145 replies to this topic

[TWPC920]

~Doomsday~, on 30 Aug 2008, 7:37, said:

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.

Actually, the most modern iteration of the TOW missile can pierce through all known tank armor. But the fact still stands that if the mech can launch ATGMs, so can tanks... [Off topic] I wonder if they'll ever make hover tanks in the future... [back on topic] Anyways, if you used multiple weapon systems, where your mech had to pick up each weapon, does that mean your ATGMs are going to be mounted on the mech instead of being a individual launching device? Either way sounds like a dangerous proposal, if you use an individual launching device, your mech is going to have to manually reload the launcher, since i dont think there are Clip-Fed Missile launchers that launch ATGMs. On the other hand, if it is mounted like a pod on your mech, the missiles are open to enemy fire, and imagine if a single incendiary round hits a missile in that pod... BOOM goes the entire mech.

[CommanderJB]

So say Ratheon, anyway. If I were you I'd treat manufacturer claims with a little skepticism; the 9M133 Kornet, a Russian system with greater claimed penetration power behind ERA that was also deployed more recently (1994 as opposed to 1987) was unable to penetrate a T-90 with ERA at all even with five shots against a stationary target, and only one out of five penetrated it even without any ERA installed.
Link: http://russianarmor....S/19991020.html

[TWPC920]

hum, i always thought that since TOWs could pierce all known tank armor, Kornets would wtfpwn tanks due to its higher piercing capabilities, i guess i was wrong. I wonder if its possible to make a ATGM for tanks that uses a Hellfire missile warhead and a specialized casing adapted for launch from a smoothbore tank barrel?

[Waris]

With a diameter of 178mm it won't even fit all contemporary smoothbore tank guns.

Also you keep sayng that TOW can penetrate all known tank armour. Source?

[TWPC920]

i'm sorry, i should have said "I stand corrected" in my previous post, Commander JB appearently prooved me wrong. "hum, i always thought that since TOWs could pierce all known tank armor, Kornets would wtfpwn tanks due to its higher piercing capabilities, i guess i was wrong" This was my conjecture, before Commander JB showed me that armor test statistics.

Edited by TWPC920, 30 August 2008 - 10:50.

[Destiny]

I don't think any country can afford producing these fabled "packs" and airdrop them to the mech when it needs new or different ones, continually. We'd just down the cargo planes and there, the mech has no weapons! No, you don't find them packs scattered in your airfields because they don't. It'll be just being a cash cow.

Drop the pack? The enemy'll use it to produce more tanks, ROFL.

I'm pretty sure that the mech won't survive it's first battle.

[Zero]

Okay, most people think that this is not going to take off, well, it won't not todays anyways. Like I stated before, this weapon is at least fifty years away from our reach- although in reality it would probably take 100-200 years.

As for the thumbs, you can always make weapons for it, there will always be greedy bastards trying to make a profit our of war, the green collars. Again, adaptability, the single most important thing in the battlefield. I would rather spend some money on a machine that can switch from a long-range artillery cannon, to a short range tank gun.

About the gundam part, why the hell not!?! (joke) Still, a lot of gundam (at least the first season) is scientifically correct. All in all, I say they would make great weapons but it will take a lot of time to do it. How do I know? Even in gundam, it took about 79 years after they colonized space (fully colonized, as in those artificial space worlds that Braum and them thought up) to make and perfect their mechs. They are possible and very good weapons, as for the feasibility factor, if this thing can be given a strong yet light enough armor and be made to fly, it would be pretty powerful, especially if it is able to resist a hit from an AA missile (which would take a very strong armor, and it !!has!! to be light). Also, as for the recoil, most humans tend to kneel when firing a weapon with immense recoil (such as an AM rifle or certain rocket launchers), the same logic could apply. Also weight distribution can be worked around (we can make structures miles tall that weigh many many tonnes with a very tiny base, we can make techniques that will work on moving mechs.

In short, good weapon, great idea, feasible....... IN THE NEXT 100 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and here are a list of weapons that people thought would never catch on:
-aircraft (non-recon military type)
-aircraft carriers
-tanks
-guns (in Japan, most people thought it would never replace the sword)
-the Earthquake bomb (WWII, did a hell of a lot of damage before being replace by the nuke)
-etc.,etc.,etc.

[Sasori_Zero]

Well when it comes down to it, it depends on the focus of the research. Like when the British developed the tank in WWI it was the focus of the military to develop it and as we see it was developed. So if the military wanted something like this they would try what ever possible to develop it.

(Also Destiny thats why before an airlifted pack was delivered the area would have to be cleared or a EMC would have to fire it to the site which can also be a way to deploy ISWs.)

Well when it comes down to it, it depends on the focus of the research. Like when the British developed the tank in WWI it was the focus of the military to develop it and as we see it was developed. So if the military wanted something like this they would try what ever possible to develop it.

(Also Destiny thats why before an airlifted pack was delivered the area would have to be cleared or a EMC would have to fire it to the site which can also be a way to deploy ISWs.)

On top of that ISWs would most likely be made of a Titanium Alloy which is stronger than standard tank armor.

[TWPC920]

If you can put titanium alloy armor on mechs... why not just put it on tanks...? Its like seeking answer by going through the long way... Also... how long is it going to take to airlift your individual weapon packs onto the battlefield...? What if you needed a rocket launcher, but you only had a minigun for your mech. So you request it from HQ, but HQ is 30 minutes away, I'm sorry, but in that kind of scenario, you are going to be screwed. At least tanks have multiple weapons to make up for this, ie. Cannon for armor, MG for low flying aircraft and infantry.

[Zero]

I have to disagree with you both.

First of all, in warfare, whatever side has more adaptability wins, if you have a weapon that can use a tank cannon, artillery gun, flamethrower, and missiles within five seconds of firing the other one, you win. A tank may have more weapons, but lets face it, the fact that you can make a mech switch from a long-range artillery cannon, to a short-range tank cannon (relative to the arty, of course) gives you a huge advantage in both sides because you can have one unit do both jobs. Also, don't bring up mgs, they will probably put an mg pod somwhere on the body (maybe in the head like they do in gundam).

Also, titanium is a big no-no, not strong enough and too heavy, for an effective mech you would need the equivalent of gundanium, a metal stonger and lighter than titanium, by a lot!!

Mobility will also be an issue, in the end, it all depends on where the money goes, we can either spent millions upgrading and improving tanks and their techs, or we can spend billions more trying to get mech tech to work, at least today we do. In 100-200 years we will be able to do a lot more with this tech and we will probably scrap the tank as an earth-bound, bulky machine, with bad maneuverability is just too big a handicap. Speed may not come naturally, but you can probably get a good fifty miles an hour out of this and flight-packs will definitely improve the speed. The fact that every step causes a mini-earthquake will not be to big a problem as it will too small to affect the behemoths and help screw up enemy infantry's movement (don't worry about the civs, they will get screwed as always, after all, the surviving is more important than who survives to the government and military in general, and civilians are at the bottom of the "who survives" list).

Also, please note i'm talking about real mechs that can go up to ten stories tall, afterall, the exoskeleton is not that big an advantage over armor. So, in the end, the mech will replace the tank, it is much more adaptable, maneuverable, etc. It's just that it will take centuries before that change even begins.

[Sharpnessism]

A tank can have a flame thrower AND a regular tank gun while guarding an artillery piece for lower cost.

Quote

Mobility will also be an issue, in the end, it all depends on where the money goes, we can either spent millions upgrading and improving tanks and their techs, or we can spend billions more trying to get mech tech to work, at least today we do. In 100-200 years we will be able to do a lot more with this tech and we will probably scrap the tank as an earth-bound, bulky machine, with bad maneuverability is just too big a handicap. Speed may not come naturally, but you can probably get a good fifty miles an hour out of this and flight-packs will definitely improve the speed. The fact that every step causes a mini-earthquake will not be to big a problem as it will too small to affect the behemoths and help screw up enemy infantry's movement (don't worry about the civs, they will get screwed as always, after all, the surviving is more important than who survives to the government and military in general, and civilians are at the bottom of the "who survives" list).

First of all if we have that technology we'll have super fast aircraft capable of wtfpwning a "mech" with just a few missiles or AP rounds. Tanks will be scrapped because aircraft domination will be too strong. Warfare that futuristic consists of aircraft, aerospace fighters, big space carriers, and infantry for ground. By that time, we have infantry based weapons capable of homing in and completely destroying MBTs and low/slow flying aircraft and any mechs there will be.

[TWPC920]

Quote

First of all, in warfare, whatever side has more adaptability wins, if you have a weapon that can use a tank cannon, artillery gun, flamethrower, and missiles within five seconds of firing the other one, you win. A tank may have more weapons, but lets face it, the fact that you can make a mech switch from a long-range artillery cannon, to a short-range tank cannon (relative to the arty, of course) gives you a huge advantage in both sides because you can have one unit do both jobs. Also, don't bring up mgs, they will probably put an mg pod somwhere on the body (maybe in the head like they do in gundam).

There ARE tanks that can use cannon and flame thrower at the same time... Churchill CrocodileTank from WWII anyone? Want a cannon with a mortar for long range bombardment? Try the Merkava. And you still haven't addressed my main point, HOW are you going to get the weapons delivered to you on time, If you're out fighting, chances are, you're not going to be close to the HQ.

Quote

Also, titanium is a big no-no, not strong enough and too heavy, for an effective mech you would need the equivalent of gundanium, a metal stonger and lighter than titanium, by a lot!!

Not the point, sure, I know that titanium is a big no-no, but I was answering based on Sasori's post, if you could put improved armor plating on mechs, what says that you cant put the same thing on tanks?

Quote

Mobility will also be an issue, in the end, it all depends on where the money goes, we can either spent millions upgrading and improving tanks and their techs, or we can spend billions more trying to get mech tech to work, at least today we do. In 100-200 years we will be able to do a lot more with this tech and we will probably scrap the tank as an earth-bound, bulky machine, with bad maneuverability is just too big a handicap. Speed may not come naturally, but you can probably get a good fifty miles an hour out of this and flight-packs will definitely improve the speed. The fact that every step causes a mini-earthquake will not be to big a problem as it will too small to affect the behemoths and help screw up enemy infantry's movement (don't worry about the civs, they will get screwed as always, after all, the surviving is more important than who survives to the government and military in general, and civilians are at the bottom of the "who survives" list).

Ever thought about the "mini-earthquakes" affecting your own infantry movements? What about support vehicles, Ambulences, Repair Vehicles, Bridge Vehicles? Those all get dumped when you make "mini-earthquakes".

[Strategia]

You (Sasori) keep referring to making them fly. How do you intend to achieve that?

[Sharpnessism]

People that say that Mechs (Gundams) are plausible say they'll fly with jet packs and/or jump jets.

[TWPC920]

Good luck doing that in earth's atmosphere, you can't even begin to calculate the amount of thrust power for a mech thats 16.6 meters tall... its significantly more plausible in space, however

[partyzanpaulzy]

I think Mechs won't replace tanks at all when they will be strong enough, tanks will still have some advantages like (nowadays light para- tanks (SPRUT SD) ) sail through water, better speed (when mech will go into service, they will be faster, nowadays Japanese are trying to make mech prototype, but it's too slow and vulnerable in my opinion).

Mechs will be better to operate in slum or bush areas like on half-destroyed urban areas (tanks can do it, but slower). When the mech will be larger than slum huts, pilot (driver doesn't fit me in this case) will see more than tank driver (try to use radar when there are plate roofs). When he will need to fire on large distance, he won't have to demolish few huts around like tank. You can use helicopters on this, but there should be problems with AA defences and they will be much more markedly on enemy's radar unless they will fly few steps from the roofs.

Mechs would be better in rocky desert than tanks ( in sandy deserts mechs could have problems sand in bearings or servos, but this could be fixed too).

I think one day there will be tank, mech and helicopter. Each has advantages and disadvantages from each other.

[Cuppa]

partyzanpaulzy, on 31 Aug 2008, 13:17, said:

I think one day there will be tank, mech and helicopter. Each has advantages and disadvantages from each other.

That sounds more plausible. But that day will be a long time from now because there are many problems that would to be worked out with a mech. But for the time being, until those discoveries are made, I think the closest we will get to a bi pedal tank is a S.H.I.E.L.D unit (or for those of you who haven't played Act of War, an infantryman in a powered exoskeleton)

<--- SHIELD Unit

Edited by Cuppa, 31 August 2008 - 22:29.

[partyzanpaulzy]

You've got it! :!:

... I have read about this in many science magazines: Soldiers in 20 years will be equiped with armor suit and many of them with exoskeleton, too (to carry more).
But it's possible army engineers will start making bigger and bigger exoskeletons, that would be technical evolution of mechs !

[The Wandering Jew]

As I have stated in the "mammoth tank" thread:

Quote

It is much more economical to develop an armor for a "mammoth" tank rather than a mech. We might have forgotten that it is basically regardless of the power plant you use to the mech, but the main issue is the LOCOMOTION (i.e. pneumatics and hydraulics). Okay, so how will you move that 20-ton leg? With 21st century pneumatics and hydraulics?

[Destiny]

Oh yea, I haven't forgotten about spalling and internal damage...haha. When something THAt heavy and tall OMGH4XDUCKS AND WTFTUMBLES...don't talk about dampenings and suspension because it's not feasible.

After all, it has massive limits.

- Any technology being developed for the mech will first be put on tanks, and when the mech is produced the tank with the aforementioned technology will OWN the mech.

- Pilot endurance is a massive limit. Special training? ROFLMAO gundam-esque?

- Power plant? This is what you need to start off before the concept of a mech can be talked about.

- WEIGHT prevents the mech from jumping or flying or hopping. All I can see is the legs trying to handle tonnnnnnnnnnnes. The mechanical stress will be too great and the mech will lol tumble and fall.

- Meches are not aerodynamic and flying makes them look stupid plus they'll fly as fast as a ATGM soldier full-load, running.

- WINGS don't need any explaination.

- Rotor/turbofans are nothing when you have an anti-materiel sniper rifle.

- CONCUSSION and the like.

- ENERGY AND HEAT have no need for explaination.

- RADAR signature on the screens will be massive.

- Infra Red...

- Balance is something which you'll have to solve first.

-

-

-

-

- etc. etc. etc...

[Sasori_Zero]

tskasa1, on 30 Aug 2008, 22:32, said:

Also, titanium is a big no-no, not strong enough and too heavy, for an effective mech you would need the equivalent of gundanium, a metal stonger and lighter than titanium, by a lot!!

Titanium is 2.605 ounces per cubic inch. It exists as of yet, in gundam they use beam rifles on many of the Titanium Armored mechs. Any bullets they fire is made out of a (Denser?) alloy. Titanium in a pure form is 30% Stronger than Steel ,we know where and how to mine it and it is kind of an abundant Resource. Gundanium was made from I believe moon ores (they say what it is made of in one of those Meta Series) and the Gundam itself was built is space. It comes down to resources that can bond to make strong Alloys. But that would be cool if we had such an Alloy .

Strategia Inc., on 30 Aug 2008, 23:29, said:

You (Sasori) keep referring to making them fly. How do you intend to achieve that?

most likely in early stages it would have to be thrusters either located in the legs and back or packs which are larger provide more thrust and usable for deployment or combat. Also about the height . Its thrust power would have to be relative to how heavy it is rather than height.

[Alias]

Gundam != real life.

∴ This is an inefficient battle vehicle.

[Sasori_Zero]

Mechs (in my model and anyone who would design one most likely) would range from a few thousand Kilograms to possibly a few tons but thats relative to armaments , internal Equipment , Leg weight , External Equipment and power supply.

Lets see what else to answer:

Piloting actually with a system similar to the one I mentioned should take a few weeks (like 2 - 3) to learn sense most movement would be controlled with the two Stick Controls , Car like pedals and abstract movements being set (like the hand and External weapon switches on the sticks) along with extra Abstract movements controlled through the AMI (Abstract Movement Interface) which would be near the pilots head ( control movements like disembark ) and then there was the keyboard if the pilot wished to configure the system to their needs (could be done with engineers not meant to be modified in battle).

Power: It would Comedown to: Internal Batteries , Some form of particle generator to naturally make processes happen that would create Particle energy reactions, Energy Reaction through abiotic resources.

Heat Dissipation: Through Heat Sinks , Cooling systems and specified areas in the armor designed for heat to escape.

Height 3.49 Meters to 40 Meters.

Quote

- Pilot endurance is a massive limit. Special training? ROFLMAO gundam-esque? ( Everyone has a limit. Special Training isn't that far from what could actually happen when militaries accept mechs. Special Training is pretty much training for anything that goes past "Normal" Human limits)

- Power plant? This is what you need to start off before the concept of a mech can be talked about. (Read Above)

- WEIGHT prevents the mech from jumping or flying or hopping. All I can see is the legs trying to handle tonnnnnnnnnnnes. The mechanical stress will be too great and the mech will lol tumble and fall. (read above)

- Meches are not aerodynamic and flying makes them look stupid plus they'll fly as fast as a ATGM soldier full-load, running (its not going to fly like a jet more like flight that looks similar to hang gliding. Or more or less like being carried by a sail in the air relative to thrust and propulsion)

- WINGS don't need any explaination. (Never suggested wings.)

- Rotor/turbofans are nothing when you have an anti-materiel sniper rifle. (This is also relative to tanks)

- CONCUSSION and the like. (Relative to Matter)

- ENERGY AND HEAT have no need for explaination. (Relative)

- RADAR signature on the screens will be massive. (This is untrue unless you are talking about some sort of 3D radar system this would be relative to its Length and width.)

- Infra Red... (Problem with many things that dissipate heat. Unless forms of jamming were employed )

Edited by Sasori_Zero, 06 September 2008 - 03:37.

[Dauth]

Sasori_Zero, on 6 Sep 2008, 4:25, said:

Power: It would Comedown to: Internal Batteries , Some form of particle generator to naturally make processes happen that would create Particle energy reactions, Energy Reaction through abiotic resources.

Heat Dissipation: Through Heat Sinks , Cooling systems and specified areas in the armor designed for heat to escape.

Height 3.49 Meters to 40 Meters.

I'm a physicist who has spent a long time thinking about power sources, trust me on this adiabatic power supplies are ludicrous.
Particle generators? Seriously have you studied any thermodynamics?

Heat dissipation, through heat sinks, well the heat has to go somewhere, maybe into the atmosphere around the mech? Oh look heat signature.

[TehKiller]

seriously your model is flawing and the whole concept of a mech is flawing