145 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 12:18, said:

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.

I'm afraid that your example is in my mind the single most improbable aspect of the entire concept. We are nowhere near close to making a 'particle shield' - a rail/coilgun (which are in their absolute infancy in any case) cannot possibly be compared with the difficulty of creating a screen of particles with enough energy and density to even remotely affect a twenty-kilogram piece of tungsten travelling at hypersonic speeds. You would need to 'recycle' the particles themselves, re-energise and transmit them, and of course you will only be able to do so in beams. As such you would need what amounts to a 'grille' of particle beams, each of which requires its own emitter, magnets, focusing elements, field generators and goodness only knows what else in order to create a barrier against anything at all, and the energy levels required for the particles with their infinitesimally small mass to affect an object millions or billions of times their size within microseconds would just be ridiculous. In another example, flight packs have also been investigated for something like fifty years now without any appreciably useful result. So the basis of such technologies may exist, but to get it to the sort of levels you're talking about, for a serious military application with real advantages over a traditional mechanised unit, will take a long time.

[Sasori_Zero]

Destiny, on 30 Aug 2008, 3:58, said:

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)

I'm going to say this once and only once: an operators manual NEVER EVER suggests using a vehicle in water that was'nt made for water . Unless the situation calls for it or it was infact designed for Marine Combat, you have to consider not all models of Mech would be designed for solely for ground combat. Some may be designed for Air combat or Assault roles as in a series of the mech all with different purpose. There is a limit to everything no one in their right mind purposely goes at a dangerous speed. Also everything has flaws its a fact of life. Mechs will have flaws, now if in the future they figure out a way to dissipate heat in a way that it needs no vents, fine. Pilots will just have to be aware of surrondings. it will have sound feeds btw. Also about the Center of Gravity, That would have to be in an area deemed safe by experts (similar to aircraft Engineering)

Also OK lets go to tanks. You can shoot the gas tanks on a tank, Now im sure atleast ONE person will say you can jettison the tank but what if the person destroys them all to the point of having an tank of gas with an obscene amount of gasoline in it? Or how about water deeper that 1.8-2.0 meters? simple its stuck. Run out of ammo? tough Shit atleast with an ISW it would have more than 2 or 3 weapons and traverse all forms of terrain. Have a guy open the tank's hatch throw a grenade inside and kill everyone. If the mech was designed to have a Titanium door and be lockable then there is no just shoot the lock. It would have to be blown open with something stronger than a RPG. Tanks are treaded which is why it can get over many terrain but its not like a foot that can step over something(such as a fallen tree or other vehicle wreakage) and then comes weapons compliment:

Tank- Weapons only as much as it was constructed with not interchangeable unless the tank was requested to have that type of weapon(s)

Mech- Interchangeable unless the weapons are welded to it. Can choose a multitude of weapons (which would be designed for it) ranging from Pistols to Gauss Rifles and Railguns. Packs (the Integrated Weapons as I mentioned in the doc which would fit on the machine and also interchangeable ) provide extra functions (flight ,extra weapons, possible sea capability , Environmental resistance) however must be equip before a battle begins.


Armor may be similar but it is relative to the alloy either vehicle is made out of.

So when it comes down to it the ISW(as I refer to it for the most part) can fill more roles than a tank can.

Also CommanderJB your skepticism I understand all the techs (I even said for a Particle Shield to be even remotely usable on a ISW would be impossible due to the technology to create it is quite large and thus fits a better role on larger vehicles) may take time to develop but the weapons packs right now are feasible and quite possible. Railguns are (as far I know) are quite simple that it can indeed be fit on Tanks , Aircraft, Battleships and my Mech theoretical model its simply not miniaturized so infantry can use it and trying to discover further uses. Coilguns actually are better for infantry use due to lasting longer , smaller and can have ammunition packs developed. However I said that with Particle shields that they would use charge to polarize mass(bullets) and prevent such from getting through. Thus slow decaying particles held together in layers by a magnetic field with a negative charge would as said polarize mass and thus prevent it from getting through. Rather than sheer Mass and Density prevent mass from getting through (which is why I said lasers and beams would pass directly through it) and if we apply your beam idea it would just take accurate reflection and a similar mag field thus creating a grid that mass still will not be able to pass through.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 04:15.

[CommanderJB]

Nevertheless, the energy levels required alone dictate a time scale of half a century or more before a powerplant suitable for the job is developed to a portable model.

Quote

Also OK lets go to tanks. You can shoot the gas tanks on a tank, Now im sure atleast ONE person will say you can jettison the tank but what if the person destroys them all to the point of having an tank of gas with an obscene amount of gasoline in it? Or how about water deeper that 1.8-2.0 meters? simple its stuck. Run out of ammo? tough S*** atleast with an ISW it would have more than 2 or 3 weapons and traverse all forms of terrain. Have a guy open the tank's hatch throw a grenade inside and kill everyone. If the mech was designed to have a Titanium door and be lockable then there is no just shoot the lock. It would have to be blown open with something stronger than a RPG. Tanks are treaded which is why it can get over many terrain but its not like a foot that can step over something(such as a fallen tree or other vehicle wreakage) and then comes weapons compliment:

You can't 'shoot the gas tank' on a tank; the fuel is contained behind thick layers of steel and composite laminated armour, much better protected than any part of a mech thanks to the inevitable demands the required mobility would make on maximum weight. Light-weight armour? Once developed, you can mount more of it on a tank, so it's still better protected. You simply cannot go about assuming that somehow none of the technologies for an ISW will applicable to a tank. Weapon-wise, mechs, with their smaller volume, would have less space to store weapons and ammunition than armoured vehicles; they are bound to run out of ammo, even for the smaller guns that would need to be mounted on them to compensate for recoil effects and the ever-present weight issue, before a tank (which carry thousands of rounds for their machine guns and usually forty or more for the main armament, more than enough for almost any imaginable engagement scenario).
And the hatch thing? Give me one single example of where this has happened with modern armour in real life and I will start to believe it as a 'weakness'. But I don't think you'll be able to find any.
Edit - also, when you say 'polarise the mass', are you somehow suggesting that the particle field will be able to bring the round to a standstill by some sort of magnetic effect? The force required to stop an APFSDS round travelling at hundreds of metres per second within a centimetre or two would be astronomical. I'm not familiar with magnetic power levels, but I can safely say you would need a force thousands (if not millions) of times stronger than any magnet or electromagnet ever made. And of course you have to make hundreds of these things, miniaturise them, and cover your walker with them. Sorry, but you are never going to sell me on this.

Edited by CommanderJB, 30 August 2008 - 04:23.

[Jok3r]

Erm... about the hatch... WTF? A. Those hatches lock. B. just as well as any on any mech. Also, on your point about mud. A mech will do MUCH WORSE in water or mud than a tank. Why? A tank can be adapted to operate in water (Look at the BMP's, not a tank, admittedly, but... its that direction). And the treads on a tank DISPERSE its heavy weight over their entire length, making them much less likely to sink into muck. However, the "feet" of a mech put all the weight of the mech onto a single point, causing it to sink into any sort of muck much more so than a tank. JB is right, mate- Mechs just aren't a good choice at the moment.
Swimmer

EDIT: Also, about said "polarization". Again, JB is right. Your basically speaking of mounting a full fledged nuclear reactor on your mech, in order to power one of these things. Not exactly efficient. PLUS, this technology would be deployed on tanks first...

Edited by Swimmer, 30 August 2008 - 04:26.

[Sasori_Zero]

CommanderJB, on 30 Aug 2008, 5:18, said:

Nevertheless, the energy levels required alone dictate a time scale of half a century or more before a powerplant suitable for the job is developed to a portable model.

Quote

Also OK lets go to tanks. You can shoot the gas tanks on a tank, Now im sure atleast ONE person will say you can jettison the tank but what if the person destroys them all to the point of having an tank of gas with an obscene amount of gasoline in it? Or how about water deeper that 1.8-2.0 meters? simple its stuck. Run out of ammo? tough S*** atleast with an ISW it would have more than 2 or 3 weapons and traverse all forms of terrain. Have a guy open the tank's hatch throw a grenade inside and kill everyone. If the mech was designed to have a Titanium door and be lockable then there is no just shoot the lock. It would have to be blown open with something stronger than a RPG. Tanks are treaded which is why it can get over many terrain but its not like a foot that can step over something(such as a fallen tree or other vehicle wreakage) and then comes weapons compliment:

You can't 'shoot the gas tank' on a tank; the fuel is contained behind thick layers of steel and composite laminated armour, much better protected than any part of a mech thanks to the inevitable demands the required mobility would make on maximum weight. Light-weight armour? Once developed, you can mount more of it on a tank, so it's still better protected. You simply cannot go about assuming that somehow none of the technologies for an ISW will applicable to a tank. Weapon-wise, mechs, with their smaller volume, would have less space to store weapons and ammunition than armoured vehicles; they are bound to run out of ammo, even for the smaller guns that would need to be mounted on them to compensate for recoil effects and the ever-present weight issue, before a tank (which carry thousands of rounds for their machine guns and usually forty or more for the main armament, more than enough for almost any imaginable engagement scenario).
And the hatch thing? Give me one single example of where this has happened with modern armour in real life and I will start to believe it as a 'weakness'. But I don't think you'll be able to find any.

FGM-148 Javelin can definitely pierce tank armor and possibly reach the tanks of gas within such vehicles. Also Ill look up on the grenade part I remember reading it some where however ill look for the link. Also I never mentioned a powersource (for the fifth time) and its getting irritating saying I never said nuclear reactor over and over again

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 04:42.

[Alias]

Yeah, think of how more easily it'll pierce mech armour.

[Sasori_Zero]

Note all the tanks blown completely open by the Javelin were made of Steel. It may be less effective on Titanium because it is 30% stronger than steel. Which is why I continuously say the ISW would be made of Titanium Alloy rather than Steel.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 04:45.

[Destiny]

Quote

Railguns are (as far I know) are quite simple that it can indeed be fit on Tanks , Aircraft, Battleships and my Mech theoretical model its simply not miniaturized so infantry can use it and trying to discover further uses.

LOLAIRCRAFT

I think you're in dreamland right now. Not even the Spectre would want to mount a railgun of all weapons.

Battleships, their crews, their navy, its captain, will rather use their main batteries than some experimental railgun.

Tanks? As if tanks didn't have enough cooling systems already...

When that mech ever gets produced, I'll be waiting there with a wooden stick.

[Alias]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 14:44, said:

Note all the tanks blown completely open by the Javelin were made of Steel. It may be less effective on Titanium because it is 30% stronger than steel. Which is why I continuously say the ISW would be made of Titanium Alloy rather than Steel.

And tanks wouldn't?

From all angles, mechs are just not viable against tanks.

[Sasori_Zero]

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/2...lid=857&a=f

I suggest reading that before even suggesting a Captain of a battleship preferring main batteries over Railguns . Because I think You are in dreamland with this railgun buisness(the thing would not make alot of heat due to how it is fired electromagnetically) and recoil issue? The Recoil for such a gun is even less than that of a conventional gun because the recoil for a given projectile in a rail gun is less than for a conventional gun. All other things being equal,the accelerated mass is less in a rail gun because there is no propellant. Also that the projectile is in effect being carried out of the barrel by the magnetic forces. Thus the recoil felt would be less than the propellant style of conventional weaponry.

Also alias if so then why the hell hasn't the military made Titanium tanks?

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 05:02.

[Jok3r]

Because. Titanium. Is. Expensive! Thats why you don't see mechs. It all comes down to cost! If you can have a tank for a quarter of the price of your mech, that does the job as well, if not better... wouldn't you?

[Sasori_Zero]

Titanium can't be that expensive if almost every military use jet is made out of it.

[Alias]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 14:58, said:

Also alias if so then why the hell hasn't the military made Titanium tanks?

It isn't viable for mechs and therefore isn't viable for tanks (ERA etc. are all far more efficient).
I reiterate: anything that would make a mech good could be done better on a tank.

Edited by Alias, 30 August 2008 - 05:13.

[Jok3r]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 1:11, said:

Titanium can't be that expensive if almost every military use jet is made out of it.

DO you have ANY idea what your talking about? I don't have exact specs at this second, but titanium is VERY expensive. Thats why jets are not entirely made out of it, only certain components. And have you ever noticed how many less jets we have than tanks? Its because they are expensive

[Sasori_Zero]

How so better? I will also reiterate: a Mech can fill more roles than a tank and has more weapons that are interchangeable than a Tank (if a Tank even has any).

Also Swimmer yes I do. But I also know that the outer hull is made out of it. Along with most Ships . The cost is so expensive due to staggering inflation costs that have caused it to skyrocket (a pound in 2003 cost $11.50 it is atleast 8x that now if not more).

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 05:24.

[Jok3r]

Cheaper, (Four to a hundred tanks for the price of one of your mechs) equal or greater firepower (c'mon, anything that will ever go on a mech will be on a tank for ten years first). Oh, and what do you mean, interchangeable. Sorry, mate, but thats bullshit. not happening.
Swimmer

[Sasori_Zero]

Interchangeable as in if the machine was carrying it in say a pack thats on its back. Lets say it deployed equipped with a GAU-8 Avenger, it runs out of ammo after taking out an amount of vehicles it could drop it whip out small arms weaponry because lighter vehicles are coming in and destroys them. Pilot can then call for an airdrop of more weaponry which is then deployed on the battlefield if melee weaponry is not fruitful. However there is obviously a limit to the amount the mech can carry without having to use of a EMC theory(Below):

Electromagnetic catapult works similar to that of a railgun supplies may be fired from such a cannon in what is a shell after firing from miles away a parachute is deployed and lands on target location. It is then openable with a lever which opens the shells locking mechanisms. This can be used to deploy supplies ISWs and other machinery from distances without the risks of Air Vehicles going deep into enemy territory and getting shot down.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 05:34.

[Sicarius]

Sasori_Zero, on 29 Aug 2008, 23:30, said:

Interchangeable as in if the machine was carrying it in say a pack thats on its back. Lets say it deployed equipped with a GAU-8 Avenger, it runs out of ammo after taking out an amount of vehicles it could drop it whip out small arms weaponry because lighter vehicles are coming in and destroys them. Pilot can then call for an airdrop of more weaponry which is then deployed on the battlefield if melee weaponry is not fruitful. However there is obviously a limit to the amount the mech can carry without having to use of a EMC theory(Below):

Or, we could have a TANK firing a number of different types of shells, including kinetic energy penetrators, APFSDS and HEAT rounds for anti-armour, HE shells, fragmentary shells and canister shot for soft targets and fortifications, as well as ATGM's(all of which could pwn your mech). Add to that a coaxial MG and turret roof mounted HMG and I see little reason to pick your mech over this. And then add 4 MORE tanks for the price of one of your mechs.

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 30 August 2008 - 05:50.

[Sasori_Zero]

Ok so if my mech is so useless and all the tech I have suggested for it should (or would) be on a tank because it would be "better" then tell me why no military has done this? Because all of what you suggested will make the tank obese and thus have to be at the Base on site and it will slow it down. Tanks can't afford to drop that weight , Mechs can. Also what you just suggested would make reloading take longer and alot more concentration. This is why stuff like that is not on a tank. Because on a tank it is actually less effective or impare the tank too greatly. Along with cost more.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 06:01.

[Sicarius]

Sasori_Zero, on 29 Aug 2008, 23:57, said:

Ok so if my mech is so useless and all the tech I have suggested for it should (or would) be on a tank because it would be "better" then tell me why no military has done this?

It has been stated numerous times in this thread why the tech you suggested can't be used.

Quote

Because all of what you suggested will make the tank obese and thus have to be at the Base on site and it will slow it down. Tanks can't afford to drop that weight , Mechs can. Also what you just suggested would make reloading take longer and alot more concentration. This is why stuff like that is not on a tank. Because on a tank it is actually less effective or impare the tank too greatly. Along with cost more.

I'd recommend you do a little research before making claims like this; everything I mentioned is ammo that can be fired from a tank's main gun, and can already be found equipped in most tanks.

Saying that it makes it cost more and less effective is B.S, especially compared to you're mech.

Edit:

Wizard, on 27 Aug 2008, 14:18, said:

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

MOVIES DON'T LIE.

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 30 August 2008 - 06:35.

[Sasori_Zero]

Im reading this with the thought that 1. I know what that ammo and 2. Everyone as soon as I mentioned weapons have mentioned ammo costs of my mech being extremely high. This is where cost more comes, after unloading all that ammo then comes down to restocking and believe me that is alot of different shells or ammo. the rifling wears down under regular APFSDS thus maintenance costs. The M1A1 / M1A2 tank can carry only 40 rounds and with correct planning can be destroyed before it hits its target. I have never heard of or even read about ATGM being loaded in tanks. Caseshot pwning a mech is bullshit, especially if the mech has armor that is even stronger than its own.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 06:40.

[CommanderJB]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 16:35, said:

I have never heard of or even read about ATGM being loaded in tanks.

Almost all Russian tanks have the ability to fire missiles from their main gun; the T-62, T-64, and T-72 all require minimal upgrading (which most have received) for the job, and the ability comes as standard on T-80s and especially T-90s.
Just to ask, what would your mech use to defeat a tank? It can hardly carry a 120/125mm smoothbore gun; no amount of fold-out supports would prevent the structural frame from buckling if it was 'held' by an arm with a hand on it. The only answer I can see then is ATGMs, and you can carry very few of these at any given time, and they take a long while to reload with almost any modern system which is not tube-fired. In short forty shells is a lot more anti-tank firepower than half a dozen ATGMs, which can also be jammed or shot down, unlike an APFSDS round.

On a moderating note, while this thread is entirely on-track, several members seem to be taking the idea a bit personally and a few of the replies seem unnecessarily harsh. Derision isn't going to persuade anyone, so please treat Sasori_Zero with respect, no matter what you may think of his idea of a bipedal combat mech.

Edited by CommanderJB, 30 August 2008 - 07:00.

[Sasori_Zero]

against a tank would be ATGM because it is the most effective against such vehicles however due to the mechs height (can range from a few feet to several meters depending on height) could support larger weaponry like how I suggested of the railgun. All it really requires is just a feasible ammunition pack and more casing. It did also have infantry weaponry which would be desgined to accommodate its size. With the size of the bullets they could also have an effect on tanks.

Also JB thats why I wrote The Mech possibly carrying a type of "backpack" (more like a box on its back) that would hold extra weaponry and ammunition.

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 30 August 2008 - 07:11.

[Sicarius]

Sasori_Zero, on 30 Aug 2008, 1:07, said:

against a tank would be ATGM

You can hold significantly less ATGM's than a tank can hold rounds, like JB said, and I doubt thier ability to penetrate through modern composite armours. Add onto that ERA, active protection systems like Arena and trophy, and countermeasure systems like Shtora-1 and I think you'll find your mech is less effective against armoured vehicles than you would like.

Quote

could support larger weaponry like how I suggested of the railgun.

Again, railguns are out because they are not at the stage where they could even be mounted on a ship, and still require large amounts of power to operate.

Quote

It did also have infantry weaponry which would be desgined to accommodate its size.

Why would you want to use infantry weaponry on a mech? Why not just have a squad of *infantry*. who do not present such a huge target, are more mobile and can attack from multiple angles?

Sorry, but mechs just aren't feasible and will never replace tanks or anything else on the battlefield . They just can't compete with even modern tanks, let alone tanks from the future.

Sorry in advance if I sound like an ass.

EDIT: WTF? I got logged out while I was typing this up. >_<

Edited by ~Doomsday~, 30 August 2008 - 07:38.

[Sasori_Zero]

they would use Weapons similar to what infantry use (with the size accommodation) because it would defeat the purpose to have hands (Aside from lifting things) so should'nt the sheer size be able to punch holes in the tank(thinking of Kinetic energy when I say this.