Hey, don't get me wrong. I love this game, even though i just started playing it. But i was wondering, what a tactical use a mech would have on the battlefield.
Tanks for example have a much lower silhouette, making it much harder to hit. it can also fight, when both tracks are shot off, it would not fall over.
so why should you use a mech? besides being manly as ****!
2
Tactical Use Of A Mech
Started by Lith7ium, Jan 29 2014 08:39 AM
7 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:01 AM
One think I can think of is limitation of space. If we're talking about MechWarrior type of 'mech, it's basically like stacking five tanks together while taking the ground clearance of one. Besides, with legs you can simply walk over lots of stuff instead of maneuvering around.
Look, technology in BattleTech is clearly in another era that armor weights a lot less and guns are much heavier (just go look at the specs of an M1Abrams and you'll see). It's sci-fi!
Look, technology in BattleTech is clearly in another era that armor weights a lot less and guns are much heavier (just go look at the specs of an M1Abrams and you'll see). It's sci-fi!
#3
-
-
- Shredder
- 464 posts
Member
- LocationUnited States
Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:49 AM
Lith7ium, on 29 January 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:
Hey, don't get me wrong. I love this game, even though i just started playing it. But i was wondering, what a tactical use a mech would have on the battlefield.
Tanks for example have a much lower silhouette, making it much harder to hit. it can also fight, when both tracks are shot off, it would not fall over.
so why should you use a mech? besides being manly as ****!
Tanks for example have a much lower silhouette, making it much harder to hit. it can also fight, when both tracks are shot off, it would not fall over.
so why should you use a mech? besides being manly as ****!
Only thing I can come up with would be extremely rough terrain(swamp walker, mountain climber, maybe city fighting if the weight was low enough). I think it would also be more man sized...for silhouette reasons, so it probably wouldn't be so much a replacement for tanks, but a step up for infantry. I'm thinking about 10ft tall with a 20mm cannon, a pair of anti tank missiles and either a machine gun or grenade launcher(or combination)
#4
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,972 posts
Member
- LocationMichigan
Posted 31 January 2014 - 09:29 AM
I don't mean to thread highjack, but I wrote an entire post about this issue.
http://mwomercs.com/...eal-life-mechs/
There are a LOT of problems associated with mechs and walking robots in general, but I can see how mechs could be useful in the distant future. For now there are too many issues though.
http://mwomercs.com/...eal-life-mechs/
There are a LOT of problems associated with mechs and walking robots in general, but I can see how mechs could be useful in the distant future. For now there are too many issues though.
#6
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,972 posts
Member
- LocationMichigan
Posted 01 February 2014 - 08:32 AM
I'm back. 
Anyway, to answer the OP's question a bit better...
The biggest advantage a mech theoretically has over a conventional armored vehicle is its legs. With legs, you can move in any direction at any time, you can jump and climb over obstacles, and you can crouch behind cover and lean around it or pop up to shoot, enabling the mech to fight more like a human soldier than a (by comparison) clumsy and un-maneuverable armored vehicle. You can also climb steeper slopes than anything with wheels or treads could. If you run out of ammo or your weapons are disabled in combat, and really have no other option left, you could always... You know... Stomp on things.
This mobility advantage is particularly important because as a commander, being able to get firepower where you want it, when you want it is extremely vital. With the terrain-crossing and climbing ability afforded by a mech, you won't be as easily slowed down by things like rivers, damaged infrastructure, soft or rough terrain, and so on. These means a force of mechs could fight much more effectively on these kinds of terrain than a force of tanks of equal size.
There's also the utility and versatility you get from having arms, assuming our real-life mechs will have them in the first place (arms mean more moving parts, and more moving parts in a military vehicle = bad). If the mech we're talking about has hands designed for holding weapons, you have the option of gearing up that mech with anything from a missile launcher to a flamethrower by simply picking it up off the ground. Hands, or claws, or clamps or whatever kind of gripping devices the mech has would also be useful for utility purposes like construction, hauling cargo, and so on, much like they are in the Battletech universe.
Finally there's pilot survivability. In a tank, the moment something penetrates the tank's armor, the entire crew is basically dead. That cannon shell, rocket, bullet, or whatever that just went through the hull will then rip through the ammo storage, engine, and crew compartment, shredding everything and everyone inside like a supersonic meat cleaver. Anyone that's still alive inside after all that is then in danger of the tank catching on fire (in which case they'll be boiled to death) or exploding (which obviously kills them as well). In a mech, having a shell go through your arms or legs might damage or disable the mech, but it won't kill the pilot. If taking heavy fire, the pilot can also raise the arms up to block incoming rounds from piercing the cockpit - even if the arms are destroyed the pilot is still alive. In either case, even if the mech itself is disabled, the highly trained and highly valuable pilot is left alive inside to escape and (hopefully) find his way back home.
Anyway, to answer the OP's question a bit better...
The biggest advantage a mech theoretically has over a conventional armored vehicle is its legs. With legs, you can move in any direction at any time, you can jump and climb over obstacles, and you can crouch behind cover and lean around it or pop up to shoot, enabling the mech to fight more like a human soldier than a (by comparison) clumsy and un-maneuverable armored vehicle. You can also climb steeper slopes than anything with wheels or treads could. If you run out of ammo or your weapons are disabled in combat, and really have no other option left, you could always... You know... Stomp on things.
This mobility advantage is particularly important because as a commander, being able to get firepower where you want it, when you want it is extremely vital. With the terrain-crossing and climbing ability afforded by a mech, you won't be as easily slowed down by things like rivers, damaged infrastructure, soft or rough terrain, and so on. These means a force of mechs could fight much more effectively on these kinds of terrain than a force of tanks of equal size.
There's also the utility and versatility you get from having arms, assuming our real-life mechs will have them in the first place (arms mean more moving parts, and more moving parts in a military vehicle = bad). If the mech we're talking about has hands designed for holding weapons, you have the option of gearing up that mech with anything from a missile launcher to a flamethrower by simply picking it up off the ground. Hands, or claws, or clamps or whatever kind of gripping devices the mech has would also be useful for utility purposes like construction, hauling cargo, and so on, much like they are in the Battletech universe.
Finally there's pilot survivability. In a tank, the moment something penetrates the tank's armor, the entire crew is basically dead. That cannon shell, rocket, bullet, or whatever that just went through the hull will then rip through the ammo storage, engine, and crew compartment, shredding everything and everyone inside like a supersonic meat cleaver. Anyone that's still alive inside after all that is then in danger of the tank catching on fire (in which case they'll be boiled to death) or exploding (which obviously kills them as well). In a mech, having a shell go through your arms or legs might damage or disable the mech, but it won't kill the pilot. If taking heavy fire, the pilot can also raise the arms up to block incoming rounds from piercing the cockpit - even if the arms are destroyed the pilot is still alive. In either case, even if the mech itself is disabled, the highly trained and highly valuable pilot is left alive inside to escape and (hopefully) find his way back home.
#7
-
-
- Urban Commando
- 1,003 posts
Member
- LocationIn the South Wall Cornerclub,Balmora.
Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:27 AM
I would think the use of them would be for well stomping on tanks. 
Edited by Xanilos, 26 February 2014 - 03:27 AM.
#8
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 3,735 posts
Member
Posted 26 February 2014 - 06:41 PM
I would think that mechs have the advantage in mobility, but that won't overcome the two basic issues.
The first is profile. Simply said, mechs are far more visible. Mechanized warfare, or tank warfare, is basically an ambushing, camping snipefest. That part of World of Tanks certainly got that right. Camouflage and stealth are as important as armor and firepower in land combat. I think the idea of putting optical camouflage on mechs like in Hawken is certainly right.
The second is simply physics. If you want to maximize armor thickness for a given weight, the best way to do it is to minimize surface area. The less distribution of armor, the greater the thickness. Given the same technology, and a 100 ton limit,. that 100 ton tank is going to have much greater armor thickness than the mech, for a much smaller size and visible profile.
The third factor is shape. Angled, slanted armor is the best shape to richochet projectiles. The way some Japanese mecha demonstrate highly angled shapes, like in Armored Core, isn't a bad idea at all, especially with sharply angled torsos. But its still a lot easier to demonstrate highly angled shapes on a tank, like we do now.
The fourth is stealth. Low front profile, highly angled shapes also increases radar deflection and steatlh. There is much less profile for a TOW missile to attach to.
These factors complement and multiply each other in the battlefield, and it will put mechs on a grave disadvantage.
Where large size might actually matter is when you are fighting with energy weapons. Against energy weapons, its not armor you need to look at but energy distribution.
If you are going to get hit by lasers and PPCs, the first thing you need is ablation. When hit by a laser or PPC, the point of contact with the armor vaporizes, because that part of the armor has absorbed the energy instead of distributing it inward to the mech. The released vapors also create an opaque smoke that diffuses further incoming energy beams. Ablative armor is not an infinite resource so gradually, on repeated strikes it does run out.
Once that runs out, a larger frame also acts as a bigger heat sink. The incoming energy beam is quickly absorbed, distributed and dissipated by the mech's structure, and the bigger they are, the more they can absorb the energy before it does damage.
If the whole context of war is fought with energy weapons, and energy weapons have surpassed projectile weapons (even rail guns) in damage output, then the mech becomes feasible, A tank becomes too small to hold large energy generation and laser or particle weapons, so it needs to remain a primarily vehicle for low cost projectile weapons. If you are going to deal with massive energy weapons (note the most powerful weapons in Gundam are also energy), you need the size of the mech that can hold such an energy source in its structure and provide the control, mobility and ventilation mechanisms.
The first is profile. Simply said, mechs are far more visible. Mechanized warfare, or tank warfare, is basically an ambushing, camping snipefest. That part of World of Tanks certainly got that right. Camouflage and stealth are as important as armor and firepower in land combat. I think the idea of putting optical camouflage on mechs like in Hawken is certainly right.
The second is simply physics. If you want to maximize armor thickness for a given weight, the best way to do it is to minimize surface area. The less distribution of armor, the greater the thickness. Given the same technology, and a 100 ton limit,. that 100 ton tank is going to have much greater armor thickness than the mech, for a much smaller size and visible profile.
The third factor is shape. Angled, slanted armor is the best shape to richochet projectiles. The way some Japanese mecha demonstrate highly angled shapes, like in Armored Core, isn't a bad idea at all, especially with sharply angled torsos. But its still a lot easier to demonstrate highly angled shapes on a tank, like we do now.
The fourth is stealth. Low front profile, highly angled shapes also increases radar deflection and steatlh. There is much less profile for a TOW missile to attach to.
These factors complement and multiply each other in the battlefield, and it will put mechs on a grave disadvantage.
Where large size might actually matter is when you are fighting with energy weapons. Against energy weapons, its not armor you need to look at but energy distribution.
If you are going to get hit by lasers and PPCs, the first thing you need is ablation. When hit by a laser or PPC, the point of contact with the armor vaporizes, because that part of the armor has absorbed the energy instead of distributing it inward to the mech. The released vapors also create an opaque smoke that diffuses further incoming energy beams. Ablative armor is not an infinite resource so gradually, on repeated strikes it does run out.
Once that runs out, a larger frame also acts as a bigger heat sink. The incoming energy beam is quickly absorbed, distributed and dissipated by the mech's structure, and the bigger they are, the more they can absorb the energy before it does damage.
If the whole context of war is fought with energy weapons, and energy weapons have surpassed projectile weapons (even rail guns) in damage output, then the mech becomes feasible, A tank becomes too small to hold large energy generation and laser or particle weapons, so it needs to remain a primarily vehicle for low cost projectile weapons. If you are going to deal with massive energy weapons (note the most powerful weapons in Gundam are also energy), you need the size of the mech that can hold such an energy source in its structure and provide the control, mobility and ventilation mechanisms.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
