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

[Malleolus]

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.

[Flagrum]

... well, and there we are again, back on page 1 or 2 of this thread ...

 

:o)

[Malleolus]

Thats not a role, thats a capability. And excuse me but I find it to be very suspect. A large dense forest would stop both a tank as well as a mech. Mud would most probably stop both but would be more dangerous to a mech, due to ground pressure limitations. Mountains? Well tanks can go uphill pretty good.

 

So mechs can step over obstacles...ok, I guess that would be useful in what, an urban setting I guess? Tanks are very crappy in urban settings we all know. They are RPG and IED magnets, but that would be true for mechs as well....OH but they could step over obstacles....cool...

 

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.

[shagrat]

... well, and there we are again, back on page 1 or 2 of this thread ...

 

:o)

 

Yep! ...and I'm really tired of the same arguments from both sides over again. Especially the kindergarten style "This is irrelevant" when there is no counter argument. I could simply say physics are irrelevant, because until then we have solutions for that...

Ok. I think I'll try to passively follow this discussion. I can't add any new argument for now.

Cheers everybody, and try not to take every argument personal ;-)

[ShuRugal]

I still argue agility... but it's also fun to watch the people getting really fired up here squirm.:joystick:

 

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.

 

You aren't 'arguing' agility, you're saying 'agility' over and over without quantifying what 'agility' will do for a mech. Will you be able to make your walking block of flats 'agile' enough to dodge a 350 m/s RPG? How about a 1750 m/s sabot round?

 

The fact of the matter is that, on a modern battlefield, if you can see it, you can kill it. Your 'tall enough to look over buildings' mech will be visible to (and therefore engageable by) every foot soldier in a three block radius, while it will only be able to see (and therefore engage) the ones the tank commander (or should i say 'building manager'?) will be able to see from his sensors. which is to say: one at a time. Put that behemoth on a battlefield, and it'll start drawing so much attention that the laser rangefinders painting it will start to present the optic sensors with a problem, to say nothing of the incoming APFSDS.

[cichlidfan]

... but it's also fun to watch the people getting really fired up here squirm.:joystick:

 

Isn't that the definition of trolling?

[shagrat]

You aren't 'arguing' agility, you're saying 'agility' over and over without quantifying what 'agility' will do for a mech. Will you be able to make your walking block of flats 'agile' enough to dodge a 350 m/s RPG? How about a 1750 m/s sabot round?

 

The fact of the matter is that, on a modern battlefield, if you can see it, you can kill it. Your 'tall enough to look over buildings' mech will be visible to (and therefore engageable by) every foot soldier in a three block radius, while it will only be able to see (and therefore engage) the ones the tank commander (or should i say 'building manager'?) will be able to see from his sensors. which is to say: one at a time. Put that behemoth on a battlefield, and it'll start drawing so much attention that the laser rangefinders painting it will start to present the optic sensors with a problem, to say nothing of the incoming APFSDS.

 

Oh god! It's too hard to resist... 're-read the thread, realise we don't talk about "behemoth" or "walking city-blocks". Now choose a battlefield like the Korrengal Valley, the Greenzone in Helmand or any location in mountainous terrain your tanks or IFVs can't reach and now imagine a 3 meter agile walking 4 legged "IFV" with two M134 Gatlings, underslung auto-grenade launchers, a 20mm gun on the "shoulder" and two TOW missiles on top!

That and two squads infantry plus a few surveillance and combat drones against a company of enemies with RPGs, Dushkas and AK-47s... now assume they have T-72 Tanks... parked about 5km downhill, cause they can't get up the steep slope? Beware the SABOT! Oh wait it can't reach us! So fire away. Now gunships? Get low profile pack the Stingers and wait for the buggers, if they come close, mallet them with stingers, if not just wait out! :D

[ShuRugal]

 

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.

 

You keep offering "modularity" as a strong point, but you keep ignoring the counter-point being made that a modular armored vehicle is a complete logistical nightmare. You need a truck (at least) for every piece of specialized loadout you want to carry into the field for your modular system. If you want to give your mech combat, bridgelaying, and minesweeping, then you end up with an entire convoy of vehicles for every piece of armor you are fielding. The biggest reason we design mission-oriented vehicles is not that there is anything inherently difficult about designing a modular armored vehicle, it's that if we're going to go through the trouble of hauling a piece of equipment into the field, it is better to haul it on top of a chassis that can use it.

 

Under the current system, we can bring a bridge layer up to a river under enemy fire, provide covering fire for that bridge layer and immediately move our combat armor across the bridge to take and secure the enemy positions. Under your system, we bring up the guns, shoot at the enemy until they are dead or driven off, go away, come back with a bridge (but no guns, or at least smaller ones) and hope that the enemy hasn't had reinforcements, lay the bridge, go away, come back with the guns to cross the bridge, if the enemy hasn't blown it up....

 

And even if, by some miracle, you did manage to build an invulnerable modular super-mech that somehow overcame the limitations of being a lumbering gigantic target, an equivitech enemy is just going to take out the convoys carrying all that modular equipment when it's not attached to the mech.

 

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.

 

So, what your saying is, no soldier was ever killed by a minefield?

 

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.

Sure, if RPGs moved at hollywood speed this would be feasible. The problem is, RPGs move as fast as bullets. Can your walking apartment complex dodge bullets?

 

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.

 

what, exactly, is small about something 12-14 feet tall? Capability to rotate without lateral movement in its own footprint? tanks already do that. Six to eight feet long? A GAU-8 on an 8-foot footprint? how are you going to mount a weapon system twice the size of a volkswagen on an 8-foot long platform? The GAU-8 also produces ten thousand poundforce recoil. How do you plan to prevent that from knocking your 14x8 platform flat on its back?

[shagrat]

Modularity doesn't necessarily mean multiple modules for one platform! The idea is the other way round! Read about Clan Omni-Mechs in Battletech. The idea is in use today for its ease for logistics. Rather having "specialized" weapon systems you design them to fit on multiple vehicles. Multiple platforms, but same replacement or spare parts. Refits with field salvage from damaged stuff. Same munitions for same weapons, so easier supply across NATO forces. Now a Mech could quickly bring quite different loadouts to bear in terrain any specialised vehicle can't...

[ShuRugal]

Oh god! It's too hard to resist... 're-read the thread, realise we don't talk about "behemoth" or "walking city-blocks".

You aren't proposing any such thing, but several other people have. I am talking to them on that point.

 

 

Now choose a battlefield like the Korrengal Valley, the Greenzone in Helmand or any location in mountainous terrain your tanks or IFVs can't reach and now imagine a 3 meter agile walking 4 legged "IFV" with two M134 Gatlings, underslung auto-grenade launchers, a 20mm gun on the "shoulder" and two TOW missiles on top!

I am assuming we are still talking about your 3-4 meter tall design, yes?

 

How much ground clearance does this design include? The problem with operating tanks in mountanous terrain is not that the ground is steep, it's boulders and abrupt increases in terrain height that cause a problem, and a great deal about loose soil as well. A walking platform is going to face these exact same challenges. To get your 3-4 meter tall IFV with those weapon systems, I will assume (unless you say otherwise, of course) that we took a BMP-3 (2.25m) and replaced the track with 1.5m legs. This would give us a maximum step-up height of approximately 0.75 meters, depending on the mechanical limits of the leg and the amount of tourque which can be fed them to lift the weight of the chassis with the upper portion of the leg paralell to the ground.

 

So now we have a walking infnatry support vehicle which can clear obstance slightly less than a meter high, at the expense of speed. Alright, looks good so far. How does it compare against the obstacle clearance of existing tracked systems? Whether it beats existing systems in that area or not, I'm not sure if it matters, because a mortar squad on the opposing slope is going to make pretty short work of it, just like they would any other piece of armor trying to negotiate those environments.

 

That and two squads infantry plus a few surveillance and combat drones against a company of enemies with RPGs, Dushkas and AK-47s... now assume they have T-72 Tanks... parked about 5km downhill, cause they can't get up the steep slope? Beware the SABOT! Oh wait it can't reach us! So fire away. Now gunships? Get low profile pack the Stingers and wait for the buggers, if they come close, mallet them with stingers, if not just wait out! :D

 

Well, if we take the armor out of both sides of that equation, you're talking about a pretty lopsided fight to begin with. That walking IFV hasn't brought any advantage, but it sure looks cool!

 

Now, that T-72... according to this source that cant can climb a 60-percent grade, and negotiate an 850mm obstacle, wait, what? Looks like it can follow you, certainly well enough to elevate the gun far enough to shoot at you. So much for superior mountaineering.

 

Modularity doesn't necessarily mean multiple modules for one platform! The idea is the other way round! Read about Clan Omni-Mechs in Battletech. The idea is in use today for its ease for logistics. Rather having "specialized" weapon systems you design them to fit on multiple vehicles. Multiple platforms, but same replacement or spare parts. Refits with field salvage from damaged stuff. Same munitions for same weapons, so easier supply across NATO forces. Now a Mech could quickly bring quite different loadouts to bear in terrain any specialised vehicle can't...

 

Once again, you aren't arguing that, but he is, and his was the argument I was addressing.

 

If you want to talk about MW-style loadout swapping, the reason we don't do that today is not because of the inability to do so, but because there is no need. Unlike in the Battletech universe, we don't have hundreds of different weapon systems suitable for use as the main armament on armored vehicles, we have a relatively small handfull. Pretty much all Western armor relies on the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon for MBT armament, with a few holdouts like Britain insisting on having rifled versions. The stryker (which does have modular swap-out ability for its main weapon system) mounts the 105mm model from the same company. I don't have much off-hand info for Soviet systems, but I'd be astonished to find out that they had a dozen different types of cannon in service all at once for the same role.

Edited June 12, 2014 by ShuRugal

[shagrat]

Yeah! Absolutly agree on the weapons modules. As I said it's pretty standard already.

About the ground clearance... etc. I think more in the direction of a spheroid/dome shaped center with four spider like legs. The two legged systems cause too much instability and the LS3 is nice to watch galloping along, but I guess the ability to push the center up about 1-2 meters when crossing an obstacle, or lower the center of mass if you need more stability is more intriguing. It could compensate at least one damaged link and still be mobile.

With that design you could raise a weapon turret as high as, say 4-4.5 meters? Maybe higher? It could crouch or duck as low as the center assembly, say 2 meters? I really think this would be useful in a lot of terrain and I like the idea of stalking over a fallen tree or ducking behind a wall, just raising the M134 Gatling above the wall and malleting away...

Anyway, we will see what the future will bring. Maybe it is a burrowing serpent that drills itself into buildings or compounds and fries the guys with a flamethrower... who knows. ;-)

Edited June 12, 2014 by shagrat

[ShuRugal]

Yeah! Absolutly agree on the weapons modules. As I said it's pretty standard already.

About the ground clearance... etc. I think more in the direction of a spheroid/dome shaped center with four spider like legs. The two legged systems cause too much instability and the LS3 is nice to watch galloping along, but I guess the ability to push the center up about 1-2 meters when crossing an obstacle, or lower the center of mass if you need more stability. It could compensate at least one damaged link and still be mobile.

 

With that design you could raise a weapon turret as high as, say 4-4.5 meters? Maybe higher? It could crouch irrelevant duck as low as the center assembly, say 2 meters? I really think this would be useful in a lot of terrain and I like the idea of stalking over a fallen tree or ducking behind a wall, just raising the M134 Gatling above the wall and marketing away...

 

Anyway, we will see what the future will bring. Maybe it is a burrowing serpent that drills itself into buildings or compounds and fries the guys with a flamethrower... who knows. ;-)

 

It's starting to sound like you're talking about a single-pilot system now. Keep thinking along those lines and you're going well for designing something that would be ideal for providing a squad-sized element organic heavy weapons support. Wouldn't care for it against armor, especially on an open battlefield, but now you're talking about something that would usefully enhance the mission capability of infantry units. That's something I would take downrange, once the survivability kinks had been hammered out.

[shagrat]

I was considering a semi-autonomous drone from the start, a pilot only complicates things here. Space, weight, sensor displays and life support. Just the platform to get heavy firepower close to a squad and combined with modern surveillance drones and small weapons platforms to divert the enemy that he can't easily focus in one direction, that would be the perfect support role. Maybe when we have powerful Lasers without gigantic battery or power assemblies that outperform current large caliber guns, a walker can replace a tank, but I'm not sure a tank is so important in a future battlefield as it is today... so a swarm of agile drones with auto gun like RPG may be more effective than a tank?

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Wrong. WrongwrongwrongwrongwrongWRONG. Also, a shitty, shitty straw man. You cannot, with physics, science, and actual tactical application, prove why it would be a good idea, so instead you try to claim that anyone without your "vision" is some backward luddite.

 

You're just as bad as the idiots here in the US that immediately cry "you're a racist!" if you ever disagree with their policies. It's a deliberate mislead, and it's poor debating technique. It's also as good as admitting you don't have anything else to add to the debate.

 

Please, though, tell me about all the folks that said that steam power, powered flight, or the tank were bad ideas? There may have been some that said "damn, this is hard to accomplish!", or "wow, this is pretty dangerous", or even "I'm not sure this is possible", but I have a very, very hard time believing ANYONE said "yeah, but even if you could, it's useless". Oh, and steam power? Been around since the Greek republics. Good luck sourcing the reactions of the scientific community on that one.

 

And a large scale mecha, even if you could, just isn't that useful. It's not a matter of "we can't make it work", even, just that it's a stupid development path to put too much effort into. We COULD make guns that use energy stored in elastic materials to throw long-rod penetrators, too, but that would be inefficient- it's just the nature of the technology *rolls eyes*

Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

"It's inefficient" "to much wobble" "to great of power requirements"...

Nothing history hasn't seen, and dis-proven, time and time again.

 

Holy crap, dude... I don't think you actually think about the implications of what you write before you hit submit.

 

Yes, you COULD put sufficient stabilization on a mech to actually shoot things. However, ANYTHING you put on a mech can be put on a tank, and the tank is INHERENTLY more stable. That's like saying "if you're a really good shooter, you can shoot accurately from the top of a jeep bouncing cross-country". Yeah, there's probably someone out there that could do it.

 

But don't you think that same shooter (and the same stabilization technologies) would be a hell of a lot MORE accurate shooting from steady ground?

 

Yes, with sufficient energy generation, you could make a mech move. With enough thrust, I can make a football stadium break the sound barrier, too. But it'd sure be a lot easier with a more efficient design, maybe something a bit more aerodynamic, don't you think?

Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

....and one more point on the "efficiency" of tracked/wheeled vehicles vs. Legs: after Darwin worked out how nature runs evolution, and considering you are right, why the #@!$ has no living thing on this planet tracks or wheels?

Nature decided on the most inefficient way to propel it's animals??? You really believe that?

 

As has been pointed out by others, you don't seem to understand how evolution works. Yes, legs are inefficient. Flapping wings aren't particularly efficient, either.

 

Don't even get me started on eyes: do you realize the design of the eye of every single land animal is, in fact, optimized for use underwater, because that's where they evolved, and once they went onto land, there was no evolutionary pressure to start from a blank slate?

 

The human brain has a nerve cluster that actually goes from a sensory input (I can't remember if it's the eye or nose... I think the latter *edit* found it, it's the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and has to do with the operation and sensation of the larynx and vocal cords. Either way, it takes a huge, needless bypass. 20 feet, in giraffes! *edit 2* wow, I really should read all the way to the end of the thread before replying, rather than replying as I read on it. I just caught up to page 12, and Exorcet already stole my thunder hours ago =P ), all the way down to the base of the neck, then back up to the FRONT of the brain? It slows the signal down a LOT. Evolution doesn't "design", and it's not particularly efficient. It's a series of random mutations, and if one of them happens to work better than the others, it survives to future generations. No guarantee of efficiency.

 

Also, regarding wheeled animals, of course not, that's silly; muscle tissue, the basic driving force of animal movement (again, evolved underwater) works in a linear, rather than reciprocating, fashion. You need reciprocating power to drive wheels. Yes, I'm aware that combustion and steam engines use linear cylinders. They also require transmissions and diferentials to transmit the linear power into reciprocating power- and any one of those individually is useless evolutionarily, they only mean something if taken together... so for evolution to select it, some critter would have to be born with three VERY PRECISE mutations in EXACTLY the right combination, AT THE SAME TIME. Not bloody likely.

Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

By the way, flying. Leonardo da Vinci, Otto Lilienthal, the Wright brothers. All had there fair share of critics, fatalists and naysayers. Yet we do have planes and fly through the air.

 

Aye, we have planes that fly through the air very inefficiently when compared to rail and sealift transport.

 

Wanna take a guess which one is responsible for the bulk of people and cargo shipped around the world?

 

The airplane wasn't developed because it was more efficient or "better", it was developed because it offered unique capabilities (high speed, freedom from terrain limitations, and an aerial perspective).

 

What equivalent unique capabilities are you getting from a mech?

[shagrat]

Yep! ...and I'm really tired of the same arguments from both sides over again. Especially the kindergarten style "This is irrelevant" when there is no counter argument. I could simply say physics are irrelevant, because until then we have solutions for that...

Ok. I think I'll try to passively follow this discussion. I can't add any new argument for now.

Cheers everybody, and try not to take every argument personal ;-)

 

I'd like to quote myself.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Well, couple issues with this:

 

1) yes, air power is, indeed, designed to come in, deliver firepower, then leave (to rearm). We can most certainly make aircraft (drones, mostly) that can stay aloft a long, LONG time (I believe Global Hawk is in the 40-hour range?). However, if they expend all ordnance in 15 minutes, who CARES if they can stay up for an eternity? Even assuming your fantastical mecha could walk for an eternity on their magical powerplants, if they deliver as much firepower as fast as an attack helicopter, they will run out of ammo and have to go rearm, too.

 

2) Ok, fair enough, Apaches have short endurance. But your imaginary mecha have NO endurance, because they don't exist yet. You invoke "future technology" as an all-encompassing answer to any potential problem with mecha, but seem to have a real problem understanding that those same technologies can be applied to other vehicles. Ok, so the mecha has a fusion reactor? Gee, I wonder how long a fusion-powered helicopter could stay airborne?

 

3) You assume a drone would have very low payload. That's a HUGE assumption. Particularly considering that there's far, FAR less technological leap between a manned B-2 and an unmanned B-2. We've been making drone aircraft since the 1920s. It's not exactly a huge technological leap here. I guess B-2s have "small payloads"?

 

Why do you jump on any alternative technology with claims of their ineffectiveness that are not only unsupportable by science, but ALREADY PHYSICALLY DISPROVEN WITH REAL-LIFE COUNTER EXAMPLES, yet so stridently defend the concept of the mech because "maybe at some point we could make the technology to make it possible"?

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

 

Nooooo, that's proof that someone tried the concept, but that it wasn't really all as useful as they thought it would be. I'd be willing to bet a big reason it was abandoned (if I recall, it was for use in forestry... and there actually are some other walking machines currently used for forestry as well) was more along the lines of "hey, this thing's pretty cool, it lets us access parts of the forest we can't get to with a jeep.... but it's only like 5% more territory than we can already access, so %$# it."

[OutOnTheOP]

Just read through all pro posts. Nearly all state the obvious argument, including mine. I put it uppercase now.

LEGS CAN WALK OVER OBSTACLES THAT COULD STOP A TANK LIKE A SIMPLE FALLEN TREE. YOU CAN WALK UP STEEP SLOPES NO TANK OR IFV CAN MANAGE.

And wade through thick growth or small rivers, cross over tank ditches, duck behind cover (crouch) and so on...

 

Edit: that was more than one argument. I get tired repeating myself.

 

Tanks can most certainly scale a fallen tree, and can bridge significant gaps. Or just drive around them! And other, simpler technologies can be used to allow conventional vehicles to bypass obstacles. I'd already mentioned (in response to a silly comment about how mechs are better because they can have jump jets), you can put jump thrusters on a conventional vehicle. You can put dozer blades on to gap obstacles. You could, with the same magical diamond nanotube unobtanium that you're all apparently planning to build these mechs out of, build lightweight extendible assault bridges that allowed a tracked vehicle to make a bridge or ramp over obstacles. You could put a high-caliber demolition gun, rocket, or mortar on them and just BLOW the obstacles out of your way. There's lots of other solutions to that particular problem.

 

That aside, how much of earth's terrain do you think is a) inaccessible to conventional vehicles, b) is tactically significant, and c) would not STILL put the mecha at a disadvantage against infantry, in which case, it would be wiser to just use infantry instead? Because the mecha would only be advantageous in terrain that meet all three of those requirements.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Horse hockey. Even if physics worked in some weird way where planes were irrevocably slower, more dangerous, and smaller payload than ground transport, there is STILL an obvious tactical advantage: it allows you to observe from above, and is therefore a fantastic recon machine.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

REALLY? There was already, in 1914, a weapon system that could safely transit the beaten zone of multiple machine guns, carried sufficient firepower to disable machine gun nests and other hardpoints, and could clear a path through barbed wire obstacles? And do all these tasks more efficiently and at less loss of forces?

 

Please, pray tell, what was the name of this fanciful machine?

[OutOnTheOP]

Not central. Distributed nervous system. Fluids of course, but no blood VESSELS... as I said.

 

Insects have central nerve clusters just like mammals... they're just smaller and less developed. Just because they run the length of the body doesn't make them "decentralized". Saying they have distributed nervous systems is like saying *I* have a distributed nervous system because I have nerve endings in my fingertips. It's not a bunch of interchangeable nerve cells evenly distributed through their body or anything like that.

Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Yes, they WERE slow, and they WERE fuel inefficient. But they did something useful: they provided armoured transport across terrain where no other military element could traverse, and they carried firepower sufficient to destroy enemy defenses.

 

You are absolutely FULL of it if you think the first tanks were either unarmed, or were primarily designed to transport troops. Neither is true.

 

Also, exhaust venting into the crew compartment (and poor ventilation, and poor heat management) is a DESIGN flaw, not a CONCEPT flaw. None of those are inherent to the concept of a tank, they just happened to be poorly designed on the earliest tanks. Early tanks had design flaws. The entire idea of large mecha has a number of serious CONCEPT flaws.