What combat role could a mech play on a real battlefield?

[Isegrim]

I think battletech mechs are wayyyy to big.

Something medium armored maneuverable and relative small like this one we will see in the next decades.

Maybe not with plasma weapons or pigs and such stuff but good armed.

 

Edited June 10, 2014 by Isegrim

[shagrat]

1. German 'Marder' chassis from the 70is is a good example how it works! Can't tell why US Navy can't build boats, but they won't be building mechs either. It's more likely the army and Stryker, Bradley etc. are working real-life examples to re use the mobility part (chassis) for multiple weapons platforms and roles.

 

2. You are aware, that a MANPAD has no Radar, no laser beam or anything else to home in? So if the Operator is in good cover (aka not standing upright in the middle of an empty, flat field) SEAD is totally helpless... an Apache might evade and retaliate, but IGLAs and Stinger MANPADs are deadly against airborne targets, BECAUSE you usually see them only after they are launched! Combined with an IADS the Gunships, SEAD and Aircover assets have to fight hard to reach the grunts and do they're support. That was stated early in this thread: not every future conflict is against badly armed farmers in 3rd world countries. If you face an even foe this kind of 'new' technology may be the leading edge... who can tell!

When innovative minds had the idea of using helicopters to bring troops into enemy territory they were heavily opposed. When they wanted specialised Gunship helicopters (AH-1 Cobra) they were opposed even stronger... with your argumentation US Airmobile, Apache AH-64 or any kind of Aircover for grunts wouldn't have happened. They would just send in more Marines!

[Bikko]

I know this is pretty far-stretched, but just curious - if it were possible to create mechs like in Mechwarrior or other fantasy universes, what kind of realistic combat role could it play on a real battlefield?

 

Let's ditch the fantasy notion of them being indestructible superweapons that only other mechs can take down, and consider more of a "realistic" sci-fi angle - what could they be used for? I imagine that if they had a functional propulsion system that allowed for a limited amount of vertical movement, they could be useful in hilly terrain, or even heavily forested areas where normal ground vehicles cannot pass?

 

What do you think?

 

 

This is just the ramblings of a write who focuses far too much on theory and mechanics than actual writing (I'm so lazy) but for the mechs I have within my writing, they are few and far between in relation to other machines- they're still in their infancy, however advanced they appear, and are more for support. They aren't even that large, either, about 2-3 times the size of a man. Now, in terms of modern technology they are light years ahead- they don't even use a hatch, but instead have semi intelligent metal that 'opens up' to accept a pilot from the upper back. They aren't indestructible, but they are hardy, and they act more like extensions of the human body than pure machines, as they are somewhat 'alive' (they can pilot themselves, though they lack the more advanced AI allowing prediction, advanced thought processing, and 'gut feeling' type of stuff.)

 

All in all they perform more like really big special forces infantry- who happen to be able to take a tank shot to the gut and keep on soldering. They even vary in advancement; the most advanced ones belonging to the primary faction (the GDA,) have the beginnings of modular systems, and have more of the superhuman agility found in traditional mechs- they can jump pretty high, and move at a fairly decent pace. There's three of them, which are really one and the same, and instead are really just loadout differences (even the Command version is on the same chassis as the standard one, just with more whizz-bang gizmos than the others.) They're comprised of the Rifleman variant, with a lovely little 57mm weapon system (I like to think I got the idea from Full Metal Panic, as the mechs there aren't too huge, and they use larger but not obnoxiously huge weapons), the Suppressor, with a 30mm rotary cannon and the stereotypical mech machinegunner backpack, and the Breacher, with a larger rifle, typically between 75 and 90mm. The last one's more for cranking tanks (that gun's not terribly accurate) and relies more on agility and cunning to flank and- yes- leap on top of a tank to hit it in the nice, squishy top.

 

The mechs from other factions are more primitive, with the United Universal Government only having one, a bulky sniper that lacks the sort of gryos of the GDA's mechs, and is less a traditional mech than a really big bipedal weapon carrier, as it needs to set up and dig in to fire- it'd fall on its back if it tried to do anything else, and it can't even really run. Heck, in some ways, a tank destroyer's a better choice, but this bugger can fit where a tank can't, so it still has a niche. (Also, the UUG lacks the stubbornness to mount insane stabilization contraptions to their tanks like the GDA, so they rely on this mech to fire some of their bigger guns, so there's that. The GDA, on the other hand, has the Indigo Atlas Hybrid Artillery Tank with its retractable telescoping barrel (not sure how this would actually work in real life, I admit it's shaky) and stabilization-leg-skirt-thing. Basically it's a smaller chassis that mounts a really long gun beyond all logical reason, that happens to be able to collapse and be fired without having to stabilize, allowing it to function as an infantry support tank- the gun's not too accurate when collapsed, and it's primarily artillery, so it doesn't have much business carrying ordinance meant to blow through a heavily armoured tank!)

 

Before I go on, yes, I'm scatterbrained and disorganized, and that sucks. Now put on your brain bucket and let's wade forth! Time to earn that danger pay... (Note: After writing so much, I've decided to spare readers from having a five mile long page and so I'll put this below in a spoiler tag...) (EDIT: Wow, forgot how wide the forums were... I'm so used to narrow forums, where my walls of text drive people crazy, especially on mobile devices, with how long they make webpages.)

 

 

The mechs in my writing are also strengthened in the "we're not invincible machines of death but rather a force multiplier" category by the fact that they were never supposed to exist in the first place. I was just stuck trying to find content for a tank seige in the middle of a desert, and needed something that could actually make at least one of the eleven guys inside an Indigo Tremor feel a little edgy about charging.

 

Indigo Tremors look like a KV-2, drive like a KV-2, and are armoured to the degree that a KV-2 appears to be, and how it functionally was in the early stages of the war; nigh invincible. Though they are sluggish by the GDA's standards (roadspeed of 80km/h) and are loud as sin, they make up for this with an incredible turret traverse, highly accurate short-range aiming system (Note: The Tremor was originally an artillery system before the Atlas, and once the larger peices were finished in number, was moved to be their close support escort legions- they are highly accurate up to 2 kilometers, though beyond that their ordinance (which relies on velocity and sheer weight) is ineffective and innacurate.) and a survivability the likes of which is compared to the ACV's of the Aerospace Navy. Every station has redundancy, and every one of the eleven crew members has at least some form of cross-training; a Tremor a stuffy steel box that a submarine crew would be right at home in, if it were stealthy. They;ve got quadruple redundancy for hydraulics, because the speed ain't worth squat, and they're big targets; they can take a beating, so immobilization isn't a huge concern, but the ability to fight on and on an on is key, not only for their jobs, but for fear purposes too- what would you feel like if the target you dumped firepower into and just immobilized just kept firing shell after shell at you, as if being immobilized was but a minor annoyance?

 

Hence the birth of the UUG's first mech, a weapons platform that could legitimately challenge the legendary durability of the Tremor, and give them cause for concern. Ultimately this didn't matter too much when the GDA caught on to to mech's presence- one mech in a fixed position can't tackle an entire squadron of ten Tremors, screening a veritable battalion of Type IX Standard IRT urban combat tanks. (which could not previously risk cresting the many dunes between their firebase and the UUG's position due to the massive number of antitank emplacement and the presence of the UUG's sniper mech. The Tremor fixed the problem of the AT emplacements, shrugging off their ordinance time and time again as a massive bullet shield, and the target saturation prevented the mechanized sniper from properly engaging the Tremors. And eventually, the range to target no longer kept the sniper protected from the Tremor's deadly shot)

 

Quick note on the Tremor, for anyone interested: It doesn't fire a traditional tank round as we're accustomed to, but rather a brute force solid shell that laughs at most armour, easily tearing through it with sheer force of weight; anything heavy enough to stop it instead gets hit and flipped. Tremor's also carry a variant of the same round for engaging softer targets, with no need for breacher shells- the standard round itself is enough to blow through a wall and still wreck anything behind it, as the mechanized sniper found out the hard way in the above example, in the end. (Parking itself in front of a wall with heavy ordinance behind it didn't help its survival, either.) For targets beyond 2,000 meters, it does have a limited supply of ordinance. These shells feature more traditional penetrator caps, but still rely primarily on weight- they just impact differently. The Tremor still retains its ancient indirect fire control system, and is more than capable of aiming for a high angle or even top-down shot, allowing the long-range shell's penetrator cap to make use of gravity in its effort to destroy its intended target.

 

Further note: The Type IX Standard IRT (Intermediate Response Tank) is an urban combat tank, designed to blow through buildings and hit targets on the other side, or to simple level anything in its path. As such, like the Tremor, it is not terribly accurate at range, hence why in the above example, it needed screening by a Tremor to get close enough. (Also missing from the example is that the GDA did not have any Indigo Artillery Divisions in the area at the time, which would have rendered the presence of the Tremors moot- and rendered the UUG's position nonexistant.) They aren't purpose built to engage other tanks, but can handle themselves, though they rely on their ease of production and thus, their large numbers, to properly tackle armour. (For antitank duties, the GDA has more specialized hunters like the TD88, a lightly armoured and incredibly nimble tank hunter designed to fit inside ruins and wait for its prey, strike, and scurry away for hit and run attacks after that; it is also one of the few examples of twin barreled tanks in the storyline. The GDA can also use Indigo Rainbow IFV's equipped with the 120mm guided cannon, as these units are even more numerous than Type IX's, and while they aren't much use in a head on fight, their guided munitions can be fired even in haste, simply igniting their small engine and either climbing and immediately engaging, or entering a simple loiter orbit until they run low on fuel or are directed to attack. Indigo Rainbows aren't commonly seen doing this except in larger field battles from long range, as it's sort of akin to sending in an ATGM carrier to fight a main battle tank face to face- sure the ATGM carrier could probably wipe the floor with the tank, but if the tank so much as sneezes, the carrier suffers critical existence failure)

 

Back to the main point, the mechanized sniper was designed with a single main purpose, and can sort of do a few others, but has a multitude of shortcomings and weaknesses that keep it from being a godmodded rape machine. Even the GDA mechs can't withstand fire forever, and they aren't large enough to fend for themselves forever- while their modular systems can accept an ammunition backpack, that prevents it from making use of other back mounted systems such as a Phase (Shift) shield generator (quick blurb: P(S) shields differ from traditional ones in that it defaults to off, and detects incoming projectiles, only raising a small shield portion a small distance in front of the predicted flight path. This uses far less energy, allowing it to be immensely compact (even the largest ones found on massive ACVs in space are only thirty square feet) although there is a small concern that, since it is not an active shield like all other types, there is a minute chance that the prediction algorithm will not fire off in time, and incoming weaponry will not be stopped. (This has happened on a few occasions, though to no great loss- so far) or a larger thruster suite for increased mobility, something that is virtually default on the Breacher variant, as ammo means nothing if it can't reach it's target. And these mechs are also up against, and were partially designed to combat such a threat- N-Class combat gas, especially the final version, N25. N-Class combat gas is unlike traditional gas weaponry; while it can be released same as anything else, the way it acts differs. The gas is partially mechanized, and can be said to be a cluster of tiny nanomachines than actual gas (though it actually is a gas; it's just been altered in a way that it has a very specific target profile.) It works in a way akin to other neurotoxins, but instead of inhibiting some chemical or other, it detects and is attracted to bioelectricity- it will 'home' in on the electrical current flowing through living things. And it is truly tiny and invasive, as no NBC suit, no filter, will stop it. It will even find its way through molecular holes in the armour of a tank. It was designed to combat BioAndroids, weapons of war that were at once artificial and actual living beings (I could explain this for days, but in essence, BA's organics and even their souls, are artifically produced, but they are not 'fake', they are grown from existing cells, and as for their souls, well, that I could explain for days too; basically, the theory is that living beings can exist on their own, but the dangers of the universe are legion, and the energy of the universe is sentient, but without form. So, upon creation, every living thing form a symbiotic relationship with this energy, which we then call a soul. It guards against the worst of the dangers, so that the host can live in peace- entirely unwitting of their relationship to the universe. Now and then a being will be born without a soul, and usually these perish in short order, but once in a blue moon one will manage to survive to a fairly ripe age. Just an interesting tidbit. Anyway, BA's are not machines, nor are they living beings in the way we are, and neither are they artificial inteligence, at least not wholly. They are taught, trained and cultured before activation, and all of this is done to an actual, organic brain. They have digital brains, yes, and these have code, yes, but it does not make them an army of brainless machines. In short, they are a mesh of man and machine that makes use of human ingenuity while protecting our fragile frames with a cold steel of sorts. They are an evolution of humanity we will never attain; an artificial evolution, yes, but still one that is very much alive, with their own thoughts and feelings.

 

 

Continued in next post (15000 character limit?! Arghhhh!)

Edited June 10, 2014 by Bikko

[Bikko]

Continued from first post (I'm such a rambler :cry:)

 

...

 

Where N25 comes in, is the First Generation of Combat BioAndroids. This generation is the most feared and respected of all (currently) eighteen Generations, and rightly so. They were and ever are, rare, as they were built out of the hardiest stuff imaginable. For a very long time, they were, and almost still are, literally indestructable. The early losses were from exhaustion- as they do not fatigue, they would keep going on and on, but after about a month of nonstop operation, they would have an internal temperature that would be too much for their internal safeguards, and would fry their organs, putting them into an Emergency State, a state where they would be focused on self-preservation to the exclusion of all else. This was a problem because a) they used far more energy in this state, and after a month of hard fighting, they had about two weeks in this state before they would burn themselves out entirely. And b) because they were designed to survive against anything, and as such, no longer cared about friend or foe; recovery teams of First Generations had to be formed just to subdue these dying units in an attempt to keep them from surviving so well that they killed themselves. First Generation CBA's were also living nightmares; they were protected against all known toxins and diseases, and were built to be such efficient living weapons of war that their very blood was anathema to life. They were virus carriers beyond measure, and should one actually manage to fall, it would take whoever was stupid enough to get close with it in a cloud of its own boiled blood, releasing its deadly viral payload into the immediate area. They ate atomic weaponry and crapped death, day in, day out. In space, they were ever more deadly- they didn't need the same bodies as they did on land, which were to protect allies from their own immense atomic signature. Anyone foolish enough to board an ACV manned by First Generation CBA's in anything short of a meltdown suit would quickly fall to the immense radiation emitted by unshielded CBAs. (On the flip side, they could work, body or not, in any ACV, so when the SwarmCarrier was designed, they were perfect for maintenance, as they could shrug off the massive amount of radiation the reactors gave off even through the thick shielding.)

 

The first ever First Generation test unit, Snpr Ex1, went rogue and found and exploited a weakness in the original design, but that was a one-time trick. So N-Class combat gas was born. Even the Quantum Material armour of a First Generation CBA was not foolproof against it, though even in the start, N1 was very weak. Still, even a half of a percent lethality rate against these monsters of war was a major victory. And so the arms race was on. N25 is the culmination of that race, the end of the N-Class combat gas, its inventor dead. But N25 has never been fully analyzed, and has remained so for millions of years, its encryption the product of almost two centuries of quiet study between N24 and N25. For all its advances, it is still only 8% effective against the remaining twenty thousand First Generation units.

 

The point? The GDA's mechs, unlike the UUG's, use bioelectrical currents to allow pilot entry, as well as articulation. If not equipped with a purpose built Phase (Shift) shield, these mechs will seize in an N25 cloud. Ironically, the pilot is safe inside, as the machine is fully made out of the bioelectrical metal, and the N25 will bond to it in sufficient numbers that it clogs in the armour and prevents more N25 from seeping in past it, as well as blocking the pilot's own bioelectric signal from the N25 outside the mech. And N25 is singular in purpose, and will adhere to its target until it itself breaks down, preventing it from simply overwhelming the mech and then turning on the pilot. So, while the pilot is perfectly safe, the mech is immobilized and the pilot can't get out, quite a disadvantage.

 

 

 

 

So, to finally shut up (I apologize for anyone who has died reading all of this, truly, I do...) at least when coming up with mechs in a fictional environment, you can be quite creative in limiting their traditional superpoweredness. You just need to think first of what you don't care about, and make sure they can't do this or that. Sure, it's underhanded, but it often fits. Second, make a list of what you meant it to do, and whatever else you figure it can do based on what you've designed, making logical assumptions. Pick a few of these and re-engineer it so that it isn't quite as good, or sucks at these. Bonus points if you make a second mech that does these things better, but suffers where the first one excels- combined arms is always good, and it makes a freebie weakness that they need to be together for them to cover all the bases, as apart they will flounder against this or that threat, or are easily counterable.

 

And lastly, try to do some guesswork. I do it a lot for everything I do, to try to make this or that less of a one-man wrecking ball. Tremors are slow, and they will eventually run out of ammunition. Rainbows are squishy, Type IX's can't hit diddily at range. (Going into some stuff I never mentioned here now) Assault Fighters, while turnfighters beyond measure, are limited in flight time and armament- they only have two missiles, and are otherwise based solely around those cannons. The AED-8 Super Heavy Bomber... is really just a modernized B-36 Peacemaker made... huger. The AED-20 Hypersonic Assault Bombers are few in number, are incapable of landing (they refuel and rearm in orbit) and only carry two bombs, if you ignore the fact they're built around a third. The Sterling III Interdictor is a sitting duck for ballistic missiles, as it lacks the high performance engines of the 21A class, as well as the SHEAR (Sudden High Energy Ascent Reaction) protocol engines of the I-700. The AED-12/DRJ-A High Speed High Altitude Assault Bomber is... a morphing body flying wing design built around twelve movable engine sections and a bomb bay. Cripple one, the thing's screwed. The First Generation CBAs can only fight nonstop for a little over a month, and they can't afford to burn out because there's only twenty thousand left of them and no way to make more. SwarmCarriers (which were originally 'godmodded', though they were far fewer in number initially) are basically big, fat rectangles with guns. And about an eighth of a million bombers, or a small escort fleet. But still a bit fat rectangle. One that can ram and come out intact. But still a rectangle. A huge one. Sure it has some of the best shielding technology has to offer, but it's still huge. If you can't aim a hitting shot (it has a lot of CIWS armaments) than you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

 

Also one more, for the biggest artillery piece the GDA has, the Indigo Landkreuzer, which, in layman's terms, is basically a Schwerer Gustav bolted to two huge treads instead of rail cars. Sure, it's got a massive gun, sure, it's got the biggest AAA suit any singular land machine in the GDA's arsenal has, sure, it comes in pairs in any Indigo Artillery Division. But that short-range, kill-all plasma gizmo? (Not going to bore you with that detail) All you need to do is shake the damn thing hard enough, and it'll explode. Either that or shatter the recoil diverter drill on the back so it can't fire without blowing itself up. Then it's a fancy, four hundred meter long artillery chassis that doubles as a decorative, oversized paperweight, with a massive, beautiful gun, that doubles as a very large pointing stick. And if you give it a good shove now, it'll burst into pretty fireworks!

 

 

 

Where does all this tie in? If we can get real, working mechs, they're going to be primitive, sort of like the UUG's mechanized sniper. They won't be going anywhere fast, probably would be a very bad idea to try to parkour in them, and they aren't going to feature energy blades or big hokin' guns. Maybe they can be used to fire big weapons in lieu of a tank chassis or something, but they're not going to be toting them around like it's nobody's business. And they're going to be targets. And sure, we seem close to getting a bipedal machine to walk just fine, but when you stick one in a warzone, what's gonna happen? What if it gets hit by something big, as I imagine it will be? It's gonna topple over, because our gyros are primitive. You could probably ram it with a heavy vehicle and it'd topple over.

 

We'll get there one day. Maybe they'll be big mechs, or maybe they'll be more like suits for the groundies. Perhaps they'll be like helicopters in the beginning, just utility vehicles that are really good at lugging crap from point A to point B, and we'll slowly but surely find a way to make it so they don't fall on their backs and wind up being nicknamed Turtles when they fire a weapon.

 

Or maybe they really are just a waste of time, and are really just cool but impractical. We'll find out when we get there. For now, we'll have fun imagining how they'll be, what they can do, and always finding out way off topic and wind up making short stories, novels, and TV shows about them. Maybe they're better off staying in our heads. At least that way we'll never be crushed when they don't work out in practice. As long as we are ignorant as to what they can't do, we'll keep being creative.

 

One thing's for sure. If they do come in my lifetime, and they aren't the way I write them as, I'm going to be pretty pissed. I try to keep things closer to realism if I can help it, so I'd feel compelled to alter them to fit how they were in reality. And I hate having to re-write stuff!

Edited June 10, 2014 by Bikko
Yes I've sort of triple posted... Don't kill me, please! Blame the forum's character limit! I woulda stuck it all in spoilers

[Bikko]

Now that I think of it, who said it had to be bipedal? If we're like that, then you've got limitless potential, and I think all we'd need right now is a way to make it mobile, assuming you want legs.

 

If that's the case, I'm pretty sure the bulk of my designs could easily be made real (minus directed energy weapons) because they're little more than big boxes on legs with guns galore, maybe a vehicle hangar. (of course, one or two are meant to drop in from low orbit and use a totally fictional mechanism so they don't topple buildings when dropping near urban centers...)

 

I could likely easily re-create the general idea behind most of these things, and just let progress do the rest, eventually.

 

Also one thing I forgot to slide in in the previous posts, is that the small size of the GDA's mechs allows them to be deployed by air, which I think is how they would get around if we built them in real life, considering mechs will probably be slow to start off. And just for kicks, I'll drop in the sister heli to what the GDA's mechs ride around with (mostly because I don't have a full sheet for the Albatross yet, and because the Anaconda is essentially a smaller, heavily armed Albatross. And because I'm sorta shameless sometimes.)

 

Behold, the Anaconda.

 

Yeah, it's pretty big. As for the actual Albatross, the mechs ride in a carrier underneath the machine, so that in a hurry, the pilot can simply jettison the container if they need to bug out; the mech pilots may not like the bumpy ride, but it's better than being blown up in the air, isn't it? Also this isn't totally final, the numbers are a bit wonky, I think- it carries about as much ordinance as an empty Apache D weighs. And the thermobaric missiles are sort of just a placeholder, they're supposed to be antitank missiles, but it's fiction so they need some degree of flashiness! (Plus I like Dale Brown and the stuff he creates. 27 pound missile with the power of a bunker buster? Please, do tell...)

Edited June 10, 2014 by Bikko
Small typo, oops

[leafer]

These massive mechs would make excellent sentries or border patrol. A couple thousands of these leaky hydraulic behemoths looking at Kim Jong Un general direction would be pretty hilarious and sublime. If the tech is there then perhaps they might as well build human sized assault bots, right?

[Schnittertm]

Now, if I would want to employ any type of Mech it certainly wouldn't be those from the Battletech universe, as they are just more or less lumbering hulks. If I had a choice, I'd rather chose Wanzer form the Front Mission universe, as they are modular (different types of legs [two, four or hover], arms and weapons can be fitted) and very mobile, at least if you go by certain ingame rendering in say Front Mission 4 (see here

). They can be fitted as long-range artillery (mostly missile based), snipers, medium range attackers, scout/forward missile controller or even with melee weapons. They'd be also small enough with about 5-8 meters height (2.5-4.5 times human).

[ShuRugal]

The biggest problem with the idea of a walking tank is power. Anything that moves with legs puts the powerplant at a mechanical disadvantage: the engine is on the short end of a lever, and the ground is at the long end. Add to this the fact that a walking vehicle is going to use engine power to support the weight of the vehicle, where a wheeled or tracked vehicle load is borne by its suspension springs.

 

Every vehicle in existence today runs its engine power through a reducing transmission to amplify the torque output at the expense of velocity output. There isn't an armored vehicle in existence that could pull off from a standstill in top gear, but that is exactly what a mech would have to do. A walking design would necessitate a set of reduction gears on the scale of a naval warship to overcome the mechanical disadvantage inherent in a lever-based final drive.

 

In a sense, this is similar to the problem faced by helicopters: A helicopter expends the majority of its engine power simply staying airborne, and as a result is very slow and unmaneuverable in comparison with most fixed wing aircraft. However, the unique ability of a helicopter to maneuver under terrain masking, in tight confines, and in coordination with ground forces in order to provide direct support all provide an impetus to accept the disadvantage of vertical-thrust flight.

 

So, the pertinent question is this:

 

What tactical advantages do walking platforms bring to the field that enable a tank to better complete its mission, considering that for the same power requirements, you could build a tank that can carry several times more weight, move several times faster, and is not subject to being simply

?

[shagrat]

In the battletech univers mechs use myomer muscles not unlike human muscles to walk and run. There is nothing like a gear box... just faster energy pulse frequency to the muscles. Interesting point: first electrically controllable materials that contract or stiffen under electric current are already researched and pretty much WIP. With a reasonable size like 3-4 meters high, this may work quite well.

 

Have a look at LS3 Marine support 'vehicle' a squad support quadruped! This is no science fiction it is in development, simply a robotic 'horse' that is half autonomous! Now, imagine a 20mm gun on a turret on top, or a double 12.7 cal plus a two missile TOW launcher... there's a little quad legged Mech capable of climbing mountainsides or accompany a troop of marines through a forrest.

Now think a decade or two ahead... and it may not be so unlikely :D

 

P.S. ... and they really tried hard to "simply knock it down" during prototyping. Even when running full speed to no avail!

Edited June 10, 2014 by shagrat

[shagrat]

... a video on the LS3 http://

[shagrat]

And from what I read here it is the typical search for "why it shouldn't work" vs. "How can we make it work" approaches.

The later is favorable, because it enables us to actually get things done or solve problems whereas the first only wastes lots of time... when people started building planes, type 1 people told them exactly why a plane could never ever fly, until planes went into the air, then they argued how dangerous and ineffective it is compared to a train... but we don't fight wars with trains nowadays, yet I've seen a lot if airplanes that where not supposed time ever fly. ;-)

[VincentLaw]

... a video on the LS3 http://

Now, imagine a 20mm gun on a turret on top, or a double 12.7 cal plus a two missile TOW launcher...

You could also throw a saddle on it and have mounted infantry shooting from mechback.

[Exorcet]

And from what I read here it is the typical search for "why it shouldn't work" vs. "How can we make it work" approaches.

The later is favorable, because it enables us to actually get things done or solve problems whereas the first only wastes lots of time... when people started building planes, type 1 people told them exactly why a plane could never ever fly, until planes went into the air, then they argued how dangerous and ineffective it is compared to a train... but we don't fight wars with trains nowadays, yet I've seen a lot if airplanes that where not supposed time ever fly. ;-)

The type 1 people are the ones listing problems that may be without solutions and sorting them into a long list that can be overturned with research and data. The type 2 people might be the ones who will be convinced of the result before the trails and end in failure. I don't think the first perspective is any worse than the second.

 

Right now mechs don't have a purpose. Large ones would just use up fuel and money with no benefit besides possibly causing the enemy to expend weapons (though would be cheaper than the mechs). On paper, small ones might be able to replace or assist troops, perhaps in urban combat situations. One place where a humanoid form might make sense is in a building. However the technology isn't here yet for such a weaponized machine.

[Mnemonic]

Why Mech should be huge and slow walking fortress? Shirow Masamune in his Appleseed manga depicted the "Landmate" mecha - it's special forces exo-skeleton, which can work autonomously, as well as in the "suit" mode, can employ heavier weapons than human, but also provide great mobility and situational awareness to a pilot. Optionally they could use something like jet-packs as well.

 

 

Such machines could be deployed from transport helicopters or VTOLs,as well as by wheeeled ground transport.

Again, it's not regular army unit, it's for spec ops.

 

[ShuRugal]

In the battletech univers mechs use myomer muscles not unlike human muscles to walk and run. There is nothing like a gear box... just faster energy pulse frequency to the muscles. Interesting point: first electrically controllable materials that contract or stiffen under electric current are already researched and pretty much WIP. With a reasonable size like 3-4 meters high, this may work quite well.

 

Have a look at LS3 Marine support 'vehicle' a squad support quadruped! This is no science fiction it is in development, simply a robotic 'horse' that is half autonomous! Now, imagine a 20mm gun on a turret on top, or a double 12.7 cal plus a two missile TOW launcher... there's a little quad legged Mech capable of climbing mountainsides or accompany a troop of marines through a forrest.

Now think a decade or two ahead... and it may not be so unlikely :D

 

P.S. ... and they really tried hard to "simply knock it down" during prototyping. Even when running full speed to no avail!

 

Okay, muscle fibres means no need for a big gearbox to transmit mechanical energy from the engine to the limbs. But that still leaves the problem of the limbs still operating at a mechanical disadvantage: the point which is acted on by the muscle is 1/5 to 1/10 the radius as the load. And on top of this, you have to have an onboard electrical generation system, none of which are 100% efficient (70-90% is the common range for today's systems, depending on application, load, and build quality).

 

The LS3 is an amazing piece of engineering, but just looking at the basic specifications, it is not even remotely efficient: the current prototype has a 400-lb cargo capacity, but at a conservative estimate (can't find published specifications) it weighs at least as much in bare structure and propulsion systems. It also moves breathtaking slowly.

 

Now, that said, as a squad-sized support element, it is already damn close to exactly what is needed for that role. Take that 400 lb cargo capacity, stick a flexible-mount on it for a machine gun or a grenade launcher, some ammo, and use the rest to armor the hydraulics, powerplant, and sensors (yes, the LS3 clearly has hydraulic actuators) and it would be a deadly support gunner.

 

But a tank? It's going to take some serious advances in power systems efficiency for a limbed tank-class vehicle to be practical on the battlefield. 3-4 meters high is not a "reasonable" when existing armor vehicles are all under 2.5 meters in height. If you put a 4-meter tall tank on the battlefield, it is going to draw fire like a magnet, and won't anyone be able to miss. 3-4 meters is also an extremely conservative estimate: If a legged tank is going to move at reasonable speeds, it is going to need a long stride length, which means long legs. I'd be astonished if you could build one less than 5 meters high and have it make more speed than a man running could do.

 

One thing I forgot to consider the first time: ground pressure. some preliminary math indicates that a 6-legged chassis would require roughly 1.5 meter diameter footpads to maintain useful ground pressure ranges. More legs would be smaller, but add complexity and vulnerability.

 

 

And from what I read here it is the typical search for "why it shouldn't work" vs. "How can we make it work" approaches.

 

To know how we can make it work, we have to know why it doesn't work yet. The biggest mechanical problem I see is the inherent power disadvantage a legged system operates at. The biggest tactical problems are height (anything taller than a modern tank is not going to be able to find cover on a battlefield, and that's something that can't be engineered around), speed (doesn't matter how wonderfully maneuverable it is if the enemy can outrun it on foot), and reliability (how many legs needed to provide operable ground pressure? how many for redundancy to allow for battle damage?). If these problems can be solved, then we will have successfully designed a practical battle-mech.

[Exorcet]

Why Mech should be huge and slow walking fortress? Shirow Masamune in his Appleseed manga depicted the "Landmate" mecha - it's special forces exo-skeleton, which can work autonomously, as well as in the "suit" mode, can employ heavier weapons than human, but also provide great mobility and situational awareness to a pilot. Optionally they could use something like jet-packs as well.

That's getting pretty heavy with sci fi though. It's one thing to imagine what fictional mechs can do. It's another to determine what a real mech could do.

 

Your image doesn't leave a lot of internal room with the pilot taking up most of the space in the suit (it might be better unmanned). Where would you put the jet pack (and the fuel, which you would need a lot of. Jet pack is inefficient because you need to supply force to counteract weight and your exhaust velocity is high [which is why we don't have rocket hover pods and use helicopters with rotors instead]).

 

Assuming we did get around all the problems with mech, why not just make a mini IFV/tank/helicopter? You'd probably be better using that level of technology making those others things even better.

[ShuRugal]

Assuming we did get around all the problems with mech, why not just make a mini IFV/tank/helicopter? You'd probably be better using that level of technology making those others things even better.

 

this is what i feel about most of these problems. If we have the technology/power available to brute force our way through the engineering problems, then that power could be much more effectively used on a platform that can make more efficient use of it.

[Schnittertm]

this is what i feel about most of these problems. If we have the technology/power available to brute force our way through the engineering problems, then that power could be much more effectively used on a platform that can make more efficient use of it.

 

Maybe because we first need a proof of concept working and then refine it. Look at the first tanks in WWI for example, they were huge, hot lumbering beasts with underpowered engines and small weapons if at all, that over time were developed into mobile weapons platforms able to engage targets even while moving with high accuracy.

 

The same can be said for most technologies. The first iterations, when looked at, seem by todays standards simple and outdated, yet without that first computer, the first wheel, the first car, the first plane, the first whatever built, there would not have been a process of refinement.

 

Naturally, it shouldn't be assumed that all paths will lead to success, but to start a path one has to walk one with the first, very basic prototypes and go on from there.

[ShuRugal]

Maybe because we first need a proof of concept working and then refine it. Look at the first tanks in WWI for example, they were huge, hot lumbering beasts with underpowered engines and small weapons if at all, that over time were developed into mobile weapons platforms able to engage targets even while moving with high accuracy.

 

The same can be said for most technologies. The first iterations, when looked at, seem by todays standards simple and outdated, yet without that first computer, the first wheel, the first car, the first plane, the first whatever built, there would not have been a process of refinement.

 

Naturally, it shouldn't be assumed that all paths will lead to success, but to start a path one has to walk one with the first, very basic prototypes and go on from there.

 

Fair enough. That still leaves open the question asked by the OP, though: what battlefield niche would a walking tank fill? More specifically, under what conditions does an armored vehicle benefit from legs over tracks or wheels sufficiently to merit the risks of a larger profile, higher power requirements, and lower top speed?

[OutOnTheOP]

And from what I read here it is the typical search for "why it shouldn't work" vs. "How can we make it work" approaches.

The later is favorable, because it enables us to actually get things done or solve problems whereas the first only wastes lots of time... when people started building planes, type 1 people told them exactly why a plane could never ever fly, until planes went into the air, then they argued how dangerous and ineffective it is compared to a train... but we don't fight wars with trains nowadays, yet I've seen a lot if airplanes that where not supposed time ever fly. ;-)

 

VERY poorly chosen analogy. Those of us in the "there's not much practical use for them" camp recognize that they could in fact be built, and that many of the technologies to do so are already in existence or research. We merely question the utility of it- unlike flight, which has obvious military applications, the additional advantage of legged locomotion over wheeled or tracked is very, VERY limited, and in fact comes with additional inherent problems:

 

INHERENT DOWNSIDES:

 

-they are inherently less energy efficient. FACT. Mere physics. Can larger engines overcome it, sure, but those more powerful powerplants would still be more efficient in a tracked or wheeled vehicle

 

-the additional ground clearance means they will be inherently taller than wheeled or tracked mounts.

 

-they operate at a mechanical disadvantage vis a vis leverage. Again, new power transfer (IE, electro-elastics) can be applied, but ultimately, it's going to be less efficient still.

 

-an inherently bouncy ride due to the stride. Can it be dampened with stabilization systems, sure, but again- those same stab systems can be applied more efficiently to a wheeled or tracked chassis.

 

-tripping hazard/ balance issues are inherent. Like it or not, it creates an opportunity to defeat them. No amount of gyros will make a legged system harder to trip/ knock over than a tank.

 

-HUGE surface area compared to internal volume. This means that for equivalent armour, they must be much heavier. The most efficient surface-to-volume shape is a sphere. A simple box shape isn't to bad either. A walker with limbs and crap hanging off is terrible inefficient.

 

-Joints. Try as you like, they have to move. This induces weak points, as they are difficult to armour, and can be jammed with foreign objects.

 

-High ground pressure. The footprint size on these beasts will likely be small compared to their overall weight, assuming they're armoured to any significant level. This means they will tear up roadways and bridges; particularly since legged locomotion puts energy into the ground in sharp impulses instead of a constant push like treads or wheels

 

vs.

 

INHERENT ADVANTAGES (and here I'm talking advantages that cannot be applied equally to wheeled or tracked chassis, so don't trot out the "but they have fusion engines! They can walk underwater! They're modular!" Etc. Don't confuse "what the sci-fi versions can fictionally do" with "what advantages are inherent to legged armoured vehicles" Besides, almost all the "advantages" mentioned by prior posters could be equally applied to wheeled or tracked chassis) :

 

-high obstacle clearance.

 

.....uh.... I would say "variable stance", but there are tanks that can significantly raise or lower their stance to best use protected firing positions.

 

....um.... intimidation factor?

 

A tank could be made to jump with thrusters just like a mech, can be modular just like a mech, etc.

[OutOnTheOP]

Why Mech should be huge and slow walking fortress? Shirow Masamune in his Appleseed manga depicted the "Landmate" mecha - it's special forces exo-skeleton, which can work autonomously, as well as in the "suit" mode, can employ heavier weapons than human, but also provide great mobility and situational awareness to a pilot. Optionally they could use something like jet-packs as well.

 

Such machines could be deployed from transport helicopters or VTOLs,as well as by wheeeled ground transport.

Again, it's not regular army unit, it's for spec ops.

 

 

And again, most of us have said that infantry power armour would be valid technology. Those, however, are getting toward the heavy side of practical, in my opinion. Much over 500 pounds, and they start to lose their usefulness, as they get too heavy for effective air transport... and the interior floors of a building would not support their weight. Kind of kills the flexibility of infantry, then. Particularly in the most likely future conflicts: urban in nature

[OutOnTheOP]

Maybe because we first need a proof of concept working and then refine it. Look at the first tanks in WWI for example, they were huge, hot lumbering beasts with underpowered engines and small weapons if at all, that over time were developed into mobile weapons platforms able to engage targets even while moving with high accuracy.

 

The same can be said for most technologies. The first iterations, when looked at, seem by todays standards simple and outdated, yet without that first computer, the first wheel, the first car, the first plane, the first whatever built, there would not have been a process of refinement.

 

Naturally, it shouldn't be assumed that all paths will lead to success, but to start a path one has to walk one with the first, very basic prototypes and go on from there.

 

Key difference: the hot, lumbering WW1 beasts STILL had obvious advantages: they allowed you to move heavy weapons systems, under armour, protected from the most prevalent battlefield weapons systems of the time, into position to effectively engage the enemy. This was a capability that nothing else offered at the time. Ergo, tanks immediately offered obvious, new capabilities.

 

It's not a matter of "oh, first gen walkers are just a hint of the future": first gen tanks showed obvious tactical advantages. What tactical advantages do the walkers promise?

Edited June 11, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[shagrat]

Well, I never "overlooked" the facts. And I did point out we are talking sci-fi here.

The reason why the LS3 is prototyped and field tested, is sure not because you can easily use a tracked or wheeled vehicle to replace it. Inefficient wasn't on the design specification.

I used it as an example of how legged motion is already researched by the military, because it has "no advantage" :D

I would agree something combining the LS3 with the MULE (wheel/leg combination) is more likely to happen first, but even the MULE is astonishing and caries about a ton of cargo (or weapons).

 

When airplanes in WW I where introduced they were reconnaissance! ...too fragile, not enough space to arm them, can't load additional weight... leave alone fuel efficiency, even today's jets are not very fuel efficient.

I'm not saying we will see huge sci-fi Battlemechs in a war zone, but something smaller, using "legs" for moving and as flexible in the terrain as a soldier.

P.S. the LS3 is as slow as a Soldier running, may be faster...

[Bushmanni]

Key difference: the hot, lumbering WW1 beasts STILL had obvious advantages: they allowed you to move heavy weapons systems, under armour, protected from the most prevalent battlefield weapons systems of the time, into position to effectively engage the enemy. This was a capability that nothing else offered at the time. Ergo, tanks immediately offered obvious, new capabilities.

 

It's not a matter of "oh, first gen walkers are just a hint of the future": first gen tanks showed obvious tactical advantages. What tactical advantages do the walkers promise?

 

You can cover a small mech with small arms resistant armor (same stuff infantry uses for their bullet proof vests) and maybe active protection system and mount some weapon on it and use it as a support weapons platform in environment where tanks can't operate like mountains and jungles. It wont stand up to a tank but it doesn't really have to. It's somewhat niche capability but it's something only a walking machine can do.

[Malleolus]

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.