145 replies to this topic

[BeefJeRKy]

Perhaps in a thousand years, we'll get mechs like those in MechWarrior but I can definitely see how impractical it would be to make a Gundam-style mech.
I honestly don't see an advantage in a bipedal walking mech.
-Balance Issues: The center of gravity would be quite high and the base is small so should be easy to tip over. Gyro systems cant overcome this problem.
-High profile: By towering over the battlefield, you're exposing yourself. In today's world where weapons development outpaces armor development this is a liability.
-Power Source: You'd need some form of miniaturized thermo-fusion reactor which is far off in the future and would undoubtedly be heavy.
-Over-Sophistication: Seriously, do you know how complex it is to recreate a human hand as a machine? Why should it have opposable thumbs? Just mount the weapons onto the body of the mech from the start.

Simplicity always wins out over sophistication. That is why the tank has endured so long as a battlefield weapon. I could however imagine multi-legged walker vehicles developed as they would be much more stable and would require slightly less complex joints

[Lucid]

1000 years? no, much less then that. probably between 1-500 years.
don't underestimate advances in technology. after all, it took us only like 60 years to go from (just barely) flying biplanes to landing on the moon.

[TehKiller]

you do know that even technology advanced its still not 100% complete with inventions older than a decade or 2

[Sasori_Zero]

Dauth, on 6 Sep 2008, 11:46, said:

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.

Do you think that everything except a mech is going to run at sub Zero or something? Many things that move have heat signatures. You should know that things that run on energy will give off a heat signature, heat is energy transferred from one body or system to another due to a difference in temperature.

A Particle Generator would have to follow the laws of Thermodynamics. Particles to an extent follow the same laws. the system would still follow the rules to even work or would be impossible to transfer energy and affect anything with the energy given off. Don't try to hold Dominion over me because you believe I don't know applications or areas of Physics as it is one of my most favorite fields in science.

Scope a two story building is around 22-24 feet high I said a mech can range anything from 3.49 to 40 meters anything feasible would have to be 3.49 meters to 12 meters at the most. 3.280 feet equals one meter meaning a three story building is roughly 30 feet high converting that to meters is 10 meters exactly 2.8 feet. Obviously this mech would be for assault duties and heavily armored. Mechs fighting in an urban environment would be shorter than a two story building. We are'nt talking Evangelion , Mazinkaiser or Zeorymer of Heaven Height. Even the RX-79 was in the 18 meter height which is still near the two story height meaning if it took cover it could hide behind a two story building.
Arm Slaves (from full metal panic which in my opinion is the most realistic mecha anime that exists) most Arm Slaves are in the 7 - 8 meter height range which is again shorter than a two story building. Just wanted to clarify the height so we can stay in a realistic height area rather than suggest that they will be Behemoths even in retrospect to a city.

About technology: Everyone knows that Technology would advance faster if that was the focus of the world to research rather than to fight all the time. The tank was the Secret weapon of the British in World War I and meant only to fight. Mechs due to not needing intergrated weaponry and having imposable thumbs could do more than just fight. Such as help firefighting or dig or as said explore space. Thus in the long run as I mentioned have more roles (and fill in more) than a tank can. The Model of a tank flaws in ways also nothing is perfect everything is flawed "Perfect" is a matter of opinion.

[Dauth]

Sasori_Zero, on 7 Sep 2008, 0:59, said:

A Particle Generator would have to follow the laws of Thermodynamics. Particles to an extent follow the same laws. the system would still follow the rules to even work or would be impossible to transfer energy and affect anything with the energy given off. Don't try to hold Dominion over me because you believe I don't know applications or areas of Physics as it is one of my most favorite fields in science.

I'm sorry we obviously haven't met, my name is Dauth, I have a 2:1 in Physics with Theoretical Physics from The University of Manchester, and am looking to start a PhD in Atmospheric Physics (Specifically computational modelling of climate reactions to low lying clouds) at The University of Leeds.

All particles obey thermodynamics. Not to an extent, they all do.

It, to avoid giving off a heat signature, need to run within a few degrees of ambient temperature, day or night in desert or tundra. No engine can do that.

You mention a Mech can do other things, ever heard the phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'? I'd look into the meaning there.

[Lucid]

Name one advantage of a mech over a tank that offsets the disadvantages of said mech.

and don't just say "flexability," cause any tank can be modified to fill different roles

[TWPC920]

this is going nowhere...
Honestly, how much do you think nations would spend on a mech? Why would they? Like so many times before, we already told you that anything a mech can mount, can be mounted on tanks as well. Nations will not want to spend more on stuff they can already impliment on an existing design. Hell, if you want to be flexible, just build multiple chasis and mount eachone with a different weapon, like Dauth said, the mech would be a jack of all trades and a master of none. Its the exact same argument as the U.S. Stryker IFV, the Stryker can semi-fulfill the same duties as a Abrams tank in giving support fire, but can it ever replace the Abrams? No, because it's lacking in armor. Same thing with your robots, it may be able to fulfill the same roles as tanks and hell even CAS aircrafts and helicopters, but can it ever replace them? No, because your robot will cause significant collateral damage just based on its size. Imagine a commander wants to take over a city, but leave its industrial sites relatively intact, you cannot do that with a robot of your size, it'll just crush and demolish the nearby buildings due to small roads. On the other hand, APCs and Tanks are designed to travel on city roads and dirt paths, so they will be able to clear the city and still leave it relatively intact.

[The Wandering Jew]

Dauth, on 6 Sep 2008, 18:46, said:

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.

Heat signature=a damn good signature for a HEAT-SEEKING missile to chase

That's the main reason why world militaries are spending strenuous efforts and resources to minimize heat signature emanating from the vehicles/aircrafts/what-not.

From what I am seeing Sasori_Zero's point of view is that the mechs (his version) is similar/identical from the "Eastern" mech such as Macross and Gundam. Unfortunately, such systems will never exist. If the mech such as the T-59 Bogatyr in Batllefield 2142 is not feasible (it is necessary to note that the visual design of such mechs is almost near to reality, than the Eastern counterpart), then so much more on those "high-flying" Gundams and their Seed. In essence, Gundam shall be cool in anime, but never in real life.

Sorry to disappoint, but reality checks in.

P.S. It will also disappoint more if a billion-dollar mech shall be destroyed by one of the cheapest weapons the Red Army ever mass-produced, the RPG.

[Alie]

While I feel mechs would be a logistical nightmare and has no place on the Battlefield, That aside what would be the advantages of having such a weapon?

I believe that this episode of Gasaraki illustrates some of those plusses rather well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJHxGQivKc...feature=related

[CommanderJB]

The Wandering Jew, on 9 Sep 2008, 10:00, said:

Dauth, on 6 Sep 2008, 18:46, said:

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.

Heat signature=a damn good signature for a HEAT-SEEKING missile to chase

That's the main reason why world militaries are spending strenuous efforts and resources to minimize heat signature emanating from the vehicles/aircrafts/what-not.

I'm actually going to have to back up Sasori_Zero here; the only IR-guided weapons in use today are short-range dogfighting or MANPADS missiles for use against helicopters and fighter jets. Many vehicles and ATGMs mount thermal cameras as sights, but you're never going to see an IR-guided ATGM because the heat signature just isn't good enough and you get a lot of clutter from the ground, especially on a hot day. Still, it would certainly show up well on said camera; but probably no more so than an exhaust-belching gas-turbine powered M1A2 would. Depends on what you use to power it, I suppose, but this wouldn't be a major Achilles Heel.

The Wandering Jew, on 9 Sep 2008, 10:00, said:

From what I am seeing Sasori_Zero's point of view is that the mechs (his version) is similar/identical from the "Eastern" mech such as Macross and Gundam. Unfortunately, such systems will never exist. If the mech such as the T-59 Bogatyr in Batllefield 2142 is not feasible (it is necessary to note that the visual design of such mechs is almost near to reality, than the Eastern counterpart), then so much more on those "high-flying" Gundams and their Seed. In essence, Gundam shall be cool in anime, but never in real life.

Sorry to disappoint, but reality checks in.

P.S. It will also disappoint more if a billion-dollar mech shall be destroyed by one of the cheapest weapons the Red Army ever mass-produced, the RPG.

The T-39/L-5 Riesig walkers in the game are indeed much more realistic interpretations of a bipedal walker than what is in essence a giant exoskeletal human-mimicking walker complete with arms, hands etc. But even with the dramatically simpler design of these examples, the game actually shows to good effect their limitations; thanks to the lack of heavy guns, they can't fight at range nearly as easily as tanks, and are limited to small rocket launchers (ATGMs would be the weapon of choice in real life of course, but they still have huge ammunition limitations) and the only reason they're such powerhouses is that they've given them about four to five times the armour of the tanks on their top parts, which is of course ludicrous. They simplly wouldn't be able to carry as much armour as a tracked vehicle and their method of propulsion leaves them inherently more vulnerable. They would probably go down to an RPG, to be frank; joints are hard things to armour, after all. Legs, properly stabilised, are never going to be as fast as a set of wheels or tracks on a flat surface, and as I've said there's very little they can step over than a tank can't charge over.
(Oh, and for those of you who don't play 2142, see here and here for info on the walkers - and don't listen to the blurbs; they can't climb slopes and the SWARM rockets are actually unguided. And the raised profile, far from assisting with targeting, just makes them even more vulnerable at range thanks to their lack of long-ranged weaponry.)

[Sasori_Zero]

TWPC920, on 8 Sep 2008, 20:57, said:

this is going nowhere...
Honestly, how much do you think nations would spend on a mech? Why would they? Like so many times before, we already told you that anything a mech can mount, can be mounted on tanks as well. Nations will not want to spend more on stuff they can already impliment on an existing design. Hell, if you want to be flexible, just build multiple chasis and mount eachone with a different weapon, like Dauth said, the mech would be a jack of all trades and a master of none. Its the exact same argument as the U.S. Stryker IFV, the Stryker can semi-fulfill the same duties as a Abrams tank in giving support fire, but can it ever replace the Abrams? No, because it's lacking in armor. Same thing with your robots, it may be able to fulfill the same roles as tanks and hell even CAS aircrafts and helicopters, but can it ever replace them? No, because your robot will cause significant collateral damage just based on its size. Imagine a commander wants to take over a city, but leave its industrial sites relatively intact, you cannot do that with a robot of your size, it'll just crush and demolish the nearby buildings due to small roads. On the other hand, APCs and Tanks are designed to travel on city roads and dirt paths, so they will be able to clear the city and still leave it relatively intact.

I'm sick of repeating myself I established height and everything that could and can run on it. I established advantages and disadvantages. Its repeat over and over and over again I answered these same questions in every post I established, I just think your not reading the whole post(s). I said that Mechs would be more armored more than tanks. Any building that follows correct building codes would not be destroyed by a mech just lightly knocking into it. Realistic Mechs would most likely be shorter than a Two story building.

Tanks when replaced would most likely be for the reason of the military demanding a weapon they can deploy without having to change drastically before a battle. More weaponry, can take better cover , stronger armor ,can attack Air , Armor , Infantry and buildings. Also what about Power source? Tanks use fossil fuels: by far the dirtiest fuel second to coal. All machinery in experimentation (Exoskeletons , Next Gen Civillian transportation , Robots , USFFW(United States Future Force Warrior Program) equipment ,and any mechs (similar to the MechWarrior style) use Internal Batteries or clean fuels. Tanks for decades have had equipment made for it that run on Gasoline (or Diesel im not too sure). Using the argument "they will just make tanks have cleaner fuel systems" is not realistic. Unlike all those experimental systems I just mentioned above those have been designs years before to run on clean powersources sense the drawing board. With battery power advancing rapidly it is by far the best power source for my model of Mechs (ISW) now back to tanks. Getting a tank ready for clean power would take a decades long revamp for the systems to run on electricity or fuel cell or whatever. This is primarily due to procrastination of government's military and defense agencies. Now when tanks possibly get cleaner fuel sources weaponry will have most likely advanced dramatically, Thus adaptation will have to be made. Remember those Experimental techs? Most of those would be close to completion by then and these tech's components can be adapted to make mechs (such as I mentioned Joints and so on) tank weaponry adapted. Now then armor and sensors, again another revamp so it could take awhile before the tank would be back if such a demand was made. Which is thus very likely. And with the tank's absence they will have to make something good if not better.

[The Wandering Jew]

CommanderJB, on 9 Sep 2008, 10:52, said:

... and the only reason they're such powerhouses is that they've given them about four to five times the armour of the tanks on their top parts, which is of course ludicrous. They simplly wouldn't be able to carry as much armour as a tracked vehicle and their method of propulsion leaves them inherently more vulnerable. They would probably go down to an RPG, to be frank; joints are hard things to armour, after all. Legs, properly stabilised, are never going to be as fast as a set of wheels or tracks on a flat surface, and as I've said there's very little they can step over than a tank can't charge over.
...

Even if properly stabilized, leg movement shall be a task that will make the Augean Stables simple in comparison. It is a Big Question in pneumatics and hydraulics.

I am not saying that mechs suck. I am saying that mechs are not possible due to many factors, most especially economic and the actual combat.

[TWPC920]

Quote

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.

You still haven't refuted my argument about this, we already established that airlifting your weapons packs are out of the question, what if the enemy had air superority? Besides, airlifting still takes time, which means that every second you waste trying to airlift your weapon packs to your precious mech, you lose another million dollar investment. Secondly, you still haven't said anything about tanks with multiple weapons platforms, I have already said that flexibility for weapons is out of question because you can just get multiple different chasis for the tanks and mount a different weapon for each one, it is significantly cheaper to use existing chasis than to develop a new mech platform for your weapon systems.

Secondly, you keep saying that "experimental techs will be completed in the future for the mechs". Well, how do you know that experimental techs arent being developed for tanks as well? Who knows, maybe it's a top secret project for a tank to have a hydrogen fuel cell as a power plant. You base your arguments on circumstantial evidence, I'm sorry, but anyone can say that "oh well battery can be placed in so and so platforms". What matters is that anything you have said that a mech can do, a tank can do just as well. Sure, your mech can cross large gorges, but thats where Bridge builder tanks come in. Your mechs can develop jetpacks to fly? Hell, why not strap a tank with rocket thrusters and wield a pair of wings on it just for kicks? It looks more badass and is even more cost-effective.

Lastly, I quote you

Quote

Getting a tank ready for clean power would take a decades long revamp for the systems to run on electricity or fuel cell or whatever.

Who says you need to develop the new turbine engines or fuel cell engines for an existing tank, if you're going to make drastic changes to the tank, why not just develop a new one from the ground up? Its even easier, and the chasis/weapons are tried and tested, instead of a completely new platform for you to develop and maybe have immense failures. How do you know that it won't take years for your mech to have the fuel cell powerplant developed? Where's your proof that the stuff is already in the drawing boards? Please don't tell me that bullcrap of "so and so is already in the drawing boards and will come out soon" I can apply that to Duke Nukem Forever too, but I don't think it's coming out anytime soon.

[Sasori_Zero]

TWPC920, on 9 Sep 2008, 5:49, said:

Lastly, I quote you

Quote

Getting a tank ready for clean power would take a decades long revamp for the systems to run on electricity or fuel cell or whatever.

Who says you need to develop the new turbine engines or fuel cell engines for an existing tank, if you're going to make drastic changes to the tank, why not just develop a new one from the ground up? Its even easier, and the chasis/weapons are tried and tested, instead of a completely new platform for you to develop and maybe have immense failures. How do you know that it won't take years for your mech to have the fuel cell powerplant developed? Where's your proof that the stuff is already in the drawing boards? Please don't tell me that bullcrap of "so and so is already in the drawing boards and will come out soon" I can apply that to Duke Nukem Forever too, but I don't think it's coming out anytime soon.

answer to first question (from a previous post I made)

Quote

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.

answer to number two

To the Tank: Thats the question of the times, THE NUMBER ONE issue: Global Warming. Everyone wants no fossil fuels , clean energy , etc. If you develop a tank from the ground up you still have to go through building the tech for it to fight and run. OK go ahead and make a new tank, go to a drawing board have your artistic mind go nuts and submit the design to the top brass and see if they approve it (this could take anywhere from a few days to 2 weeks at the most.) Then develop a engine that runs on electricity (may not take too long) then revamp ALL available tech that runs on gasoline to run with a tank (this would take forever to do (Along with us talking about all that nice green paper at the minimum this would take years) then develop weapons to run on the new vehicle (could take a few years again) then wait through testing and last but not least put a price tag on it. It's going to be alot because it is a BRAND NEW FUEL EFFICIENT ADVANCED ASSAULT VEHICLE.

To The Mech

Quote

How do you know that it won't take years for your mech to have the fuel cell powerplant developed?

Because I stated battery power is on the move with alot of new things running on it. and then concepts from similar humanoid weaponry can be adapted to the Mech's design if your lazy . or could can just base some technologies (like with my model) off the natural world (basically stuff you KNOW works).

[Destiny]

Internal Batteries or Clean Fuel?

Where would the source of the internal batteries come from? Fossil Fuels. You WILL need electricity generated FROM fossil fuels to get that "internal battery".

Clean fuel? Heh, biomass or something?

And where would that battery power's electricity originate from? FOSSIL FUELS.


As many others have stated, pneumatics and hydraulics. What, your "assault rifle" ran out of ammo and you need to reload? Grab a magazine from somewhere and stick it back up to the rifle?


I can assure you, a sniper team can render that mech unoperable. (A single sniper is enough to render an entire airbase inoperable, btw.)


And of course, you burn fossils TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY. Electricity makes tanks work. Aircraft. Ships. I did I mention tanks?

[Razven]

I personally would love to see something like a mech, but like the so many points already stated by so many others, it's just not sound or good in any way to have these things go around like walking tanks.

Although I do see a rise in mechs in military logistics and infantry combat, such as labor-intensive jobs like lifting ammo, artllery shells and the like.

Maybe a combat version, like the exo-suit in ShW. but slightly larger. Dropped from maybe a low-flying C-130 or so, the legs could absorb the shock of the fall unlike a normal infantry, which will need some time to reorient themselves after a para-drop.

ERA, frabric with Kevlar weaved into it (or maybe synthetic spider-silk over the joints) on a bi-pedal mech in an urban enviroment acting as heavy support is all the combat I think I mech can do before we go into unrealistic anime mode.

[CommanderJB]

Sasori_Zero, on 9 Sep 2008, 15:22, said:

THE NUMBER ONE issue: Global Warming. Everyone wants no fossil fuels , clean energy , etc. If you develop a tank from the ground up you still have to go through building the tech for it to fight and run. OK go ahead and make a new tank, go to a drawing board have your artistic mind go nuts and submit the design to the top brass and see if they approve it (this could take anywhere from a few days to 2 weeks at the most.) Then develop a engine that runs on electricity (may not take too long) then revamp ALL available tech that runs on gasoline to run with a tank (this would take forever to do (Along with us talking about all that nice green paper at the minimum this would take years) then develop weapons to run on the new vehicle (could take a few years again) then wait through testing and last but not least put a price tag on it. It's going to be alot because it is a BRAND NEW FUEL EFFICIENT ADVANCED ASSAULT VEHICLE.

Uhm... Ahm... do you honestly think that the militaries of the world give a flying fruitcake about the environment other than what its changes might mean for their mission statement? The reason they're looking for new ways to fuel vehicles is because petrol and diesel (all oil-derived products for that matter) are becoming more expensive and most of all harder to secure a supply of. Thus the U.S. Air Force's recent change to slightly more environmentally-friendly 'green fuels' - to alleviate a bit their utter dependence on the Middle East. If you can make something run reliably and cheaply, no-one in the military really cares whether it runs cleanly or not. And any technology that can propel a mech (by generating impressive amounts of electrical power, one would assume; it's not exactly going to use clockwork gears to make the legs move after all) can also power an electric engine in a tank. Tweaking a tank to include batteries instead of fuel tanks and an electric engine would be an awful lot easier to do than building a mech to use such a system from the ground up. I just don't understand this mindset you have when it comes to technology - the tank is not an inflexible piece of equipment, and can be used in almost every ground combat environment in one role or another, albeit with varying levels of success; but it comes down to this.
The tank has evolved with the progress of technology over the past 95-odd years since it was invented. There is no reason to assume it will not do the same as long as it still has a valid role to play on the battlefield, and it has been stated again and again why this is the case. A simple design, long-ranged firepower, a low target profile, stability, the ability to cover many types of soft terrain, battle-proven effectiveness, the lack of research and development costs and the ability to be heavily armoured across virtually its entire surface are all advantages it has that a mech does not; combined with the technology that would make a mech possible, it retains them.
Mechs are possible. But they're not feasible as battle units.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:

So it is. But I have to say that mechs are not only non-feasible but impossible as well.

P.S. Nuclear Winter solves Global Warming.

[TWPC920]

Quote

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.

Where the hell are you going to get the technology for your EMC? The "smallest" railguns are mounted in huge military installations or even on a immense cruiser. It needs massive power sources in order to get the rails to launch something even as large as your weapons packs. The military are not going to install nuclear reactors in their own base, it's suicide. Its not exactly the most flexible way to deploy your packs. 2nd, let me remind you that this thing, works just like an artillery shell. Sure, it may go farther than a contemporary shell, but is it any more accurate? No, it will either fly off course due to wind or other natural effects. This means that if the enemy has mechs that are compatable with your weapons, and the packs fly into their lines, they'll be using your own weapons against you.

Quote

Because I stated battery power is on the move with alot of new things running on it.

So? Why does that matter if a lot of things are running on battery power...? What does that have to do with your mech? It does not mean that integrating it into your mech is any easier than integrating it onto a tank. What makes you say that your design submitted to the top brass won't be shot down? Fact of the matter is, the military likes things that work and are cheap, not experimental weapons that costs even more to distribute and create. Evidence for this is clearly shown with the M16-XM8 debate.

Quote

off the natural world (basically stuff you KNOW works)

Yes... I know that tanks work >.>

Finally, you still have not come up with any evidence that says that the technology for your mechs are being done on the drawing board, when i say proof and evidence, i mean websites, books, and hell, if you have it, blueprints. We all KNOW that battery is being implimented on a bunch of stuff these days, but does that mean that it will be implimented on your mech? Not necessarily, so please, before you keep pulling these unfounded arguments out of thin air, get some concrete evidence.

Edit: added a few more items.

Edited by TWPC920, 09 September 2008 - 19:31.

[Zero]

All in all, I think this is the one thing that can be said for sure as this field of weaponry is still in its very early baby stage: We may see Mechwarriors and Gundams in the battlefield (again, it depends on how much funding it gets and the patience of the military compared to the genius of the engineer), but not for at least 1-2 centuries. Now, theoretically, this is a very good weapon design, but for now its limitations are just too much, and so will it be for the next few centuries. In other words, until we have GDI (not the C&C one, the one from my book) and Flying extra-terrestial capable aircraft carriers, we won't see these puppies, especially since the one place where they would be most useful and be a jack of all, with relatively small downsides would be in outer space where they have to fight relatively close to the ship.

All who agree say I, all who don't..... well, I disagree with you.

P.S.: Please don't bring up RPGs as any self-respecting mech would have enough armor to take barrage after barrage of them, or at least a defense system, save maybe a recon one, but then again, they would just run away from the men with grenades on poles.

[Wizard]

*sigh*

Are you lot still arguing about this?

[Destiny]

Apparently we won't stop until his idea of a combat-capable mech is brutally put down.

Nah, just kidding.

[CommanderJB]

tskasa1, on 10 Sep 2008, 2:40, said:

P.S.: Please don't bring up RPGs as any self-respecting mech would have enough armor to take barrage after barrage of them, or at least a defense system, save maybe a recon one, but then again, they would just run away from the men with grenades on poles.

Why not bring up RPGs, exactly? The most modern versions have been demonstrated to pierce some of the heaviest available armour, the equivalent of solid rolled steel twelve centimetres thick. How do you propose to armour a leg, arm, joint or 'hip' area to be able to counter this? And relying solely on active defence systems is a questionable strategy at best, not least because they produce a constant radar signature. It won't be long before systems are developed to defeat Arena/Trophy equivalents.

Edited by CommanderJB, 10 September 2008 - 13:40.

[TWPC920]

Wizard, on 10 Sep 2008, 7:53, said:

*sigh*

Are you lot still arguing about this?

Its like 8 vs 1, and we still can't convince him of the infeasiblility of combat mechs

[partyzanpaulzy]

I think at least small mech (wolverine sized) would be seen during my live. Without jet packs, combat mech without arms, armed with rockets or smaller cannon with heavilly explosive WHs. <on 90% my last sentence in this topic till it's necro-bumped>