139 replies to this topic

[CaptFrost]

Will we ever see them in the real world in a combat role? That depends.

Something like the Goliath combat walkers from StarCraft or the AMP Suits from Avatar I think we'll likely see in the very near future, and will become a mechanized infantry staple. Something not overly large that can follow infantry over any terrain and provide heavy fire support. Although carrying around supersized guns like the AMP Suits seems highly unlikely and impractical compared to built in weaponry like a Goliath.

Something like our giant beloved BattleMechs though? No. Maybe a long time from now, in some very limited application that I can't think of. But otherwise, no. They would be horrendously impractical, extremely expensive to maintain, and the profile they present to the enemy is pretty much the antithesis of the entire reason tankers fight hull down whenever possible. The only place a BattleMech could possibly be useful is on terrain like Afghanistan, when you're 100% sure you own the skies. Even then, your typical patch of earth isn't as strong as you think. You stick an Atlas on most non-rocky terrain and those 100 tons of weight focused into the comparatively small areas under his "feet" mean the pressure he's putting out is extreme and he's likely to sink into the ground of his own weight. Once again, even in the rare cases they'd be useful, they're most likely to be light to medium mechs at MOST. Even then there's no real good reason to go larger than a real-world counterpart to a Goliath CW.

I won't say never, but it seems pretty unlikely.

Edited by CaptFrost, 25 June 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[Leetskeet]

I think the reason mechs in battletech are actually effective is that they usually have aerospace support or something that keeps them from getting bombed to hell

Aside from that... I mean, they'd be imposing and much more mobile than an actual tank, but I'm not really convinced anything larger than something the size of a battletech medium would have any real functionality.

[Aesaar]

As a replacement for MBTs? Not a chance. A tank is cheaper, easier to maintain, faster, better able to absorb recoil, a more stable platform when moving, and more armored for its weight. These aren't things that be overcome with better technology, unless that technology rewrites the laws of physics and mathematics.

Mechs could serve as recon units just because they're better able to handle really rough terrain. Something small, maybe 4-5m tall.

Real world militaries can't rely on the rule of cool.

Edited by Aesaar, 25 June 2012 - 03:27 AM.

[Risky]

We do have six legged mechs that are used in the forest annihilation industry, aka logging. They're pretty cool and have big chainsaws.

[OfficerTaco]

DarkElf, on 14 June 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Build 1 giant drop ship, jump in, destroy the entire planet from a far or make the star go supernova.

They did, its called a death star but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far,far,far away

[OP8]

Probably one of the more unusual replies here, but coincidentally I have experience designing functional weaponized Mech style robotics. I have been an inventor my whole life and enjoyed solving many of these fantasy to reality engineering conversions when I was younger, with miniature experiments. Some of the real world weapon counterparts have cooler effects and possibilities compared to game fiction now that we've moved foreward our knowledge of physics, armor technologies, and modes of destructive forces. The gap that people who critisize this notion fictionally should observe is that the mech warrior tech implies more than just a limited mobility track based vehicles or planes. It is a machine intended for walking over forests and rivers; being dropped from orbit from space craft; be able to jump jet over 150m shear obstacles; have it's weapons be mounted at an altitude to fire over the tops of trees, over civilian vehicles, and most residential structures; while preserving a demoralizing downward angle of view onto most human targets. It is also not limited to conventional geographical manouvers like a tracked vehicle, 10ft shear concrete embankment? no problem. Dense everglade or rainforest? no problem. The fictional tonnage ratios are way out of whack though compared to realistic machinery though. We also wouldnt be using lasers in real life- if you have a 5Tev reactor at your disposal, The real weapons would be high frequency concentrated harmonic microwave, railgun induced lightning projectors, or some type of high energy streamed particle accelerators. Mele and general construction functions would be built into the design by default- the machinery easily accomplishes such by coincidence. Our current real world tech is provably capable of those things, just hasn't been miniaturized, ruggedized, or been fully taken seriously by current political or engineering facets of our society. Our wars would have to be much more severe than the've been as well for people to take on desire for such a precisely overpowered weapon too. Just sayin folks, the science isn't as hard as you'd think~ They'd have their purpose, and they're also entirely possible if someone with enough money and brainpower moved to embrace a prototype. It is also worth mentioning that the real world counterpart weapons built on that scale would be able to instantly neutralize most airborn weaponry including missles with relative ease due to their inherant qualities. Only some modern countries would only have the economy and raw materials to build a small few of them and they would be guarded and maneuvered relevent to their costs, more like land based aircraft carriers in man hours to construct. (well, that's reactor powered ones; we have a number of turbine/exotic turbo deisel hybrid with electric and hydrualic real world solutions to make some smaller scale machines~ though with much fewer/less capable energy weapons.)

[Hikaru]

Rugged terrain of new planets.

Look at the earliest mechs. 20 ton humanoids with working hands and jump jets.

Find me a tank that can clear any ravine, move a boulder, climb up a steep cliff face, cross a swamp, or quickly pop up over a forest canopy to get a lay of the land.

Plus giant heavy mechs would not be at a disadvantage on lower G planets.

Tanks? They're virtually useless outside of relatively flat, solid terrain.

[Aesaar]

That's not what a tank is supposed to do. Real life combat will never have a tank unit operating on its own. Tanks aren't meant to do recon. That's what recon vehicles, infantry, and aircraft are supposed to do.

As for crossing swamps, just because you have legs doesn't mean a swamp can be navigated any more easily. Legs still have a lot of issues to deal with when confronted by lots of water and mud. Try walking through a swamp yourself, then magnify all the issues you have.

And hey, you've jumped to cross a ravine that nothing but a JJ-equipped mech and aircraft can cross? Congratulations, you're now cut off from logistical support. Advancing too far ahead of your supply is something to concern yourself with. If all you're doing is recon, good. That's one of the areas a small mech could be useful in.

Moreover, I wouldn't bet on the maneuverability of a 70 mech compared to a tank of the same mass. If you try for a similar balance of armor - speed, the tank will beat you in both because it's more efficient in how its armor and engine output is distributed.

On lower g planets: Why would you design a mech just to look cool on lower g planets, rather than design a tank that can work on pretty much any planet?

Again, for a 20 ton recon vehicle, a mech could possibly work. It's a bit on the high side, but it might work. As a replacement for the typical 60-70 ton MBT, no.

Edited by Aesaar, 25 June 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Koenig]

OP8, on 25 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Probably one of the more unusual replies here, but coincidentally I have experience designing functional weaponized Mech style robotics. I have been an inventor my whole life and enjoyed solving many of these fantasy to reality engineering conversions when I was younger, with miniature experiments. Some of the real world weapon counterparts have cooler effects and possibilities compared to game fiction now that we've moved foreward our knowledge of physics, armor technologies, and modes of destructive forces. The gap that people who critisize this notion fictionally should observe is that the mech warrior tech implies more than just a limited mobility track based vehicles or planes. It is a machine intended for walking over forests and rivers; being dropped from orbit from space craft; be able to jump jet over 150m shear obstacles; have it's weapons be mounted at an altitude to fire over the tops of trees, over civilian vehicles, and most residential structures; while preserving a demoralizing downward angle of view onto most human targets. It is also not limited to conventional geographical manouvers like a tracked vehicle, 10ft shear concrete embankment? no problem. Dense everglade or rainforest? no problem. The fictional tonnage ratios are way out of whack though compared to realistic machinery though. We also wouldnt be using lasers in real life- if you have a 5Tev reactor at your disposal, The real weapons would be high frequency concentrated harmonic microwave, railgun induced lightning projectors, or some type of high energy streamed particle accelerators. Mele and general construction functions would be built into the design by default- the machinery easily accomplishes such by coincidence. Our current real world tech is provably capable of those things, just hasn't been miniaturized, ruggedized, or been fully taken seriously by current political or engineering facets of our society. Our wars would have to be much more severe than the've been as well for people to take on desire for such a precisely overpowered weapon too. Just sayin folks, the science isn't as hard as you'd think~ They'd have their purpose, and they're also entirely possible if someone with enough money and brainpower moved to embrace a prototype. It is also worth mentioning that the real world counterpart weapons built on that scale would be able to instantly neutralize most airborn weaponry including missles with relative ease due to their inherant qualities. Only some modern countries would only have the economy and raw materials to build a small few of them and they would be guarded and maneuvered relevent to their costs, more like land based aircraft carriers in man hours to construct. (well, that's reactor powered ones; we have a number of turbine/exotic turbo deisel hybrid with electric and hydrualic real world solutions to make some smaller scale machines~ though with much fewer/less capable energy weapons.)

This is a great reply and I agree with you on just about everything you said.

Probably the biggest limitation to having a real mech is the power plant. We do not have the required fusion technology. Current fission plants are way too big (and dangerous) to put on a pair of legs. LFTR technology might work but I'd hold out for fusion. ICE we can do now and would probably be enough to get you a large walking robot but not enough power for energy weapons or jump jets (also doesnt work in space.)

The real benefit to having a battlemech is, as you said, the versitility combined with intensity. We don't need to put ground forces on any other planet but earth right now. The battles we fight here are almost exclusively asymetrical and do not require anything near approaching a battlemech.

Anyways, great post. I hope others will read.

[Aesaar]

OP8, on 25 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Probably one of the more unusual replies here, but coincidentally I have experience designing functional weaponized Mech style robotics. I have been an inventor my whole life and enjoyed solving many of these fantasy to reality engineering conversions when I was younger, with miniature experiments. ...

For someone who claims to have designed functional mechs, you make very little comment about the problem with the Square-Cube law and issue with volume-surface area and how it relates to armor. The former especially makes miniature experiments almost worthless. Those are the biggest obstacles to the construction of large combat mechs, not powerplant. Any given powerplant could could use less of its output for motion if it was used to drive a sprocket and treads, thus leaving more power for the guns, targeting systems, etc, all on a platform that's both better armored and much better suited to absorb recoil, especially while moving.

In addition, it wouldn't be impossible to put JJs on a vehicle if it was designed for it. Mass Effect's Mako is not a bad example. If you do that, a great many of the mech's mobility advantages disappear.

A mech might have alleged versatility and look damn cool, but they come at the cost of efficiency.

Edited by Aesaar, 25 June 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Reoh]

Real World Applications... keep in mind, that in 3050 while they're hyper-advanced in some areas they've actually regressed technologically in others.

[Grimarch]

I think DARPA already have a basic suit which will allow troops to move 100kg boxes of ammo without any real effort...small steps....

[ArcaneIce]

I need those Atlas fingers to get the thread through a needle so I can use it to knit my mech a nice turtle-neck sweater for the winter

[Falcor]

I asked myself the same question a lot, it seems as though ships and anti-gravity type vehicles would be better than a mech. But then I realized... I'm no expert on the Battletech universe, but does "Anti-Gravity" exist in this world? I know there are space ships, but from what I've seen they seem to still rely on rocket or ion propulsion. If this is the case, I think maybe it lends more credence to the idea of a giant ground based tank type vehicle.

I think it has to do with precise coordinated attacks and defense. If ships and jets can only circle an area and rain down fire, thats a lot of potential collateral damage. Not to mention the need for power and fuel to keep the jet/ship in the air. But insert a mech into the picture, and he's capable of going face to face with the opposition. Not only that, but it would seem to me that a mech could destroy passing by jets with ease, just by aiming into the sky and taking them out, unless they're flying extremely high in the stratosphere where a mechs gauss rifle or ER PPC couldn't reach. But if they're flying that high... how much threat are they to the ground? I think this is why mechs are considered the superior fighting machine in this lore.

I'm only postulating here, but thats how I make sense of it based on my limited understanding of the Battletech universe.

[Hikaru]

Battletech "space ships" travel faster than light, jumping from one point in space to another instantaneously. Here's a good description: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumpship

Power is fusion based, e.g. essentially infinite cheap/free energy.

'Mechs can't really aim that well. A Gauss projectile would travel for several kilometers, but the actual effective range -- I aim here and I want to it here -- is very, very short, i.e. a few hundred meters.

Also, yet another reminder, power source = free, mass = mostly hollow and use stronger/lighter alloys than we can produce today. And of course, a 20 ton mech with JJ's would be separate from the rest of its regiment. It's a scout, duh. Stranded? No. Fully contained cockpit with infinite power source and flight capabilities.

[Falcor]

Hikaru, on 25 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Battletech "space ships" travel faster than light, jumping from one point in space to another instantaneously. Here's a good description: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumpship

Power is fusion based, e.g. essentially infinite cheap/free energy.

'Mechs can't really aim that well. A Gauss projectile would travel for several kilometers, but the actual effective range -- I aim here and I want to it here -- is very, very short, i.e. a few hundred meters.

Also, yet another reminder, power source = free, mass = mostly hollow and use stronger/lighter alloys than we can produce today. And of course, a 20 ton mech with JJ's would be separate from the rest of its regiment. It's a scout, duh. Stranded? No. Fully contained cockpit with infinite power source and flight capabilities.

=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.

[Aesaar]

Hikaru, on 25 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Power is fusion based, e.g. essentially infinite cheap/free energy.

Infinite duration does not meant infinite output. Even if a mech's fusion reactor will produce energy for so long that it may as well be infinite in the timescale we're talking about, that doesn't mean the energy it produces over a given timespan is infinite. If it was, why bother having different models of reactor for different mechs?

Quote

'Mechs can't really aim that well. A Gauss projectile would travel for several kilometers, but the actual effective range -- I aim here and I want to it here -- is very, very short, i.e. a few hundred meters.

We're talking about real life applications for mechs. In real life, ranges are a good deal longer, as would BT ranges if the setting didn't have to concern itself with gameplay.

Quote

Also, yet another reminder, power source = free, mass = mostly hollow and use stronger/lighter alloys than we can produce today. And of course, a 20 ton mech with JJ's would be separate from the rest of its regiment. It's a scout, duh. Stranded? No. Fully contained cockpit with infinite power source and flight capabilities.

Yeah, your energy weapon-only scout will be fine until it gets into a fight and starts losing parts, or its pilot starts getting hungry. Logistics doesn't just mean fuel and ammo. Also, I did say that as a light scout, a mech might be useful.

And it doesn't matter how light and strong an alloy is, a tank will be able to mount more armor than a mech of the same weight (assuming they're meant for the same role).

Edited by Aesaar, 25 June 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Hikaru]

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

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.

The entirety of human civilization makes only a dozen jump capable ships a year -- that's between every Inner Sphere planet, total. Jump ships are very, very rare.

Jump ships are also massive and not very manuverable. They can't go into atmosphere. The sails spread over a kilometer. It takes days for the sails to absorb enough cosmic energy to power a jump. The ships can jump to only very specific locations within each star system. They are not combat capable whatsoever -- even turning a stationary ship too quickly with the sails unfurled would cause irreparable damage to the sails.

Edited by Hikaru, 25 June 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Greyrook]

You guys are all forgetting that the Japanese have already answered why real life mechs are a bad idea. and here's another look if you prefer annoying heavy metal music playing in the background (I hope you are allowed to link to videos on this forum?). The obvious problem with a walking mech is that our robotics technology has difficulty simulating unrestricted bipedal motion even at small scales (still walkin' --Asimo), much less than with a couple dozen tons of weapons on the frame. The only walking robot I've seen that's stable is a quadruped robot called "Big Dog" from the US: (seriously, I'm sorry about the sound on these videos, I don't make 'em, I just link 'em). But let's all be honest, if anyone saw that thing coming at them, no matter how many missle launchers are on it, the first thing they'll think is, "is that two skinny guys doubled over and hugging each other?" not "goodness gracious! A terrifying BATTLEMECH!" (I'm pretty sure that's what everyone says when they experience fear)

[Falcor]

Hikaru, on 25 June 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The entirety of human civilization makes only a dozen jump capable ships a year -- that's between every Inner Sphere planet, total. Jump ships are very, very rare.

Jump ships are also massive and not very manuverable. They can't go into atmosphere. The sails spread over a kilometer. It takes days for the sails to absorb enough cosmic energy to power a jump. The ships can jump to only very specific locations within each star system. They are not combat capable whatsoever -- even turning a stationary ship too quickly with the sails unfurled would cause irreparable damage to the sails.

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?

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.