139 replies to this topic

[Tterrag]

Well it appears that this topic is losing steam thanks for the input guys and gals

[DarkElf]

Brunhin Graywind, on 14 June 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I hate to say it, but you are missing the entire point of mech warfare...

If you actually read any of the books, they use their orbital dropships as semi-mobile battle platforms, they mount so much weaponry they could easily level a city...however, unless you are bent on destroying the entire civilization you are attacking, at some point you will have to move in and participate in ground combat...

Think about it for a second, why is the USA having such problems rooting out terrorists? It is because they [the USA] are NOT willing to nuke the entire area...it is the same thing with orbital bombardment, if you dont mind destroying EVERYTHING in the area you are attacking, go ahead and commence orbital bombardment...but be aware that all the other governments and most of your own country/planet's population will be rioting because you "murdered" millions of innocent civilians by leveling the entire area, not to even mention bio warfare...

We are talking about real world right?

History teach us, war is brutal, all fair in love and war. USA is not engage in real war with the nation that harbor the terorrist. But in war between equal, where USA existence is in doubt, i believe USA will not hold their nuke.

At WW2 both side ok with leveling an entire city for minor gain. USA also prefer to firebombing and nuking japan than invaded it with their army, much cheaper.

At cold war, it's no secret that both side have plenty of nuke to annihilate the earth for several time. I believe if Soviet dare to attack USA openly or vice versa, nuke will be the answer. I read US/NATO Europe defense plan involved a lot of nuke to Soviet army.

Why would people 1000 year in future prefer to die uselessly in battle when their government can destroy their opponent and end the war. Would you want to die in battle or be enslaved by enemy nation? Or would you rather your nation to win and dictate the peace term? The million "innocent "civilian in enemy planet is the one who make mech/ weapon and become soldier to kill your family and friend.

Seriously the answer is simple, just look up at our history, people always prefer victory at the cheapest possible cost.

Don't forget in war you want to inflict as much damage as possible to your enemy, if not then prepare to lose the war because your enemy will try to inflict damage as much as possible to your nation.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

well their advantage would be their versatility over most types of terrain, and their selection of weaponry and how said weaponry can be used to get a line of sight on targets in comparison to a tank.

albiet a large humanoid target but in many ways if it can stay mobile it presents a harder target to hit than a tank in terms of direct ballistics. patlabor and early full metal panic (before the lambda driver shenanigans) are good examples of what we can potentially accomplish with the proper power source

Edited by Battlecruiser, 14 June 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Kosomok]

The majority of sci-fi warfare is extremely unrealistic.. it does not fail so much in the realm of technology, but rather in how that technology is deployed and the tactics and operational methodologies used.

Both Star Wars and Star Trek model warfare very badly, for example, given the potential of the technologies that the settings are said to have... transporter and replication technology in Star Trek basically throw out a lot of the logistical limitations in warfare and a lot of the medical concerns as well... the reality is that, if you can disassemble someone at one location and remotely reassemble them (fully functional) several hundred km away, treating injuries and illness is a non-issue.

In space to space combat, the ranges would be so vast and potential maneuvering velocities and agility so great (given Star Trek level technology), NO non-AI would be capable of conducting or controlling the combat.

In Star Wars, the Republic army walks upright into a storm of fire coming from the opposing faction (who is basically doing the same thing)... apparently no one has ever heard of the concepts of cover or fire and movement

Could machines such as battlemechs be viable given a sufficient level of technology? Yes. They probably would not look like or operate like anything we see in the BT universe. Without knowing what the tech might actually be like, its basically impossible to say what the machines and he tactics and methodologies involved would be like.

In the end I would be more likely to expect to see something like what we see in the "Culture" universe, where space combat is done by AIs and small drones are lethal planet-bound killing machines.. we are already heading that way with the robots and drones being deployed. At a certain point and tech level, having humans in the combat loop becomes a liability.

[Skadi]

I still want Atlas boxing >.>

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

Tterrag, on 14 June 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Well it appears that this topic is losing steam thanks for the input guys and gals

Well, yeah... but I'd like to leave off with this vid of my favourite Mech vs Tank scene.



Enjoy

[Killashnikov]

One thing that is apparent in this game is that the whole concept of war has changed.

Take a look at the LRM... 240missiles per tonne = a little over 4kg (what, 9 pounds?) per missile. About the same weight as a man portable 80mm mortar shell today. And that weight has to incorporate propellant, guidance system and warhead. This is not exactly a massive weapon.

The development of practical line of sight weapons - (lasers) effecively makes close air support suicide. There is a practical limit to how dense an aircraft can be made and still fly, this greatly limits the amount of armor a flying weapons platform can carry. Whereas an antiaircraft installation can engage at almost any range it can establish line of sight and be buried under as much armor and anti-missile defence as you like. A single naval laser installation can effectively deny the enemy of air power over a very large area. On a satelite or orbiting dropship it could dominate a complete hemishpere.

The succession wars started as total wars, but have been reduced to small numbers of troops fighting effectively set piece battles such as occurred in medieval europe, due to political reality of the impact of "collateral damage." The succession wars after all are between ruling houses over political control, closer to rival street gangs than the political and social abosolutism that drove the conflicts of the 20th century. The result is the rules of warfare were set to prohibit conflict within urban areas, weapons of mass destruction etc.

[Elysion]

Well, small legged weapons platforms could be useful for terrain that things like tanks cant go well on, however we have UAVs now which kind of stole that function from mechs.

tanks may be obsolete now too, but if tanks are still effective, then a legged variant of a tank could also be effective if we had the technology to do it.

I can't help but think it would have more than 2 legs though.

[DarkElf]

BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, on 14 June 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Well, yeah... but I'd like to leave off with this vid of my favourite Mech vs Tank scene.

Enjoy

That's more like pre WW2 tank vs future mech, playing WoT teach me a lot about armor and penetration. Also no sane commander will put their tank in in one huge blob so close to each other.

One think that people always forgot when comparing mech vs tank, somehow all tank stay at current technology or even back to WW2 tech, but all mech will always use future technology. Most people also forgot no matter how many type of weaponry you have, it worth nothing if you can't penetrate armor.

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

DarkElf, on 14 June 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

That's more like pre WW2 tank vs future mech, playing WoT teach me a lot about armor and penetration. Also no sane commander will put their tank in in one huge blob so close to each other.

One think that people always forgot when comparing mech vs tank, somehow all tank stay at current technology or even back to WW2 tech, but all mech will always use future technology. Most people also forgot no matter how many type of weaponry you have, it worth nothing if you can't penetrate armor.

Yeah, the logic behind the show isn't perfect but it is SO COOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!

[DarkElf]

BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, on 14 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Yeah, the logic behind the show isn't perfect but it is SO COOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why we are here

[Killashnikov]

The battlemech fits into this environment in the same was as the armored knight could dominate medieval combat. A symbol of invulnerability. Niether the knight or battlemech are actually invulnerable, but to look at... a green recruit or rebel wont see it that way. (It took an awful lot of training, experience or desperation in WW2 to get infantry to attack tanks).

A balanced standing tank, has the benefit of manouverability provided by its instability. If you want to get moving quickly, fall over in the direction you want to move - and use gravity to help you get moving. They can take cover, turn quickly, climb, crawl, wade through (or under) water, manipulate objects, carry external or internal loads, and even make physical attacks. A jump capable mech can even fly to a limited extent and access areas even infantry cant get to easily. A very mobile weapons platform. Sure the tank is useful and effective - in the open. A battlemech will have the advantage at close quarters, operating in and out of cover.

[Gigadouche]

Iwaslost, on 14 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

You were saying?

So hilariously ignorant. Coming from a military background I actually know first hand how often and easily tracks can and do break. A lot of it depends on the rock/mineral composition/hardness and the forces involved and where the obstruction/impact occurs. I like how you linked videos showing a tank rolling over some old rustbucket cars, as if car-crunching are the end-all be all of a tank's tread-stomping pedigree. First off, rolling over those cars would be like rolling over marshmellows compared to what you can encounter in an every-day situation. Comparatively light (extremely so) Monster trucks with rubber tires do it all the time. Why would that be something impressive to show in a 50-60 ton tracked vehicle? You have no idea how soft metals can be and in cars like this are actually engineered to crumple, not to mention the tank is overcoming the obstacle in ideal conditions.

[Project_Mercy]

As pointed out, Mechs aren't all that optimal.

You have to look at it from a BT 'historical' perspective though. The Star League basically regulated everyone. They created ways to rapidly communicate, deploy, and reinforce their units. They were more galactic police than they were an army. They created units that could be transported and deployed without much ado, only ANY planet, in any condition, with any terrain, at any time. As with most police, the threat is sometimes more effective than the action. Mechs are big, scary, death machines that don't require massive amounts of manpower. Just some highly specialized people (Mechwarriors, techs, and some support staff). They also had aerospace fighters, ground support, and fire support).

Basically, Robocop.

Then Kerensky decided that the system was bunk, so he took his toys and went home, leaving unfinished business. The houses proceeded to blast the snot out of each other, and give mechs to important people to stomp around and feel cool in. After a while, all the best guns were saved/repaired only for mechs. So the conventional troops were doubly screwed. It would be like taking your standard UN or US soldier and handing him an M1A for his main armament, strip off all his fancy new gear, give him a compass, an old ruck, some bdus, and some leather boots and make him drive around in a Wileys jeep.

So, it's not so much that mechs are astoundingly effective, even in the Battletech universe. It's what they represent.

If you doubt this, put a bunch of demolisher tanks and pegasus hovors on a flat field against a BV equivelent amount of mechs. The mechs will have their hands (appendages?) full, if not getting pantsed. Many a mechwarrior has failed to head the nastyness of swarms of Pegasus.. Pegasai? Where's a brony when you need one.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 22 June 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Lt Shortcut]

Battlecruiser, on 14 June 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

well their advantage would be their versatility over most types of terrain

This. Wheels and tracks are fine, if the terrain plays nice. Even on ideal ground treads break if you just steer wrong.

In a universe where you are fighting all over many different planets you just never know where you will end up. Bi-pedal would be the way to go.

[tynaiden]

It's the combination of powerful power-plant, integration to human sense of balance, and a technology shift where defense outweighs offense. In our time and probably foreseeable future armor will still be fairly easy to defeat. Given the size of a 'mech chassis they would make a bit more of a standout target than conventional armor assets.

Their mobility and utility are as stated all over this thread, a great asset but until our tech comes closer to the BT universe level, 'mechs would only truely suit and excel construction and exploration. ... would still be great fun to romp around in =3

I may be mistaken but I could have sworn there was a minor investigation by the US Air Force into the feasibility and usefulness of 'mech like vehicles and the results were far from desirable. This was some time ago as I was still too young to join the USAF myself at the time (late 80's early 90's probably) and may have just been from a discussion between me and my father who was still enlisted at the time.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

lol

http://www.cracked.c...cience-fiction/

I like that site

Quote

But the CAM was eventually discontinued because, although there wasn't much physical strain involved, most of the operators mentally burnt out after about 15 minutes from the unfamiliar stress of manipulating a foreign body via joysticks.

I think THATS why theyre human looking lol

Quote

Yes, for only $22,000, you too can weaponize a child, and ultimately be responsible for the deaths of thousands of parents who laughingly assumed things like "bedtime" and "vegetables" still applied to Billy while he was piloting the Iron Fist.

Edited by 514yer, 22 June 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[BFalcon]

Well, originally, it was the light mechs that were used and were used for construction and demolition mainly, but were pressed into combat. Larger mechs came later to combat them.

Consider the advantages of the higher humanoid form... able to climb, jump jets allow scaling of cliffs and other obstacles too high for the legs, the weapons can shoot further, including over scrubland and low trees. IEDs, having less surface to impact might actually do less harm to the foot that lands on it... and the mech pilot could probably see the IED operators (in the case of remotely operated IEDs) since they'd need some kind of LOS, due to the optics and higher viewpoint. The Myomers allow heavier armour to be used, rendering normal AT weapons less effective - armour that tracked vehicles would find a problem without being heavier. They would also impact morale in the enemy units.

Disadvantages: Cost - they're expensive, which is why they're actually pretty rare in the universe when compared to infantry and vehicles. The higher viewpoint also opens them up to being seen and hit from a longer range. AT weapons wouldn't get any longer-range though, since you can only fit so much explosive into the weapon for any given tech level, if anything, ranges would drop in order to compensate for the increased payloads. The rarity of them would also mean that fast vehicles would be able to move around an unsupported mech unit, so they would need extensive support formations.

Thinking about it, you could, I imagine, make a "reverse internal combustion engine" using myomer bundles, insofar as they'd pull the cranks instead of using expanding gas to push it, which could then power a tank or other heavy vehicle... you'd still need to address the weight issue though on the suspension and tracks.

[BigJim]

Brunhin Graywind, on 14 June 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Any "mech" created for a modern military would probably be based of a modified M1 Abram (or whatever the newest equivalent MBT is) with walker legs replacing the treads, most likely 4-8 legs similar to that small crane...I imagine the legs lifting the "mech" no more than probably 8-10 feet off the ground, meaning the "battle mech" would be no more than around 20 feet tall

Reminds me of this pic I saw once;

[PLOG]

In the universe of Battletech, as is stated, the Battlemech is the end all be all in warfare. Given the way that apparently the defense of a war machine and the weapons used to fight developed at vastly disparate rates. Ie. heavy and assaults have to literally be pounded to bits before they're truly out of the fight.

I do think that a humanoid or quadruped battlemachine will be the ultimate war weapon even if it's only for the mobility of them. As has been said before, you only need to look at nature to see what performs the best, it is neither wheel nor track. Cost, at least in the case of BT, isn't any kind of reason to say nay. These are machines constructed by governments spanning hundreds of planets with access to large quantities of rare materials available through space travel. Things like orbital bombing, aerospace bombing, precision munitions, beyond LOS munitions arn't any more of a factor for mechs than they are for any other war machine, so they arn't really a check against them being practical either.

If the man machine interface is ever getting close to the levels presented in our fiction, things like nuerohelmets and direct cybernetics, then the shape of our war machines will inherently begin ro resemble ourselves.

These are just some of the ramblings i've thought to myself while thinking about battlemechs for the last 15 years. They arn't "right", there is no such thing, but if your using modern parrallels when thinking about BT i've pretty much found you're wrong from the get-go.

BTW, big dog scares me more than anything else. Even Asimo....

mattPLOG

Edited by PLOG, 22 June 2012 - 06:02 PM.