28 replies to this topic

[Madlancer]

Battletech was created some 25 years ago? We probably have a better understanding of certain technology and certain science relating to the BT universe now.

So my question is what would battlemechs be like if battletech was created today.

Would there still be Glass for the cockpit, would there even be a cockpit? I always found it funny that I could shoot a Cataphract in the chest where the cockpit is and not kill its pilot? I know the in game version removes this little detail to make sure we can play games for a decent amount of time.

[Adridos]

Madlancer, on 06 September 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

Would there still be Glass for the cockpit, would there even be a cockpit?

That's not glass, but transparent armour. It's the toughest material they could find and it's transparent, so win-win (yes, there is such a thing even in real life, altough not as tough in the strength department... better comparison would be polished diamonds used there).

[Karl Streiger]

Madlancer, on 06 September 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

So my question is what would battlemechs be like if battletech was created today.

First the game would include less micro management.

Look at the Alpha Strike Rules - no criticals, no complex heat system nor ammunition tracking. All the rules reduced to a fast paced skirmish game.

The rule system make the Mechs - and in BattleTech the lore was directly bound to the rules (short ranges because of the barbarism of the first and second successionwars) - they broke there own law later - with the Clan incursion however.

However I don't think that BT would ever be created today:
the market is full of other alternatives - that have all the kinds of rules you may like or not.

Combined Arms: Grunts, Heavy Gear - fast paced cheap game: Mech Assault. or more fantasy: Dragon Mech, Warmachine,


If they would design Mechs today: well at least with much more weapons and features - like they did with TotalWarfare - but I'm still curious about the ranges.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 06 September 2013 - 04:28 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Battletech is the future of the 80's, a modern incarnation would be vastly different.

I'd recon that the cockpit interior would be similar to something that Apple would design.

[Elyam]

I disagree. I don't believe we'd see much difference. Windows in mechs have always been an old, mostly-unnecessary architecture that remained as a holdover from the 25th century (though they still do serve purpose as a backup viewing method if main systems go out). They had no real purpose or impact since the beginning of Battletech. Mechwarriors have always been viewed as encased in their massive neurohelmet and dependent upon its augmented-reality display. Their controls have always been sticks, pedals, a small variety of buttons and switches within easy reach, and the ekg-like muscle sensors that get taped to their major limb muscles (on their mostly-naked bodies besides a cooling vest) to register reactions and enhance mech limb response particularly for balance. The sticks and pedals are not viewed as primitive but as the most natural interfaces for their particular jobs. These days we might have envisioned a few slight differences to the augment interface with eye-tracked commands, but nothing major.

BT was actually quite advanced in its vision. The decision to stay away from direct mind control I think was right and proper. Competitive mecha interface ideas like linear frames (whole body frames that allow full pilot movement and transfer this directly to mech limbs) have good potential too, but BT decided, and I think rightly in its case, to stay with a more vehicle-based approach as opposed to the mobile suit approach. I like both, but this is part of BT's uniqueness.

So, no...I don't believe that it would be much different today if the same vision were at its core.

(and keep in mind, what you see in MWO is not BT normal. the original vision does not have us looking through windows, using a stick that looks like something off a 2003 store shelf, encased in body armor, having no rear view, doing all the sensor and targeting/aiming, etc., etc...)

Edited by Elyam, 10 September 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Ironman is an elemental.

Battlemech is a viable production. We just can't build it yet. Imagine simply a 100 ton human, with the fingers/toes etc you have, full armour, and stuffed with guns. able to rip trees from the ground, or use a giant sword.

Definitely think these type of machines will take over the battlefield one day, more likely as unmaned bots though, thus preserving the pilot, but maybe not...

[Lord Ikka]

I'd say that we would view the Mechs with less analog controls. Away would go the pedals and control sticks, we'd probably have the pilot directly jacked into the Mech and using touchscreen/control glove interfaces.

Weapons-wise, I think a focus would be more on ranged combat, with melee almost never coming up. Missiles/lasers/gauss that can strike a mech from 1000s of kilometers away would be the weapons of choice.

[Karl Streiger]

Lord Ikka, on 26 September 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Weapons-wise, I think a focus would be more on ranged combat, with melee almost never coming up. Missiles/lasers/gauss that can strike a mech from 1000s of kilometers away would be the weapons of choice.

But would you use Mechs - to do that?

You have to ask yourself: what can do a Mech better as a tank?
I think the best advantage would be its moral breaking effect on enemy soldiers and tank crews (nobody want to become red smear)

Second - i can imagine that mech protection systems could be more dense. A rail gun that would penetrate a tank from front to aft - will hit on its path several critical systems. A mech however - would deal much better with a penetrating hit.

However defense vs guided systems depends highly on active hard kill systems (even anti missile missiles) and counter measures.

Third advantage: mobility: if the pilot is indeed linked to the mechs movement system (it could behave like a human) doge - crouch - jump - dive for cover - maybe even climb cliffs - all without exhaustion.

In sum - i think the Heavy Gear future looks more "promissing" - with small cavalary units and large heavy fire support plattforms.

[Lord Ikka]

Well, I was talking about Mechs in the context of a game. In a real-life context I don't think Mechs will show up at all. They're too expensive and don't really add any value to current vehicles.

1- Expensive. You could make several tanks/other vehicles for one Mech. Add in the time/training to make a MechWarrior- which is much more involved than training an entire tank crew (takes years rather than months), and you have a piece of hardware that is insanely expensive and hard to replace as a regular expenditure. Your choice would look something like this- "Well, I can get one BattleMech and MechWarrior with another replacement in a year or two- or I could get three-four tanks that would be able to be replaced every few months..."

2- Lack of need. Current war strategy is focused on low-intensity conflicts, which require less in the way of hardware and more on infantry/fire support. It's great that you have a 100-ton battlefield monster, but what use is it in ferreting out guerillas in the middle of an urban environment?

3- Mobility. Yeah, Mechs are more mobile than tanks but they are still a giant machine. Great in places that are uninhabited or have low-value, but in any sort of urban/close range fight you're looking at more damage to a surrounding area than a tank/helicopter. A combination force of helicopters, LAVs, and tanks can do the exact same thing that a Mech would, without the potential damage to the enviornment from a Mech staggering around as it gets hit with weaponsfire.

Don't get me wrong- I'd love to see Mechs around! I just think that we will see something more like Elementals combined with hover-tanks rather than full-blown Mechs.

Edited by Lord Ikka, 26 September 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Production costs are one thing - maintenance another - its allready somewhere in the rules: you can get 36 Scorpion Light Tanks for the price of a single AS7-D...and i made a test (green crews vs a veteran pilot)

Although most shots went missing - the Atlas didn't made it.
What is the problem: fuel for tanks, food for the crews, ammuntitio and much more - a single Mech in the field would be more simpler to keep up running (depends on the quality of its components)

again its sic fi some how - a Mech in urban territory will only have impact on the moral - and that can be a two edged sword when gurerillas are able to put one down. There is a reason why even in BT you shouldn't go with your Mech into a city.... infantry will have lots of cover and ambush sides - and they can hear you comming

regarding the last - yes a Mech is a huge target - with a red arrow hovering over him - "Hit me here pal!"

I don't have any idea - how war will change - if humans are still fighting wars in real in the future

How would I deploy Mechs?

First never:

Second - prepare the area with drops of heavy infantry (battlearmor) - scouting and marking targets - together with air strikes and artillery i would deploy - small Mechs - ProtoMechs - light mobile Mechs (Spider Jenners n co)

With enemy engaged and surpressed i would send Mechs - break through enemy lines (ignoring most field units) and go directly into the rear area - and going rampage destroying support bases, fire bases or airfields.

The full time a complete squadron of Air Supperior fighters and ground attack crafts in the air - for cover and close air support

[Lord Ikka]

Yeah- I see Mechs as mobile weapons-platforms rather than what they are in BT. The Stalker or Catapult outfitted with Arty LRMs or Arrow IV missiles make more sense as a unit than anything else. They'd be a support role rather than mainline, using their unique geometry to get into more advantageous positions than regular arty platforms.

[Jam the Bam]

The only issue I see with mechs is whether we will ever get past the penetrate/not-penetrate form of armoured warfare we have today, I shell either goes through a tank and wrecks it, or it doesn't. We would require some drastic advancement in our materials sciences before we get to the point where armour is superior to weapon penetration, like in BT where guns remove armour instead of going through it.

Also there's the profile issue, tanks are long and flat for a reason, mechs which stand tall and straight present very easy targets, something major would have to change before it becomes desirable to have a hight vehicle over a low one.

[Karl Streiger]

Jammerben87, on 27 September 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

like in BT where guns remove armour instead of going through it.

Actually I believe that even today composite armor - is about removing armor - kind of ablative.

Have read somewhere that the ceramic components of a tank may shatter - thats why they have also some elastic layers like rubber - to neutralise the physical shock waves.

Although maybe nobody have tested it...the question is...would a 20mm or 25mm automatic gun will break through such armor - given the time? When the structure is bit by bit is falling?

A KE penetrator for example will get stucked in a tanks armor....destroying the ceramic plates it hit... what if a second shot hit the same spot?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 September 2013 - 04:45 AM.

[Hennessey]

Interesting conversation! I have to say that I agree with the sentiment that armor technology would have to vastly improve before Mechs would be viable on any modern battlefield. Take a look at current anti-tank technologies like depleted uranium warheads, or even the hellfire missile, which will go through tank armor like butter. Add in the fact that most of these weapons are coming from aerial platforms, and usually fired from miles away from the target. Unless the armor can make these technologies ineffective, we will never see a large (relatively) slow moving Mech in warfare.

[MnDragon]

The idea behind mechs originally had a lot to do with shock and awe. The development of huge weapons that could melt tanks and disintegrate whole platoons of infantry at a time required a huge platform to put it on. So they came up with a "robot Soldier" that was 30 ft tall and could carry all that armament into battle. Imagine being the first units to confront a huge robot that melts your cavalry with one shot. Then you say, "we need one of those" as you are running away screaming like a little girl. So, the survivors tell about it, the warmongers say we need one, the scientists develop it and now version 2.0 on your side can melt all the other stuff plus destroy the original. Soooo, the other side goes back to square one, and 1500 years later the galaxy is full of them because of an arms race.

[DEN_Ninja]

Actually with current technology we can already produce magnetic propulsion based weapons. They are huge and heavy and are only test fired on naval vessels. Once we get to the point of scaling it down just like every other technology we could feasibly put them on tanks.
Fusion is still a work in progression but totally viable in theory especially in small scale.
Overall the only issue is the creation of Myomer fibers or any system that could provide fast movement and power.

My idea of a battlemech on the battlefield of tomorrow? It would completely replace the tank as standard armour. If you played BF 2142 you'd remember that bipedal spawn camping urban mech. It would share most of the same weakness to ballistics but it would be far superior to a tank. A tank needs relatively clear ground to move and is easily disabled by taking out the tracks. It also can only bring a small payload.

The Battletech of today would be like a World of Tanks except with bipedal monsters providing all armor unless in the case of the need for fast travel. Battlemechs would not be the main weapon on the battlefield because of all the ballistics. Missiles of today just wreck tanks. There are cannons out there that can take out a tank in one hit. Like in the other comments, if armor doesn't improve then battlemechs will see limited use.

However this is;



Something like this carrying Railguns/Artillery stomping through a forest. Battlemechs would be far better alternatives to the artillery we use today especially on tanks. They can carry all sorts of artillery and would stomp through forests. jungles, and other terrain far more easily than a crew with truck or a tank.

[Jam the Bam]

Tichorius Davion, on 29 September 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Something like this carrying Railguns/Artillery stomping through a forest. Battlemechs would be far better alternatives to the artillery we use today especially on tanks. They can carry all sorts of artillery and would stomp through forests. jungles, and other terrain far more easily than a crew with truck or a tank.

They would have to vastly improve their stability systems as well, legs are not great at absorbing recoil, otherwise they would be a lot less accurate than your average artillery piece. An it would have to be self loading, but that is already being done in some parts.

Karl Streiger, on 29 September 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Actually I believe that even today composite armor - is about removing armor - kind of ablative.

To be honest we would have to see modern weapons against modern armour, its been so long since any fully equipped modern army had a tank battle that I doubt any of us could say exclusively how armour reacts be to being hit by a modern AP round from another tank based gun.

I reckon it would still go through the tank to be honest, most warfare today is more about seeing and shooting first than surviving the hit.

[KingCobra]

Looking through this topic I would say today world would need fast mechs units that could be in a hit and run battle. Battle Armor would be better than a Mech. Fast hard hitting battle armor with ballistics and lasers mines ETC that could be dropped into combat anywhere in the world in a matter or hours.

[KingCobra]

[DEN_Ninja]

Jammerben87, on 30 September 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

They would have to vastly improve their stability systems as well, legs are not great at absorbing recoil, otherwise they would be a lot less accurate than your average artillery piece. An it would have to be self loading, but that is already being done in some parts.

I suppose it would not be bipedal but some three legged or four legged monstrosity. Regardless legs provide better mobility and our stability systems are getting better. I ponder how they manage to counter balance naval vessels and their massive guns, especially ones being tested with rail guns.

The juggernaut was pretty much a basic example. I mean it could still be bipedal but has its legs bunker down or unpack some sort of system to stabilize. Cause if you have watched any of those BAE videos with the rail gun tests...that thing is bolted to concrete and recoils like a high velocity horse kick. A tank even at the higher weight classes would have an issue. A 100 ton machine could handle it far better. Especially because of the gyro technology employed by Battletech.