the sake of cool.

Which is fine for the purposes of creating a cool story, but it makes them fething useless for any effort to determine if mechs are viable on a real world battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because it was so expensive and effective to uparmor the HMMVs and Land Rovers for Iraq/Afghanistan, right?

And all those problems would be solved by putting legs on a vehicle. Come on.

Of course you can uparmor the future alternative to the HMMV. But it doesn't negate the fact that a single operator versus a fireteam(or at the bare minimum two persons) would be a benefit.

A more automated weapons platforms that can put all functions in the hands of a single operator is an advantage of developing a more automated weapons platform.

It is not an advantage of giving a weapons platform legs, because equivalent systems would be just as practical on a vehicle with tracks or legs.

This has been explained before. It is not complicated.

Hardpoint mounting is what would make the weapons loadout 'more easily alterable'.

Hardpoint mounting that allows for the quick swapout of weapons is an advantage of developing hardpoint weapons mountings.

It is not an advantage of giving a weapons platform legs, because equivalent systems would be just as practical on a vehicle with tracks or wheels.

This has been explained before. It is not complicated.

And it's been pointed out repeatedly that mechs or walkers necessarily aren't going to be the most 'effective', but they'll be 'reasonably useful' as an alternative to multiple various roles performed by many different vehicles deployed now.

And the point, simply, is that a light weapons platform that is guaranteed to be much slower than an equivalent wheeled vehicle, and almost certainly be many times more expensive is very unlikely to ever have a viable place on the battlefield.

STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Kanluwen wrote:STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Sorry mate. At some point this thread became a discussion of mechs as a realistic idea, and they're not. Just don't let that affect your enjoyment of mechs as a cool idea. I haven't, I've been a long time fan of Battletech despite having realised a long time ago it's really unlikely we'll ever see one in the real world.

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Sorry, I can't even agree that they'd work on a psychological level. Sorry.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:STOP RUINING THE CONCEPT OF WALKERS FOR ME SEBSTER!

Sorry mate. At some point this thread became a discussion of mechs as a realistic idea, and they're not. Just don't let that affect your enjoyment of mechs as a cool idea. I haven't, I've been a long time fan of Battletech despite having realised a long time ago it's really unlikely we'll ever see one in the real world.

See, I'm not entirely sure that we won't see some kind of walkers at some point.

I do, however, think they won't be the stories tall mechs but rather something like the Sentinel or the AT-ST. Relatively small, easily transportable/airdroppable and packing firepower/ammunition in spades.

Let's just all agree that walkers/mechs are pretty much impractical, except as a psychological tool.

Agreed?

Sorry, I can't even agree that they'd work on a psychological level. Sorry.

*points at 'The Empire Strikes Back'*

Do you think that guy on the intercom talking about "Imperial walkers sighted!" was doing it for the fun of it? No! Clearly--he was terrified!

Ulver wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Yes, and if I had the technology to fire invisible psychic mind lasers that can destroy the mind of the operator of mechs, whether present or remote, biological or synthetic, then I could kill all mechs with a thought.

Or to put it another way: if my aunt had a cock and balls, she'd be my uncle

This entire discussion is based around theoretical technology. I posit that those are the most essential prerequisites for such a walker to work, and that if they were met it could fulfill a useful role in mopping up scattered infantry in an urban environment as a supporting vehicle for infantry, or in garrisoning captured territory (since it would effectively be a walking guard tower with heavy machine guns).

IceRaptor wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Assuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Armor is generally outpaced by weaponry, by and large. You're making the major assumption that you can design an armor that can defeat the increasingly powerful weapons available. And you are assuming that tank designers in the future are stupid enough to continue to make their top armor vulnerable to mechs. And this assumes the buildings are sufficiently large enough to provide enough coverage for your walker, and that sensors aren't sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate those buildings.

Walkers in a tank role are generally suboptimal to a tank because of their greater exposure to attack helicopters and guided artillery (missile or otherwise), and offer very few advantages over the tank. Mechs might make sense in a zero-g environment, or as basically larger scale infantry, but they just can't be armored as reliably as a tank can. You won't get the same depth of armor coverage due to the need to have joints (which can't be sufficiently protected), and they are going to have very limited deployment profiles due to their relatively large ground pressure.

sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:ssuming two vehicles, with equivalent resilience and usable firepower, I would say the light walker beats the seventy ton tank in an urban environment in terms of both lethality and demoralization, having a better vantage point and a design that is a walking testament to your technological superiority. If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

You're assuming a light walker with equivalent resilience and usable firepower to a heavy tank. Your assumption is completely ludicrous.

I don't think it's something that would replace tanks in all their roles, though I do think most of their roles could be just as easily served with various forms of air support, but something that would serve a role as a mobile version of a guard tower or a sniper/machine gunner on a rooftop, able to escort an APC full of troops, or drones capable of serving the same role as modern infantry, in an urban environment.

Try again, this time thinking about the tonnage of your walker, and what vehicles in that weight group actually bring into the battlefield. That is, what light platforms currently have the capability to carry AMS, or resist multiple rocket hits, or even remain entirely immune to small arms fire?

To my knowledge, there isn't any current technology able to swat RPG rounds out of the air, so that's a bit of a moot point, and the only non-RPG weapons that pose a threat to light armor and are infantry portable that I know of are petrol bombs or flamethrowers (both of which are extremely short range) and anti-materiel rifles.

You're trying to push a false dichotomy of "either deadly or a walker".

No, I'm not. For the sake of this point I've been willing to grant you the possibilty of an effective, deadly walker. Meanwhile I've been trying to explain to you, with far more patience than you've justified, that a deadly weapons platform is very, very scary, whether it's or walker not. Once there's a unit advancing on your position with a cannon and multiple HMGs, it's terrifying whether it is on legs or not.

If one is assuming that both vehicles being compared are equal in terms of available firepower and staying power, then I don't see the grounds for such a vehement objection to "the bipedal testament to your godlike technology has more of a psychological impact than a funny looking car, while providing a better vantage point for its weapons than something close to the ground".

I have no particular certainty that the required technological hurdles will be cleared, though I don't see them as impossible challenges, so there may never be something that meets the theoretical specifications I put forth, but that's not particularly relevant to a hypothetical discussion assuming that they were met...

I think you do, because you still haven't even attempted to provide one weapons platform, either in use today or in development, that has 'being scary' as a major design element. Because there aren't any. Because 'being scary' is a completely stupid design goal, when you design something to be deadly and scary will just happen because of that.

I agree that having "looks scary" as a primary design consideration isn't very sound, but a great many weapons have had terror as at least a secondary concern, generally through being deadly in a horrific manner (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, incendiaries, etc), and a not insignificant percentage of uniform or armor aesthetics have involved an intimidating appearance.

But I don't think the impact of a walker would be terror, but more a further symbol of technological supremacy. A tank is a tank, and no matter how advanced and awesome you make it it's still a metal box with treads and a cannon, with any advanced technology being hidden away from the casual observer, regardless of the difference it makes in a fight, and even then it's not so far removed from the mundane car or truck in general appearance. A metal giant strolling down the street? That's something alien, with its every step proclaiming just how advanced you are.

The Abrams is also about seven times the weight I proposed as a requirement for getting over the issue of less weight distribution impairing mobility due to soft or fragile ground.

Which I noted, as I was granting you the technological capability to do what you proposed, before I went on to question the practicality of actually doing it. Read.

Right, I was reiterating it for emphasis.

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

You expect choppers to come in, and perform this operation during combat? This really, realy doesn't sound as sensible as a tracked vehicle driving out of the area under its own power, does it?

If it had to retreat, it could get clear of the combat area before being picked up, or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place. If you're not fighting against vastly inferior forces, you're doing something very wrong.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh hell yes, I finally get to use this as a relevant image!

(img snipped)

The part of my post you quoted element was asking how you plan to get the weapons platform out of an area you'd dropped it into. Read.

Clearly the tank is leaping into that plane. Tanks are sneaky like that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I don't think it's something that would replace tanks in all their roles, though I do think most of their roles could be just as easily served with various forms of air support, but something that would serve a role as a mobile version of a guard tower or a sniper/machine gunner on a rooftop, able to escort an APC full of troops, or drones capable of serving the same role as modern infantry, in an urban environment.

You've lost track of the conversation there. You suggested the loadout of a theoretical walker, and I pointed out that you were giving capabilities and armour more line with a mbt, something much heavier than your proposed mech design. The point isn't whether it can compete with a tank in any role, the point is that you need to go back and look at what you're assuming this light walking unit can do.

To my knowledge, there isn't any current technology able to swat RPG rounds out of the air, so that's a bit of a moot point, and the only non-RPG weapons that pose a threat to light armor and are infantry portable that I know of are petrol bombs or flamethrowers (both of which are extremely short range) and anti-materiel rifles.

There are actually point defence weapons for vehicles in development which will react to an incoming rocket by putting enough lead in the air to shoot it down. If they see field application it'll be in the next few years... but I say "if" because with the amount of lead they throw out to shoot down a rocket they might pose more of a risk of friendly fire than anything else.

Meanwhile, you need to consider actual light tanks out there right now in the same tonnage as the proposed mech, around 10 tons. Which means you're probably looking at something like the M113 APC, which still vulnerable to high calibre machine gun rounds.

If you want immunity to that you have to start looking at platforms like the Bradley, at which point you're looking at a minimum of 20 tons.

If one is assuming that both vehicles being compared are equal in terms of available firepower and staying power, then I don't see the grounds for such a vehement objection to "the bipedal testament to your godlike technology has more of a psychological impact than a funny looking car, while providing a better vantage point for its weapons than something close to the ground".

No, again, you've lost track of the point. I was simply saying that walkers do not have any additional 'terror' factor, because once you've got the base level terror of 'they have armoured vehicles advancing on our position throwing all kinds of deadly gak in the air' then you need something far more terrifying than 'it's walking' to increase the terror level any.

I agree that having "looks scary" as a primary design consideration isn't very sound, but a great many weapons have had terror as at least a secondary concern, generally through being deadly in a horrific manner (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, incendiaries, etc), and a not insignificant percentage of uniform or armor aesthetics have involved an intimidating appearance.

Yeah, as ahtman mentioned earlier flamethrowers are one such weapon, because in addition to killing you, they cause you a lot of pain beforehand, and that'll scare your comerades plenty.

'In addition to killing you, this will do so in a completely horrible manner' is the kind of thing. 'In addition to killing you, this will do so while walking' is not. Especially if we're talking about a vehicle coming in at around 10 tons, designed for light infantry support.

But I don't think the impact of a walker would be terror, but more a further symbol of technological supremacy. A tank is a tank, and no matter how advanced and awesome you make it it's still a metal box with treads and a cannon, with any advanced technology being hidden away from the casual observer, regardless of the difference it makes in a fight, and even then it's not so far removed from the mundane car or truck in general appearance. A metal giant strolling down the street? That's something alien, with its every step proclaiming just how advanced you are.

So the primary effect is strategic, rather than tactical? Interesting clarification.

I really doubt the sense of producing amazing look tech to wow the enemy into not fighting, but this isn't so far from. As a giant prestige project that troops on the ground really bloody hate, I can see mechs being developed

If it had to retreat, it could get clear of the combat area before being picked up, or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place. If you're not fighting against vastly inferior forces, you're doing something very wrong.

Yes, no-one plans to fight against weaker forces. But it happens and when it does you want a decent exit strategy. Having slow moving units dependant on air travel for rapid movement means they can become a liability if you want to retreat quickly.

sebster wrote:Clearly the tank is leaping into that plane. Tanks are sneaky like that.

Crank it in reverse and then hammer the handbrake, blues brothers style.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Ulver wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:If you have the technology to make legs work, the technology to render antitank RPGs useless, and sufficiently light armor able to turn small arms fire, then the thing that's basically a walking guard tower would have much more value than a low lying tracked or wheeled vehicle with comparable defenses.

Yes, and if I had the technology to fire invisible psychic mind lasers that can destroy the mind of the operator of mechs, whether present or remote, biological or synthetic, then I could kill all mechs with a thought.

Or to put it another way: if my aunt had a cock and balls, she'd be my uncle

This entire discussion is based around theoretical technology. I posit that those are the most essential prerequisites for such a walker to work, and that if they were met it could fulfill a useful role in mopping up scattered infantry in an urban environment as a supporting vehicle for infantry, or in garrisoning captured territory (since it would effectively be a walking guard tower with heavy machine guns).

Some of it appears to be making up technology to fit with fiction. The discussion I'm reading is, "technology aside, would walkers be a viable alternative to AFVs?" Sure they may at some point invent a material that is incredibly light but hold many times its own weight, so that a walker's legs can support the rest of the vehicle and still be lifted off the ground with a powerplant small enough to fit in the vehicle the legs themselves are carrying (in my imagination it's a diamond-like crystal lattice structure), but it doesn't mean that a walker will still be practical if other drawbacks inherent in the design cannot be overcome (stability, speed disadvantage, whatever).

I've been meaning to do some maths around moving mechs based on some (probably wildly inaccurate) assumptions:

Walker weighs 70 tonnes; legs - 10 tonnes each
Leg is lifted 2 metres high when taking a step
Energy required for lifting each leg = mass x gravitational acceleration x height = 10000 (kg) x 9.81 x 2 = 196200 joules.

If we assume that each step allows them to cover 5 metres (I have no idea how stride height/length/motion are connected) then to cover one kilometre (200 steps) would require
39.24MJ (about 1 litre of diesel, not factoring engine efficiencies, I think). That only includes the energy required to lift the leg vertically, I haven't factored in the energy required for actual lateral movement (read: don't know how).

I think that viable walkers would have between 4 and 8 legs, with gyro tech from the Big Dog (I can't be bothered searching for videos at the mo, maybe later) - that would be feasible.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
...or you could just drop more firepower on the ground and remove the need for retreat in the first place.

If that's a viable strategy then why isn't it employed now? The US (which I assume has the largest military) will still withdraw from a situation if required, rather than throwing more troops and resource at it.

My own view of the original question: mechs are cooler than tanks (slightly), but tanks are 'better' and I can't see mechs or walkers having significant advantage to replace them.

mecha, because some also have air and space superiority over tanks

Tanks beat everything. True story.

Just as a ray of sunshine for you Kan, there are prototype "walking transports" around. There is a video around somewhere of a robot that looks like the wrong trousers from Wallace and Gromit, where the "pilot" sits in a seat above the legs and drives it around the test area/lab with a joystick.

Not quite a Sentinel yet, but it is a start

ShumaGorath wrote:Anything mechs can do helicopters can do better. Their only advantage is uneven urban terrain too small for similarly weighted vehicles, and thats really just indoors. For payload, maneuverability, battlefield position dominance, and virtually anything science fiction fakemechs are good at you can just use a helo.

Have it attach to the back of a specialized helicopter, facing forwards with its legs folded up, unfolding and releasing it so it lands in a suitable location? So long as its designed to do so in the first place it shouldn't have trouble with that.

Why don't we make the helicopter bigger and just use that?

Oh no, I agree with Shuma completely. With nukes giong down, and Saint Patty's Day this may indeed be the end times. I guess no use waiting, time to break out the tequila.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just as a ray of sunshine for you Kan, there are prototype "walking transports" around. There is a video around somewhere of a robot that looks like the wrong trousers from Wallace and Gromit, where the "pilot" sits in a seat above the legs and drives it around the test area/lab with a joystick.

Not quite a Sentinel yet, but it is a start

I know Japan had something like that going on, they were going to use it for firefighting(it had an enclosed canopy and full air filtration systems) and search & rescue after disasters.

I kind of wonder if it ever got off the ground.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Still going with this?

I've come to the conclusion that Mechs as we are talking about them probably have far less tactical flexibility than a power-armored force backed up by mechanized transports and tanks.

I can just imagine a 30 foot tall mech falling over after it gets a missile in the knee joint, that thing will be down for the count unless they get cranes in to pick it up. I'd say the Heavy Gear mechs are about as close to what we'd ever get, realistically.

A 30 foot mech would take a missile in the face from an apache or f22. Or it would just fall over because it misjudged the load tolerance of a road or something. Either way, non redundant walking platforms of any size that can't fit in a building is foolish.

Totally agree.

This is why I was saying that exo-suits/powered armor would probably be much more tactically flexible for infantry, whilst also being backed up by heavy transports/armor. Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air, while easily being able to carry out urban assaults. Sheesh, sounds a lot like Space Marines.

Bah, I was designing a mech about the size of a Heavy Gear, but now it just feels silly. Might go back and make a tank-transport/exo-suit combo.

It really doesn't matter what we use on the battlefield. Nothing is perfect. All things we create will be destroyed someway or another. It's about how cheap can we go to create a super efficient machine.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

The answer to all this is to combine the various technologies and produce...

The Flying Mank (Mecha Tank)



ULTIMATE ALL TERRAIN COMBAT VEHICLE

Do you think it needs more Dakka?

Platuan4th wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

One would think that powered armor would be proof against small arms carried by some drones. However, drones may not be effective at all vs another enemy with powered armor, if that is any indication of the rest of their military. The individual humans drones are taking out now aren't exactly high tech equipped soldiers with aerial surveillance going. Would drones be as effective as they are now if we were facing an equally technologically advanced foe?

What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Exo-suit/powered armor would be small enough not to be easily targeted from the air,

Maybe by helis and jets/planes, but Drones are taking down individual humans from the air daily, larger suits would just make them easier targets.

One would think that powered armor would be proof against small arms carried by some drones. However, drones may not be effective at all vs another enemy with powered armor, if that is any indication of the rest of their military. The individual humans drones are taking out now aren't exactly high tech equipped soldiers with aerial surveillance going. Would drones be as effective as they are now if we were facing an equally technologically advanced foe?

Basically every combat drone the U.S. utilizes carries hellfire missiles. Those are anti tank/bunker weapons. You're power armor suit isn't going to save you against something designed to kill things of that nature. The primary use of powered armor would be to make the soldier relatively immune to small arms fire giving them dominance indoors. Swat power armor would be a godsend to police units the world over. In an open field they would still prove to be excellent against infantry so long as they don't require constant logistical support. They're not gonna stand up to any sort of vehicle designed primarily for combat though.

War mopeds.

I remember a sci-fi writer gave a speech on Tank v Mecha.
He said how since a Mecha can go where ever it wants,the enemy can't trap the road like they did in Iraq,in that case the Mecha can be unpredictable,and less vunerable to IEW.

But at the end of the lecture he just told us that they would only ever be specialised weapons,and won't really replace a tank,Mechs guns won't be lighter and they would be better as an infantry support unit,or mixed with infantry squads.

Tanks don't need roads either. Its kind of the point of the tracks...

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

If you want to continue this line of reasoning, why do we need soldiers/tanks at all if drones can do everything they can do but better?

Obviously we can see that that idea is working well.

I wasn't really ever saying that power-armor/exo-suit would withstand hellfire missiles, I was saying I thought that powered infantry supported by heavy transports/tanks would be much more tactically flexible than a mech. I'm not really sure if people thought I meant the powered armor would be replacing tanks or what. I think a mech would be an absolute giant target from the air, however if you were fighting a sufficiently technologically advanced army, wouldn't they have AA to shoot down drones? Or perhaps cheaper/faster drones just meant to shoot down other drones? What happens then?

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

How so? The UN didn't ban Drones when it was proposed(the opponents of drones reasoning was exactly that it's not fair that the US and other countries with Drones can send them in and kill while there is no actual soldier to shoot back at) and according to the Air Force(I do nothing but hang out with AF officers, mind), Drones are customizable to a degree.

Platuan4th wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What small arms? They're popping very nice missiles and bombs strong enough to take out bunkers and MBTs.

In the future the drones would be advanced too don't forget. You might just have hunter killer drones flitting about with a nice tactical nuke, or just the then techie equivalent of a hellfire missile floating around.

Exactly(also what Shuma said). There's a reason countries we're fighting that don't have them tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to ban them(in addition to the whole a drone exposes no one but the enemy to dying thing). We can currently outfit drones to the job we need it to do. Drone's aren't "fair" in conflicts, to which the UN basically said "War isn't fair."

That post is incorrect and doesn't make much sense.

How so? The UN didn't ban Drones when it was proposed(the opponents of drones reasoning was exactly that it's not fair that the US and other countries with Drones can send them in and kill while there is no actual soldier to shoot back at) and according to the Air Force(I do nothing but hang out with AF officers, mind), Drones are customizable to a degree.

The UN isn't a monolithic organization. It doesn't have opinions of its own. Independent member states have opinions concerning this and considering the fact that the majority of the security council is developing armed air drones I somehow doubt the most powerful entity within it believes they shouldn't be used "because they aren't fair". Most criticism has been related to how they are used, which is a form of long distance targeted bombing to strike insurgents and insurgent leaders on tips. This is tantamount to assassination by some arguments, which is outlawed by many pieces of paper the U.S. is signatory to. There is also a lot of criticism of the fact that we are using them in Pakistan and Yemen without the consent of the people or governments of those regions.

Also I misread your post and read you as "To which the UN basically said "war should be fair". Which caused a lot of the snide and which I didn't realize until after typing the above paragraph. Sorry

ShumaGorath wrote:
Also I misread your post and read you as "To which the UN basically said "war should be fair". Which caused a lot of the snide and which I didn't realize until after typing the above paragraph. Sorry

That's cool.

Watching the video for the proposal is pretty funny, especially the US delegate's reaction. But yeah, I should probably also have clarified that I didn't mean the UN as some singular world governing entity.

I think I may only be 3/4's here thanks to my wife being given 4 Midshifts in a row because she's one of 2 Satellite Vehicle Operators in her squadron currently, so that accounts for some of the not reading sensibly.

you cant beat the imtemadation factor of a 50 feet tall warmachine

If you can't beat it, blow it up.

FourCartridge wrote:If you can't beat it, blow it up.

lol i like the way you think

I voted Mecha because the idea of a bipedal (or quad, or hex, etc) machine, stomping around a battlefield is far cooler to me than the idea of a tank*.
Whether they be small(ish)...

Bigger....

or fething HUGE...

...they're always cool as heck

For realism, power armor is probably the only one i'd vote for, as it has better mobility than a tank ('specially with jumpy jets) while still having more firepower than your average ground troop.


*Not that tanks aren't cool too!


(Apologies if I annoyed anyone with too many big pics.)

I would say Mecha could be better then tank in regard of use if it were smaller (small enough to go into buildings).

It would be far more effective to support infantry and would be a smaller more agile making it less of a target to anti armour weapons.



Something like this from ghost in the shell would be far more useful then a tank being that it can follow infantry into areas tanks cannot go, but still have deciant fire power to match most light and heavy vehicles and infantry.

im sorry but i just like the thort of walking atv's