Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Way to not get it.

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

That's what looking scary is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platuan4th wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And how do you get them out with any speed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

It's fiction.

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

sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And how do you get them out with any speed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats pretty big though isn't it?

Do its feet have tracks built in? o.O

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here I thought we were talking about Mechs.

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

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

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

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

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

Still going with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you get that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Bonus: they could be deployed like that image.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Still going with this?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

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

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



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

Bonus: they could be deployed like that image.

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

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

You mean "more armored" than one, right?

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

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

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

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

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

(img snipped)

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sebster wrote:

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

(img snipped)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean "more armored" than one, right?

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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