145 replies to this topic

[Sasori_Zero]

I have thought over and over why the Military has (rather than make a tank) make a Mech (like the Avatar in C&C3 or even the redeemer along with some of that good ole anime) I made theories and Diagrams along with cross referencing modern tech to the machine that explained why it would and would not work (Pros and Cons included) and they all point to it being fully possible and even buildable right now (Theories even show how to pretty much build it).

[Cuppa]

...

Could you show us this report?

[CommanderJB]

'Mechs' would be extremely expensive; the technology needed to stabilise and propel a bipedal or even a quadrupedal walking machine is barely existent, never mind in any sense mature, and thus would cost huge amounts to develop to the level necessary for a reliable, powerful, suitable military application. And what do you actually gain from placing it on legs? Better weapons clearance? There's a slight advantage there, but it doesn't outweigh the disadvantage that the massively increased target silhouette would give you; on the modern battlefield it's not like a tank can hide very well, but at least they can stay out of sight beneath a treeline or in a street; a mech large enough to carry a tank's firepower would poke above whatever cover you might have and nullify even that possibility. It won't even be able to deal with as much in the way of terrain types; while you might clear an obstacle with legs that you couldn't with tracks (though I'd emphasise that tanks are big enough and powerful enough to drive over most things in their way, particularly T-80s, T-90s and the more modern variants of the M-2001 and T-84 with their massive power-to-weight ratio), the massively increased ground pressure under the feet would make you sink upon encountering any sort of soft terrain; virtually anything after rain, really. So, um, while they're really cool, they have so little advantage and such great downsides when compared with a tank that there's really no point militaries pursuing them.

Edited by CommanderJB, 21 August 2008 - 04:35.

[Whitey]

To simplify: We've all considered it, and those of us with a knack for common sense have readily dismissed it.

-Boidy

[Dauth]

C. Boidy, on 21 Aug 2008, 4:58, said:

To simplify: We've all considered it, and those of us with a knack for common sense have readily dismissed it.

-Boidy

QFT

[AZZKIKR]

Mechs are very vulnerable. they are a big target, vulnerable at the joints, and must be thinly armoured so leg designs can actually support them

[Crazykenny]

Unefficient machines. Tanks make better weaponsplatforms.

[Shirou]

Sasori_Zero, on 21 Aug 2008, 4:53, said:

they all point to it being fully possible and even buildable right now (Theories even show how to pretty much build it).

Then present me the evidence of that. We aren't even close to having a practical Bipedal robot unit. The best is a quadripedal mechanic dog that can walk up small hills and over small uneven terrain (it's called BIG DOG) and there is the tripedal mars lander robot which uses extremely simple way of walking (last leg under two first legs, body is turning upside down). That's really the farthest we are in practice. The problem is stability. Titans with their big cannons for one are extremely unrealistic. The backlash would turn them backwards.

Jiuggernauts with their supports (what they clap out from their backs) however are a bit more realistic as they won't turn over so easy. But then again what advantage do the heavy legs have to their wheeled/treaded counter part.

Where walking robots could be useful for is area's where heavy treaded vehicles cannot come, bipedal mechs don't even have that advantage. Spider mechs could essentially climb mountains (like that one from UT3). Bipedal mechs however cannot even do that. They are the most instable thing out there.

Bipedal is therefore extremely unpractical. I'm betting on four or more legged machines.

[Zero]

Theoretically, mechs are a pretty good weapon, theoretically. That only applies if A: The Mechs have very strong and light armor, B: the mechs have jumpjets or jetpacks capable of flying up at least 50 feet in the air, C: They can move at leas 30 mph, and last but not least, D: they are bipedal (allows them to traverse most terrain) and have hands with opposable thumbs (like in Gundam or Robotech, as it allows them to carry pretty much any weapon). I will agree, great weapons, but very technoligically advanced. I say there will be at least another 50 or 100 years before we see mechs that can actually be used in combat, right now they are too complicated, expensive, and vulnerable, so give it some time to evolve and our tech to evolve. For now, tanks are much better options.

Although, I can see them being used in extraterrestrial (A.K.A. Outerspace) applications much better as they might be good builders and much better weapons out there.

Edited by tskasa1, 21 August 2008 - 14:40.

[partyzanpaulzy]

I have read in one science magazine - VTM Science - some bipedals should be built in 50 year horizon (they also wrote about cyborgs that they are even more possible to be part of many armies). Technically CNC3 Titan has too many weak points (Avatar even more), maybe Jug.

This picture was used there (author gave this picture to VTM), so it's just imagination (and future mech will look probably different).
BTW, how would you want occupy Everest ASAP without mechs?

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 21 August 2008 - 16:04.

[CommanderJB]

With helicopters. Don't even get me started about how mechs would perform on snow and ice.

[tank50us]

In a sense, I guess its more depends on your opponent, while yes, helos, MBTs, and infantry can take out a mech as easily, if not easier then a tank, the simple fact that your opponent has the weapon meens that now you have to come up with something to defeat it in open battle. I know it's a bit off topic in terms of the location of the fight, but take the F-22, it's stealth meens that it can dominate anything in the skies today, however, the SU-47 Berkut, with its stealth tech could match the Raptor in a dogfight. Applying the same theory to mechs, if you have an enemy who develoups a mech before you do, and deploys it effectively, you now have to come up with something to take it on and beat it, both short term (Training and tactics), and long term (your own mech, or a weapon capable of defeating it). Mechs also do have useful aplications, a 9' tall unit that is built for speed, and equiped with some kind of jump-jet system can make a great scout seeing as it can traverse virtually any terrain, while a 15' tall unit, more armor and fire-power, can fight allong side tanks, punching through to the objective. Mechs also have better survival in urban enviroments, if equiped with active defense systems, like the ones being used my the newest tanks, mechs could shoot-down incoming RPGs and ATGMs, ad a RWS MG on the top, and you can take out the pesky infanty hiding in the buildings 3rd story or above. They can also stop on a dime, and turn faster then a tank, all the while decreasing the time enemy troops have to fire on the behemoth. I'm not saying that mechs are invinceable, I'm saying that they're essentially like tanks, they have their uses, but at serious costs in other areas.

[partyzanpaulzy]

I think mech is better in hardly passable terrain when helicopters cannot be used (too many AAs). Those extra defence things can be used on modern tank.
If rumours around "T-95" are true (like that one in End Of The Days), it has external missile pods, it can be upgraded with many other things, because it has just small turret (cannon sized). With low profile it's harder to hit then mech, also it can ride more then 80kms (modernized T-72), SPRUT SD (Russian light tank, modern Tank Destroyer) can kill most of nowadays MBTs and it's even faster.
Mech can be used in ruins of enemy city, where tank cannot pass through and helicopter cannot "clean" it without NAPALM or Air Fuel Bomb ("family of FOAB"). Instead of sending troopers you could send mech with anti-RPG systems and secure area. On the other hand you can send small robots there.

I know Japanese are creating civilian bipeds (5-6 m tall). Today thick armor is often futile when you can use defense systems or better material (composites with expensive boricum carbide).
I meant different from this:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P2OksmJthZc

[Lucid]

i hope you realize that in urban terrain, mechs (if they can fit in between buildings) are more vulnerable to infantry

[The Wandering Jew]

I have read somewhere in this thread regarding the issue of mechs and "mammoth" tanks and the conclusion is the same.

Not feasible.

[Sgt. Rho]

Unless we find a material that is light and provides a very good armor...we'll stick with tanks. And when we got that material...well...we'll stick with tanks too.

[Zero]

The Wandering Jew, on 27 Aug 2008, 1:05, said:

I have read somewhere in this thread regarding the issue of mechs and "mammoth" tanks and the conclusion is the same.

Not feasible.

With our current tech, no. The fact is that a mech is incredibly more adaptable than a tank, especially the kind with fingers (as it can easily hold any weapon imaginable and would only need seconds to put down the cannon and pick up the flamethrower (let's see a tank do that!) Also, its a lot more versatile in a lot more terrains, and more maneuverable. Helicopters aren't that big a deal with basic AA defences (although planes.... definitely are), tanks are somewhere near even, and infantry, most of their weapons can't penetrate armor (save RPGs, SMAWs, AM rifles, etc, and those are bulky and hard to use). Also, it would be a given that these would be more armored than tanks, giving them further advantages over infantry.

Again, all in all, mechs are not feasible... today. Give them fifty to one-hundred years and they might replace tanks like in Gundam (keyword:might). Again, lighter stronger materials, better propulsion and fuels, better weapon systems and defenses and other barriers would have to be broken first, but in the end, a very good idea.

A little off topic, but would things like the Metal Gear (a bipedal nuclear tank-not front lines- REX and RAY) and the Arsenal Gear be possible with today's tech (I'm thinking it would, but I know the Shagohod is), because that could cause untold destruction and you could never tell who fired first.... that would be bad.

Edited by tskasa1, 27 August 2008 - 19:21.

[Sicarius]

Mechs just have too many vulnerabilities; it wouldn't matter how much armour you put on it, you could still knock it out with a strike to the legs or even a powerful shockwave could probably knock it over.

Metal gear REX would probably be feasible, except railgun technology isn't at the level where you could mount one on something that small, and then it still breaches all those non-nuclear treaties. RAY isn't nuclear capable, and has whole other problems with being fully amphibious, and Arsenal and Haven are just bloated nuclear subs that control the interwebz.

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 27 August 2008 - 19:53.

[Wizard]

~Doomsday~, on 27 Aug 2008, 20:52, said:

Mechs just have too many vulnerabilities; it wouldn't matter how much armour you put on it, you could still knock it out with a strike to the legs or even a powerful shockwave could probably knock it over.

Well if the Ewoks can do it.....

[TWPC920]

imho, the biggest problems with mechs are the incredibly vulnerable legs... especially for bipedal mechs, if you set off a couple of c4s on the joints, no amount of armor is going to save that mech from crashing and burning, giving the enemy a mobility kill >.<

[Sasori_Zero]

I'm quoting from my documentation ( I will provide it when I get my Digital camera out of storage)


1. Maneuverability

As known by every human being with legs have high Maneuverability. You can walk and Run, you can get over things that wheels cannot and legs and treads can carry alot of weight relative to the mass of the leg itself. Bringing this to your attention comes to the next benefit of legs as mentioned Weight capacity. The military has constantly seen this: wanting something that can get over all forms of terrain in short something with the speed and abilities of a soldier with the power and armor of a tank. The ISW(Infantry Support Walker) fills both these roles. Weapons would be held similarly to how humans hold them: with hands . Nothing in my model would be welded, allowing optimal preformance twisting of the wrists , head (although it is suggested to keep the head in the 180 degree view / twist) and arms. Which i'm sure makes you ask: Joints. Joints would be modeled after that of the human body and of what you may see in the common Japanese Gunpla Model kits. Balled joints that allow the human like ISW movement, Similar Concepts would be adapted to legs , "neck" , hips and if possible feet.


2. Weapon Packs and Integrated Weaponry

Aside from the standard weaponry of Semi-Automatic rifles , grenade attachments and swords there are in my concepts weapons that can be developed: Weapon Packs. Such packs have been mentioned in science fiction weapons being taken and integrated into the own machines design in battle; this is indeed possible however not as quick. In this Model of my theory weapons would be installed in slots mostly of a back pack like design with several weapons packed in it such and sabers and integrated Vulcans or even in the future energy shields now lets explain these concepts before I move on

A.Particle Shields:

Particle Shields, popular in works of Science Fiction all possible today. Electromagnets or superconductors would be use to make a massive EM field and maybe couple it with an electric field, so the electrons prevent matter from coming through it. Most of matter is empty space to begin with, and if you, for instance, piled up neutrons in a wall or film it would quickly get too heavy and dense to handle. To control this you could use a frame or boundary and have the field within the boundary of the frame, instead of "projecting" it around the generator. it would be projected, but within a contained field (frame). This works because a field an inch or so deep, and whatever contacted it would be oppositely-charged, and thus unable to get past the ion field for example A bullet would be polarized at the tip and repelled by the next ion layer, and even with continued pressure applied, it wouldn't let you get through. Applying this theory pretty much anything could be ionized to prevent passage. You'd have to use a magnetic field to keep the ions in each layer from just flying out of the field. two adjacent fields of ions, kept *firmly* in place by magnetic fields within a boundary frame. This is possible now in this day and age however it may take time to miniaturize the equipment so that this model can be applied to the ISW however this model can be applied to larger vehicles like battleships.

The Error in the model:
This model works against physical weaponry like bullets however it would not work against focused beam weaponry as it would pass directly through it and if a focused amout of positrons were fired at it would result in annihilation and shortly afterward breaking down the hull of the ship or ISW at the molecular level. Another error is in the boundary/frame model if the layers of the field staying within the boundary were excited they could release more energy than normal resulting in melting the boundary frame and thus having the fields run freely even with the magnetic field.


(On a side note a system I developed with a similar model also works.)

B. Sabers

Now when I say Saber I am not referring to lightsabers I refer to the ye old metal sabers. Now I am sure you are asking "how can this work against ISWs or tanks?" Great question the sabers would be tipped with particles. The outer tip would be made of a material with a higher melting point and the particles could be excited and thus be hot enough to slice through other metal.

(side note: Beam sabers are also possible if controlled by boundary conditions and possibly topological defect however they at this time may be unpractical.)

Ok now back to the integrated weapons packs these would be installed mostly before a battle began fully loaded. These packs could aside from carrying weapons can give these machines abilities to fly. weapons as last said like the Railgun are an example of a weapon mounted on an intergrated weapon pack they use normal bullets instead of the Metal Gear REX nuclear railgun (Side Note: Currently I am trying to develop a correct theory for a unique flight system however it is still being worked on by me so I will not Explain it it in this version of my theory of mechs, Moving on.)


The Cockpit

Controls are mildly simple but would require training or experience for basic use. There are 6 things pilots would have to know about Petals , hand controls ,finger controls, keyboard , head sensor/camera feeds and the BCP. Lets begin with hand controls: they are in the form of two joysticks. They can be twisted up to a 180 degree angle the first thing you may notice is 4 buttons on its top along with a peg allow me to label them:

(Diagram soon)

A. This button is for the lock toggle. This button toggles for the fingers to be locked in a position to hold a rifle or open mostly this is toggled to be locked while in the hanger so the rifle is already in hand however they can be unlocked pressing this button again opening them leaving them open and ready to be done manually. This is where you may notice the five white buttons running down the joystick; these are on both sticks they manually control the fingers . Pressing any of them closes the designated finger to a closed position in this order 1 controls the pinky and 5 controls the thumb.

B. this is more like a ball it controls the arm direction of up , down ,left or right. This is difficult to control with both hands manually controlling hands and thus suggested that one joystick control an arm (with a metal shield equip to the arm) and the other control a hand to fight with.

C. The 3rd controls the head toggle this can be used only with one joystick and it twists the head by twisting the joystick. This has to be payed attention to and held in position or it will reset to the forward position by slowly twisting back.

D. The last button would fire any integrated weapons pack guns

The Keyboard is the next control it is used to configure programs that control the ISW (such as the weight the machine puts its feet this can't really be set much lighter than default as it can have bad results on the leg or walk. Controls can even be set to use a keyboard rather than the control joysticks if easier for the pilot.

The BCP is a system that at times will have to be used. They control the things such as duck open cockpit and so on they are critical but should be set before a battle or quickly as it may prevent or cause harm to the pilot or machine.

(Part 2 coming soon: Contains information concerning armor ,flight, VT ,scientific concepts,cost , Relative Weight, Ion Cannon Theory ,Derivative models I have wrote out in the document , relative speed ,Velocity and other physics stuff.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 28 August 2008 - 07:19.

[Shirou]

^ living in the year 2200?

One thing you might have omitted. I expect pure air superiority by that time.. no aircraft would have much to deal with such ISWs.

[Strategia]

We don't need to develop anti-mech weaponry; all we have to do to counter them is equip all infantry with these.



Also, you want particle shields on your mech? Electromagnets? Superconductors? Good luck lugging around the full-sized nuclear reactor needed to power all that.

[CommanderJB]

Sasori_Zero, on 28 Aug 2008, 17:12, said:

1. Maneuverability

As known by every human being with legs have high Maneuverability. You can walk and Run, you can get over things that wheels cannot and legs and treads can carry alot of weight relative to the mass of the leg itself. Bringing this to your attention comes to the next benefit of legs as mentioned Weight capacity. The military has constantly seen this: wanting something that can get over all forms of terrain in short something with the speed and abilities of a soldier with the power and armor of a tank.

Show me one single type of terrain that an 'ISW' can cross that a T-84 can't and I'll show you at least three examples of terrain that the T-84 can cross that the ISW can't. It boils down to one simple concept; ground pressure. The ground pressure under a T-34's tracks was only very slightly greater than the ground pressure under your boot because while the tank is extremely heavy, that weight is distributed over a very large area by the flat surface of the tracks. A mech, on the other hand, concentrates its multi-ton weight on two small points, meaning that it will instantly sink in any sort of soft ground and go crashing through roofs, roads, and pretty well anything else remotely soft or hollow that happens to be underneath it.

Sasori_Zero, on 28 Aug 2008, 17:12, said:

Weapons would be held similarly to how humans hold them: with hands . Nothing in my model would be welded, allowing optimal preformance twisting of the wrists , head (although it is suggested to keep the head in the 180 degree view / twist) and arms. Which i'm sure makes you ask: Joints. Joints would be modeled after that of the human body and of what you may see in the common Japanese Gunpla Model kits. Balled joints that allow the human like ISW movement, Similar Concepts would be adapted to legs , "neck" , hips and if possible feet.

Congratulations, you've developed a vehicle that can hold anything in its hands. What's it going to hold? In case you hadn't noticed, no-one actually makes separate self-contained weapons far too large for an infantryman, i.e. a rifle the size of a tank gun, a genuine portable Vulcan cannon, or anything else of the sort. It's not like they'd be lying around being able to be picked up. Which means you'd be limited to using infantry weapons. Not really the best idea for something of this importance. So you make ones for it? Or you could just build them into the frame and improve damage resistance, power, practicality and efficiency virtually off the scale. Relatively, that is.

And, of course, then we get back to the issue of power. How are you going to fuel it? And do not say 'a nuclear reactor' or 'a fusion reactor' or anything of the sort, because I am sick of explaining why these things are not portable and will not be portable in some cases ever and in others for hundreds of years on the inside.

[partyzanpaulzy]

I think control will be the same in basic like in that Japan mech on the video I posted (it's same crap like German post-WW1 training wooden tanquette).
Have you even seen that video I posted ? Nowadays it's crap, but Japanese are sufficient maniacs
in hydraulics
and cybernetics
to do it!