I've seen a few topics around here which lightly touch upon the development or use of mechanized walkers. You know like the AT-ST from Star Wars. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the practical development, evolution, and finally the end deployment role of a mech.
As I see it, the development of such platforms would most likely begin after the successful creation of a Human sized robot, one that could move and function well enough to be considered actually useful, particularly in the stability of walking and carrying objects. I hear many people claim that mech's would only cause sea sickness and harm to the operator due to the wobble nature of robots when they walk. This would most likely be countered by a gyroscopic cockpit, or at least chair and controls.
The most likely initial weapons systems mounted on a mech chassis would probably be SAM launchers, gatling guns, and especially the MLRS weapons designs. I wouldn't be surprised if some one would decide to put a radar on the head to serve as a mobile, detection/communications system. The chassis' themselves would probably be small like the ones seen in Battlefield 2142, with no more than two or three crew members. Ultimately with advances in mechanized walker technology, I think that mechs would become competent urban warfare vehicles. This would mean that tanks wouldn't need to risk to operate in such confined spaces. As mechs become larger they would most likely replace tanks as the primary assault vehicles, restricting tanks to an infantry support role.
The big thing about a mech is the ability to mount multiple weapons in a single vehicle, thus allowing it to perform numerous roles simultaneously. Simply mounting a SAM launcher on the back of a scout mech would be a prime example. But still, I would like to see what other people have to say about mechanized walkers and their role in the next century or two of ground warfare. And lets be serious about this too, please only write something relevant to the discussion and do not, for the love of god, skip over the entire discussion just to write a single paragraph of ideas which were already made two pages prior.
If you ask me though, ultimately we will end up with vehicles similar to the tripods of war of the worlds. I just wish I would be alive to see that in about five hundred years...
The practical application of mechanized walkers.
Started by
Frozty7
, Aug 09 2011 - 02:01
83 replies to this topic
#-18 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:06
-
- Players
- 1415 battles
-
112
-
Member since:
06-30-2011
Sergeant
One of the things I thought about with a walker is the fact it could walk up 'steps', or sheer faces that a wheeled vehicle can't get up to. If it had some sort of grasping mechanism on the feet, I could see it walking up steep slopes, and, as you said, mounting weapons could be interesting. I can't see them moving too fast, you can only move mechanized limbs propelled by pistols or whatever they might be using so fast before momentum catches up and knocks them over. I could see slow walkers, like those from Star Wars, being the most likely to be developed, if they ever are.
It's an interesting concept, for sure.
It's an interesting concept, for sure.
#-17 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:14
-
- Players
- 4441 battles
-
192
-
Member since:
04-11-2011
Sergeant
Practical application of walkers? No such thing. The only reason they exist in video games is because they look super cool. What is practical about something with a center of gravity that high? All you would need is a guy with a winch powerful enough to pull it down and it's gone.
For cripessake you could just build a giant rabbit snare and take it out.
But if you are in the mood to fantasize check out the trailer for this bad lad of a game:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Is9nujmgPBo
For cripessake you could just build a giant rabbit snare and take it out.
But if you are in the mood to fantasize check out the trailer for this bad lad of a game:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Is9nujmgPBo
#-16 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:24
-
- Beta Testers
- 3457 battles
-
818
-
Member since:
07-04-2010
First lieutenant
Eh, good topic but I think it is a bit on the Sci-Fi side. As in the 50 foot tall uber robots like in Mechwarrior or even less practical/realistic Gundam.
The US Army has in development SARCOS which is a exoskeleton that greatly improves the ability for a soldier to move equipment it is being assessed and improved for heavy moving of munitions and other items.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Nhj3Z9o6t0g
http://www.youtube.c...=watch_response
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related Robotec Cyclone? LOL
The downside to a exoskeleton or any walking robot is the power it consumes.Sarcos has to be tethered but can run on a battery pack.
As the information might show in videos the user can operate with ease and actually manipulate the suit like a person normally would walk or run or even fight.
Eventually they will adapt external armor to the unit and you will have battlesuits that can give an infantry soldier a huge advantage over the enemy. How you might ask?
Well for one you will be resistant to most gunfire and explosives.
With robotic strength you can carry allot of armor and or weapons. Hence having the fire power of a squad or platoon of soldiers. Anti-armor, anti air or capable or carrying a MK-19 or the like, a mini-gun or belt fed maching gun to mow down infantry units. Potentially it could use multiple weapon systems and still function in an urban environment. I do not see a limit on what you can do short of running in very tight areas.
In addition to this they could incorporate a multitude of optics and communications.
It will be environmentally sealed allowing the operator a safe environment to breathe and be safe from chemical and biological agents as well as air conditioning to be nice and comfortable for extended period of time. So fighting in the freezing snow or rain or heat of the desert is like walking into an airconditioned office.
The down side of this all is the “power unit” to run it all. I’m thinking some sort of atomic engine or super battery. Heck maybe even a tiny hybrid combustion engine that runs off some future fuel and generates electric to run it all.
The US Army has in development SARCOS which is a exoskeleton that greatly improves the ability for a soldier to move equipment it is being assessed and improved for heavy moving of munitions and other items.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Nhj3Z9o6t0g
http://www.youtube.c...=watch_response
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related Robotec Cyclone? LOL
The downside to a exoskeleton or any walking robot is the power it consumes.Sarcos has to be tethered but can run on a battery pack.
As the information might show in videos the user can operate with ease and actually manipulate the suit like a person normally would walk or run or even fight.
Eventually they will adapt external armor to the unit and you will have battlesuits that can give an infantry soldier a huge advantage over the enemy. How you might ask?
Well for one you will be resistant to most gunfire and explosives.
With robotic strength you can carry allot of armor and or weapons. Hence having the fire power of a squad or platoon of soldiers. Anti-armor, anti air or capable or carrying a MK-19 or the like, a mini-gun or belt fed maching gun to mow down infantry units. Potentially it could use multiple weapon systems and still function in an urban environment. I do not see a limit on what you can do short of running in very tight areas.
In addition to this they could incorporate a multitude of optics and communications.
It will be environmentally sealed allowing the operator a safe environment to breathe and be safe from chemical and biological agents as well as air conditioning to be nice and comfortable for extended period of time. So fighting in the freezing snow or rain or heat of the desert is like walking into an airconditioned office.
The down side of this all is the “power unit” to run it all. I’m thinking some sort of atomic engine or super battery. Heck maybe even a tiny hybrid combustion engine that runs off some future fuel and generates electric to run it all.
#-15 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:25
-
- Players
- 14733 battles
-
1,348
-
Member since:
04-25-2011
Captain
"Coolness" factor aside, I always did wonder what advantage would a walking mech have over tanks and other weapon platforms we have right now.
A walking machine would probably need a lot of resources and research to build, but those supplies could be used to create many many tanks instead. A thing that moves on two legs would seem to be quite vulnerable if a large explosion damaged a leg, causing it to crash and pretty much destroy itself due to the size and weight.
If there was a need to carry many weapons, why not just bring a few different tanks armed with different weapons. Sure, you would be bringing in more vehicles, the cost might not be so different. And by the time we have mechs someone probably figured out how to make a tank carry multiple weapons as well. Tanks would also have a lower profile and be more concealable than something standing upright.
And what advantage would it have in urban warfare?
The only advantage I can see right now is increased mobility. I suppose human shaped robots could climb mountains or wade across deep water, but is it worth the resources to create such machines? And the armour needed to protect every gear in every vulnerable joint?
I can only see one-man versions of mechanized walkers as being practical, and in that case they certainly won't be replacing tanks. They'd be super-infantry. With the mobility of infantry, but not quite the armour of tanks.
A walking machine would probably need a lot of resources and research to build, but those supplies could be used to create many many tanks instead. A thing that moves on two legs would seem to be quite vulnerable if a large explosion damaged a leg, causing it to crash and pretty much destroy itself due to the size and weight.
If there was a need to carry many weapons, why not just bring a few different tanks armed with different weapons. Sure, you would be bringing in more vehicles, the cost might not be so different. And by the time we have mechs someone probably figured out how to make a tank carry multiple weapons as well. Tanks would also have a lower profile and be more concealable than something standing upright.
And what advantage would it have in urban warfare?
The only advantage I can see right now is increased mobility. I suppose human shaped robots could climb mountains or wade across deep water, but is it worth the resources to create such machines? And the armour needed to protect every gear in every vulnerable joint?
I can only see one-man versions of mechanized walkers as being practical, and in that case they certainly won't be replacing tanks. They'd be super-infantry. With the mobility of infantry, but not quite the armour of tanks.
#-14 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:35
-
- Players
- 5740 battles
-
400
-
Member since:
02-14-2011
Staff sergeant
take alooky at number 1
http://www.cracked.c...cience-fiction/
I figure that's probably the direction mech would go if they do get implemented large scale, i highly doubt they be used for warfare unless there wasn't anything else to use.
Lets face it mechs have
-a huge towering profile
-a high center of gravity
- i would also suspect they would be less mobile, have less armour and be generally slower than tanks
They would have the same fault as giant tanks: a huge easy target for aircraft.
Significant advancements in a power source would have to be made before combat mechs would be viable, and even then i bet tanks or aircraft could make better use of them.
Now small urban mechs maybe, although good luck on finding a power source and again its a bigger target than a tank with less armour.
http://www.cracked.c...cience-fiction/
I figure that's probably the direction mech would go if they do get implemented large scale, i highly doubt they be used for warfare unless there wasn't anything else to use.
Lets face it mechs have
-a huge towering profile
-a high center of gravity
- i would also suspect they would be less mobile, have less armour and be generally slower than tanks
They would have the same fault as giant tanks: a huge easy target for aircraft.
Significant advancements in a power source would have to be made before combat mechs would be viable, and even then i bet tanks or aircraft could make better use of them.
Now small urban mechs maybe, although good luck on finding a power source and again its a bigger target than a tank with less armour.
#-13 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:47
-
- Beta Testers
- 3457 battles
-
818
-
Member since:
07-04-2010
First lieutenant
Well the same could be said for ships on the ocean. There is no place to hide besides over the horizon. So how does a ship deal with all the issues being on a vast empty ocean brings?
A large mech of 50 feet is not to practical, smaller ones would be 8ft to 30 feet.
The complcation is the ability to walk or run with ease, anything that can walk can easily cross obsticals that most wheeled vehicles or tracked vehicles cannot.
The size advantage would only come into play by making it much more powerful such as adding serveral large weapons to its frame.
A large mech of 50 feet is not to practical, smaller ones would be 8ft to 30 feet.
The complcation is the ability to walk or run with ease, anything that can walk can easily cross obsticals that most wheeled vehicles or tracked vehicles cannot.
The size advantage would only come into play by making it much more powerful such as adding serveral large weapons to its frame.
#-12 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 02:54
-
- Players
- 0 battles
-
202
-
Member since:
02-19-2011
Sergeant
Frozty7, on Aug 09 2011 - 02:01, said:
I've seen a few topics around here which lightly touch upon the development or use of mechanized walkers. You know like the AT-ST from Star Wars. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the practical development, evolution, and finally the end deployment role of a mech.
As I see it, the development of such platforms would most likely begin after the successful creation of a Human sized robot, one that could move and function well enough to be considered actually useful, particularly in the stability of walking and carrying objects. I hear many people claim that mech's would only cause sea sickness and harm to the operator due to the wobble nature of robots when they walk. This would most likely be countered by a gyroscopic cockpit, or at least chair and controls.
The most likely initial weapons systems mounted on a mech chassis would probably be SAM launchers, gatling guns, and especially the MLRS weapons designs. I wouldn't be surprised if some one would decide to put a radar on the head to serve as a mobile, detection/communications system. The chassis' themselves would probably be small like the ones seen in Battlefield 2142, with no more than two or three crew members. Ultimately with advances in mechanized walker technology, I think that mechs would become competent urban warfare vehicles. This would mean that tanks wouldn't need to risk to operate in such confined spaces. As mechs become larger they would most likely replace tanks as the primary assault vehicles, restricting tanks to an infantry support role.
The big thing about a mech is the ability to mount multiple weapons in a single vehicle, thus allowing it to perform numerous roles simultaneously. Simply mounting a SAM launcher on the back of a scout mech would be a prime example. But still, I would like to see what other people have to say about mechanized walkers and their role in the next century or two of ground warfare. And lets be serious about this too, please only write something relevant to the discussion and do not, for the love of god, skip over the entire discussion just to write a single paragraph of ideas which were already made two pages prior.
If you ask me though, ultimately we will end up with vehicles similar to the tripods of war of the worlds. I just wish I would be alive to see that in about five hundred years...
As I see it, the development of such platforms would most likely begin after the successful creation of a Human sized robot, one that could move and function well enough to be considered actually useful, particularly in the stability of walking and carrying objects. I hear many people claim that mech's would only cause sea sickness and harm to the operator due to the wobble nature of robots when they walk. This would most likely be countered by a gyroscopic cockpit, or at least chair and controls.
The most likely initial weapons systems mounted on a mech chassis would probably be SAM launchers, gatling guns, and especially the MLRS weapons designs. I wouldn't be surprised if some one would decide to put a radar on the head to serve as a mobile, detection/communications system. The chassis' themselves would probably be small like the ones seen in Battlefield 2142, with no more than two or three crew members. Ultimately with advances in mechanized walker technology, I think that mechs would become competent urban warfare vehicles. This would mean that tanks wouldn't need to risk to operate in such confined spaces. As mechs become larger they would most likely replace tanks as the primary assault vehicles, restricting tanks to an infantry support role.
The big thing about a mech is the ability to mount multiple weapons in a single vehicle, thus allowing it to perform numerous roles simultaneously. Simply mounting a SAM launcher on the back of a scout mech would be a prime example. But still, I would like to see what other people have to say about mechanized walkers and their role in the next century or two of ground warfare. And lets be serious about this too, please only write something relevant to the discussion and do not, for the love of god, skip over the entire discussion just to write a single paragraph of ideas which were already made two pages prior.
If you ask me though, ultimately we will end up with vehicles similar to the tripods of war of the worlds. I just wish I would be alive to see that in about five hundred years...
#-11 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:10
-
- Players
- 5452 battles
-
292
-
Member since:
07-22-2011
Staff sergeant
Punisher_1, on Aug 09 2011 - 02:47, said:
Well the same could be said for ships on the ocean. There is no place to hide besides over the horizon. So how does a ship deal with all the issues being on a vast empty ocean brings?
This ^
Tanks and mechs share many of the same vulnerabilities (exposed legs/tracks, easy pickings for aircraft, etc) so you can't dismiss it as useless just because you found a way to counter it. This is just the nature of weapons R&D; I build a weapon, you develop a countermeasure, a develop a way of penetrating your countermeasure... Remember, the early tanks were just as vulnerable and easy to destroy with the right equipment, yet look how successful they became with extensive engineering projects.
To add to this discussion, think of the "shoot and scoot" capabilities of an MLRS mounted on a mech chassis. Current artillery designs could never enter a mountainous environment and be expected to perform adequately. A mech could climb a mountain, fire it's payload, relocate and reload to another mountain, and repeat during an entire battle. You could even extend your air defence coverage with these. It's pretty difficult to shoot down low flying helicopters and jets in places like Peru you know. So is it just me, or do mechs look like an ideal anti-air/artillery vehicle?
#-10 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:11
-
- Players
- 14733 battles
-
1,348
-
Member since:
04-25-2011
Captain
The large size of mechs would increase weapon storage but also increase the price. Would you rather have a few Tiger tanks or a whole lot of T-34s?
And moving by walking rather than using tracks and wheels is more complicated, and you would need more mechanical parts and all that stuff, making walkers vulnerable to mechanical failure (like Tiger tanks). And after breakage it would probably be more difficult to repair, especially in the field. It would be more complicated than just replacing a wheel or a track link.
In a future where people can build mechs that can walk, there would probably be improvements in tanks as well. Some sort of improved suspension and maybe on-board grappling hooks could allow tanks to pull and drive itself up steep slopes and hills.
And moving by walking rather than using tracks and wheels is more complicated, and you would need more mechanical parts and all that stuff, making walkers vulnerable to mechanical failure (like Tiger tanks). And after breakage it would probably be more difficult to repair, especially in the field. It would be more complicated than just replacing a wheel or a track link.
In a future where people can build mechs that can walk, there would probably be improvements in tanks as well. Some sort of improved suspension and maybe on-board grappling hooks could allow tanks to pull and drive itself up steep slopes and hills.
#-9 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:30
-
- Players
- 4441 battles
-
192
-
Member since:
04-11-2011
Sergeant
Punisher_1, on Aug 09 2011 - 02:47, said:
Well the same could be said for ships on the ocean. There is no place to hide besides over the horizon. So how does a ship deal with all the issues being on a vast empty ocean brings?
And that's why large battleships haven't been practical since WWI. Carriers sit well out of range and use aircraft to both defend and attack other carriers.
Honeslty guys I don't see how these things would be going up mountains you would need a stabilization system crazy advanced. Which if it were to take damage and lose power would send you down the mountain.
Secondly if you stepped onto even a mildly eroded surface you, the mech and half the mountain would come tumbling down. Landslides and Avalanches happen all the time just due to build up what do you think will happen if a multi-ton vehicle came stomping up?
Lastly whoever you were fighting could easily just mine the mountain side taking out a billion dollar piece of machinery with a $10 land mine.
#-8 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:31
-
- Players
- 185 battles
-
466
-
Member since:
06-19-2011
Staff sergeant
as infintry support? Possably GIANT walkers (MAWLR) could be effective, using them as mobile weapons batteries. Seeing as this is the future, things like directed Energy Weapons and railguns could be put on them. They could also be used a mobile bombardment sites and places for aircraft to land, refuel, and rearm.
But replacing tanks? Hell no.
But replacing tanks? Hell no.
#-7 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:33
-
- Players
- 14733 battles
-
1,348
-
Member since:
04-25-2011
Captain
If I wanted to have a vehicle in a mountain...
I think then a four legged "spider" chassis design would be better than a humanoid two legged walker.
The head on a human shaped walker would not have much of a purpose, and a symmetrical spider chassis design would allow for equal maneuverability in any direction in the mountains.
Put simply... it would be a tank-shaped thing with four columns for legs instead of tracks to allow it to grip on to rugged and uneven surfaces. It could be considered a "walking mech" but not so much the human shape anymore. It could then mount artillary on its back or something.
Still, I wouldn't believe it will replace tanks as the armoured fighting vehicles of the future. The movement system still makes it harder to manufacture and maintain than a regular tank. It would be a specialist for mountain terrain, but that's about it. In the open field it doesn't have much advantage over tanks, if at all.
EDIT: In the future then people could put railguns on tanks as well. I'm just favouring the movement system with tracks over legs because the leg doesn't give an enormous advantage but will need extra effort to produce and maintain. Coolness factor aside, it remains impractical except in special conditions like ...possibly... mountain climbing.
And any war in the future is not unlikely to involve nuclear weapons and the world blowing up. So... nothing is really practical anymore.
And you can buy a land mine for $10??
I think then a four legged "spider" chassis design would be better than a humanoid two legged walker.
The head on a human shaped walker would not have much of a purpose, and a symmetrical spider chassis design would allow for equal maneuverability in any direction in the mountains.
Put simply... it would be a tank-shaped thing with four columns for legs instead of tracks to allow it to grip on to rugged and uneven surfaces. It could be considered a "walking mech" but not so much the human shape anymore. It could then mount artillary on its back or something.
Still, I wouldn't believe it will replace tanks as the armoured fighting vehicles of the future. The movement system still makes it harder to manufacture and maintain than a regular tank. It would be a specialist for mountain terrain, but that's about it. In the open field it doesn't have much advantage over tanks, if at all.
EDIT: In the future then people could put railguns on tanks as well. I'm just favouring the movement system with tracks over legs because the leg doesn't give an enormous advantage but will need extra effort to produce and maintain. Coolness factor aside, it remains impractical except in special conditions like ...possibly... mountain climbing.
And any war in the future is not unlikely to involve nuclear weapons and the world blowing up. So... nothing is really practical anymore.
And you can buy a land mine for $10??
#-6 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:47
-
- Players
- 5317 battles
-
9
-
Member since:
07-25-2011
Private
8112204, on Aug 09 2011 - 03:33, said:
If I wanted to have a vehicle in a mountain...
I think then a four legged "spider" chassis design would be better than a humanoid two legged walker.
The head on a human shaped walker would not have much of a purpose, and a symmetrical spider chassis design would allow for equal maneuverability in any direction in the mountains.
Put simply... it would be a tank-shaped thing with four columns for legs instead of tracks to allow it to grip on to rugged and uneven surfaces. It could be considered a "walking mech" but not so much the human shape anymore. It could then mount artillary on its back or something.
Still, I wouldn't believe it will replace tanks as the armoured fighting vehicles of the future. The movement system still makes it harder to manufacture and maintain than a regular tank. It would be a specialist for mountain terrain, but that's about it. In the open field it doesn't have much advantage over tanks, if at all.
EDIT: In the future then people could put railguns on tanks as well. I'm just favouring the movement system with tracks over legs because the leg doesn't give an enormous advantage but will need extra effort to produce and maintain. Coolness factor aside, it remains impractical except in special conditions like ...possibly... mountain climbing.
And any war in the future is not unlikely to involve nuclear weapons and the world blowing up. So... nothing is really practical anymore.
And you can buy a land mine for $10??
I think then a four legged "spider" chassis design would be better than a humanoid two legged walker.
The head on a human shaped walker would not have much of a purpose, and a symmetrical spider chassis design would allow for equal maneuverability in any direction in the mountains.
Put simply... it would be a tank-shaped thing with four columns for legs instead of tracks to allow it to grip on to rugged and uneven surfaces. It could be considered a "walking mech" but not so much the human shape anymore. It could then mount artillary on its back or something.
Still, I wouldn't believe it will replace tanks as the armoured fighting vehicles of the future. The movement system still makes it harder to manufacture and maintain than a regular tank. It would be a specialist for mountain terrain, but that's about it. In the open field it doesn't have much advantage over tanks, if at all.
EDIT: In the future then people could put railguns on tanks as well. I'm just favouring the movement system with tracks over legs because the leg doesn't give an enormous advantage but will need extra effort to produce and maintain. Coolness factor aside, it remains impractical except in special conditions like ...possibly... mountain climbing.
And any war in the future is not unlikely to involve nuclear weapons and the world blowing up. So... nothing is really practical anymore.
And you can buy a land mine for $10??
Agree. While I would love just to see working walking mechs, the 4 legged or more chassis design is more stable and reliable. Can also withstand loosing a limb or two and still complete the mission. I could see mechs or armored suits the size of the walking bot Ripley uses in Aliens. Decent size with a large number of hard points to mount various equipment. Also these mechs need not look humanoid. It would most likely keep apretty low profile with many angles to deflect small and large arms fire. If you want to check out an old B movie, watch Robot Jox. Some pretty poor acting but it gives you an idea as to what 50 story mechs would realistically be used for.
#-5 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 03:49
-
- Players
- 5452 battles
-
292
-
Member since:
07-22-2011
Staff sergeant
Human shaped vehicles are indeed impractical, that is true. Mostly due to the fact that giving arms to a mech is best used for mounting a weapon, not for manipulating objects. The Madcat from Mechwarrior is probably a more appropriate design than say, Gundam.
The spider mech mentioned by 8112204 is a lot more like what we have been discussing and I agree, that would be a very useful chassis. I still get dissapointed though to see how many people point out a small disadvantage to a mech which is experienced by all vehicles. Landslides are a big a problem with a tank and mech alike (not to mention infantry), same with mud or frozen rivers. Both vehicles would have to deal with it so I don't believe this is a good enough reason to give up on mech's. And hey, ten dollar landmines kill (or badly damage) multi-million dollar tanks all the time. One thing that was brought up earlier though is the difficulty in field repairing a leg on a mech. This is a good point and could a major reason why tanks will always appear on the battlefield in some form or another for the foreseeable future.
Edit: What truly makes something like a spider mech greater than a Gundam mech is that the spider can not only mount the same weapons and do the same job, but it can spread it's mass over a wider area in an effort to lay flat on the ground while still moving. This is the kind of stuff we will most likely see once the technology exists.
The spider mech mentioned by 8112204 is a lot more like what we have been discussing and I agree, that would be a very useful chassis. I still get dissapointed though to see how many people point out a small disadvantage to a mech which is experienced by all vehicles. Landslides are a big a problem with a tank and mech alike (not to mention infantry), same with mud or frozen rivers. Both vehicles would have to deal with it so I don't believe this is a good enough reason to give up on mech's. And hey, ten dollar landmines kill (or badly damage) multi-million dollar tanks all the time. One thing that was brought up earlier though is the difficulty in field repairing a leg on a mech. This is a good point and could a major reason why tanks will always appear on the battlefield in some form or another for the foreseeable future.
Edit: What truly makes something like a spider mech greater than a Gundam mech is that the spider can not only mount the same weapons and do the same job, but it can spread it's mass over a wider area in an effort to lay flat on the ground while still moving. This is the kind of stuff we will most likely see once the technology exists.
#-4 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 04:00
-
- Players
- 4441 battles
-
192
-
Member since:
04-11-2011
Sergeant
Frozty7, on Aug 09 2011 - 03:49, said:
Human shaped vehicles are indeed impractical, that is true. Mostly due to the fact that giving arms to a mech is best used for mounting a weapon, not for manipulating objects. The Madcat from Mechwarrior is probably a more appropriate design than say, Gundam.
The spider mech mentioned by 8112204 is a lot more like what we have been discussing and I agree, that would be a very useful chassis. I still get dissapointed though to see how many people point out a small disadvantage to a mech which is experienced by all vehicles. Landslides are a big a problem with a tank and mech alike (not to mention infantry), same with mud or frozen rivers.
The spider mech mentioned by 8112204 is a lot more like what we have been discussing and I agree, that would be a very useful chassis. I still get dissapointed though to see how many people point out a small disadvantage to a mech which is experienced by all vehicles. Landslides are a big a problem with a tank and mech alike (not to mention infantry), same with mud or frozen rivers.
No one is sending tanks up mountains. Alternatively infantry don't have the same mass being exerted onto one tiny little area. Which would be a problem over most any terrain for a mech. Unlike a tank which spreads its mass out over its treads a mech would have every last pound exerted on just one leg for half the time it was walking. Even on level ground this is much more likely to cause problems.
This is a ridiculous idea people. By all means have fun discussing possibilities but leave any notion of practicality out of it.
#-3 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 16:33
-
- Players
- 14733 battles
-
1,348
-
Member since:
04-25-2011
Captain
Eight legs then? To spread the mass?
And of course the whole concept is somewhat ridiculous. If people started another world war and needed to design more weapons, we probably would have nuked each other by then. When one side starts losing, they will probably be tempted to press the Big Red Button. Trust humanity to do something like that. So then, any futuristic weapon design is obsolete when it can be blown up by a nuclear bomb that everyone already has.
If anything, people should start designing more advanced nuclear defenses. Which will result in more advanced nuclear missiles. And so on. So nothing would matter except these super-weapons.
But designing a mech weapon, even on paper, is still fun.
And of course the whole concept is somewhat ridiculous. If people started another world war and needed to design more weapons, we probably would have nuked each other by then. When one side starts losing, they will probably be tempted to press the Big Red Button. Trust humanity to do something like that. So then, any futuristic weapon design is obsolete when it can be blown up by a nuclear bomb that everyone already has.
If anything, people should start designing more advanced nuclear defenses. Which will result in more advanced nuclear missiles. And so on. So nothing would matter except these super-weapons.
But designing a mech weapon, even on paper, is still fun.
#-2 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 17:22
-
- Beta Testers
- 10525 battles
-
1,599
-
Member since:
09-02-2010
Captain
Just as an FYI, any AA missile of sufficient capability is an ABM. That's why patriot got neutered so hard if I remember right. Given enough time the Big Red Button is going to be a lot more interesting proposition.
#-1 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 17:46
-
- Beta Testers
- 3457 battles
-
818
-
Member since:
07-04-2010
First lieutenant
DemilichKing, on Aug 09 2011 - 03:30, said:
And that's why large battleships haven't been practical since WWI. Carriers sit well out of range and use aircraft to both defend and attack other carriers.
Honeslty guys I don't see how these things would be going up mountains you would need a stabilization system crazy advanced. Which if it were to take damage and lose power would send you down the mountain.
Secondly if you stepped onto even a mildly eroded surface you, the mech and half the mountain would come tumbling down. Landslides and Avalanches happen all the time just due to build up what do you think will happen if a multi-ton vehicle came stomping up?
Lastly whoever you were fighting could easily just mine the mountain side taking out a billion dollar piece of machinery with a $10 land mine.
Honeslty guys I don't see how these things would be going up mountains you would need a stabilization system crazy advanced. Which if it were to take damage and lose power would send you down the mountain.
Secondly if you stepped onto even a mildly eroded surface you, the mech and half the mountain would come tumbling down. Landslides and Avalanches happen all the time just due to build up what do you think will happen if a multi-ton vehicle came stomping up?
Lastly whoever you were fighting could easily just mine the mountain side taking out a billion dollar piece of machinery with a $10 land mine.
Well battleships are not a good example. IRL They are just crazy expensive to operate, but you can say carriers are also and the aircraft they operate, as for costal bombardment and use of long range missiles it is still an amazing ship. The battleship was a World War two platform that extended well beyond its service age. What might be a replacement is this http://en.wikipedia....ki/Arsenal_ship or even better http://www.fas.org/p...rsenalship.html
Carriers will be the same thing It is a HUGE target, that presents a threat but is also a great target to destroy by your enemy, a 4.5 billion dollar asset not including crew or aircraft. Can one be sunk?, yep without a doubt.
But your comparison is apples vs oranges.
A mech as I mentioned above which would be one guy in a eight to ten foot tall ( larger ones up to 30 feet tall could be used as a heavy weapons platfrom like a MLRS battery or artillery ) armored suit with multiple weapon systems moving over terrain that typical vehicles could not drive through. It's not too heavy so limitations from bridges and city streets are not an issue, it is small enough to go down alleys and also break into buildings to clean the enemy out. It's ability to use different types of weapons you could effectivley deal with armored vehicles and aircraft as well as infantry.
We can argue the pros and cons of every vehicle and in each one there are several weaknesses, mech would be no different, what is different is a force of soldiers that can be so mobile that the enemy cannot hide nor deal damage to them effectivley. You can place something as effective as a squad of infantry , a tank and a ainti aircraft gun or platform on the top of a hill or in a valley or running down a city street.
The mech would be expensive but more combat effective than infantry squad(s) and better than a tank ( for mobility ) and not as soft as say an Avenger AA system.
#0 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 18:24
-
- Players
- 4441 battles
-
192
-
Member since:
04-11-2011
Sergeant
Punisher_1, on Aug 09 2011 - 17:46, said:
Well battleships are not a good example. IRL They are just crazy expensive to operate, but you can say carriers are also and the aircraft they operate, as for costal bombardment and use of long range missiles it is still an amazing ship. The battleship was a World War two platform that extended well beyond its service age. What might be a replacement is this http://en.wikipedia....ki/Arsenal_ship or even better http://www.fas.org/p...rsenalship.html
Carriers will be the same thing It is a HUGE target, that presents a threat but is also a great target to destroy by your enemy, a 4.5 billion dollar asset not including crew or aircraft. Can one be sunk?, yep without a doubt.
But your comparison is apples vs oranges.
A mech as I mentioned above which would be one guy in a eight to ten foot tall ( larger ones up to 30 feet tall could be used as a heavy weapons platfrom like a MLRS battery or artillery ) armored suit with multiple weapon systems moving over terrain that typical vehicles could not drive through. It's not too heavy so limitations from bridges and city streets are not an issue, it is small enough to go down alleys and also break into buildings to clean the enemy out. It's ability to use different types of weapons you could effectivley deal with armored vehicles and aircraft as well as infantry.
We can argue the pros and cons of every vehicle and in each one there are several weaknesses, mech would be no different, what is different is a force of soldiers that can be so mobile that the enemy cannot hide nor deal damage to them effectivley. You can place something as effective as a squad of infantry , a tank and a ainti aircraft gun or platform on the top of a hill or in a valley or running down a city street.
The mech would be expensive but more combat effective than infantry squad(s) and better than a tank ( for mobility ) and not as soft as say an Avenger AA system.
Carriers will be the same thing It is a HUGE target, that presents a threat but is also a great target to destroy by your enemy, a 4.5 billion dollar asset not including crew or aircraft. Can one be sunk?, yep without a doubt.
But your comparison is apples vs oranges.
A mech as I mentioned above which would be one guy in a eight to ten foot tall ( larger ones up to 30 feet tall could be used as a heavy weapons platfrom like a MLRS battery or artillery ) armored suit with multiple weapon systems moving over terrain that typical vehicles could not drive through. It's not too heavy so limitations from bridges and city streets are not an issue, it is small enough to go down alleys and also break into buildings to clean the enemy out. It's ability to use different types of weapons you could effectivley deal with armored vehicles and aircraft as well as infantry.
We can argue the pros and cons of every vehicle and in each one there are several weaknesses, mech would be no different, what is different is a force of soldiers that can be so mobile that the enemy cannot hide nor deal damage to them effectivley. You can place something as effective as a squad of infantry , a tank and a ainti aircraft gun or platform on the top of a hill or in a valley or running down a city street.
The mech would be expensive but more combat effective than infantry squad(s) and better than a tank ( for mobility ) and not as soft as say an Avenger AA system.
Well for starters you were the one who used battleships as an example.
The amount of processing power that would be needed to constantly adjust to changing terrain/elevation would be massive. That is not even factoring in the need for targeting computers and whatever else would need to be automated in a system like that. To put it in a less verbose way: such a vehicle could be destroyed by a computer virus. Tanks at least have many manual backup systems mechs could easily be hacked.
The amount of mobility you are talking about would necessitate certain areas such as joints being armorless. As these would be single person vehicles as you stated EVERY weapon would need to be loaded automatically. A jam would mean getting out of the vehicle to fix the problem. The power sources/power plant alone would take up the whole vehicle. You wouldn't "break into buildings" because 8-10 foot holes in walls tend to weaken structures.
The beauty of something like a tank or field gun is that even though they have had many high tech systems added they can still be operated in a low tech way if those systems fail. There is no manual way to operate a multi-ton vehicle with legs.
