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

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

You keep going back to "it can step over obstacles" as the reason a mecha would be superior. But a tracked vehicle can, as a general rule, climb any obstacle lower than about 75%-80% the height of it's track system (depending, of course, on roadwheel and idler layout). This means that a conventional tank can cross an obstacle up to roughly 1/3-1/2 it's own height. The M1 Abrams, for example, can climb a 39 inch vertical obstacle. That's 41% it's overall height. And the Abrams has a TALL turret. If we're just talking hull height, a tracked vehicle can climb an obstacle that is VERY proportionally tall. On the other hand, how high an obstacle can you step over? 1/3 your height or so? Unless you make a walker that is all legs, it's not going to have a WHOLE lot better ground clearance or vertical obstacle clearance. *edit* looks like Shurugal already provided some useful ground clearance comparisons earlier... man, I REALLY have to catch up on the thread and THEN go back and respond....

 

...and please don't say "oh, it would just plant it's hands onto and VAULT the obstacle". As if a building will support the weight of a 40+ ton mecha...

Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

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

 

And this is STILL less useful that the far more technologically simple solution: a C-17 flies over, seeds the valley with a half-dozen NETFIRES-style launcher packs, and the two squads of infantry walk in with a laser rangefinder/GPS locater/transmitter per man. When they see a target, they transmit to NETFIRES, and it engages with precision missiles on demand. Instead of engaging two targets at a time with 7.62mm from a platform that can be easily engaged by all those enemies on the battlefield, you have the ability to engage 18 targets (one per infantryman) simultaneously with a far more lethal weapon... and one which doesn't require a direct line of sight to hit the target. Sorry, but it's really not all THAT useful.

[OutOnTheOP]

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...

 

Oh, so you mean like building the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Linebacker air defense vehicle, (newer versions of) Paladin artillery system and MLRS artillery rocket launcher on the same chassis and drivetrain?

 

...Yeah, you're right. We could NEVER do that with conventional vehicles.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

...and funny enough, almost exactly what I outlined as the closest thing to a truly useful "mech", back on page one. Third post. I believe.

[ShuRugal]

...and funny enough, almost exactly what I outlined as the closest thing to a truly useful "mech", back on page one. Third post. I believe.

 

yep, like Shagrat said, we're back to page one...

[Malleolus]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[ShuRugal]

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.

 

Well then I apologize, It's getting difficult to track all the people making minor variations on the same argument. For my response to hot-swappable weapons, see the text you just quoted.

 

 

Furthermore, yes, minefields have killed soldiers... and just about everything else. I'm talking IED's, not minefields.

Good, since we're talking about IEDs, I'll remind you that the 'I' stands for 'Improvised'. The Hajjiis are very resourceful, and have quite the knack for redesigning their explosives on the fly to fill their needs. They are particularly fond of taking 155mm HE shells, stacking them under some concealment beside the road, and running a button on wires out in the treeline, so they can set off the explosion after part of the convoy has passed and thereby take out exactly the vehicle they want.

 

Point is, IEDs are tailor-made in the field to blow up specific targets. So you've made it harder to effectively place pressure-triggers to target your mech. In response, your enemy is going to use a remote-detonated device.

[OutOnTheOP]

Good, since we're talking about IEDs, I'll remind you that the 'I' stands for 'Improvised'. The Hajjiis are very resourceful, and have quite the knack for redesigning their explosives on the fly to fill their needs. They are particularly fond of taking 155mm HE shells, stacking them under some concealment beside the road, and running a button on wires out in the treeline, so they can set off the explosion after part of the convoy has passed and thereby take out exactly the vehicle they want.

 

Point is, IEDs are tailor-made in the field to blow up specific targets. So you've made it harder to effectively place pressure-triggers to target your mech. In response, your enemy is going to use a remote-detonated device.

 

Or, y'know, a tripwire -_-

[Malleolus]

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*

 

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.

[Malleolus]

Well then I apologize, It's getting difficult to track all the people making minor variations on the same argument. For my response to hot-swappable weapons, see the text you just quoted.

 

 

Good, since we're talking about IEDs, I'll remind you that the 'I' stands for 'Improvised'. The Hajjiis are very resourceful, and have quite the knack for redesigning their explosives on the fly to fill their needs. They are particularly fond of taking 155mm HE shells, stacking them under some concealment beside the road, and running a button on wires out in the treeline, so they can set off the explosion after part of the convoy has passed and thereby take out exactly the vehicle they want.

 

Point is, IEDs are tailor-made in the field to blow up specific targets. So you've made it harder to effectively place pressure-triggers to target your mech. In response, your enemy is going to use a remote-detonated device.

 

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.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Malleolus

[Malleolus]

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

[OutOnTheOP]

words

 

Whatever, dude. You're the one that has consistently fallen back on "you aren't smart enough to see the POSSIBILITIES" whenever inherent flaws on the concept of combat mecha are presented.

[shagrat]

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.

 

If I cut off the nerve connection to your leg or an arm it is possible to move on it's own??? These clusters are more like autonomous little brains to control the limbs or wings. I just wanted to point out, nature already develop a system more independent fringe a central nervous system and brain to move. Cut a worm or a centipede in half both parts can move. Now try again with a mammal. I now they usually survive very long, but that's for the mouth missing and fluids leaking if I'm not totally mistaken.

[shagrat]

And this is STILL less useful that the far more technologically simple solution: a C-17 flies over, seeds the valley with a half-dozen NETFIRES-style launcher packs, and the two squads of infantry walk in with a laser rangefinder/GPS locater/transmitter per man. When they see a target, they transmit to NETFIRES, and it engages with precision missiles on demand. Instead of engaging two targets at a time with 7.62mm from a platform that can be easily engaged by all those enemies on the battlefield, you have the ability to engage 18 targets (one per infantryman) simultaneously with a far more lethal weapon... and one which doesn't require a direct line of sight to hit the target. Sorry, but it's really not all THAT useful.

 

Any idea why the don't netfire Afghanistan or at least hot points and just send in a few squads and point out the Talitubbies? Seems it's just practical in theory or waaayyy too expensive, so risking a few more grunts is cheaper. F...king Politicians!

As for the obstacles, a 40* steep, wooded hillside trees lying around and you would go in there with an M1??? I learned something ABSOLUTELY different on the Leopard 2... but maybe the M1 is centuries ahead in secret technology, that enables it to do it. Our Tank drivers have been told never to try and pull of such stunts! ...same with anti tank ditches, need a bridge layer (or carry your own) to cross that... maybe if you go at about shallow angle and are extremely lucky you won't get stuck, but you're a very slow target.

Edited June 13, 2014 by shagrat

[shagrat]

Oh, so you mean like building the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Linebacker air defense vehicle, (newer versions of) Paladin artillery system and MLRS artillery rocket launcher on the same chassis and drivetrain?

 

...Yeah, you're right. We could NEVER do that with conventional vehicles.

 

Other way round. We ARE doing it already, modularity is not a "logistical nightmare". Nothing Mech specific there. Sorry, I guess somebody else argued with that...

[Sceptre]

two triple posts on the same page... sacrilege!

Edited June 13, 2014 by Sceptre

[shagrat]

And my last argument: IF the CONCEPT is such a flaw in itself, why does the US military and DARPA research and develop walking weapons platforms, for decades?

Please, somebody answer that question? ...are they stupid? Do they smoke bad shit? We talk of one of the worlds premier military research facilities! ...they may not have heard your arguments, yet?

[shagrat]

two triple posts on the same page... sacrilege!

 

:megalol: they keep shooting faster than I dodge!

[shagrat]

...hmm, thinking about netfire: so you would agree with the other post that tanks/vehicles are at there height?

Enemy just use their netfire equivalent and use two spotters to take out a tank platoon... end of battle? Netfire wouldn't make a difference between a tank, vehicle or Mech, right? ...maybe the Mech could try dodging and sidesteppinf the missile? :taking cover:

Edited June 13, 2014 by shagrat

[shagrat]

Hmm, I think it was in one of my first posts and lots of times again, that I don't see a size above 3-4 meters practical... so give something like a LS3/big dog or MULE a chance to evolve to carry some weapons and I guess it will hit this size... I'm talking about a infantry support walker in the first place, may be later when appropriate weapons are built it can take an anti tank role. If tanks still have a role on a future battlefield apart from large straight moving targets?

[ShuRugal]

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?

 

He wasn't making a personal attack, he was pointing out that your debate tactic to this point has done nothing to prove your point, only to try and prove that other people were wrong because other people in the past had been wrong.

 

You, on the other had, have just done exactly what you accused him of. Good job completely discrediting yourself.

 

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.

 

the thing about a rocket propelled grenade, is that launch is the slowest part of its flight: it keeps accelerating until it runs out of fuel. Peak velocities of 350 m/s are quite common.

 

 

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.

 

can your mech crouch low enough to get completely out of the path of an inbound anti-tank projectile, which will most likely have been aimed at its center of mass?

 

Can your mech accelerate sideways fast enough to evade a 350 m/s projectile, fired from a distance of 200-300 meters or less? After you factor detection time and pilot reaction time, you've got half a second or less to evade.

 

 

 

The comment about history proving science fiction generally becomes science fact still holds true. You don't have to like it, or agree.

 

Except for when it doesn't. Flying cars? Jetpacks? Over-the-counter Radiology? We have the technology to do all three of these things, but we don't because they are ridiculously impractical, irresponsible, or both. And that's not even getting into things which are actually impossible, like teleportation.

 

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?

 

Okay, so tracks and wheels have evolved to their peak performance. This makes them now useless?

 

which is (up to a certain point) why I didn't let most of what you said get under my skin.

This is probably the most brazen lie I have heard all week. You start name-calling when you get called out for not making any actual arguments in favor of your position, and then claim that you were only a little bothered? What are you going to do when you get a lot bothered? Trace his IP and shoot him?

 

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... 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?

 

translation: "I'm not right, but neither are you! Also, in the past, someone else was probably also wrong! So there!!"

 

From the engineering perspective, the technical flaws you and others have cited thus far are easily surmounted..

 

Really? surmount them, then. Design a powertrain that allows a series of long levers to deliver the same portion of an engine's power to the ground as efficiently as a wheel or a track, while still allowing for the same speed. If it's so easily surmounted, surely anyone can do it.

 

 

You think surface area coverage is bad on a human? A tank is a giant box of metal!

This is just silly. Of course a tank has more surface area than a human, a tank is designed to fit humans inside it! Scale a human up big enough to carry a tank's crew, armament, and power plant, crunch some numbers, and tell me which has more surface area.

 

 

A mech... not increases in size YET, but with its mobility, maneuverability, etc. an increase in size and payload is hardly unimaginable.

 

The same is true of, say, a motorcycle. Motorcycles are much, much more maneuverable than cars and tanks. Therefore, if we make it bigger and put guns on it, nothing will be able to touch it on the battlefield, right?

 

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.

 

... mixed-unit tactics are nothing unique to mech platforms. The battle force you describe is no different than a modern armored cav with mechanized support and a CAS tasking.

 

 

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.

 

Explosively Formed Penetrator. Dirt cheap to make, and the irregulars in the ME theatre absolutely love the things. Devices capable of penetrating tank armor at a stand-off range of several meters are regularly recovered (or found the hard way) by troops in theatre. Your legs still haven't evaded the IED.

 

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.

No, we have one MBT body (M1A2 Abrams), it ships with one primary weapon system (Rheinmetall L44 120mm). Secondary weapon systems (machine guns, grenade launchers) and support-packages (bolt-on ERA packages, smoke launchers, bulldozer blades) are all field-swappable equipment already, and they are already a logistics nightmare.

 

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.

 

what makes you think that having a modular armor vehicle means we would have less armored vehicles in the field? If the mission calls for taking a position from armor and mechanized infantry, you still need that Rheinmetall to deal with the tanks, you need infantry carriers, which need to be armored, and since you're bringing an APC, you may as well put a Bushmaster on the top so it can provide fire support to the troops it just delivered. The only variable your walking tank introduces here is to replace the Abrams with itself. You still need troop transports, and there's no point to -not- arming them, so we've still got the exact same number of vehicles in the field.

[Malleolus]

He wasn't making a personal attack, he was pointing out that your debate tactic to this point has done nothing to prove your point, only to try and prove that other people were wrong because other people in the past had been wrong.

 

You, on the other had, have just done exactly what you accused him of. Good job completely discrediting yourself.

 

 

 

the thing about a rocket propelled grenade, is that launch is the slowest part of its flight: it keeps accelerating until it runs out of fuel. Peak velocities of 350 m/s are quite common.

 

 

 

 

can your mech crouch low enough to get completely out of the path of an inbound anti-tank projectile, which will most likely have been aimed at its center of mass?

 

Can your mech accelerate sideways fast enough to evade a 350 m/s projectile, fired from a distance of 200-300 meters or less? After you factor detection time and pilot reaction time, you've got half a second or less to evade.

 

 

 

 

 

Except for when it doesn't. Flying cars? Jetpacks? Over-the-counter Radiology? We have the technology to do all three of these things, but we don't because they are ridiculously impractical, irresponsible, or both. And that's not even getting into things which are actually impossible, like teleportation.

 

 

 

Okay, so tracks and wheels have evolved to their peak performance. This makes them now useless?

 

This is probably the most brazen lie I have heard all week. You start name-calling when you get called out for not making any actual arguments in favor of your position, and then claim that you were only a little bothered? What are you going to do when you get a lot bothered? Trace his IP and shoot him?

 

 

 

translation: "I'm not right, but neither are you! Also, in the past, someone else was probably also wrong! So there!!"

 

 

 

Really? surmount them, then. Design a powertrain that allows a series of long levers to deliver the same portion of an engine's power to the ground as efficiently as a wheel or a track, while still allowing for the same speed. If it's so easily surmounted, surely anyone can do it.

 

 

This is just silly. Of course a tank has more surface area than a human, a tank is designed to fit humans inside it! Scale a human up big enough to carry a tank's crew, armament, and power plant, crunch some numbers, and tell me which has more surface area.

 

 

 

 

The same is true of, say, a motorcycle. Motorcycles are much, much more maneuverable than cars and tanks. Therefore, if we make it bigger and put guns on it, nothing will be able to touch it on the battlefield, right?

 

 

 

... mixed-unit tactics are nothing unique to mech platforms. The battle force you describe is no different than a modern armored cav with mechanized support and a CAS tasking.

 

 

 

 

Explosively Formed Penetrator. Dirt cheap to make, and the irregulars in the ME theatre absolutely love the things. Devices capable of penetrating tank armor at a stand-off range of several meters are regularly recovered (or found the hard way) by troops in theatre. Your legs still haven't evaded the IED.

 

No, we have one MBT body (M1A2 Abrams), it ships with one primary weapon system (Rheinmetall L44 120mm). Secondary weapon systems (machine guns, grenade launchers) and support-packages (bolt-on ERA packages, smoke launchers, bulldozer blades) are all field-swappable equipment already, and they are already a logistics nightmare.

 

 

 

what makes you think that having a modular armor vehicle means we would have less armored vehicles in the field? If the mission calls for taking a position from armor and mechanized infantry, you still need that Rheinmetall to deal with the tanks, you need infantry carriers, which need to be armored, and since you're bringing an APC, you may as well put a Bushmaster on the top so it can provide fire support to the troops it just delivered. The only variable your walking tank introduces here is to replace the Abrams with itself. You still need troop transports, and there's no point to -not- arming them, so we've still got the exact same number of vehicles in the field.

 

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.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Malleolus

[ShuRugal]

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.

 

fair enough

 

Even at peak velocity, that's on the slow end of most small arms fire.

 

you're right, the speed of sound is pretty slow. Any mech can dodge that.

 

 

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.

 

You keep saying you want it to fill multiple roles, thereby reducing the number of vehicles you have to bring into the field, but you have yet to demonstrate how the ability to pick up a different weapon or tool would remove the need to have another vehicle in the field at the same time. If you need an engineering unit, an anti-tank unit, and an infantry carrier for the same mission, you still need three vehicles. Making your mech able to either be anti-tank, engineer, or infantry-support just means that you have three mechs in the field now. How is this different than having an Abrams, a Bradley, and an M-278?

 

Even if this does somehow provide an advantage, do you really believe that no one could engineer a quick-release mechanism for installing weapons onto tracked platforms?

 

Legs have a smaller profile.

 

So what? all that means is there is less physical space to put armor on them. A 155 round at close range is more than enough to disable any tank on the field, why would the same armor on a leg suddenly be able to handle that without a problem?

 

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.

 

Well which is it? are they fast or not? I would call something which can dodge behind a building in under half a second pretty goddamn fast.

 

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).

 

If the "edge" putting it on legs gives it is not enough to increase it's abilities and/or survivability more than the disadvantages brought into play by legs, then legs are not practical.

 

So far, the only ability that legs add which tracks and wheels can't do is step sideways, and it can't even do that fast enough to be a useful advantage.

 

Now, lets look at the drawbacks:

higher profile (legs need more ground clearance to operate than wheels)

significantly greater power requirements

slower top speed for the same powerplant rating

less load-bearing capacity (ground pressure limitations, engineering limitations of cantilevered support structures)

[Malleolus]

fair enough

 

 

 

you're right, the speed of sound is pretty slow. Any mech can dodge that.

 

 

 

 

You keep saying you want it to fill multiple roles, thereby reducing the number of vehicles you have to bring into the field, but you have yet to demonstrate how the ability to pick up a different weapon or tool would remove the need to have another vehicle in the field at the same time. If you need an engineering unit, an anti-tank unit, and an infantry carrier for the same mission, you still need three vehicles. Making your mech able to either be anti-tank, engineer, or infantry-support just means that you have three mechs in the field now. How is this different than having an Abrams, a Bradley, and an M-278?

 

Even if this does somehow provide an advantage, do you really believe that no one could engineer a quick-release mechanism for installing weapons onto tracked platforms?

 

 

 

So what? all that means is there is less physical space to put armor on them. A 155 round at close range is more than enough to disable any tank on the field, why would the same armor on a leg suddenly be able to handle that without a problem?

 

 

 

Well which is it? are they fast or not? I would call something which can dodge behind a building in under half a second pretty goddamn fast.

 

 

 

If the "edge" putting it on legs gives it is not enough to increase it's abilities and/or survivability more than the disadvantages brought into play by legs, then legs are not practical.

 

So far, the only ability that legs add which tracks and wheels can't do is step sideways, and it can't even do that fast enough to be a useful advantage.

 

Now, lets look at the drawbacks:

higher profile (legs need more ground clearance to operate than wheels)

significantly greater power requirements

slower top speed for the same powerplant rating

less load-bearing capacity (ground pressure limitations, engineering limitations of cantilevered support structures)

 

I would call it agile. Cars/tanks are significantly faster than horses and humans, but can't accelerate nearly as fast. Actually, humans can accelerate faster than racehorses under adrenaline or they're athletes. Agility is a derivative of acceleration.

 

If you can fit two to three mech "tools" on one transport vehicle, you reduce the need to have a platform for every possible scenario anticipated. One mech can replace any one piece of equipment at a time. Only in scenarios where you need all the possible scenarios at once will a shortage exist. Two vehicles (a mech transport and it's cache transport) versus 5 or more.

[SimFreak]

Has ground loading been discussed? Kind of kills main idea behind mech...mobility.