139 replies to this topic

[Tex Mechs Robot]

Frostiken, on 14 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Personally I think any form of mech would cap out at around chassis in the 30T range, and be fairly limited in use, and mostly only exist as an urban assault / control unit. Vehicles tend to lose too much maneuverability in close quarters, and a mech would work a bit better as it'd be able to take corners and bound over obstacles much easier.

i personally can't see anything weighing in at 30T "bounding" over anything. i think real world physics would take away any grace that these computer generated machines have.

[Hikaru]

Falcor, on 25 June 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Fair enough, but thats jump ships. What about fighter craft? Do they exist in this world? (If they don't, thats even MORE puzzling.) What would keep one from flying by, and targeting a mechs cockpit with missile volleys? If mechs can't aim well enough to return fire of a fast moving fighter (No idea if thats a real world scenario or not), the fighter would be free to just make multiple passes on the mech, until its destroyed. Wouldn't it?

Aerotech exists. They field the same weapon/tech level. Fusion engines, so they can go very far. No guided missiles. No cruise missiles. You're not going to do much to a 'mech if you have the same range as him. You fire your fighter's PPC, he fires his mech's PPC. You hit him, you blow off an arm. He hits you, you lose some of your wing, go spiralling down in flames. Aerospace fighters do well outside of atmospheres, where their energy weapons can go further. Planetside, they're primarily used as scouts.

[CarlBar]

Okay a lot to say on this.

2 legged mech a la battletech in real world combat? No chance. Too many issues with stability and hight.

That said what i can see is some sort of infantry Exo suit. Bassiclly imagine an infintrayman sat or stood inside the torso of a 2 legged mech, with him moving himself with moving his legs/arms inside the torso to move the mechs legs and arms. Get the system right and you get all the advantages of power armour, but none of the limitations, Shoulder and hiop joints no longer have to compromise on motive power and armour to let the human anattomy fit. That infantryman goes from a very well armoured human to the equivelent of a decent non-MBT AFV. They'll also be able to run furthar faster and carry a heavier weapons load. I imagine weapons on the forearms, (so you cna have free hands). The left has a 50 Cal + an automatic extended range vershion vershion of the generic modern underslung rifle grenade launcher, both belt fed from the bacpack, whilst the right arm holds a weapons tube capble of functioning as a luancher for shoulder luanched level SAM's, ATM's, and light Mortar shells, again backpack stowage.

That bassiclly gives you a platform with the firepower of a kjeep full of infantry, but the armour of a much heavier unit, and it's going to be significantly smaller. The main issue is the power source.


As for ank like mechs. One issue modern tanks do have is that physichs means they can't have infinite width tracks. The closer the track edge gets to the centre the greater the stresses get when truning, (this applies even if you use multipule tracks), and the stronger the track and sprockets have to be. there comes a point at which for weight a given leg based system provides better ground preashure for it's weight. A simple solid or semi flexible plate with spikes can be a lot stronger for it's weight, and with the right locomotion system the rest shouldn't be too heavy or too tall, (it makes a nice engeneeiring challange to think about).

An abrams for refferance has abotu 1/5th the peak ground preashure it's dimenshions allow. No leg system is ever likliy to get about 50-60% the avalibile area used. But it still adds upto a drastic increase in peak mass, roughly 200 tons, mayb a bit more on he same length and width. Hight is equal to the amouunt of upwards movment you want in the legs to clear obstacles + the clearance of the main body off the ground you desire, (which need to be the leg lift plus whatever you deem necessery). This does give it a larger profile, but where talking on the order of a 100% increase in highet over an abrams, not the +300% or more MW like to throw down. the design is going to have a bit more surface area than an abrames of the same basic dimenshions, but not a massive amount, so square cube klaw and density being what it is it would have grater armour than an abrams. Which makes it perfect for urban warfare.

Another application would be varied support stuff, like missile carriers and SPG's. Current designs have to balance mobility, (via ground preashure), vs. the size and quantity of weapons. Having a chassis you can moutn a patriot luancher & rader system on that can fire the lot whilst moving, or a long calibre 200mmm gun/howziter combo is quite valuble, (and the profile is drasiclly less problamatic). That said i'd expect lower peak speeds compared to tracks, though not to the degree some would think.

Edited by CarlBar, 25 June 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Greyrook]

Falcor, on 25 June 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong... I love mechs, they're awesome. I guess I'm just still battling with the idea of why in the lore of this universe they chose this route.

You're stating that from the angle that lore is built first, and then the premise is developed. I'm thinking the idea behind BattleTech was to make a world with giant walking death machines, and then build a history that would kind of lead to it. The fiction is pretty soft science, so I wouldn't bother trying to punch holes in it.

[Falcor]

Greyrook, on 25 June 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

You're stating that from the angle that lore is built first, and then the premise is developed. I'm thinking the idea behind BattleTech was to make a world with giant walking death machines, and then build a history that would kind of lead to it. The fiction is pretty soft science, so I wouldn't bother trying to punch holes in it.

You're right, I realize it requires a suspension of disbelief to just enjoy mech combat for what it is.
But at the same time, I'm aware that the Battletech universe is much bigger than just a few Mech simulation games, with a fleshed out world spanning through TableTop games, as well as many novels. So I was just curious if they've ever directly answered the question, as to why in their world that battlemechs are the superior force.

I hope I haven't de-railed the conversation too far off topic of "Real World Mech Applications". It just got me thinking.

[GHQCommander]

Tterrag, on 14 June 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ok so yeah they are big bad intimidating and technologically advanced but would a giant bipedal walking target really be practical on the battlefield? I mean don't get me wrong if I had a choice of going into a fight in a tank our in an atlas I'm going atlas but in the end wouldn't a battle armor be more perusal in most situations. You knew I unless you find yourself in some huge open space that can accommodate huge towering fortresses of destruction. Any thoughts?

Can't apply realism to MechWarrior. Don't try.

It works great as a game. But if you have a realistic thinking mind, it gets really stupid really quick. Really stupid. lol

Great in gaming though. I can't read the books, I also have a mind that applies realism.

[Reoh]

Falcor, on 25 June 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

=D I knew someone would put me in my place.

Of course it shatters my assumptions as to why a battlemech is considered a superior machine of war now, compared to other things... like ships.

Think of them as land battleships.

[Papertarget]

Well, there are conventional forces still in the BT universe. There are tanks, dismounted infantry, Aerospace, and other types of ground and air forces. What makes the mechs so powerful, is that they are the most powerful types of ground forces. They carry the same or more weapons as a conventional armor tank, but have a much greater flexibility for what they can do. They can lift, go over extremely rough terrain, even be able to travel underwater. Many have the ability of using hands to lift and carry, or even tear down something without damaging the basic structure of the buildings they are damaging. Some have JJ's which allow for rapidly traversing impassible terrain. The major flaw they have, is their size. They are big targets. So if you have a large number of tanks, or even just a large tank with comparable armor, then you can go toe to toe with a mech in a tank. However, what a tank isn't able to do, is match a mechs mobility. An Infantry Soldier may carry a weapon that can cause damage to a mech, sure. But that weapon is not something that a normal infantry soldier will be able to carry. (Think a 50 caliber MG.) The Mech though, CAN carry that weapon, and has the armor that the infantry soldier doesn't have. It also can move faster then a normal soldier, while maintaining the same mobility. Aerospace forces have to balance themselves because they need to be light to maintain agility, or if they are heavy they are very slow and not very agile. Even then, they are also having to worry that ANY strike on the aircraft will cause damage that will make the aircraft lose enough flight ability to just become a lawn-dart.

Yes, I know that today's tech makes it unlikely that someone will make a mech, but I can understand the concept, and the reason why they would be considered as powerful as they are in the BT universe.

[Falcor]

Papertarget, on 25 June 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Well, there are conventional forces still in the BT universe. There are tanks, dismounted infantry, Aerospace, and other types of ground and air forces. What makes the mechs so powerful, is that they are the most powerful types of ground forces. They carry the same or more weapons as a conventional armor tank, but have a much greater flexibility for what they can do. They can lift, go over extremely rough terrain, even be able to travel underwater. Many have the ability of using hands to lift and carry, or even tear down something without damaging the basic structure of the buildings they are damaging. Some have JJ's which allow for rapidly traversing impassible terrain. The major flaw they have, is their size. They are big targets. So if you have a large number of tanks, or even just a large tank with comparable armor, then you can go toe to toe with a mech in a tank. However, what a tank isn't able to do, is match a mechs mobility. An Infantry Soldier may carry a weapon that can cause damage to a mech, sure. But that weapon is not something that a normal infantry soldier will be able to carry. (Think a 50 caliber MG.) The Mech though, CAN carry that weapon, and has the armor that the infantry soldier doesn't have. It also can move faster then a normal soldier, while maintaining the same mobility. Aerospace forces have to balance themselves because they need to be light to maintain agility, or if they are heavy they are very slow and not very agile. Even then, they are also having to worry that ANY strike on the aircraft will cause damage that will make the aircraft lose enough flight ability to just become a lawn-dart.

Yes, I know that today's tech makes it unlikely that someone will make a mech, but I can understand the concept, and the reason why they would be considered as powerful as they are in the BT universe.

I can get down with all that, those are good explanations.
I guess that since the only exposure I've ever had to the Battletech universe is through the Mechwarrior computer games, I'm not always taking into account the other uses a Mech actually fulfills, like lifting and construction/demolition and things like that. For what seemed like massive overkill to build a huge mech, just to have a mobile means of taking weapons to the enemy, I guess it actually kills multiple birds with one (giant) stone to have mechs around.


Hikaru - Thats another good point I didn't realize, about the figher craft carrying the same level of tech/weapons as mechs. I guess it would be risky for them to engage a mech, even if they were pretty agile.

[Reoh]

Terrain traversability is actually a high point for battlemechs, which can pass where many vehicles usually would not. They also have Fusion Engines, many vehicles don't and consequently lack the firepower that they afford.

[Akaryu]

want to eliminate an enemy battalion in moments go over rough terrain and shrug off most types of weapons and keep dishing out firepower or turn a city into rubble overnight then that is where mechs would be ideal.

[Falcor]

Akaryu, on 25 June 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

want to eliminate an enemy battalion in moments go over rough terrain and shrug off most types of weapons and keep dishing out firepower or turn a city into rubble overnight then that is where mechs would be ideal.

I'm starting to see why mechs are so powerful in this world, but at the same time, stuff like this is why I originally questioned it.
Just quoting from what you said: Eliminating an enemy battalion in moments, going over rough terrain, and turning a city into rubble overnight. All of which would be done entirely faster, and more efficiently in a ship, or "aerospace fighter" as they are apparently referred to here.

But that still leaves a big one "Shrug off most types of weapons and keep dishing out firepower". I'm feelin' that one the most. Ship couldn't take much, being that it has to sustain flight, and can't be too heavy.

[Akaryu]

Falcor, on 25 June 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

I'm starting to see why mechs are so powerful in this world, but at the same time, stuff like this is why I originally questioned it.
Just quoting from what you said: Eliminating an enemy battalion in moments, going over rough terrain, and turning a city into rubble overnight. All of which would be done entirely faster, and more efficiently in a ship, or "aerospace fighter" as they are apparently referred to here.

But that still leaves a big one "Shrug off most types of weapons and keep dishing out firepower". I'm feelin' that one the most. Ship couldn't take much, being that it has to sustain flight, and can't be too heavy.

oh yeah a part i forgot psychological warfare i dont care how brave of a man or woman you are unless you are in a mech or have a really really big gun you are all but going to turn to jelly at the sight of one

[Falcor]

Akaryu, on 25 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

oh yeah a part i forgot psychological warfare i dont care how brave of a man or woman you are unless you are in a mech or have a really really big gun you are all but going to turn to jelly at the sight of one

I wouldn't wanna meet one in a dark alley at night... thats for sure. Especially not if it gave me the "20 seconds to comply" line, like the one from Robocop. O.O

[Adrian Carino]

Well, to start. several Mechs could be set up to be construction mechs and haulers. In some cases they could be used to do clear cutting for building towns and cities. Other mechs could be used like bulldozers and back hoes. *rubs chin thoughtfully* Oh yeah! If they are pressurized, sealed and weighted properly they could be used for work at sea. Heck they were worked properly they could also do work up in space.

Naturally of course when it came to combat, they would act in the function that our normal armored vehicles do except on a larger and tougher scale.

[Akaryu]

Falcor, on 25 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

I wouldn't wanna meet one in a dark alley at night... thats for sure. Especially not if it gave me the "20 seconds to comply" line, like the one from Robocop. O.O

now imagine that humble robocop mech instead of being 12 feet tall is 12 stories tall and fires bullets the size of station wagons. the mech might not even have to fire a bullet on an enemy platoon that isnt used to seeing gigantic mechs the soldiers will probably die from cardiac arrest thus saving that mech the bullets so it can take down a real target like an enemy mech or a military installation or even a few tanks

Edited by Akaryu, 25 June 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[CarlBar]

@Falcor: No your right in your first impreshions, but for diffrent reasons. A big part of it is that mechs are built to the highest specifications, they're littrially given every cool toy under the sun and then some. Most other stuff isn't so they don't match up ton for ton. but they're a lot cheaper. BV wise it balances out but practiclly speaking a mech is probably very resource innefficent by comparision. Thats the real reason they'll allways struggle to get traction IRL, they represent a huge outlay for marginal benefits unless done very crefully design wise becuase they require a whole crap ton of things a basic tank or aircraft dosen't.

[cinco]

Tterrag, on 14 June 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ok so yeah they are big bad intimidating and technologically advanced but would a giant bipedal walking target really be practical on the battlefield? I mean don't get me wrong if I had a choice of going into a fight in a tank our in an atlas I'm going atlas but in the end wouldn't a battle armor be more perusal in most situations. You knew I unless you find yourself in some huge open space that can accommodate huge towering fortresses of destruction. Any thoughts?

your atlas would get blown up by a jdam dropped from a few thousand feet in the air.

[Remix264]

I think that we need to look at another possibility for how and why an 80-100 ton battlemech would appear in combat. So we have tracked vehicles right now that would be better than a mech with our current technology levels. Power armor may still be good for most applications assuming tanks aren't present, which could then lead to the technological advances necessary to produce a good recon-type 20 to 30 ton mech.
This mech would be great for recon and hit and run applications, and may even be able to take a tank on, depending on level of advancement? So how would you combat this type of enemy?
You'd likely need to figure out a way to match the mechs speed, or at least get close to it and be able to pursue through the same terrain the recon mech could, while employing more weapons, so youd create a bigger mech of your own.
You can easily envision an arms race of sorts for the bigger and better next gen mech. Its already occurred countless times in human history. The problems that we can think of now may not be such a big issue in the future.

[Remix264]

And tracked vehicles have some significant limitations in mountainous, muddy or icy terrain. As a bulldozer operator, I can say that any moisture on the ground combined with any slope is bad juju. It isn't bad going straight up a grade or straight down, but you get sideways and all of a sudden those treads turn in to skis. I've gone faster sideways on ice that was on a slight grade then I ever could get my D8 to go going straight. lol