Malleolus

Ah what sleep can do. If you look back, I wasn't the one to fire the first shot on the personal attack bs. In fact, if I remember correctly, the words used were: "you're just like one of these idiots in the US that keeps saying , "you're a racist" when you are losing an argument.". This was the point at which he got deep under my skin. Even at peak velocity, that's on the slow end of most small arms fire. No, the statement is true, I'm as right as my opinion, as his he with his. Until it's out through trial, it's still conjecture. I don't disagree with you. I'm still not getting this modular armor thing you keep accusing me of perpetuating as a good idea? I want them to have hands, to use tools. Be it a biggie sized grenade launcher or hell a giant shovel for corps of engineering. Being able to switch out tools to fill multiple roles. Legs have a smaller profile. Not once have I said they were FAST. A 12 foot tall mech can get behind most structures readily, yes. I did state that standoff distance is a factor. I'm not saying, anywhere, that Mechs won't be downed by anything that can down other armoured units. Do I think that it's range of motion and agility give it an edge? Yes, especially if it's paired with curved armor (as stated several times). No, this does not mean they are useless, it means that further weapon developments are eventually going to get more advanced than these chassis and require a new, novel platform to mount to. Tanks themselves came to be due to technological advances requiring a platform like the tank.

I apologize for grammar now, my daughter is asleep on my arm and I'm plum tuckered to the point of not caring.

Half my post got deleted... Totally agree on the IED issue. Still, unless shaped charges are used extensively, a mech still can avoid catastrophic damage if the timing/range is off. This is not true for tanks/wheeled vehicles because once the vehicle is over the charge, detonation directly under it can disable/destroy it. Unless major damage is done to a foot/leg, it can keep going. Again, either a much larger blast radius or multiple devices must be placed... the more they have to disturb the ground to plant the device(s) the easier they are spotted. It's impractical to have modular designs for a tank. It has to be dismantled (in part at least) before the turret can be replaced. Doing this in situ is not plausible. Rather, we have several mbt styled bodies with different packages and ship all of them, using as needed. This is, as I think you know judging by your candor, a logistical nightmare... which is why we are either leaving, selling, or scuttling most the hardware we've dedicated in the middle east recently. To much to ship back. A mech chassis can, again with modular systems, replace 20+% readily, more as time progresses.

Okie day... I'm done with you. Steam used as a prime mover idiot. Buoyant force based airships were considered far more practical than powered flight, hence why they weren't really considered by the scientific community. You are attempting to launch this personal campaign against me, yet have the audacity to accuse me of being the idiot? I have a differing opinion from you, and where you don't see it's applicability, I do. Time and time again I have stated that it fulfills a versatility role that is lacking now in the military. The GAU-8 was, admittedly, a poor choice as an example. I've been up for 30 hours now, but most of its smaller cousins are options. One thing to point out... a muzzle velocity of 115m/s is fast... but you're smoking something if you think that's as fast as a bullet. Agility: the ability to make rapid changes in movement, something tanks and most wheeled vehicles lack. A human is agile, and can accelerate faster than a race horse, but is very slow. A mech is agile, it can traverse in any lateral direction far more rapidly than any tracked or wheeled vehicle. A tank can't slide sideways, nor can a car. A mech can sidestep, crouch, walk, and use a variety of tools, dedicated or improvised. The comment about history proving science fiction generally becomes science fact still holds true. You don't have to like it, or agree. You also didn't touch on my statement about tracked and wheeled chassis at the end of their useful evolution... am I to assume you don't disagree, but refuse to admit I might be right in some aspect of my argument? Truth be told, most technologies do go through this cycle, which is (up to a certain point) why I didn't let most of what you said get under my skin. I despise too the people that call racist when they are losing an argument. This is all conjecture on all our parts, for no realistic mech concept has been made and tested yet. You could well be right, or dead wrong... but until it's proven, it's conjecture. From the engineering perspective, the technical flaws you and others have cited thus far are easily surmounted. Conceptual flaws are again in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone can cite concept flaws. Don't you think people did when they were inventing the tank? You think surface area coverage is bad on a human? A tank is a giant box of metal! Third world terrorists with basic knowledge of explosives have been a damn nightmare for them! Give me a break. You're gonna have to get out of your little microcosm of the universe and take a cold, calculated look at what your saying. http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/07/11.aspx A mech... not increases in size YET, but with its mobility, maneuverability, etc. an increase in size and payload is hardly unimaginable. You also seem to ignore the fact that a mech will be part of a trained battle group. All the Conceptual short comings you state are similar to any other piece of military hardware... in stand alone scenarios. Mechs will augment them, and will have its own air support and ground support. Combat is far more dynamic than A mech versus an enemy force. A mech AND allied forces versus enemy forces is far different from nature Battletech, so let go of that notion since you're the only one of the two of us who seems to think this is what I'm referring to.

No, actually from the beginning I've been saying exchangeable weapon, hence weapon modules. At no point have I said exchangeable armors... where this came about I have no idea. Furthermore, yes, minefields have killed soldiers... and just about everything else. I'm talking IED's, not minefields.

The reason IED's are the bane to tracked/wheeled vehicles is because their course is predictable... there has to be constant contact with the ground. This allows IED pressure plates to be small enough to quickly plant and still be highly effective. A stepping vehicles gait is much less predictable, so either you have to plant a bunch more, or make them large enough to trigger no matter the gait... AND then it can also step over obstacles, so all it has to do is step over the placed obstacles that normally force a convoy into the IED. As far as RPG fire is concerned, so long as basic radar is included, a mech can avoid a round by crouching or getting behind a barrier, unless the rpg is close enough to mitigate these options.

No, technical jargon when technical issues for this are being cited as faults of this concept is directly relevant. Citing known engineering tech in it's proper syntax and being told it's irrelevant when you are saying that the design is beyond our current tech and has no feasibility is asinine by its most basic definition. Look again at what I said: "... can power a sizable mech easily..." This doesn't correlate necessarily to implementing a large mech, simply that we currently have technology to a scale that can power one. Tactically speaking, smaller mechs are going to be the most useful unless you are wanting to just, as pointed out, obliterate a whole town. 12'-14' is small enough to conceal in all but the smallest of towns and youngest of forests, keeping ground pressure low enough to not worry about it sinking itself. As previously stated, again, a scaled up weapon, or a weapon modified from, say, GAU-8 for use on a articulated mech, can supply close end support to infantry but isn't limited in maneuverability like tracked/wheeled vehicles. The capacity to pivot without lateral movement on a footprint of 6'-8' and still supply heavy support would be the primary combat role for mechs this size. Much larger, artillery grade, armaments would have to be hard mounted to the mech and specialized stabilization schemes would have to be included unless one physically increases the size of the chassis. With current technology, this isn't necessarily a problem, but as stated the capacity to remain relatively concealed is extremely necessary unless the mech is physically large enough to house it's own long range sensor suite, as well as a transducer array that can pinpoint enemy fire, and carry it's own active area denial/countermeasure systems, and lug around itself without losing it's maneuverability. Once you get to this size, the damn thing can nearly replace an artillery battery, but would have to be moved by an aircraft carrier or be air-dropped from a redesigned globemaster. My point with modern military hardware is, and always has been, modularity. We have railguns, MW lasers, etc. designed and ready for implementation as a weapon module, but it has to be redesigned to be used on the battlefield in current hardware because it is so highly specialized. Railguns are 60's tech, but only recently have they even been considered for battlefield implementation because the only "known" and "predictable" platforms are either naval or an all electric MBT, that is now officially in the works. There is a top-end technological capacity for these chassis because they are not modular, and the MBT is at it's peak. All electric using a compensated pulse alternator as the power source for a tank mounted railgun is effectively it's greatest use (maybe a MW laser, but that's a whole can of worms that has to be dealt with). Problem is, it's going to be either extremely heavy to produce the energy needed to penetrate modern chobham armors, require it's own cryogenic subsystem, or be light and not produce as much energy (more than chemical propellants, but chobham armor can mitigate nearly double the maximum energy chemical propellants can deliver, hence why HEAT and other "augmented" rounds were designed, these will still have to be implemented). All this until armor is improved, again, and then you're going to have to implement a howitzer chassis mounted railgun... rinse and repeat. Weapons have always evolved to catch up with their countermeasures, and tracked/wheeled vehicles simply don't have the capacity to continue to evolve to keep up.

Hmmm... mechs having extemely high modularity giving a battle group a much needed piece of heavy equipment that can fulfill both a multitude of combat roles as well as support roles... sounds like, in itself, a role... ground pressure is not a huge undertaking to mitigate. I could also cite, for your convenience, several sources on supercritical rankine cycle prime movers using CO2 as the working medium, and until a ruggedized source of radioisotopic heat capable of producing the necessary BTU needed to phase change pressurized CO2 to it's supercritical saturated state, of which there are several already in testing, any means of efficient combustion can be used in it's place, producing mega watts of power, more than enough to fulfill the power requirements of a very sizable mech while keeping the requisite powerplant down to a manageable level, but seeing as how my previous "technical jargon" was ignored I'll leave you searching wikipedia to keep up.

The most useful word in science is not "Eureka!", most often it's "That's weird..." The plane was, to the scientific community, a "That's weird..." moment. It went entirely against what they believed would happen.

No, they did it to prove that it could be DONE. They wanted powered flight... that's the long and the short of it. They didn't see it transporting dozens of people across the atlantic, nor dropping literal tons of bombs over Germany, they just wanted it.

Tanks were originally designed to transport troops through area's that had infantry slowing obstacles placed. They barely withstood small arms fire at range. Ask any military history expert... the exhaust vented into the crew bay, it had thin sheet metal for plating, and wasn't directly armed... but it was useful for raising allied morale and lowering the enemies. Seeing a hunk of steel role across chicken wire and over trenches was A) a morale boost for it's allies, and B) made it's enemies shit themselves. You could easily walk faster then them, and they were horribly fuel inefficient.

Not entirely true... nature also has a way of killing off it's random mutations that don't work, leaving the stuff that works well.

Why was the tank made in the first place? Technologies already existed to combat the task it was assigned, and arguably could do that job better. The first tanks were nothing more than a weapon of morale.

You want to quote an anti-gravity tank when we don't even know what gravity is? Let me be as simple as I possibly can... Flight was considered to be SLOWER, lower PAYLOAD, EXTREMELY limited ranges, and far more HAZARDOUS than other means of transportation by the VAST MAJORITY of the scientific community, hence only science fiction enthusiasts dreamed about it LIKE DA VINCI. Hindsight is 20/20, something you lack the capacity to understand, at the time it was seen as a fools errand. I'm also not talking a BATTLEMECH style mech. A wolfe running around would be a total waste of time and money. The validity of the argument lies in the fact that a mech can only be postulated as to what roles it can fill, and how well it can perform those roles, until a dedicated proof of concept is made, like the plane.

Wikipedia: All examples are approximate, and will vary based on conditions Hovercraft: 0.7 kPa (0.1 psi) Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi) Rubber-tracked ATV: 5.165 kPa (0.75 psi) Diedrich D-50 - T2 Drilling rig: 26.2 kPa (3.8 psi) Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi) M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi) 1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi) Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi) Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi) Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi) Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi) Racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi) Note: Pressures for Man and Horse are for standing still. A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure. A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi). The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-real-world-mechs-straight-out-science-fiction/ Cybernetic Anthropomorphous Machine, 12 foot tall legs, moves payload across terrain other means of transportation can't, working prototype. Why was it abandoned? Manual controls, that's it. Throw the MULE software suite onto it, plate it, upgrade to modern hydraulic actuation. Not bipedal, but still a good proof of concept save the lack of onboard pc control.

History: How much of the scientific community was behind powered flight? How many of Da Vinci's powered flight contraptions worked? How many scientists worked on the Wright Brothers proof of concept? Science fiction tends to become science fact. History, both extremely recent and later, prove this.

Gotta knock you here too... One has a comparatively low range endurance (as most helo's do, they're designed to go, deliver payload, and leave... Only on really short sorties do they have "staying" power). The other has extremely limited payload. Also, weather can drastically change the performance of both these pieces, possibly even eliminating their use at all.

Let's place this in a different era: "Name one advantage powered flight has over the steam locomotive? Even if you can get it to work, you can't get a strong enough engine on it to be useful, it'd be to heavy to lift itself." Excuse me? The vast majority of his contraptions WERE useless. They were well ahead of their time technologically speaking, and didn't work for the most part. Mechs have modularity, maneuverability (agility, but no one likes that term for some reason), and a wide margin of non-combat roles it can fill.

Let me also point out that all these arguments were made, with science to back them, about steam power, steam locomotion, powered flight, the car, and tanks. They were all right, based on the information they had available to draw their conclusions from. It took people whom, even without the scientific community backing them, had the drive to see them come to reality to make them reality. Only once they had proof of concepts did people start reconsidering their position on these science fiction technologies. "If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it." "It's inefficient" "to much wobble" "to great of power requirements"... Nothing history hasn't seen, and dis-proven, time and time again.

I still argue agility... but it's also fun to watch the people getting really fired up here squirm.:joystick: Also, no it's not necessarily bad advise, given the implementation. A 100 ton tracked tank with its very limited agility, extremely bad advice.

No, inverted pendulum is not the only mechanism I'm taking about. Compliance actuators, our muscles store the force of each footfall and use it aid in propelling the next actuation. We use VERY little energy with each step. Fat also has astounding energy density, but that's a topic for another time. I never said tanks didn't have the capacity to have curved armor, but they don't typically because the chassis doesn't tolerate it well. Yes, I know what chobham armor is. I know why armor segments are designed to defeat certain types of threats. Continuously sloping (no flat spots) armor has significant advantages over other armors. It can be thinner, pound for pound of the same material, because of relative armor thickness upon impact. Most impacts will be glancing because there's no direct impact site, and even if it penetrates, it penetrates at an acute angle, travelling along the width of the armor. This is the idea behind explosively reactive armor, but rather than a timed charge throwing the plate at an angle toward the penetrator, increasing the relative thickness it has to penetrate, the slope of the armor does this. Every vibration dampening system in a tank can be incorporated into a mech, and the shock loads of walking are highly predictable and can be compensated for in actuation. The actuators on a mech, which can easily be calibrated to tenths or hundredths of a degree and can either autonomously return to the firing angle or can be pilot controlled, can also lock in, given the actuation scheme. I'm not talking about replacing the mbt, I'm saying a mech can give a high degree of modularity (and unpredictably) to a battle group that is highly advantageous and cannot be replicated by any existing piece of military hardware. It can switch, simply by exchanging its "gun", from close in support to any air defense, artillery support, or precision munitions weapon platform without having to move a dozen or more weapons platforms with a battle group. It's versatility, and agility, can't be understated. You'd have to basically scrap and replace all current military hardware to effectively use mmc's. Rather it's better used on a weapon platform that can benefit the most from it. Any area denial/active countermeasure can be mounted on a mech as well, precluding the argument you made about thermal/acoustic signatures.

Okie day, I'm not gonna do the whole quote/post thing op, go bar with me. For starters, you assume 2 things. First is that the same materials are going to be used as in tanks for the mech. As previously stated, the sheer size precludes this option. Secondly, you assume human gait is consistently dynamically controlled, which it is not, it is dynamically balanced. The majority of the materials used would be metal-matrix composites. These are new materials, but are highly predictable and have significantly greater material properties than what you are comparing them to. Furthermore, modern armor, as most know, has a few inherent flaws because of the vehicle they are mounted to. On a mech, you can use continuously sloping (curved) plates, which can defeat most penetrators due to the simple fact that they rely on nearly perpendicular impact to be effective. Furthermore, as most mmc's use refractory materials, this can aid in defeating plasma jet rounds on top of the curved armor. Secondly, human gait uses a lot of passive compliance in its actuation. As we walk, our weight shifts forward (hence why we have long narrow feet), allowing momentum to do the majority of the work. We have extremely efficient locomotion because of this. Passive compliance can be easily incorporated into any walking scheme and can increase efficiency significantly. You cannot, however, do this with any vehicle that relies on tracks or wheels. You can use regenerative systems, yes, as you can on walking schemes. Exchanging a turret on a mbt isn't like dropping a gun and picking up another weapon, it takes time and specialized equipment and knowledge. Yes, the turret is explicitly designed to dissipate the recoil across the structure. Highly specialized, with no modularity. Neither can you just replace the barrel at the end of its service life. It has to be shipped off, refurbished, and then can be reintroduced, theoretically. A gun "biggie" sized can incorporate several recoil mitigation schemes, and reinforcing the structure of the mech for shoulder fire is hardly rocket science. Finally, using hands vs. a dedicated mounting apparatus. This goes back to modularity, but hands are hardly "clumsy". They can, with training, have extremely high degrees of fidelity, as such so can mech hands. As far as lever arm issues are concerned, I'm not going to get started with the plethora of tech that can be used to offset this issue. The air force designed a armed mech that could lift 55 tons in the 60's. It was a tracked mech, but the upper torso was a mech.

I have to chime in here, and Salve! I joined just to jump in on this topic :D I believe the inherent advantages for mechs are as follows: 1) Ultra high modularity: Any weapon a soldier can use can be "biggie" sized and be used with a biomimetric mech. Furthermore, electromagnetic systems can be used effectively, yet don't have to define the parameters of it's chassis. 2) Ultra high agility: Within a reasonable size range for a given terrain, a walking mech can perform, theoretically, any feat of agility a human can. Peaking around a corner of a building and firing, then returning behind cover is far quicker (and more deadly) than a tank having to fully commit to engaging a target. Likewise improvised "shields" (i.e. a car) can be used if an air attack is imminent but, for whatever reason, cannot be engaged. Hell, just run around the other side of a large enough structure. Furthermore, terrain envelope increases drastically for artillery support with walking based locomotion. 3) "Simple" dynamic fire control: With a haptic feedback system, at least for the upper torso, firing regimen for heavy artillery (that has been modified to be used on a mech) is no different then regular infantry training, no extremely expensive fire control has to be included. 4) Not a plane/tank: Yes, air superiority is necessary, but there is a very drastic risk involved going against adversaries of equal to greater technology. I'm talking anything from advanced SAM weapons, shoulder fired tech, and MW class anti-air/tank laser systems. Even a lucky/extremely well placed RPG round can hit and down any aircraft. A vehicle that can (comparatively) drastically maneuver it's structure can defeat even MW lasers due to ToT requirements of the laser to be effective. 5) Miscellaneous: A mech can go directly from a combat roll to a support role (yes this is a modularity feature, but I feel it deserves separate recognition). A pair of mechs can replace a fleet of construction vehicles, and reduce the overall capital needed to maintain the variety of weapon systems required on any given campaign. Disadvantages: 1) Tech requirements: It's hardly outside the realm of reality, but bipedal locomotion does require real time processing capability and, unless extreme piloting schemes are used, highly advanced dynamic balancing algorithms are required, with terrain identification, gyroscopes, and a whole suite of sensors to boot. 2) Support requirements: Mechs make up for it in agility, but they are SLOW, and can't realistically walk and keep up with the battle group. This will require specialized transportation capital. 3) Restructuring of armament: Face it, we're used to having specialized tech. Entire programming languages, structures, etc. have gone into setting up modern artillery pieces. You can't just take a MBT and throw a new turret onto it if something happens to it, the process takes a while, bringing the entire system off line. Though this is obviously a problem with modern tech, we have surmounted it with, again, highly specialized tech. You're talking phasing not only modern artillery out, but phasing all it's support tech out as well (not entirely by any means, but by a large fraction I'd wager). With so many industries and so much capital invested already, the benefits have to highly out weigh NOT taking this option.