I have changed the title of the thread to better reflect it's current state.
Since my requests for the discussion to get back on topic have been at least ignored and at most responded to in a rude and uncalled for manner and since the MOD won't enforce the rules of the site I will be making another thread shortly to continue discussing what examples of military tech from sci-fi people would like to see made real.
OG-9 homing spider droid , A long ranged robotic all terrain walker and is effective against both ground-based and airborne targets. Carries two Laser Cannons , one smaller and better for infantry while the other Vehicles and armoured targets. From the Star Wars movies.
Tri-droid another large scale Star Wars walker , the Tri Droids massive size and devastating weaponry could destroy armoured tanks with ease. The massive Walkers tower over other vehicles and infantry and could easily traverse terrain.
Powered armor would likely be a huge boon in terms of soldier survivability/inspiring terror in enemies. That backed up with some sort of armored transport capable of shrugging off HEAT rounds would be pretty effective.
Mechs, even though they are totally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood reaper wrote:OG-9 homing spider droid , A long ranged robotic all terrain walker and is effective against both ground-based and airborne targets. Carries two Laser Cannons , one smaller and better for infantry while the other Vehicles and armoured targets. From the Star Wars movies.
Tri-droid another large scale Star Wars walker , the Tri Droids massive size and devastating weaponry could destroy armoured tanks with ease. The massive Walkers tower over other vehicles and infantry and could easily traverse terrain.
D-cannons, screw hellfire armed drones, ripping up reality is where its got to be.
And Psykers, proper scanners, Librarians, Jedi mind fethers, out there on the battlefield, that would be more scary (and cooler at the same time) than any physical weapon.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Powered armor would likely be a huge boon in terms of soldier survivability/inspiring terror in enemies. That backed up with some sort of armored transport capable of shrugging off HEAT rounds would be pretty effective.
Mechs, even though they are totally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood reaper wrote:OG-9 homing spider droid , A long ranged robotic all terrain walker and is effective against both ground-based and airborne targets. Carries two Laser Cannons , one smaller and better for infantry while the other Vehicles and armoured targets. From the Star Wars movies. Tri-droid another large scale Star Wars walker , the Tri Droids massive size and devastating weaponry could destroy armoured tanks with ease. The massive Walkers tower over other vehicles and infantry and could easily traverse terrain.
What happens when a leg gets shot out?
Thats probably the only weakness but the Vehicles speed and firepower account for this , also it may take several shots to damage the legs. Also what enemy are they fighting? What weapons are they using?
Mr. Burning wrote:And Psykers, proper scanners, Librarians, Jedi mind fethers, out there on the battlefield, that would be more scary (and cooler at the same time) than any physical weapon.
I'd like to point out that psychic powers or anything of that sort aren't sci-fi tech. This is mostly about equiptment ranging from weapons and armor to vehicles and machines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:Mechs, even though they are totally ridiculous.
Why do you say they're rediculous?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:Smart fruit.
"There's a guy who needs a banana, Whooooosh!" - Bill Hicks
The super-healing chambers from David Drake's Ranks of Bronze. You put an injured grunt into it and viola!, he emerges totally healed, just a little red on the injured areas for a couple of days.
Powered armor, because then you would need less soldiers to get the job done, therefore less lives at risk, and they could all have lots of electronic info on their heads-up display, so there would be much less chance of friendly fire.
Cheap, light, durable, can be woven into heavy clothes such as overcoats.
Won't take more lives, but will save them.
Improved armor would necessitate increased weapon power to counter the new armor. The lives saved would be essentially meaningless because it only lasts until someone makes a better gun (or explosive device or death ray or whatever)
Odins Beard wrote:Why do you say they're rediculous?
Because anything a mech could do could be done cheaper and more efficiently by tanks or aircraft. Mech's are cool, but there really is no practical application for a giant robot on a battlefield. Except to be cool...
My vote goes to power armor. One of the few fantastical weapons produced by sci-fi that is realistically possible and has practical application
Orbital lances. Basically, giant missile-ish projectiles launched off of satellites to hit any target, any where.
Oh wait, what's that? They're already being developed? Darn.
The same goes for railguns, which could be on navy ships by 2018 at the earliest.
okay, to actually answer the OP question, I'd love me some giant walker-base things. Think the AT-TE from Star Wars episode II. Sure, most of the prequels were crap, but I really liked those things.
LordofHats wrote:Improved armor would necessitate increased weapon power to counter the new armor. The lives saved would be essentially meaningless because it only lasts until someone makes a better gun (or explosive device or death ray or whatever)
Maybe, but it would also mean that civilians can wear said armor due to its cheapness and light weight, and that military-grade weapons (which can penetrate flak armor) will be that much more expensive and harder to come by.
Odins Beard wrote:Why do you say they're rediculous?
Because anything a mech could do could be done cheaper and more efficiently by tanks or aircraft. Mech's are cool, but there really is no practical application for a giant robot on a battlefield. Except to be cool...
Not really, tanks and aircraft can't always be used and aren't usefull for everything. Mechs would provide the heavy support for infantry without being as slow or cumbersome as tanks plus more mobile while being more accurate and accessable then air craft. And the cheaper part isn't true either, it takes alot of money just to fuel tanks and aircraft and it takes alot less to fuel the mechs that are currently being developed. Besides Mechs are supposed to fill the niche between infantry and tanks not replace tanks or aircraft.
Odins Beard wrote:Not really, tanks and aircraft can't always be used and aren't usefull for everything.
Niether is a mech, except tanks and aircraft have battlefield roles that would make a mech redundant. There's nothing a mech can do that you can't achieve with the other two (aka combined arms warfare).
Mechs are as redundant as Lesley McNair's tank destroyers. Can you find a use for them? Probably. But then you realize that they're horribly redundant because their job can be better or equally performed by something else.
Mechs would provide the heavy support for infantry without being as slow or cumbersome as tanks plus more mobile while being more accurate and accessable then air craft.
Think about that for a bit. A giant robot that has to walk on mechanical legs is never going to be as fast as a tank. It will likely turn slower as well and be more vulnerable to weapons fire. Tanks already give heavy direct fire support to infantry. All a walking robot does is put the tanks on legs that are no where near as effecient as treads.
And the cheaper part isn't true either, it takes alot of money just to fuel tanks and aircraft and it takes alot less to fuel the mechs that are currently being developed.
Think about that one for a lot. Walking is not as energy efficient as using wheels and treads. A walking robot will burn through far more fuel than a tank. Maybe not an aircraft, but aircraft have other significant benefits.
This is of course ignoring the mechanical complexity of telling a machine how to walk and maintain balance. Mech's would cost more both to construct and maintain.
Besides Mechs are supposed to fill the niche between infantry and tanks not replace tanks or aircraft.
Then we aren't talking about the same kind of mech. When people say mech, almost everyone thinks giant robot, which is absurd. And what your talking about isn't really a mech so much as a heavier bulkier power armor, or just power armor. The idea of entire power armor armies seems impractical to me. More likely we'd have standard infantry, and units of heavier infantry in power armor who do just what you're talking about.
Odins Beard wrote:Not really, tanks and aircraft can't always be used and aren't usefull for everything. Mechs would provide the heavy support for infantry without being as slow or cumbersome as tanks plus more mobile while being more accurate and accessable then air craft. And the cheaper part isn't true either, it takes alot of money just to fuel tanks and aircraft and it takes alot less to fuel the mechs that are currently being developed. Besides Mechs are supposed to fill the niche between infantry and tanks not replace tanks or aircraft.
I really don't want to get into this again...
What advantage does this weapon system have by putting it on legs? Does that advantage overcome the problem that any platform, for a given weight and engine, will be much slower on legs than it would be on tracks?
Odins Beard wrote:Why do you say they're rediculous?
Because anything a mech could do could be done cheaper and more efficiently by tanks or aircraft. Mech's are cool, but there really is no practical application for a giant robot on a battlefield. Except to be cool...
Not really, tanks and aircraft can't always be used and aren't usefull for everything. Mechs would provide the heavy support for infantry without being as slow or cumbersome as tanks plus more mobile while being more accurate and accessable then air craft. And the cheaper part isn't true either, it takes alot of money just to fuel tanks and aircraft and it takes alot less to fuel the mechs that are currently being developed. Besides Mechs are supposed to fill the niche between infantry and tanks not replace tanks or aircraft.
Land mines, the main threat to modern tanks, would pose just as much, if not more of, a risk to Mechs. So really being fast is all very well, but if, in a campaign, you're going to be moving at a crawling pace anyway, due to fear of landmines, it doesn't offer a huge benefit.
A huge advantage that mechs would have over tanks is visiblity, currently the most effective way for a tank commander to gauge the field is still to pop his head out the top and take a look at the situation, which both poses an obvious risk to the commander and slows down the tanks reaction to new threats. Mechs, with their increased mobility, would easily overcome this.\
However, I'm not sure where you're getting the 'mechs are cheaper' part from. Maybe they do take up less fuel, and maybe they are easier to produce (I doubt it), but they certainly would be harder to maintain and keep in optimum condition than tanks (which are already a hassle to keep running even with a skilled crew).
Avatar 720 wrote:What happens when your mech meets a steep incline?
It starts to walk up
There is still the issue that anything on legs will generally be slower than most things on tracks.
But quite possibly go into terrain Treads couldn't.
Doubt it. What kind of terrain can treads not operate in? Extremely rough maybe rocky terrain? How exactly is a giant robot going to have any easier time without feet so small that it sinks into the ground under its own weight/can't maintain its own balance? Swamps? It will just sink into the mud faster than a tank would with poor weight distribution. Mech's as far as their deployment possibilities are concerned face the exact same limitations as a tank. They offer no advantage, and their poorer weight distribution and increased vulnerability to fire in almost any environment are huge disadvantages.
Power armor answers these problems more effectively than the aforementioned giant robot.
Odins Beard wrote:Not really, tanks and aircraft can't always be used and aren't usefull for everything.
Niether is a mech, except tanks and aircraft have battlefield roles that would make a mech redundant. There's nothing a mech can do that you can't achieve with the other two (aka combined arms warfare).
I'm aware that a tank and aircraft aren't a mech I am a pilot after all, that wasen't really the point of my statement. The point is your talking about mechs as if they're a possible replacment for the roles filled by tanks or aircraft when that isn't their purpose. There are things a mech would do that a tank or aircraft woulden't be able to, so saying that tanks and aircraft could do it better dosen't work because there are some things a tank and aircraft just can't do.
Mechs are as redundant as Lesley McNair's tank destroyers. Can you find a use for them? Probably. But then you realize that they're horribly redundant because their job can be better or equally performed by something else.
Everything in the military has something that could do a specific thing better, that dosen't mean that those that exist are rediculous.
Mechs would provide the heavy support for infantry without being as slow or cumbersome as tanks plus more mobile while being more accurate and accessable then air craft.
Think about that for a bit. A giant robot that has to walk on mechanical legs is never going to be as fast as a tank. It will likely turn slower as well and be more vulnerable to weapons fire. Tanks already give heavy direct fire support to infantry. All a walking robot does is put the tanks on legs that are no where near as effecient as treads.
Based on what? not every mech is absolutly huge and there are a number of examples with a smaller profile then a tank making them smaller targets. And are we talking speed over flat open ground or on elevated unsteady terrain. Tanks are incredibly large targets and are fairly easy to see if you're within range, that's why they try to make up for it by having heavier armor. Unless you're making the assumption that every mech is 20-30 feet tall most mechs that exist today have a smaller profile and would be able to take advantage of cover. And do you ever see tanks climbing steep mountains? do you see tanks fording rivers often? (it's a rhetorical question since tank crews avoid fording rivers as the vehicle has a very low water line before water gets into the engine). If you're talking about relativly flat open ground then of course a tank tread is better. But as I've said a tank cannot always be used.
And the cheaper part isn't true either, it takes alot of money just to fuel tanks and aircraft and it takes alot less to fuel the mechs that are currently being developed.
Think about that one for a lot. Walking is not as energy efficient as using wheels and treads. A walking robot will burn through far more fuel than a tank. Maybe not an aircraft, but aircraft have other significant benefits.
A large portion of mechs that are currently being developed do not run on fossil fuels and again are smaller then tanks so require less fuel to move their bulk.
This is of course ignoring the mechanical complexity of telling a machine how to walk and maintain balance. Mech's would cost more both to construct and maintain.
Says who? do you know the price of a tank or aircraft? do you know the price of future mechs that do;ot even exist? and it actually isn't that hard to tell a machine how to walk and maintain its balance, my highschool robotics team did it both my junior and senior year, if a highschool robotics team can do it then any decent military can as well.
Besides Mechs are supposed to fill the niche between infantry and tanks not replace tanks or aircraft.
Then we aren't talking about the same kind of mech. When people say mech, almost everyone thinks giant robot, which is absurd. And what your talking about isn't really a mech so much as a heavier bulkier power armor, or just power armor. The idea of entire power armor armies seems impractical to me. More likely we'd have standard infantry, and units of heavier infantry in power armor who do just what you're talking about.
No I am talking about a mech, I am talking about a large mechanical suit with a cockpit for a pilot not a power armored soldier. Just because people think "a giant robot" does not mean that when a combat mech is created it's going to be 2 stories tall and able to crush buildings. Engineering has come a long way and if the U.S army is developing mech suits for combat I highly doubt it's redundant.
The mech is not ment to replace a tank or an aircraft so saying they could do anything a mech could do better is an unfair compareson since they aren't ment to perform the same roles. It's also untrue simply because there are things that a mech could do that tanks and aircraft can't do at all. Since not every mech would be some huge lumbering tank they would be less expensive to make due to a lesser amount of materials, it would be less expensive to train one mech pilot then it would be to train an entire tank or aircraft crew. The mech can opperate in situations and terrain that a tank and aircraft can't and unless you think the advances made by modern science woulden't be used in a mech then the mech woulden't be some slow walker that can only move on flat terrain and has slow reflexes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I suggest looking up the BIGDOG robot program. It's a mechanical mule being developed for the army that can walk up and down hills to a set incline, over ice and pebbles, is able to catch itself should it start to fall and move independant of an opperator. If all of this is available in a robot designed to carry gear for soldiers in rough terrain it would be in a mech. Plain and simple there are things that Mechs and Aircraft simply cannot do and places they cannot go.
All this aside if the U.S Army is researching Mechs (which they are) they obviously aren't redundant and they obviously have more use then what LordofHats believes or else the army woulden't be doing it. And given modern science plus the amount of resources that the U.S army has at its exposal mech suits would not be deployed as clumsy, lumbering behemoths that stick out like a sore thumb. To avoid this becoming a huge debate on the usefullness and practicality of mechs I think we should just agree to disagree.
The effect on the enemy moral is probably one of the things I would really see as an advantage for the Mech. It's easier to hit because of its higher profile - a mech with a profile as low as a tank is more like a Tau battlesuit, so it doesn't really count as a Mech IMHO.
If there was a 4-5m tall Mech that could actually withstand all the fire that was directed at it and proceed to rake the enemy lines with explosive minigun fire while stomping forward and the commander's voice booming distorted out of amplifiers...yeah, that would really make people run.
The question is: Who really wants to invent a terror weapon? Who can justify such a thing in front of the global community? You need terror to suppress people...inventing huge scary overlord-y war machines doesn't really say "We are a friendly nation seeking peaceful solutions first!", which should be kinda the basic thing for today's political climate.
The last faction that would've loved Mechs was probably the Third Reich.
Odins Beard wrote:I'm aware that a tank and aircraft aren't a mech I am a pilot after all, that wasen't really the point of my statement. The point is your talking about mechs as if they're a possible replacment for the roles filled by tanks or aircraft when that isn't their purpose. There are things a mech would do that a tank or aircraft woulden't be able to, so saying that tanks and aircraft could do it better dosen't work because there are some things a tank and aircraft just can't do.
No I'm not talking about mech's replacing aircraft/tanks. I'm talking about the existence of aircrafts and tanks making mech's pointless. What does the mech offer that these two systems cannot?
Everything in the military has something that could do a specific thing better, that dosen't mean that those that exist are rediculous.
The military develops weapons to do things that it needs done. Adding a big robot to the list adds nothing that the military isn't already capable of. It is redundant because it adds nothing.
Based on what? not every mech is absolutly huge and there are a number of examples with a smaller profile then a tank making them smaller targets. And are we talking speed over flat open ground or on elevated unsteady terrain.
Like I already said, we seem to be talking about two different things. I'm thinking giant robot. You're thinking something on a smaller scale and that isn't a mech.
Says who? do you know the price of a tank or aircraft?
It's public information.
Do you know the price of future mechs that don't even exist?
Let's see, we can make a tank. Or we can make a tank and then put it on legs. It's pretty obvious what will cost more, not even considering the difficulty of maintaining giant robotic legs.
it actually isn't that hard to tell a machine how to walk and maintain its balance, my highschool robotics team did it both my junior and senior year, if a highschool robotics team can do it then any decent military can as well.
High school robotics teams aren't teaching their robots to maintain balance while firing weapons and being hit by projectiles. How fast did those robots go by the way? I've seen ASIMO. He's not a particularly fast character. I could knock him over with a well sized rock.
No I am talking about a mech, I am talking about a large mechanical suit with a cockpit for a pilot not a power armored soldier.
Learn your terminology. That's power armor. Not a mech. Mech's are by their own definition giant robots. I know some people think power armor is limited to some guy in a suit of armor, but the term as it was introduced by Heinlein is more expansive and more practical. Iron Man's armor is a little too fantastical. The suits as seen in Ghost in the Shell are more line with what we're likely to see in the future.
I suggest looking up the BIGDOG robot program. It's a mechanical mule being developed for the army that can walk up and down hills to a set incline, over ice and pebbles, is able to catch itself should it start to fall and move independant of an opperator.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't make a capable or practical weapon system.
If all of this is available in a robot designed to carry gear for soldiers in rough terrain it would be in a mech.
That would be a robot rather than a mech, a word that means giant robot with a person inside. The size comes with the term. You don't get to hand wave it away.
All this aside if the U.S Army is researching Mechs (which they are) they obviously aren't redundant and they obviously have more use then what LordofHats believes or else the army woulden't be doing it.
Yeah. That's why we spent millions developing a fully redundant tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or that completely useful (that's sarcasm) 747 with a laser beam in it for shooting down missiles. Just because you're researching something doesn't make it useful. It just means your researching it.
And given modern science plus the amount of resources that the U.S army has at its exposal mech suits would not be deployed as clumsy, lumbering behemoths that stick out like a sore thumb.
I already pointed out we're talking two different kinds of things. You're simply broading the word 'mech' to refer to any robot/mechanical suit under the sun. The word has a meaning. You're using it wrong.
@Witzkatz: Really, modern tank armour withstands a heck of a lot of punishment. As I've already said it's mines that pose the greatest threats to tanks and same would go for mechs. In fact it would be worse becuase of the instability of being on two legs. On the other hand, Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, which is where tanks can particularily flounder.
I doubt they'd be used (or at least portrayed) primarily as a terror weapon, but the effect on enemy morale isn't going to be disregarded by any competent commander.
I'm sure no Mech pilot could resist the temptation to paint a huge grinning tooth-filled maw on his Mech, like they do on planes. That's where it starts!
Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
...I can see the first squadron of Mechs deployed and, after their inital victories, going "WE'RE GOING TO FETHING STOMP ALL YOU PUNY MOTHERFETHERS! FETH YEEEAAAAHHH!"
...and then getting hit by a well-aimed AT missile when they're too busy posing around.
Odins Beard wrote:A large portion of mechs that are currently being developed do not run on fossil fuels and again are smaller then tanks so require less fuel to move their bulk.
Consider what a mech actually is - it's a weapons platform that walks rather than using tracks or wheels, yeah?
Now think about the advantage you listed - not operating on fossil fuels and being smaller than a tank.
Now think about what that advantage actually is, and how it really has nothing to do with tracks or legs. Do you see the issue, now?
Any advantage like 'smaller' or 'doesn't use fossil fuels' can easily be attached to a tracked or wheeled platform as easily as it can to a legged weapons platform.
To actually give an advantage to mechs, you have to give a reason that legs are better than wheels or tracks, sufficient to over come the disadvantage of being slower and having a raised profile.
Says who? do you know the price of a tank or aircraft? do you know the price of future mechs that do;ot even exist? and it actually isn't that hard to tell a machine how to walk and maintain its balance, my highschool robotics team did it both my junior and senior year, if a highschool robotics team can do it then any decent military can as well.
The number of joints and moving parts needed to have legged motion is simply greater than the number of moving parts needed to make a wheel go around. You can't escape this.
All this aside if the U.S Army is researching Mechs (which they are)
I've not seen a single combat oriented research program. Perhaps you'd like to provide links.
I'm serious. Bolos. Not only the most badass tanks evar, but programmed for loyalty, duty, and the preservation of human life. I mean, when you have to start designating your vehicles as Planetary Siege Units and measuring their weapon outputs in Megatons per second, look out.
The closest we have to power armor right now to my knowledge are powered exoskeletons, but I think all the projects related have been more exploratory than looking for a practical system (military wise, I think some guy was trying to market an exoskeleton a few years ago as a search and rescue device). True power armor is a ways off due to costs, mechanical complexity, and probably issues of energy generation.
Witzkatz wrote:I'm sure no Mech pilot could resist the temptation to paint a huge grinning tooth-filled maw on his Mech, like they do on planes. That's where it starts!
Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
...I can see the first squadron of Mechs deployed and, after their inital victories, going "WE'RE GOING TO FETHING STOMP ALL YOU PUNY MOTHERFETHERS! FETH YEEEAAAAHHH!"
...and then getting hit by a well-aimed AT missile when they're too busy posing around.
Apart from any inevitable joyriding grunts may get up to at base camp I'd well imagine that the Mechs would be assigned to competent individuals, possibly only to officers or someone with at least more than a single year of training/experience.
As for the issue you've raised about being damn tall, I think that (everything else notwithstanding) Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, or at least would be far more effective than any conventional wheel on tracks. When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon) than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
Emperors Faithful wrote: When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon)
Until the fact that you have a taller profile has them shooting from below you, maybe blowing up one of those vital legs.
than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
When you're gun is a 120mm smooth bore all you really need to know is what general direction to point the gun in, especially in urban environments where range is less of an issue. A tank would supposedly be supported by/supporting infantry, who can help screen it, which is another area where the mech falls on its face. It's legs won't provide as much cover for the supporting infantry as the hull of the tank, and the vehicle itself is just more exposed to fire because of its taller profile.
Emperors Faithful wrote: When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon)
Until the fact that you have a taller profile has them shooting from below you, maybe blowing up one of those vital legs.
I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
When you're gun is a 120mm smooth bore all you really need to know is what general direction to point the gun in, especially in urban environments where range is less of an issue.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
A tank would supposedly be supported by/supporting infantry, who can help screen it, which is another area where the mech falls on its face. It's legs won't provide as much cover for the supporting infantry as the hull of the tank, and the vehicle itself is just more exposed to fire because of its taller profile.
The lack of supporting cover is a damn good point....power armour?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
A tank of equivalent technological level would likely be more well armored since it doesn't have to worry about standing with its weight on legs.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
The indiscriminate firing of big guns isn't what I was getting at. You don't need to know exactly where a threat is when you have a canon and a foot of armor between you and them. Really you just need to know generally where they are and the gun will likely stop them from firing for a time even if it doesn't kill them. Infantry can spot if a tank commander cannot, and it's a big if assuming that the mech would be capable of doing this better than the tank while lacking the supporting nature infantry and tanks have.
Mech's are an oddball in this manner in combined arms. They provide nothing and have little synergy with other systems.
I disagree on mobility. I don't think artificial legs will be able to turn as quickly as treads. The only advantage is a higher angle of view, which may mean nothing in many situations. The real threat is from the side or the read, where the mech has all the weaknesses of a tank (maybe even worse since legs are a huge vulnerability) and will need infantry to screen for it without the cover a tank can provide them. A mech is also a much harder vehicle to hide than a tank and I really think the mobility issue is a massive myth that gets blown out of proportion. It's a a walking tank. I find it highly unlikely it will be able to move faster than a tank will. Even if it could, the very cost of maintaining and building it may make too cost inefficient.
The lack of supporting cover is a damn good point....power armour?
As I noted earlier, power armor while very useful, is like any other weapon. A counter comes out eventually. I don't see powered armor infantry filling this role in combat. They would be better as an assault group, as their bulk will make it harder for them to take cover, they will rely on the armor to shield them and tanks for direct fire support and normal infantry for bulk and screening. The tank still provides them with thicker interm cover if they need it compared to the mech. Really gonna depend on how bulky the power armor will be. We may never know till it's actually developed.
I think one of the oddities of power armor (and I suppose mechs too, and lasers and other fancy theoretical weapons) as a weapon system is that it doesn't even exist yet and there are people theorizing how it could be applied to combat. I'm unsure if that's ever happened before
And didn't we have a massive thread on tanks vs. mechs just a few weeks ago? And didn't we agree that mechs, while cool, could only exist as specialized units for very rare situations, since tanks helicopters and other things could do their same job better 99% of the time any way?
I'm also pretty sure that we agreed morale wouldn't be that big an issue. if you're fighting a professional army, sure they may be scared at first...but once they see the mech go down to a couple well placed Javelins, or had an A-10 shoot the gak out of it it suddenly won't be so scary.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
But we are. We're much more terrified about things that will actual kill us than things that look impressive. Which is why our weapons platforms are all dedicated to be utterly lethal, as we know that scariness comes along with that.
As for the issue you've raised about being damn tall, I think that (everything else notwithstanding) Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, or at least would be far more effective than any conventional wheel on tracks. When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon) than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
Why would the mech have any less visibility issues than a tank? It'd still be one or more guys in a tin can trying to look out of vision slits and mounted cameras.
As for height... make a taller tank. You'd bypass the problems of legs (slow, complicated) and still get the apparent advantage of height in an urban environment. And I'm guessing right now you're thinking "a tall tank is a terrible idea, you'd have to cover the whole thing in armour, making it incredibly heavy, and for a marginal benefit at best."
Well yeah, that's right, and it's exactly why a big mech is also really impractical.
I think one of the oddities of power armor (and I suppose mechs too, and lasers and other fancy theoretical weapons) as a weapon system is that it doesn't even exist yet and there are people theorizing how it could be applied to combat. I'm unsure if that's ever happened before
Read H.G. Wells' The War In The Air. Be enlightened.
On the topic of mechs, I find it best summed up by a buddy of mine from a design forum I frequent. Warning, TL;DR ahead.
Spoiler:
What it is First off, let's make sure we're all on the same page. A "Mecha" is any sort of large robot articulated in a manner similar to a human being. It is generally excessively large and powerful compared to other war machines in whatever given story it's in. It includes Mobile Suits, Mecha, "Megadeus," Power Armor of a size significantly larger than a standard human, transformers of ANY kind, Veri-Tech, Gundams, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.
Please note that "Power Armor" of a very small size (2 meters or so max height) can, in certain circumstances, be feasible.
Why it is an Abomination Before Man and Darwin Armor Inclination Armor designers are smart. Besides recognizing the awesomeness of ye olde box (more below in Surface Area/Volume), they realized that by inclining armor, you can increase the protection it affords through partially deflecting the shot's energy. "Sloped armor" gives modern tanks a HUGE boost in protection, and is much of the reason front armor seems so much stronger than side and back armor. (the other is thickness, but that's pedantic)
Mecha, however, must have armor over their bodies to survive. (otherwise AK-47s would gun them down) Due to their complex forms, you've got to cover their surface area with armor, and can't get away with sloping. A flat chest-plate doesn't slope, it takes shots head-on. A tube of armor for an arm might deflect if it gets grazed, but a direct hit will be a direct hit. Mecha cannot allow for sufficient armor inclination, therefore require a LOT of armor, more than ground pressure can support. (see below)
Articulation Penalties Delicate things don't want to bend. Human body parts don't want a joint in the middle of a bone. Therefore, a mecha must be of a similar size to a human (doable-ish) or of such a size that a person doesn't get bent. Thusly, the person must fit entirely in the "chest"/"head," with all of their associated controls. Additionally, there is a lot of hydraulic power required to work all of these joints. Foot, knee, hip, "toe" (for stability), waist (for traverse), shoulder, elbow, wrist, gripper, "neck" (if you so choose), that's a huge hydraulic system. (hydraulic because nothing else can transfer the power necessary) That also means a lot of volume taken up by the joint systems, hydraulic control systems, gyroscopes to keep everything stable, and sensors to make sure you don't fall over. A tank doesn't need much compared.
Power Source You have to power all of your arms, legs, electronics, and weaponry. It also has to be light enough to be supported by the hydraulics in the legs of your vehicle. Unless you can do fusion without the shielding, it ain't happening.
Recoil and Weaponry Tanks and other vehicles have an easy time bracing against recoil, and weapons are mounted relatively balanced in their turrets. Mecha require bracing (just like humans when the brace to throw), which represents a time penalty. Also, most incarnations have weaponry on the arms, which have TERRIBLE leverage and must be able to lock in a manner to allow recoil to reach the rest of the body. (not rip off the arm)
Surface Area/Volume In ancient times, the Roman army had a minimum set size for its independent military formations. The reason for this is that they wanted to have an effective perimeter around their camps using only a smallish percentage of the total troops. That way, daytime combat effectiveness was not reduced by nighttime vigilance. This is made possible because a circle's volume scales with the square of the radius, so perimeter increased much less rapidly than defended camp space, so large camps rocked.
The circle, and it's three dimensional analogue the sphere, are the most efficient shapes in ratio of perimeter to area or surface area to volume. This is geometric fact. Any step taken away from these shapes represents more perimeter/surface to area/volume.
The human body (a reasonable approximation for a mech) has ~1.8 square meters of skin.* With a density of around 1g/cm^3, and an average weight of ~80kg, so about .08m^3 of volume. That's an area:volume ratio of 22.5.
Now, a standard armored vehicle is a glorified box with a funny box on top. This results in the ratio of area to volume of about 2(LW+LH+WH)/(LWH) for a box. (For a cube, this reduces down to 6/L for sides length L) That's not bad, and it means that it can be easily armored and filled with things. So if we look at an area of 1.8 square meters, this results in a volume of (.6)^3/2=~.47. This means a box has five times the volume of a human for a given area at this scale. That's a SERIOUS performance hit.
Also note that the box is of dimensions ~77 cm to a side, much lower profile, and therefore much better in terms of stealth.
Ground Pressure As a side note to the above, the box in question has an area of .6m^2. An armored vehicle probably has 15% of its area in treads, so ~.09m^2. A human foot (mine, since I can't find good internet sources) is ~.02 m^2. (shoe size 10 4E) You can see the math at this scale giving armored vehicle shapes an excessive advantage already, and it gets worse.
What Should I Build Instead? Tanks. IFVs. SPGs. Airplanes. Actual feasible vehicles. Convention is convention not because we're too lazy to experiment, it's convention because it WORKS and is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
ADDENDUM FOR "NON-HUMANOID" MECHA Some folks are believeing that if it doesn't look like a human, it doesn't fall victim to any of the aboved. So, let's step through the worst of them: "legged tanks," and tracked articulated vehicles.
Legged Tanks This topic coveres many of what most consider to be the more sane mecha designs. The specific image you should have in your mind may vary, but you're looking at everything from modified RL logging machines to the AT-PT. The basic concept is simple: humanoid mecha are unspeakably bad, so we can't even begin to justify them, but what if we just took a tank and jacked it up on legs? Designs from two or four legs to numerous have been suggested, all suffer the same issues as standard mecha to varying degrees.
The weight of the tank must be kept to an absolute minimum, as you continue to have to support the weight of the vehicle on the hydraulic system. The alternative is to support the weight on the metal structure of the leg, but this limits you to mostly 4 legged systems at a "walking" pace. Not good. Low weight means low armor means vulnerability to .50 caliber and 20 millimeter anti-tank rifles.
Ground pressure remains a massive issue. While you might be able to claim that you can use "large footpads," your vehicle must be able to actually lift these pads and put them back down at a respectable speed. Large pads mean more leg strength requried, means more hydraulic power/engine volume, which means more weight and a disadvantageous propulsion mass fraction. Good luck with that.
Balance also remains an issue. You basically need a flight computer to keep a dynamic leg system upright, and let's not even begin to talk about recoil management. By Darwin, you're adding a Mega Newton to the side of the tank at an odd angle, what do you expect? Forget about fire-on-the-move, you're going to find yourself bracing yet again, and not as well or as effectively as the S-tank. (in b4 BUT STANK DOEZ IT1111)
Finally, remember shiloette. This is important for tanks, recall the S-tank my friends. And since you're low mass due to above considerations, your armor is hilariously low. It's so low that small arms fire can chew the hell out of your massive hydraulic system, which is the only thing that propels you.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES EXIST SO LONG AS YOU HAVE LEGS. YOU CAN NOT ERASE ANY OF THESE SO LONG AS YOU HAVE LEGS. THE ANSWER IS TO ERASE LEGS IN ALL FORMS. BURN THEM WITH FIRE. Basically, legged tanks don't actually get rid of /any/ problems. They reducea few (namely armored shape and the elimination of arms provides slightly saner recoil management), but no single problem listed in the above discussions of humanoid mecha is reduced remotely enough to be useful.
Tracked Articulated Vehicles I don't have a good name for them, so this will do. Legs are bad, m'kay? But.... What do you get when you bolt the torso, arms, and head of a mecha onto a tank chasis? You get a massive lightly armored shiloette with recoil issues. This should speak for itself.
Animal-Like Vehicles You should feel dirty for thinking of these. Suggesting that these are reasonable combat vehicles is grounds for grave bodily injury as per the Munchy ordinances of right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for what I actually want, gimme teraports plox.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
Then take that advanced armour and put in on a tank of the future. There's less surface area, and much less surface area at the front of the tank, allowing you to really secure the unit.
That's the thing about tanks have much less armour on the top, it isn't something inherent in tank designs, it's because tanks can expect to receive most hits to the front armour, so designers increase the armour there considerably. They then save on weight by putting less armour on the parts of the tank that aren't going to get as exposed to fire.
Well the front of mech isn't a few square metres like it is on a tank. It's an area that's probably going to be greater than the top of the tank, and so providing it with equivalent armour would be impossible. The end result is that you couldn't spread armour across that area like you could on a tank.
Which means when dudes hiding in buildings were about to attack they wouldn't even have to bother with getting a shot in on the weaker top armour like they would with a tank, because the mecha has so much surface area the whole thing would be armoured like the top of a tank.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
But legs aren't any more mobile than wheels. Nor do they have greater visibility.
Odins Beard wrote:I'm aware that a tank and aircraft aren't a mech I am a pilot after all, that wasen't really the point of my statement. The point is your talking about mechs as if they're a possible replacment for the roles filled by tanks or aircraft when that isn't their purpose. There are things a mech would do that a tank or aircraft woulden't be able to, so saying that tanks and aircraft could do it better dosen't work because there are some things a tank and aircraft just can't do.
No I'm not talking about mech's replacing aircraft/tanks. I'm talking about the existence of aircrafts and tanks making mech's pointless. What does the mech offer that these two systems cannot?
Ok since you obviously don't feel like listening to my request of just agreeing to dissagree so the thread can move on let's continue this argument that's going to go nowhere and stop the thread from carrying on.
The fact that a tank cannot go everywhere and neither can a helicopter and so cannot provide support to ground troops in all locations and all situations is where the Mech comes into use. As you've said yourself a Mech is a giant robot, but it is also a giant robot with a cockpit that is either partially or entirely slaved to the motion of its pilot. Now since there is the technology to create robotics which can opperate in rough terrain as well as correct themselves when over balanced this can be and most likely would be upscaled and applied to a Mech which means a Mech can go where a tank cannot.
So let's create a battle scenario, this is something we are taught when you're actually a soldier in the military like I am. Let's say U.S Marines are fighting against an enemy force in mountainous terrain that has a thick forrest canopy. Tanks cannot move in this terrain and so aren't usefull, at all. Then there is the added risk that with the dense folliage not only does the tank not have the clear fields of fire it needs (since tanks are long range mobile weapons platforms) it's also more at risk of
A. either having it's treads fouled by the undergrowth and yes it can happen, I know this because someone I went through BT with is a gunnery technitian in a tank crew.
or
B. having an enemy soldier approach through the growth with a detonation device since again the tank is intended as a long range weapons platform. So since the tank has limited mobility in this terrain, does not have the proper range or lines of sight needed and is at a greater risk for damage it is useless and woulden't even be deployed.
Aircraft are not given clearance to engage enemy units in this type of terrain unless they are out in the open because even if the enemy is tagged with a laser or smoke the risk of hitting friendly forces is to high. Explosives such as dropped bombs and rockets are not allowed either in that 1 they may detonate on a tree before reaching the enemy and 2 the resulting explosion could lead to a forest fire which is dangerous to friendly troops. So as with the tank aircraft are useless.
This is where the Mech would come into use, it is more mobile then a tank and so can navigate the mountainous terrain and given that it is below the forest canopy is more accurate then any aircraft would be in that it can actually draw line of sight to the target. So the Mech can provide heavy fire support to infantry squads where tanks and aircraft are absolutly useless. And since the armed forces tend to develop their vehicles and weapons to be highly specialised for what they do any situation where tanks and aircraft are not available or usefull would be a situation where the Mech is.
Let's do another battle scenario, the 2 opposing forces are fighting in a major city let's say Tokyo. While a tank is able to travel down the streets with ease it is extremly vulnerable in that enemy forces can hide in any building on almost any level and be able to damage it. While tanks are created to have heavy armor their track units are almost always vulnerable. As with fighting in dense terrain the line of sight of the tank is going to be incredibly dampened and again it dosen't have the range that it is intended to which means it will most likely have to rely on its secondary weapons which negates it's use as a heavy weapons vehicle. It is also very easy to trap a tank in an urban environment.
Aircraft would be of very little use in that their line of sight is blocked by buildings and helicopters are at a high risk for the same reasons as tanks with the addition of the fact that urban obstructions such as power lines or even the proximity of buildings can foul a helicopters blades causing a crash.
So since aircraft of any kind are pretty much useless in this scenario and tanks are at a diminished effectivness at the most Mechs would be the best heavy weapons support option. Given modern robotics which would be applied to the Mech it would be able to react faster then a tank, be more manuverable then a tank and woulden't be at a diminished usefullness it that it's main weapon woulden't rely on range.
Both of these battles are taken directly from Army training scenarios covered by tank and aircraft crews respectfully and are based off of the Army and Airforce threat response protocals. And those aren't even the scenarios that include SAM sites or against enemies specifically armed with anti aircraft or anti armor weaponry.
Everything in the military has something that could do a specific thing better, that dosen't mean that those that exist are rediculous.
The military develops weapons to do things that it needs done. Adding a big robot to the list adds nothing that the military isn't already capable of. It is redundant because it adds nothing.
You missed the point of what I said entirely, in flat open ground over long distances a tank is always going to be the better choice because that is what it's designed for and so no they woulden't use a Mech. In appropriate terrain and situations a helicopter can provide the best support with both machine gun and rocket payloads because it's what it's designed for so again they woulden't use a Mech. But as I have said before Tanks and Aircraft CANNOT always be used. There are situations when a Mech would be better and it is those situations when either a tank or a form of aircraft are useless, so no a tank and aircraft cannot do everything a Mech could do and they cannot do it better because the Mech would be designed to do things the other 2 can't. That is coming to you directly from a Warrant Officer Aviation Specialist and a Gunnery Seargent Tank Specialist.
Based on what? not every mech is absolutly huge and there are a number of examples with a smaller profile then a tank making them smaller targets. And are we talking speed over flat open ground or on elevated unsteady terrain.
Like I already said, we seem to be talking about two different things. I'm thinking giant robot. You're thinking something on a smaller scale and that isn't a mech.
No we are not talking about 2 differant things, you seem to believe that a Mech has to be absolutly huge to function at all and yet the mech that I said I would like to see made real which is also the most realistic given the level of todays technology which it was based off of is only 16 feet tall.
Says who? do you know the price of a tank or aircraft?
It's public information.
Then provide it because I can tell you right now there are quiet a few things in the military that the public does not have access to when it comes to the cost of making.
Do you know the price of future mechs that don't even exist?
Let's see, we can make a tank. Or we can make a tank and then put it on legs. It's pretty obvious what will cost more, not even considering the difficulty of maintaining giant robotic legs.
You say that you wern't talking about a Mech being a replacment for a tank yet you keep insisting that it's a tank on legs. Heavy weapons support does not intell that something is a tank, a Mech suit would not be created to fill the same roll as a tank and so a Mech would not be a tank on legs. You have absolutly no clue how much it would cost to develop a combat Mech and I'm sure there are very people who do. So saying it would cost more then a tank isn't even accurate.
it actually isn't that hard to tell a machine how to walk and maintain its balance, my highschool robotics team did it both my junior and senior year, if a highschool robotics team can do it then any decent military can as well.
High school robotics teams aren't teaching their robots to maintain balance while firing weapons and being hit by projectiles. How fast did those robots go by the way? I've seen ASIMO. He's not a particularly fast character. I could knock him over with a well sized rock.
Again you seem to have missed the point, you commented on the difficulty of getting a machine to walk and maintain its balance as if it would be incredibly hard for a military to do and maintain. But beings as Highschool students can and have done it the military would be able to do it and do it better, including recoil absorbtion and I'm sure battle damage resistance. Now comparing a robot that's what 4 feet tall? with a fairly small gait to a 16 foot tall Mech with a much larger gait dosen't help your case, neither does saying you could knowck down a fairly small robot as if you would be able to do the same thing to a Mech.
No I am talking about a mech, I am talking about a large mechanical suit with a cockpit for a pilot not a power armored soldier.
Learn your terminology. That's power armor. Not a mech. Mech's are by their own definition giant robots. I know some people think power armor is limited to some guy in a suit of armor, but the term as it was introduced by Heinlein is more expansive and more practical. Iron Man's armor is a little too fantastical. The suits as seen in Ghost in the Shell are more line with what we're likely to see in the future.
You're the one who needs to know your terminology. I said a Mech is a giant mechanical suit with a pilot, you said that's Power Armor and that a Mech is a giant robot with a pilot. Yet you seem to be forgetting that Exoskeletons, Mechs and Power Armor ARE ALL MECHANICAL so what I said is the same exact thing. A Mech is a large anthromorphic robot (robots are mechanical BTW) controled by a pilot who is seated in either a cockpit or cabin, the suit itself is powered by a source other then the pilot in that the pilot dosen't have to actually walk for the suit to walk. Power Armor is a mechanical suit that fits the wearer and enhances their abilities but is moved by the pilots own power, so the wearer has to actually start walking in order for the suit to move. The Mech is more akin to a vehicle in that it moves under its own power but is controlled by another, Power Armor could not move unless the person inside it actually moved.
I suggest looking up the BIGDOG robot program. It's a mechanical mule being developed for the army that can walk up and down hills to a set incline, over ice and pebbles, is able to catch itself should it start to fall and move independant of an opperator.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't make a capable or practical weapon system.
Another missed point, it's simple logic to figure out that the Army would use the balancing and rough terrain technology and robotics in BIGDOG when creating a Mech. Since BIGDOG is specifically designed to function in rough terrain where other means of carrying equiptment would fail it is an excellent starting point when developing a Mech because it's walking nature makes it more suited for rough terrain then other vehicles that cannot opperate there.
If all of this is available in a robot designed to carry gear for soldiers in rough terrain it would be in a mech.
That would be a robot rather than a mech, a word that means giant robot with a person inside. The size comes with the term. You don't get to hand wave it away.
I'm sorry but this is getting rediculous. My statement is saying in plain english that if the technology for rough terrain movement and balance correction is present in a simple robot designed to carry heavy equiptment then the same technology would be present in a Mech. Nothing in the statement says that the robot is a Mech, it says "it would be in a Mech".
All this aside if the U.S Army is researching Mechs (which they are) they obviously aren't redundant and they obviously have more use then what LordofHats believes or else the army woulden't be doing it.
Yeah. That's why we spent millions developing a fully redundant tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or that completely useful (that's sarcasm) 747 with a laser beam in it for shooting down missiles. Just because you're researching something doesn't make it useful. It just means your researching it.
Ah yes so LordofHats knows more then the military minds whose careers center around war and fighting it. What's funny is that's somethings usefullness is determined by those who use it and look back on it in retrospect. You say that anything a Mech could do an aircraft or tank could do better, well no offence but that shows just how much you know about the military and how it uses its tanks and aircraft or how it uses any of its assets for that matter.
If the Army is researching something it's because they believe they would have a use for it, which also means that the strategic thinkers who actually get paid to develop things like this have an idea as for what the Mech could be used for which means that it could be usefull. Believe it or not the Army actually knows what they're doing and if they didn't have a use for it they woulden't even be researching it, and that's regardless of your insight or opinion.
And given modern science plus the amount of resources that the U.S army has at its exposal mech suits would not be deployed as clumsy, lumbering behemoths that stick out like a sore thumb.
I already pointed out we're talking two different kinds of things. You're simply broading the word 'mech' to refer to any robot/mechanical suit under the sun. The word has a meaning. You're using it wrong.
Could you try and act a little more condacending, or how bout a little more assumption as to what my actions, motives and thoughts are. Believe it or not you are not all knowing god and you don't even know what Power Armor is when you play a game with probably the most well known Power Armored figures as its main heroes. I know exactly what a Mech is and I know exactly what Power Armor is, you on the other hand seem confuse the 2 often and since you also seem to enjoy talking to someone as if they are less intelligent then you so this "debate" is done.
Laughing Man wrote:Read H.G. Wells' The War In The Air. Be enlightened.
H.G. Wells also predicted the coming of armored vehicles and modern artillery. The difference is that I don't think many people gave Wells much thought about these weapons when he wrote about them, only after they had actually been used in combat. The guy who thought up the tank didn't think it up because he read The Land Ironclads (he thought it up 20 years before Wells even wrote the story) and they guys who employed tanks in WWI probably hadn't thought much of it either. The Wright brother's flew before The War in the Air was written (if anything the War in the Air was inspired by the first flight seeing as it's about a bicycle engineer...). In most cases, something is invented, and then people start thinking about how to use it.
Maybe Wells has an influence though on why today actual thought goes into some of these fictional devices
@Everyone: Now I know that I've just added to it but I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
Odins Beard wrote:Now that being said, I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
Dude, you were the first one to try and claim that mecha were practical. You can't start that, give a big response then threaten to report anyone who responds.
Seriously, conversations don't start and stop because you want them to. Despite the rumours you might have heard, we are not in fact performing monkeys for your pleasure.
AvatarForm wrote:
OT - Stargate, space/time travel... imagine being able to prevent certain events in History... like Ghengis Khan... or the discovery of nuclear power.
That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate? What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him? If nuclear power had never been discovered, what about the families of the million allied service men who would have died storming the Home Islands? What about the millions upon millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have either been thrown into battle as conscripts by their government, or slowly starved to death as American bombers unleashed chemical weapons upon the Japanese rice crop?
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
As to Odins Beard, if the enemy have AT weapons powerful enough to bring down a tank, they'll be powerful enough to bring down a mech, simple as that. Even a 16 foot tall mech will be no more difficult (and probably easier) to target with AT weapons, and due to the weight limitations posed on it by being a mech it'll have lighter armour than the equivalent tank. And unless you can provide counter information as to the cost of tanks and aircraft that somehow makes them much, MUCH more expensive than the public knows we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the point stands that for the cost of a mech, you could have more tanks.
Even in an urban scenario, I'd prefer having more tanks than mechs. At least the way to use tanks in urban scenarios is well known. You also make the assumption that simply because the military is the military, their mechs will have hightened battle resistance, while you provide no evidence to that. Show us the Army development for mechs that can take more punishment than a M1A1 and we'll believe you. Not to mention things don't always scale up perfectly...just because Big Dog can work well in rough terrain does not mean a 16 foot tall mech would be able to do the same.
I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
ChrisWWII wrote:That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate?
Well, I'd be in the past and I'd have power armour and a laser gun, so I reckon I could give it a crack
What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him?
I reckon I could destroy it with no more than 50 men with AK-47s
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
If it was worse, I'd just go back with a different future weapon and have fun changing it again.
Odins Beard wrote:Now that being said, I would appreciate it if the discussion about the usefullness of Mechs would stop. It isn't the purpose of this thread and if someone wants to create a seperate thread discussing it they are more then welcome to. I myself won't be responding to any more responses concerning the usefullness of Mechs as I believe I've said what I've had to say on the matter but if I see any I'll be reporting them. I apologise if this comes across wrong but this just isn't the purpose I had in mind for this thread and it's getting too off tack for my tastes.
Dude, you were the first one to try and claim that mecha were practical. You can't start that, give a big response then threaten to report anyone who responds.
Seriously, conversations don't start and stop because you want them to. Despite the rumours you might have heard, we are not in fact performing monkeys for your pleasure.
So stop that gak right now.
Yes I did start by saying they're practical but I didn't expect it to take over the entire thread which is why I have asked for the topic to get back on track. If you don't like it I'm sorry but I will report any post that discusses it further
Go ahead, I doubt the mods will start deleting posts for an OT discussion just because the OP doesn't like it. I'm not sure what it's like on other forums you've been on, but on dakka the OP is not the dictator of his thread.
Odins Beard wrote:Ok since you obviously don't feel like listening to my request of just agreeing to dissagree so the thread can move on let's continue this argument that's going to go nowhere and stop the thread from carrying on.
If you really want to agree to disagree it's best to just say that and leave it at that rather than produce a large post that begs response.
So let's create a battle scenario, this is something we are taught when you're actually a soldier in the military like I am.
I'm sorry. I'll just shut up and bow to your obvious authority in all things military.
Battle Scenario 1
How big is this mech that it can move in dense jungle where a tank cannot? Really. You're just misusing the terms. Anyone with significant background in sci-fi will tell you
Battle Scenario 2
Again, size matters. If you're talking something along the lines of being smaller then a tank, then I can agree with you. Problem is that that falls in the category of power armor, not mechs. Really this entire discussion could have been avoided if you'd probably used the term from the start.
No we are not talking about 2 differant things, you seem to believe that a Mech has to be absolutly huge to function at all and yet the mech that I said I would like to see made real which is also the most realistic given the level of todays technology which it was based off of is only 16 feet tall.
And you don't notice any of the serious flaws in a 16 foot robot being employed as a weapon? How will a sixteen foot robot be anymore manuvrable in dense jungle and urban areas than a tank?
Then provide it because I can tell you right now there are quiet a few things in the military that the public does not have access to when it comes to the cost of making.
Look it up yourself. The defense budget is passed every year.
You say that you wern't talking about a Mech being a replacment for a tank yet you keep insisting that it's a tank on legs.
That's essentially what the entire mech concept is. A tank with legs. Really. If you want to argue with me about this, please at least come to a proper understanding of the terminology and its origin. 'Mech' comes from 'Mecha', which is a genre of Japanese fiction about giant robots. The term has an origin and meaning. Power Armor was popularized by Heinlein, exoskeleton developed as a deviation from it, and a giant robot called Gundam from the 70's got everyone to start wondering about Mechs.
Heavy weapons support does not intell that something is a tank, a Mech suit would not be created to fill the same roll as a tank and so a Mech would not be a tank on legs. You have absolutly no clue how much it would cost to develop a combat Mech and I'm sure there are very people who do. So saying it would cost more then a tank isn't even accurate.
I'm fairly confident it would cost more than a tank. Maybe not a jet plane, but definitely more than a tank. A lot more. It's simply the nature of the mechanics. A caterpillar track will cost you less to keep running than a multi-joined leg with the numerous hydrolics and gyro-scopes necessary to walk.
with a fairly small gait to a 16 foot tall Mech with a much larger gait dosen't help your case, neither does saying you could knowck down a fairly small robot as if you would be able to do the same thing to a Mech.
A very high center of gravity. The mechs worst enemy.
You're the one who needs to know your terminology. I said a Mech is a giant mechanical suit with a pilot, you said that's Power Armor and that a Mech is a giant robot with a pilot. Yet you seem to be forgetting that Exoskeletons, Mechs and Power Armor ARE ALL MECHANICAL
So I know the difference between these concepts while you seem to think they're all the same thing and my terminology is wrong? Not really getting that. Not that it matters anymore. 16 feet is definitely in Mech range so we can go back to the concept being horribly in practical.
Another missed point, it's simple logic to figure out that the Army would use the balancing and rough terrain technology and robotics in BIGDOG when creating a Mech.
You're not helping your case by suggesting the military complicate the concept further by making it a quadraped.
Since BIGDOG is specifically designed to function in rough terrain where other means of carrying equiptment would fail it is an excellent starting point when developing a Mech because it's walking nature makes it more suited for rough terrain then other vehicles that cannot opperate there.
And one immediately arrives at the question of where will this resupplying robot be a useful weapon? Just because it has an application in supply, doesn't mean it has an application in fire support.
Ah yes so LordofHats knows more then the military minds whose careers center around war and fighting it.
The failures of Tank Destroyer doctrine are well known and were well known before the doctrine failed. McNair was a bit of a douche about it, and no one really seemed to be paying much attention to the German's who were going tanks fairly right. I'm fairly convinced that silly 747 is just one big science project some congressman cooked up to fund his constituents, which if you look at the defense budget happens all the time. Why on earth that thing would be considered useful is being me.
What's funny is that's somethings usefullness is determined by those who use it and look back on it in retrospect. You say that anything a Mech could do an aircraft or tank could do better, well no offence but that shows just how much you know about the military and how it uses its tanks and aircraft or how it uses any of its assets for that matter.
Cool story brah.
If the Army is researching something it's because they believe they would have a use for it, which also means that the strategic thinkers who actually get paid to develop things like this have an idea as for what the Mech could be used for which means that it could be usefull. Believe it or not the Army actually knows what they're doing and if they didn't have a use for it they woulden't even be researching it, and that's regardless of your insight or opinion.
Not necessarily. Aforementioned budget problems excluded, thinking you can use something, and actually having a real use for it are two different things.
Believe it or not you are not all knowing god and you don't even know what Power Armor is when you play a game with probably the most well known Power Armored figures as its main heroes.
Pfft. I wish I was god. I'd add more colors to the rainbow. It's getting boring with just seven.
I know exactly what a Mech is and I know exactly what Power Armor is, you on the other hand seem confuse the 2 often and since you also seem to enjoy talking to someone as if they are less intelligent then you so this "debate" is done.
ChrisWWII wrote:I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
I ask everyone again for the last time, please refrain from discussing the usefullness of Mechs. It is not the point of the thread and if I had known asking LordofHats what he ment would take the thread so off base I would never have asked
Odins Beard wrote:Yes I did start by saying they're practical but I didn't expect it to take over the entire thread which is why I have asked for the topic to get back on track. If you don't like it I'm sorry but I will report any post that discusses it further
See, if a side discussion gets out of hand, the first thing you do is stop contributing to it. You don't post a small essay explaining why you're right then declare that you'll report anyone who dares respond.
Also, you don't own this thread, and you don't get to decide what is sufficiently on-topic. You certainly don't have any power to report people for daring to post things on that side conversation.
If you really want the "are mechs practical" conversation to go away, start another thread, and ask people to continue the conversation there.
Or you accept that threads can have two or more conversations going on. If people aren't talking about sci-fi equipment, it's because they don't want to. If the other conversation is canned they won't start talking about your favourite topic, they'll just let the thread die.
If you really want to agree to disagree it's best to just say that and leave it at that rather than produce a large post that begs response.
Indeed.
That said both sides have had a chance to provide their version of the theory or event, so those concerned can indeed now agree to disagree and move on, whilst those who wish to continue to discuss mechs can do so. Of course there's very little point in arguing against someone who's not talking about that point anymore, so it'd be best if users kept their responses restricted to those who are still interested in discussing said tangent.
Odins Beard wrote:
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
The sources you cited seem to be either anecdotal, or you simply saying that you have access to information we don't.
I ask everyone again for the last time, please refrain from discussing the usefullness of Mechs. It is not the point of the thread and if I had known asking LordofHats what he ment would take the thread so off base I would never have asked
This isn't your thread, you can't control which way it goes. If we want tot alk about mechs, we are going to talk about mechs whether you like it or not. Honestly, you brought this upon yourself, that giant essay BEGGING to be rebutted, and now you refuse to respond?
ChrisWWII wrote:I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
While being military does grant me access to more information then a civilian would have in no way have I said that what I'm saying is correct simply because I am military. But I am able to draw on my knowledge gained from my time in the military to support what I've said and I have cited my sources. I'm not pulling authority I'm pulling experience.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Assuming that Mechs will be commandeered by a single person, I think officers will really have to work on keeping their men from doing stupid things. Having a five meter tall body of steel? Don't tell me no man would start getting fantasies of godlike-ness. We're not so different from Orks being amazed by Deff Dreads, after all...
But we are. We're much more terrified about things that will actual kill us than things that look impressive. Which is why our weapons platforms are all dedicated to be utterly lethal, as we know that scariness comes along with that.
Er...wasn't me.
As for the issue you've raised about being damn tall, I think that (everything else notwithstanding) Mechs would rock socks in an urban environment, or at least would be far more effective than any conventional wheel on tracks. When people are shooting at you from windows, it much easier to look up and shoot back (with something similar to a LR battlecannon) than to be stuck in a tank trying to figure out where the hell the shooting is coming from and what elevation of the turret is needed.
Why would the mech have any less visibility issues than a tank? It'd still be one or more guys in a tin can trying to look out of vision slits and mounted cameras.
The Mech would be able to pivot and look around...right? I'm not sure what kind of mech you're thinking about. The vision would still be relatively restricted, but not to the extent that tank crew members experience.
As for height... make a taller tank. You'd bypass the problems of legs (slow, complicated) and still get the apparent advantage of height in an urban environment. And I'm guessing right now you're thinking "a tall tank is a terrible idea, you'd have to cover the whole thing in armour, making it incredibly heavy, and for a marginal benefit at best."
Well yeah, that's right, and it's exactly why a big mech is also really impractical.
Fair enough. Though I still really want a Baneblade.
sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm assuming that the armour of the Mech is of similar (if not better) quality when compared to the armour of modern tanks. Which nowadays would make their main worry landmines, not other vehichles.
Then take that advanced armour and put in on a tank of the future. There's less surface area, and much less surface area at the front of the tank, allowing you to really secure the unit.
That's the thing about tanks have much less armour on the top, it isn't something inherent in tank designs, it's because tanks can expect to receive most hits to the front armour, so designers increase the armour there considerably. They then save on weight by putting less armour on the parts of the tank that aren't going to get as exposed to fire.
Well the front of mech isn't a few square metres like it is on a tank. It's an area that's probably going to be greater than the top of the tank, and so providing it with equivalent armour would be impossible. The end result is that you couldn't spread armour across that area like you could on a tank.
Which means when dudes hiding in buildings were about to attack they wouldn't even have to bother with getting a shot in on the weaker top armour like they would with a tank, because the mecha has so much surface area the whole thing would be armoured like the top of a tank.
Strange, I've been reading that modern tank armour has been developed to offer more protection from attacks coming from above, though not directly, more at a 45 degree angle.
Yeah, okay. Cos the indiscriminate firing of big guns is really going to make people look good. It's undeniable that a mech would simply be quicker to identify and react to the threat than a tank commander due to the increased mobility.
But legs aren't any more mobile than wheels. Nor do they have greater visibility.
AvatarForm wrote:
OT - Stargate, space/time travel... imagine being able to prevent certain events in History... like Ghengis Khan... or the discovery of nuclear power.
That would be horrible. We have no idea how messing around with history would screw with everything else. If you kill Genghis Khan, who pacifies the Asian trade routes for the Silk Road to operate? What about the united powerful Islamic caliphate that would never have been destroyed by him? If nuclear power had never been discovered, what about the families of the million allied service men who would have died storming the Home Islands? What about the millions upon millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have either been thrown into battle as conscripts by their government, or slowly starved to death as American bombers unleashed chemical weapons upon the Japanese rice crop?
We may think that we can save the world so much grief by changing an event...but we have to remember that so many things in history rested on pure luck and chance. How do we know that changing it we won't create a completely different world, potentially a much worse one?
As to Odins Beard, if the enemy have AT weapons powerful enough to bring down a tank, they'll be powerful enough to bring down a mech, simple as that. Even a 16 foot tall mech will be no more difficult (and probably easier) to target with AT weapons, and due to the weight limitations posed on it by being a mech it'll have lighter armour than the equivalent tank. And unless you can provide counter information as to the cost of tanks and aircraft that somehow makes them much, MUCH more expensive than the public knows we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, the point stands that for the cost of a mech, you could have more tanks.
Even in an urban scenario, I'd prefer having more tanks than mechs. At least the way to use tanks in urban scenarios is well known. You also make the assumption that simply because the military is the military, their mechs will have hightened battle resistance, while you provide no evidence to that. Show us the Army development for mechs that can take more punishment than a M1A1 and we'll believe you. Not to mention things don't always scale up perfectly...just because Big Dog can work well in rough terrain does not mean a 16 foot tall mech would be able to do the same.
I'd also like to point out that you seem to be using your military position to say you somehow know everything military better than us. While you may have access to more information, saying that you're military so thus what you say is right is a simple 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You have to cite your sources just as much as anyone else.
Firstly, I was using these because they were integral turning points in time...
Also, with the nuclear situation in Japan at the moment (not to mention Chernobyl) Im sure many would disagree with your sentiment on nuclear issues. Remember, it takes 2 to go to war and History is always written by the winner. But the History you receive in schools these days does not reflect that... or does it? Another discussion for later.
On the topic of Mechs... Iron Man'esque suits would pwn Mechs.
Indeed, nuclear weapons debates are best saved for a different point in time. Maybe I'll start a thread about that...
In any case, I still hold that a time machine would be a horrible, horrible invention just because it would just have too much potential for misues. If we kill Adolf Hitler, how do we know that either: a) someone worse might come to power? or b) with the absence of the Second World War to weaken the Soviet Union, the Soviets invade Europe instead of Hitler? There are too many little threads of history, and cutting one of them could have impacts beyond anything we could possibly predict.
AvatarForm wrote:On the topic of Mechs... Iron Man'esque suits would pwn Mechs.
But Iron Man esque suits are even less plausible than Mechs. I mean, how does he have enough fuel to fly for as long as he does, AND have all those weapons in there at once?
I mean, I'm not intellectual by any means, so maybe I'm overlooking something, but that has always killed those movies for me. Where does he keep his fuel?
the power comes from the Arc Reactor in his chest, hence why when he uses the Mk1 in the first film (which isnt as efficient and isnt designed for that use) he runs out of power pretty damn quickly.
however, i agree with your point that by no means could he have everything contained in the one suit while it still remaining bullet-proof and mobile IMO
Melissia wrote:Basically the current 'mechs in development are just powered armor. Which isn't a walker proper, it's heavy infantry.
Even then, I've not seen any combat designs, just logistics.
Combat will come after, once the industrial/logistics designs get stabilized and perfected. All combat needs is miniaturization, increased agility, and increased protection.
Melissia wrote:Basically the current 'mechs in development are just powered armor. Which isn't a walker proper, it's heavy infantry.
Even then, I've not seen any combat designs, just logistics.
Combat will come after, once the industrial/logistics designs get stabilized and perfected. All combat needs is miniaturization, increased agility, and increased protection.
Interestingly enough, I was cosnidering writing my dissertation on this, so I did a little research.
There's a basic exoskeleton frame that's been developed by a US company (name escapes me right now), which was vetted as being suitable for combat use. It was essentially a skeleton that you strapped over the back of your body (so down the back of your legs, under your arms, up your spine, etc), that was capable of being packed down into a simple lightweight cube. It was capable of functioning for 24 hours without needing to be recharged, lightweight, immune to small arms fire, and greatly enhanced the speed and strength of someone wearing it, so that they could march much longer distances, and carry much heavier loads. It supported full body motion (so if you twisted around to look behind you, it could bend with you). IIRC, it came in at something like thirty four thousand a unit in cost.
I watched a conversation with the deisgner, and he said it was his intention to see if they could mount heavier armour around it for someone to wear, in order to make them immune to anything short of an anti-tank missile. I believe they were planning on uisng new forms of bonded nanotubes or something to make more durable lightweight armour.
I also read an article whereby the US military was sponsoring research into a lightweigh bodysuit that hardened enoughwhen impacted with bullets to deflect them. Again, soemthing to do with nano-technology, the exact specs escape me.
So yes. Power armour and eldar armour respectively?
No I am talking about a mech, I am talking about a large mechanical suit with a cockpit for a pilot not a power armored soldier.
Learn your terminology. That's power armor. Not a mech. Mech's are by their own definition giant robots. I know some people think power armor is limited to some guy in a suit of armor, but the term as it was introduced by Heinlein is more expansive and more practical. Iron Man's armor is a little too fantastical. The suits as seen in Ghost in the Shell are more line with what we're likely to see in the future.
Yeah...
There's become a bit more definition in the 'types' of powered armor. You've got power armor and 'mecha'/battlesuits being the primary definition of the stuff.
Power Armor, as defined and introduced by Heinlein (who really didn't actually introduce the "idea of power armor", it was introduced at least a decade prior in the Lensman series) is just that--"some guy in a suit of armor". Power Armor is very explicitly 'worn', not 'piloted'.
'Mecha'/Battlesuits are noticeably larger than humans but are 'piloted' with an interface system.
Mechs are another category entirely and really share nothing in common with mecha or power armor other than the mechs are piloted like mecha.
More cultural than story. Anime "mecha" has a remarkably different style and set of capabilities that is often supremely fantastic, while western-style "mechs", which tend to be based more on science.
No a bit silly is when I make multiple requests for the thread to get back on topic and everyone involved refuses to do so though it is common courtesy that when a threads creator asks to get back on topic members do it.
What's silly is that by simply requesting the thread get back on topic those involved thought it prudent to respond in a manner that was entirely innapropriate.
What's silly is that MODs are so die hard about people following the rules yet are so arbitrary in enforcing them.
What's silly is people tell me I shoulden't say "let's agree to disagree" and then make a response that "begs an answer" when LordofHats completly ignored my request of "agreeing to disagree" and created a response that "begged a response" yet not one of those comments is aimed at him.
This thread is not about the usefullness of Mechs and though I did contribute to it I tried to bring it back when I felt it had gone to far, if people are too lazy to create their own thread and too rude to refrain from discussing in this one when requested then the name is going to be changed to reflect it.
Kanluwen wrote:Mechs are another category entirely and really share nothing in common with mecha or power armor other than the mechs are piloted like mecha.
Mech's developed from Mecha as a sort of Americanization of the concept. You'll notice that in terms of fiction, a lot of Japanese Sci-Fi is more fantastical than American stuff. Mechs and mecha are connected terms in the same way as power armor and exoskeletons. One developed from the other. The difference between the two is that Mechs tend to be less fantasy-ish than mecha, but both terms are generally describing the same concept. They are more similar than different.
And I really only give credit to Heinlein because he popularized the idea. There was some guy in the 19th century who wrote about knights with powered armor and jet packs in an early pulp story which I think is the earliest time we find anything along the lines of power armor in fiction.
Kanluwen wrote:Mechs are another category entirely and really share nothing in common with mecha or power armor other than the mechs are piloted like mecha.
Mech's developed from Mecha as a sort of Americanization of the concept. You'll notice that in terms of fiction, a lot of Japanese Sci-Fi is more fantastical than American stuff. Mechs and mecha are connected terms in the same way as power armor and exoskeletons. One developed from the other. The difference between the two is that Mechs tend to be less fantasy-ish than mecha, but both terms are generally describing the same concept. They are more similar than different.
And I really only give credit to Heinlein because he popularized the idea. There was some guy in the 19th century who wrote about knights with powered armor and jet packs in an early pulp story which I think is the earliest time we find anything along the lines of power armor in fiction.
Talos, circa 500BC.
Not power armour but certainly a kind of mecha or giant robot warrior.
Odins Beard wrote:No a bit silly is when I make multiple requests for the thread to get back on topic and everyone involved refuses to do so though it is common courtesy that when a threads creator asks to get back on topic members do it.
What's silly is that by simply requesting the thread get back on topic those involved thought it prudent to respond in a manner that was entirely innapropriate.
What's silly is that MODs are so die hard about people following the rules yet are so arbitrary in enforcing them.
Discussion topics and threads of conversation do commonly, organically change. This is up to the will, interest, and desire of the people participating. As was explained earlier in the thread, if you wish to end such a digression when one has taken over a thread, the normal tactic is to start a NEW thread specifically for that new topic, and to NOT engage on that conversational tangent in the original thread.
As was pointed out, when you willingly engaged on the mech disgression, and debated points on it in strong terms and at some length in THIS thread, you made it very compelling for people to respond here. If, instead, you had posted that detailed response in a new thread, people would have been likely to follow you there. You are engaged in a social activity here; a conversation. If you are polite and facilitate the transition to a new thread, people usually respect that. If instead you are argumentative and try to get in the last word on a digressive topic and then authoritatively shut down conversation, people are less likely to cooperate with you.
Witzkatz wrote:The effect on the enemy moral is probably one of the things I would really see as an advantage for the Mech. It's easier to hit because of its higher profile - a mech with a profile as low as a tank is more like a Tau battlesuit, so it doesn't really count as a Mech IMHO.
If there was a 4-5m tall Mech that could actually withstand all the fire that was directed at it and proceed to rake the enemy lines with explosive minigun fire while stomping forward and the commander's voice booming distorted out of amplifiers...yeah, that would really make people run.
The question is: Who really wants to invent a terror weapon? Who can justify such a thing in front of the global community? You need terror to suppress people...inventing huge scary overlord-y war machines doesn't really say "We are a friendly nation seeking peaceful solutions first!", which should be kinda the basic thing for today's political climate.
The last faction that would've loved Mechs was probably the Third Reich.
Well, if we had already tried peaceful options, then this would be a nonlethal alternative, as people who are terrified are going to stop fighting, sans surprise high velocity lead implants!
If there was a magic suit which could defeat all enemies without ever being damaged, whatever attack was directed at it, so that it automatically won the war every time, enemies would be scared of it.
I don't buy the "people are scared of dangerous things" angle, when the adrenaline starts pumping instinct takes over rather than logic and we instinctively fear things that are scary rather than dangerous (for example big cats, spiders, snakes etc).
Odins Beard wrote:No a bit silly is when I make multiple requests for the thread to get back on topic and everyone involved refuses to do so though it is common courtesy that when a threads creator asks to get back on topic members do it.
What's silly is that by simply requesting the thread get back on topic those involved thought it prudent to respond in a manner that was entirely innapropriate.
What's silly is that MODs are so die hard about people following the rules yet are so arbitrary in enforcing them.
Discussion topics and threads of conversation do commonly, organically change. This is up to the will, interest, and desire of the people participating. As was explained earlier in the thread, if you wish to end such a digression when one has taken over a thread, the normal tactic is to start a NEW thread specifically for that new topic, and to NOT engage on that conversational tangent in the original thread.
I participated in the the side track discussion as I was curious as to why lordofHats thought they where rediculous but when it became aparent that the new discussion was replacing the old I requested multiple times that the thread get back on topic and that the side discussion on the usefullness of Mechs would be better addressed in its own thread.
I'm not going to make another thread for them to discuss it in when I'm not the one wanting to discuss it, the polite and and courtious thing for them to do would have been create their own seperate topic and allow this one to get back to its purpose or die. My requests to get back on topic where met with rude and accusational responses that I reported and to my knowledge nothing has been done about, I'm well aware that threads can evolve organically but that is usually within the context of the discussion. It isn't an excuse to take one thread and completly turn it into another.
As was pointed out, when you willingly engaged on the mech disgression, and debated points on it in strong terms and at some length in THIS thread, you made it very compelling for people to respond here. If, instead, you had posted that detailed response in a new thread, people would have been likely to follow you there. You are engaged in a social activity here; a conversation. If you are polite and facilitate the transition to a new thread, people usually respect that.
I politely asked the members to get back to the actual topic a number of times and it was only after they refused that I started reporting them for what little good it did.
If instead you are argumentative and try to get in the last word on a digressive topic and then authoritatively shut down conversation, people are less likely to cooperate with you.
Asking people to get back on topic and move their discussion to another thread is not being argumentative and if people are going to point fingers at me for creating a rebuttle "that begs response" then they need to get off their hypocritical high chairs and point the fingers at themselves. MODs say all the time that if you request for the thread to get back on course and people refuse to do it then report them instead of trying to deal with it yourself which is exactly what I did. And for it my thread was taken and turned into something it was not ment to be.
I am not in the wrong here, I have asked members to take the discussion to a thread intended for it and they rudely refused. I reported it and the MOD allowed them to continue the off topic discussion instead of enforcing Dakkas rules to stay on topic and be polite. I have been polite, I haven't been forcefull and I haven't been confrontational to those who blatantly refused to do what I asked. And for it I now have to create another thread just to discuss what this thread is inteded to be about because other members don't feel like clicking on a button to make their own.
As Killkrazy notes, the Off Topic forum, in particular, traditionally has more slack allowed for off topic digressions.
I understand that it can be challenging sometimes to accomodate to the culture of a new social group or forum. Flexibility and a spirit of camaraderie and cooperation are good things to maintain to ensure smooth and pleasant interactions.
The mecha disgression started about halfway through the first page of this discussion, and took of nearly the entire second page, and was the dominant thread going forward. That topic was clearly the most interesting one to most of the folks in the coversation. You willingly participated for four or five posts before you made any intimation that you'd rather have that conversation moved to another thread. And as noted, your "agree to disagree" comment was tacked onto the end of a lengthy debate post in the latter half of page 2, which itself practically begged for response. As I said before, if you genuinely wanted to take that digression out of this thread, the best course of action (since you clearly wanted to respond to people's opinions and arguments about mechs) would have been to start a new thread with that post. Instead you tried to have your cake and eat it too- posting a big detailed post in this thread, then putting at the end of it that you'd like to agree to disagree. That's not a good conversational tactic, and as noted, it doesn't engender cooperation when you then change your mind from willingly participating in that side-discussion here, to asking other people to take it elsewhere when you decided that you were tired of it.
Mannahnin wrote:As Killkrazy notes, the Off Topic forum, in particular, traditionally has more slack allowed for off topic digressions.
This is absolutly no excuse for the responses I recieved
I understand that it can be challenging sometimes to accomodate to the culture of a new social group or forum.
I am not new to forums of any kind and have been a lurker on this site for years. There is no challenge in accomodating anyone and I will not accomodate rude people who can't even relent to a simple request.
Flexibility and a spirit of camaraderie and cooperation are good things to maintain to ensure smooth and pleasant interactions.
I sincerly hope this is directed towards those who did absolutly no such thing when I requested the topic get back on subject.
As I have said I will be making a new thread to discuss what this one no longer covers. Since the rules are not followed in this forum I will be posting it in a differant section so that it can actually stay on topic and be reinforced if it waivers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The rest of you talk about whatever you want, you're going to anyway and I'm done with this thread.
You posted at least four times about mechs, willingly participating in and facilitating the digression, before changing your mind.
A conversation is a social activity conducted between multiple people, by mutual consent. When you attempted to shut down the digression which you had participated in and invited, you understandably got little cooperation. I don't think people were particularly rude with you.
You are, of course welcome to re-start your original topic to try to get it back on track. I'm just trying to explain to you why the moderators did not do what you were hoping, and give you a little bit of advice from the perspective of a neutral observer who's read the entire thread. I would like your experience here on Dakka to be an enjoyable one, and I don't want you to feel like you're not being listened to.
Mannahnin wrote:You posted at least four times about mechs, willingly participating in and facilitating the digression, before changing your mind.
I have already adressed this.
A conversation is a social activity conducted between multiple people, by mutual consent. When you attempted to shut down the digression which you had participated in and invited, you understandably got little cooperation. I don't think people were particularly rude with you.
I did not try to have the discussion shut down I tried to have it moved to a thread intended specifically for it. And as the one who recieved them their responses where rude and uncalled for.
You are, of course welcome to re-start your original topic to try to get it back on track. I'm just trying to explain to you why the moderators did not do what you were hoping, and give you a little bit of advice from the perspective of a neutral observer who's read the entire thread. I would like your experience here on Dakka to be an enjoyable one, and I don't want you to feel like you're not being listened to.
That is exactly how I feel actually. When someone asks for a discussion to be moved to a seperate thread so that the original discussion can continue and people not only blatantly refuse but start accusing him of being argumentative, forcefull and uncooperative and act as if he was the one who did something innapropriate it dosen't foster the idea that a person is being listened to. I asked for the Mech discussion to be taken to its own thread, I asked multiple times and followed the procedure suggested by MODs on this site and yet I'm being talked to as if I did something wrong. I am not being listened to
Automatically Appended Next Post: The 2 posts above prove my point
My dear sir, we are listening to you. We just disagree on precisely how you're coming across here. As things stand right now, I have no stake either way, I got involved here long after all this started. And as a completely neutral party, I have to say, you're not coming off very well here. So rather than digging in and insisting everyone but you is at fault, please, just take a step back. Think about it. Because clearly the way you think you're portraying yourself, and the way you're actually coming across are two very different things, and it would probably be of great benefit to you on Dakka (and the internet by extension) to figure out exactly why that is.
That's a completely neutral viewpoint. You can take it or leave it, but if you choose to leave it, all you're doing is proving your naysayers right by refusing to take a step back and consider how you may be coming across.
I'd call that a magikal automaton or construct my self, not a mach or macha (note there is a diffrence in the two words and what they portray).
I want Battle Mechs, the like of the 30 ton Urbun Mech, Fire Ant or the 35 ton Shan Yu. They would prove there worth in a burnt out city as support weapons platforms for the MBTs and the FIV. Sort of like my Battle Angels (shamless plug of my own convertions )
Failing that hows about Lasguns? I could dig a lasgun or two
