145 replies to this topic

[TWPC920]

maybe the only realistic mech that might be developed in the future is something like the wolverine from tib sun, light weight, lightly armored, personal combat mech that is mainly used as frontline infantry support, somewhat like a humvee, but without the transport capacity. however, these types of mechs do have their drawbacks... humvees do the exact same job of frontline infantry support, AND carries troops, while the mechs can probably only carry one or two operators. on the other hand, while the mechs will be thicker skinned than the humvees, that also means the mechs are slower, and it still goes back to the age-old question... how much armor can you put on the leg joints and body?? if that mech sees a enemy tank, its as good as dead, at least the humvee still has the speed to try to get away from the shot.

[Sasori_Zero]

CommanderJB, on 28 Aug 2008, 13:17, said:

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.

As I said in the documentation quote the ISW units would work in a similar fashion of weight distribution several things for example:

ISW- Mountains , Water (Deeper than 1.8M) , Sky/Aerospace(with the assistance of a Integrated Pack), Swamp , Woods

Quote

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.

Yes weapons would be made for it. Most likely designed after infantry and tank weapons (Semi-Automatics , Vulcans , Chain Gun , Tank gun , Etc)

Quote

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.

You got me here ive been trying to figure out a proper way to power it so it can have top operational time its come down to this:

Solar Generator

Internal Batteries

Fuel Cells(water)

old Combustion Style

Possibly Plasma(however this would have to be in the future when such generators are miniaturized)

There are more than enough reasons not to use a fission reactor.

[Cuppa]

Mechs would have a painful amount of logistics and not be stealthy at all and from the sounds of it, can only be good with these crazy technologies your suggesting for it. Yeah a mech would be good with a nuclear reactor, but then again, so would a tank.

[Sasori_Zero]

I never suggested using a nuclear fission reactor I actually said the opposite that its unpractical and very expensive and could'nt even fit inside and ISW unit. Thats why I rather pursue cleaner power methods.

also any "crazy" tech I established in my defined model is theory not fact and thus not the only tech compatible with such machinery(one was infact a technology that refracts light and cloak the machine but I am looking into that if it would work)

Primarily the ISWs (depending on type) would fit different roles.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 29 August 2008 - 08:23.

[Alias]

The whole concept of two-legged walkers is flawed. Tracked, Wheeled or Arachnid like vehicles would be far less prone to the huge flaws two legs brings.

[Sasori_Zero]

Well even a tank can be blown up with C4 if placed on it. Its relative to the speed and pilots awareness.

[Alias]

That is a flaw of all armour. Flaws specific to two legged vehicles include:
-Balance - it'll slip on rocks, it'll topple from recoil.
-It won't be able to recover when it has fallen down.
-To be efficient at all the legs need to be incredibly well controlled. One fault in the controlling computer or a pilot error could lead to disaster.
-The speed of the thing will only be significant if the loadout is low.

[Sasori_Zero]

Alias, on 29 Aug 2008, 9:31, said:

That is a flaw of all armour. Flaws specific to two legged vehicles include:
-Balance - it'll slip on rocks, it'll topple from recoil.
-It won't be able to recover when it has fallen down.
-To be efficient at all the legs need to be incredibly well controlled. One fault in the controlling computer or a pilot error could lead to disaster.
-The speed of the thing will only be significant if the loadout is low.

- Recoil fall back can be prevented with deployable support. it can recover the ISW model I mentioned the above documentation quote has arms thus it can get up. walking relies on pedals in tandem with the joytick like interface.

[Alias]

Deploying then raises the issue of utter shit mobility.

[Destiny]

The problem is, no country will ever even think of funding this...thing.

There you have it. Not even the US, I can say.

Otherwise...

- Shoot the cameras
- Shoot the portviews
- Shoot the power source
- Shoot the ground the mech is standing on with a highly explosive weapon, etc. MOAB?
- Shoot the mech with some AP round at the cockpit.
- Shoot a nuke at it.
- Shoot and overload the mech with let's say, from 4 directions?
- Shoot it with a GAU-8?
- Shoot it with an Iowa-class.
- Shoot its joints
- Shoot its legs
- Shoot the whole thing

We won't be seeing these meches for the next 50 decades...in combat.

[Strategia]

Sasori_Zero, on 29 Aug 2008, 1:24, said:

Solar Generator

Would require obscene amounts of surface area, would be extremely vulnerable to enemy fire (one burst from a proper 12.7mm machine gun will knock out large parts of the cells) - and of course a sunny day. One cumulonimbus cloud in front of the sun and bang, you just lost your walker support, and likely the walkers themselves too as no enemy will be stupid enough to let that chance go.

Quote

Internal Batteries

Good luck getting them to run for more than 15 minutes at a time before needing to recharge. A mech requires a lot more power than a little hybrid electric car. Also, if you're talking chemical batteries, if they get damaged you'll be leaking battery acid, which needless to say is not good for your mech's internals - or your pilot's internals.

Quote

Fuel Cells(water)

Ridiculously expensive to make and fuel.

Quote

old Combustion Style

Lugging around a big tank of gas isn't going to improve your mech's speed or maneuverability, also quite inefficient, and would absolutely kill your stealthiness, as the heat signature this gives off combined with the higher profile means that you'll become an instant target.

Quote

Possibly Plasma(however this would have to be in the future when such generators are miniaturized)

We don't even HAVE plasma generators yet. The closest we can get is a tokamak fusion reactor, which has a reaction chamber and electromagnet assembly the size of a pricey New York loft and uses old fashioned steam turbines to generate power, and has yet to sustain a reaction longer than a few seconds. This isn't something you can miniaturise just like that, it's something we haven't even developed yet.



Also, I stand by my previous statement - no matter how advanced you make your mech, all you need is one soldier with a 10 foot pole to give it a good solid push, and it's helpless. Even if it has articulated arms and could theoretically get up, all you need to do is climb up onto the mech, open the cockpit hatch and shoot the pilot.

[Sasori_Zero]

Destiny, on 29 Aug 2008, 11:22, said:

The problem is, no country will ever even think of funding this...thing.

There you have it. Not even the US, I can say.

Otherwise...

- Shoot the cameras
- Shoot the portviews
- Shoot the power source
- Shoot the ground the mech is standing on with a highly explosive weapon, etc. MOAB?
- Shoot the mech with some AP round at the cockpit.
- Shoot a nuke at it.
- Shoot and overload the mech with let's say, from 4 directions?
- Shoot it with a GAU-8?
- Shoot it with an Iowa-class.
- Shoot its joints
- Shoot its legs
- Shoot the whole thing

We won't be seeing these meches for the next 50 decades...in combat.

All these things sound pretty expensive or done intentionally.....
ISWs would be made of a Titanium Alloy which has scientificlly proven to be stronger(cheaper and lighter) than steel (by 30% to be exact)

The Head is where the cameras are located its armored it would need something with such a role of Anti-Vehicle to pierce it

-Who the F*** is going to fire a nuke at a single 9 - 18.3 meter high Bipedal Walking Machine with a human being inside

-Legs would have to be blown open(Armor peeled off) before the joints can be seen but this would need to be done with a tank or armor piercer

-The Mech can duck and tumble

- "Shoot the mech with some AP round at the cockpit" The torso is the most armored part of the entire machine it will take more than one shot (depending on the weapon)

-PowerSource would be located in the torso (depending on the PS type)

-Be Aware these machines can shoot and fly and the machine could very well get the hell out of the area of a MOAB

-Iowa class battleship is out of service as of 2006...

- "Shoot the portviews" impossible due to the screen in the cockpit which is a feed from the head cameras(refer to shoot head part of post for more information.)

[Sasori_Zero]

Strategia Inc., on 29 Aug 2008, 17:09, said:

Sasori_Zero, on 29 Aug 2008, 1:24, said:

Solar Generator

Would require obscene amounts of surface area, would be extremely vulnerable to enemy fire (one burst from a proper 12.7mm machine gun will knock out large parts of the cells) - and of course a sunny day. One cumulonimbus cloud in front of the sun and bang, you just lost your walker support, and likely the walkers themselves too as no enemy will be stupid enough to let that chance go.

Quote

Internal Batteries

Good luck getting them to run for more than 15 minutes at a time before needing to recharge. A mech requires a lot more power than a little hybrid electric car. Also, if you're talking chemical batteries, if they get damaged you'll be leaking battery acid, which needless to say is not good for your mech's internals - or your pilot's internals.

Quote

Fuel Cells(water)

Ridiculously expensive to make and fuel.

Quote

old Combustion Style

Lugging around a big tank of gas isn't going to improve your mech's speed or maneuverability, also quite inefficient, and would absolutely kill your stealthiness, as the heat signature this gives off combined with the higher profile means that you'll become an instant target.

Quote

Possibly Plasma(however this would have to be in the future when such generators are miniaturized)

We don't even HAVE plasma generators yet. The closest we can get is a tokamak fusion reactor, which has a reaction chamber and electromagnet assembly the size of a pricey New York loft and uses old fashioned steam turbines to generate power, and has yet to sustain a reaction longer than a few seconds. This isn't something you can miniaturise just like that, it's something we haven't even developed yet.



Also, I stand by my previous statement - no matter how advanced you make your mech, all you need is one soldier with a 10 foot pole to give it a good solid push, and it's helpless. Even if it has articulated arms and could theoretically get up, all you need to do is climb up onto the mech, open the cockpit hatch and shoot the pilot.

that soldier would need to be wearing a human assisting Exoskeleton and still be pretty strong to just push such a machine over. For god sakes it would be anything from 3857KG to 28.7 Metric tons. Also thats why a cockpit lock would exist. This is due to the pilot "Seeing" with the cameras in the machines head thus the pilot would not need to be exposed and thus fully protected by the sheet after sheet of strong ,light , titanium alloy. the cockpit is sealed with a door that would have to be blown open with something pretty strong just to be honest.

[Sharpnessism]

There are so many flaws with a 2 legged mech its incredible that you suggested it. For real life.

First of all vulnerability, a 2 legged mech is easy to knock off and destroy. Recoil from its own weapons. Shooting the leg with an RPG could easily blow it off. High profile, tanks, even cold war era tanks could destroy one by shooting it once and knocking it down. Aircraft domination obviously. Soft soil, ice, anything slippery or soft = GG. RPGs, big rocks, tanks, pretty much ANYTHING can defeat it as long as it can knock it down. The rebel tow cable isn't look so bad.

Secondly, costs of design and development. Who the hell is going to design it. Then who the hell is going to design the weapons. Then who the hell is going to make it feasible to transport them?

Thirdly, costs of production and fuel. In the future where this might be feasible, you can't power this with fossil fuels. You need completely new factories to make these mechs.

Quote

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.

Theoretically the death star, light sabres, and black hole generators are great weapons.

Ok, seriously, light strong armour, perfect for...every single piece of military hardware. Including tanks. If you can make tanks lighter then you can add even more armour. Flexibility like what you're thinking greatly reduces armour. Hands with opposable thumbs...great something else that's useless.

Quote

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.

Where did that flamethrower come from? Magic land? Hey, instead of picking it up and dropping the other gun, how about just putting BOTH guns on a tank! 1 shot from tank = destroyed mech. 1 shot from RPG = destroyed mech. Armour Piercing rounds from any gun = killed mech pilot. Helicopter/planes = many destroyed mechs.

Quote

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

Same as above, who's making it? Why not just put these on a tank?

Quote

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.

Put this on tanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're turning science into magic. Countering most arguments with XYZ technologies/precautions will be developed to prevent these problems. You're "mech" is the equivalent of what you would see in the Children's show, Transformers except with a guy inside. Super flexible mechs that can do ANYTHING a human can, highly armoured but still not that heavy, has some magically portable power source. And they'll have genetically modified pilots that will be able to monitor cameras that show the area around the mech plus focus on the battle.

The fact is that in the future, aircraft will play even more dominant role, rendering such huge mechs completely useless. Humans will require intense, intense training to pilot one of these. Losing even 1 pilot would be a huge loss. These things can't be mass produced because pilots can't be mass produced. In addition no country will have the money. It would cost billions to simply design/test everything, including weapons/ammo, means of transportation, how the hell it is so flexible. It would cost trillions for maintenance, ammo, storage. It would cost more trillions, to actually produce these weapons, ammo, mechs+pilot training. All for what? Some mech that most people wouldn't consider better than some super developed tank? Something that can't run on ice/soft soil? Still easily destroyed by aircraft?

Though if this WAS developed, I suppose there's a good reason for the mammoth tank now! That or more aircraft. I guess I sound a bit harsh here so sorry

Edited by Sharpnessism, 29 August 2008 - 21:17.

[TWPC920]

Sharpnessism, on 29 Aug 2008, 21:00, said:

You're turning science into magic. Countering most arguments with XYZ technologies/precautions will be developed to prevent these problems. You're "mech" is the equivalent of what you would see in the Children's show, Transformers except with a guy inside. Super flexible mechs that can do ANYTHING a human can, highly armoured but still not that heavy, has some magically portable power source. And they'll have genetically modified pilots that will be able to monitor cameras that show the area around the mech plus focus on the battle.

You make it sound like a gundam xD

[Sharpnessism]

TWPC920, on 29 Aug 2008, 17:09, said:

Sharpnessism, on 29 Aug 2008, 21:00, said:

You're turning science into magic. Countering most arguments with XYZ technologies/precautions will be developed to prevent these problems. You're "mech" is the equivalent of what you would see in the Children's show, Transformers except with a guy inside. Super flexible mechs that can do ANYTHING a human can, highly armoured but still not that heavy, has some magically portable power source. And they'll have genetically modified pilots that will be able to monitor cameras that show the area around the mech plus focus on the battle.

You make it sound like a gundam xD

It has opposable thumbs, highly armoured, picks up and drops guns, is flexible enough to be compared to a human. What do you imagine it is?

They aren't talking a mech like sth from Mechwarrior. Something closer to Heavy Gear/Gundam.

[Sasori_Zero]

Sharpnessism, on 29 Aug 2008, 21:00, said:

There are so many flaws with a 2 legged mech its incredible that you suggested it. For real life.

First of all vulnerability, a 2 legged mech is easy to knock off and destroy. Recoil from its own weapons. Shooting the leg with an RPG could easily blow it off. High profile, tanks, even cold war era tanks could destroy one by shooting it once and knocking it down. Aircraft domination obviously. Soft soil, ice, anything slippery or soft = GG. RPGs, big rocks, tanks, pretty much ANYTHING can defeat it as long as it can knock it down. The rebel tow cable isn't look so bad.

Secondly, costs of design and development. Who the hell is going to design it. Then who the hell is going to design the weapons. Then who the hell is going to make it feasible to transport them?

Thirdly, costs of production and fuel. In the future where this might be feasible, you can't power this with fossil fuels. You need completely new factories to make these mechs.

Quote

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.

Quote

Theoretically the death star, light sabres, and black hole generators are great weapons.

Ok, seriously, light strong armour, perfect for...every single piece of military hardware. Including tanks. If you can make tanks lighter then you can add even more armour. Flexibility like what you're thinking greatly reduces armour. Hands with opposable thumbs...great something else that's useless.

Quote

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.

Quote

Where did that flamethrower come from? Magic land? Hey, instead of picking it up and dropping the other gun, how about just putting BOTH guns on a tank! 1 shot from tank = destroyed mech. 1 shot from RPG = destroyed mech. Armour Piercing rounds from any gun = killed mech pilot. Helicopter/planes = many destroyed mechs.

this thing is made of titanium stronger than you precious tank armor as far I know.

Quote

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

Quote

Same as above, who's making it? Why not just put these on a tank?

it would be FAR too abstract and stupid to put it on a tank.

Quote

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.

Put this on tanks.

I said in that that it could'nt work on a mech because the frame would be too large to be on the Machine so don't even suggest putting such a thing on a tank. Such a thing however is fesible on a thing like a battleship or Gunship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote

You're turning science into magic. Countering most arguments with XYZ technologies/precautions will be developed to prevent these problems. You're "mech" is the equivalent of what you would see in the Children's show, Transformers except with a guy inside. Super flexible mechs that can do ANYTHING a human can, highly armoured but still not that heavy, has some magically portable power source. And they'll have genetically modified pilots that will be able to monitor cameras that show the area around the mech plus focus on the battle.

The fact is that in the future, aircraft will play even more dominant role, rendering such huge mechs completely useless. Humans will require intense, intense training to pilot one of these. Losing even 1 pilot would be a huge loss. These things can't be mass produced because pilots can't be mass produced.

I NEVER SUGGESTED A DEFINETE POWERSOURCE I said that is the flaw/ missing part in my model> I will say this over and over. the Cameras, its one screen directly infront of you. Not a spherical all around advanced sensor system. My model as mentioned in my documentation quote the outside is seen through the cameras in the head there are only 2 and they are not moveable. you turn the head to the left you see in that direction ,you look right, same thing. and thats just Relistic to develop easy effective precautions and advance on technology to make it better (like as many ways as possible to prevent it from falling by preventable means like with the deployable support like the one on the Juggernaut in C&C3 to prevent it from falling due to recoil.

[Lucid]

BTW, a group of soldiers with a strong cable can trip it. Nice try.

tanks will ALWAYS be superior to mechs. the only thing mechs can do better is in a zero-gee environment. (AKA Space)

any weapon you could put on a mech, you could put on a tank. mechs MAY have better armor, (though i doubt it) but they are a lot easier to see.

Easier to see=easier to hit
easier to hit=more hits to withstand

same with the stealth fighter. one hit and POOF! no more plane. thus, they are made to not be seen.

[TWPC920]

i'd say that its more plausible for quadripedal mechs to carry supplys to infantrys, instead of frontline battle mechs, in fact, that quadripedal mech already exists!

Click ---------> Profit:

Edited by TWPC920, 30 August 2008 - 00:25.

[Dauth]

What can that do though, that a Land Rover can't?

[Sasori_Zero]

Viper, on 29 Aug 2008, 22:46, said:

BTW, a group of soldiers with a strong cable can trip it. Nice try.

tanks will ALWAYS be superior to mechs. the only thing mechs can do better is in a zero-gee environment. (AKA Space)

any weapon you could put on a mech, you could put on a tank. mechs MAY have better armor, (though i doubt it) but they are a lot easier to see.

Easier to see=easier to hit
easier to hit=more hits to withstand

same with the stealth fighter. one hit and POOF! no more plane. thus, they are made to not be seen.

I see your point however mechs can be modified in ways to be faster than tanks. Mechs can go underwater. With the packs I suggested they can fly and have more firepower than a tank. They can be armored better (Depending on the model a Tank most likely may be better than the SSW however the SSW would be quicker. TAs would be stronger but sacrifice speed.

Quote

What can that do though, that a Land Rover can't?

Quadrupedal Vehicles can carry more people than a Land Rover.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 01:39.

[CommanderJB]

The main trouble is that you're assuming advances in technology which are almost certain not to happen for many, many decades, and possibly hundreds of years, and then not giving these advantages gained by technological improvements to tanks as well. Militaries use the tank because:

• It is heavily armoured and exerts persistent ground control
  
• It is capable of dealing with any ground target
  
• It is a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment when compared to aircraft or a 'mech' utilising a basic technological concept
  
• It has correspondingly low production times
  
• It has been battle proven in many wars
  
• It is an integral part of modern combat tactics
  
• Production facilities are already tooled for it, and if not, it is a relatively simple matter to convert one
  
• It is easier and far more cost-effective to go with what you know works.

Mechs, while theoretically possible, would take a quantum leap in articulation, power systems, miniature-scale engineering, stabilisation and ambulatory systems, and control systems over what exists today. And yet for a bipedal design in particular, the result of pouring all this money into lengthy years of R&D is a larger target signature, a less stable weapons platform, an inherently more vulnerable method of propulsion and a lower weapons power rating than that of vehicles for the same role which exists today. While all these problems could (possibly) be solved with enough research, there is simply no reason to assume that the end product would have any tactical or strategic advantage over a classic mechanised unit over the near to mid-term future, and thus no reason for militaries to invest in it beyond absolutely base-level miniature-scale conceptual studies, which of course are already underway.

[Sasori_Zero]

This because most technology I have mentioned have already been made or feasibly close to completion(An example: Particle Shields. Railguns use two bars with a current flowing through it creating a magnetic field which would hold the particles together. Then we know methods to get particles thus this is feasible and take little research). They are also based on specifics(like how I said make a Mechanical equivalent of human joints and put them in mechs). We already have made most of these technologies. Look at this even the prototype for a human existing exoskeleton works, sure you can't buy it yet but close to completion there are more finished technologies than people may believe. You just have to look.

[Cryptkeeper]

Dauth, on 29 Aug 2008, 19:30, said:

What can that do though, that a Land Rover can't?

tighter more densely forested and rugged terrain its more of a assist carrying items then anything

[Destiny]

So, if it only has a single screen in the front...we'll just ambush it from the sides, from the back. When it turns, gunships will attack from the back.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention.


How can something like that support a moving center of gravity? Your ideas are wayyyy off the rails, man.

Mech in water? Watched too much gundam, I see. I'd rather go for the Macross series, meh. A single torpedo from some sub will sink the mech, no, you don't dodge torpedoes in water. Especially with a goddamn freaking huge mech that cannot maintain buoyancy in water and it'll move at least twice/thrice as slow than it was on land.

Oh yes, something like that will generate massive amounts of heat...where would the heat go? Recycle it? HAH! We'll can shoot a Kinetic Penetrator into any vents and holes we see and down the mech. Don't talk about blocking the vents because the mech'll fail. Meches will not replace tanks, as far as I can say.


EDIT: I don't think wearing pilot suits will help you from all the G-forces.

But my good ol' aircraft won't be replaced by meches, btw.



(I think he's watched too many Gundam shows with character shields, duck and tumble? ROFLMAO)

Edited by Destiny, 30 August 2008 - 03:01.