199 replies to this topic

[Alek Ituin]

God damn Pertti, you are just rabidly offensive about this. So here's what I have to say in reply:

Modern militaries are already investing in both powered exoskeletons and walking vehicles. According to you, the exoskeletons would be useless since "you can't armor the joints and still have them bend". Despite the fact that armoring a rotating joint is easy, and soldiers want this system because it will make their lives easier. But you know better than them, right? And as for walking vehicles, there's a reason they're not just making little infantry support tank-drones. Walking vehicles are more nimble and adaptable. BUT NO, YOU KNOW BETTER THAN DARPA, RIGHT!?

Pertti, you're a sad little sack of delusions and idiocy, with a misguided opinion that runs counter to the reality of the situation. I refuse to read the outpouring of stupidity that you will inevitably reply with in a pitiable attempt to defend your position, for fear of my brain cells attempting to commit suicide from the overdose of imbecilic drivel you call an "argument". Because instead of acting civilized, you brush aside any argument as "blathering" and ignore the point entirely, moving directly to personal insult instead of remarking on the argument itself.

Have a good day, and welcome to my ignore list, you worthless genetic flotsam.

HlynkaCG, on 01 December 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

With a ground speed of approx 60 mph over level ground a M1 Abrams would have a 6/9 movement profile in BattleTech making it faster than all but the fastest mechs in the BTU and substantially faster than anything in a similar weight class.

Abrams goes 45mph with a speed governor, it only hits 60-ish if you remove it. Which, of course, causes damage to the engine when pushed that fast. There's a reason the manufacturer put that speed governor on it.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 01 December 2014 - 03:48 PM.

[HlynkaCG]

Alek Ituin, on 01 December 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

Abrams goes 45mph with a speed governor, it only hits 60-ish if you remove it. Which, of course, causes damage to the engine when pushed that fast. There's a reason the manufacturer put that speed governor on it.

If that is the case, I know several tankers including the CO of a USMC Armored Battalion who have been very naughty.

PS: You still haven't addressed the objections already raised and Pertti Munapirtti's responses thus far have been far more respectful than yours have. There is a world of difference between calling an idea stupid or dellusional and calling a person the same.

[Alek Ituin]

HlynkaCG, on 01 December 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

[/size]

If that is the case, I know several tankers including the CO of a USMC Armored Battalion who have been very naughty.

PS: You still haven't addressed the objections already raised and Pertti Munapirtti's responses thus far have been far more respectful than yours have. There is a world of difference between calling an idea stupid or dellusional and calling a person the same.

My buddy took his tanks governor off. The advantage is that you can go really fast, but your mechanics are going to grumble more than usual. That, and you use up more fuel, but then again... a gas turbine can burn anything even mildly flammable as fuel.

But I have addressed his "arguments". 3-6m maximum height for a Mech would allow it to carry similar armor protection for a similar weight. You gain the advantages of bipedal/quadrupedal movement, and can easily armor joints to survive impacts from tank rounds. It's all a question of what the servo design is, and how it needs to be armored. From the sides, it's easy, from the front, it's MUCH harder.

Which is why you use a two-servo design, one on each side of the leg, running a system of EAP's that mimic human muscle groups as backups. You can put a big hole in a human muscle and it'll still function, same thing with an EAP/myomer "muscle", except a Mech can't feel pain (and be held back by it). This is especially true if you use the beefy legs of a HBR or SMN, instead of thinner legs... unless your goal is speed. In which case, go full Lolcust, because you're whole defense would be not getting hit in the first place.

You can easily armor a cockpit for one person as well, while armoring a fighting compartment is much harder (requires more weight and material as well). Basically, make an armored tube that contains all the gibbly bits, including the pilot. Use fuel cells for power instead of mechanical generators, and you'll save on fuel, which can then be used on other armored vehicles. You can mount several auto-cannons, AGM launchers, and howitzers on a reasonably well-designed Mech, while a tank can't. Most of them barely manage to fit the main gun, let alone several other large weapon systems! You wouldn't go out and pick a fight with tanks in a Mech though, they would be akin to an IFV, but superior in basically every way in combat (minus troop carrying abilities).

As I tried to explain to Pertti, Mechs aren't a replacement for tanks. They have advantage over tanks, but disadvantages as well. You wouldn't phase out all of your MBT's, you would just introduce Mechs as a supplementary combat vehicle. Just like strategic bombers weren't phased out by fighter/bombers, they're different vehicles for different jobs. Pertti just bulldozed over that little fact so he could keep saying "no". Ergo, my previous post came in to existence.


You however, are much more reasonable, and have given me no reason to be hostile towards you. I would truly prefer it remains this way.

[HlynkaCG]

Alek Ituin, on 01 December 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

But I have addressed his "arguments". 3-6m maximum height for a Mech would allow it to carry similar armor protection for a similar weight.

This is simply not true as height is not the issue, surface area is. Any vehicle with legs is going to have more surface area than one of similar mass and volume that does not. More surface area to cover means that the armor must be spread thinner to cover it.

Quote

You gain the advantages of bipedal/quadrupedal movement,,,

bipedal/quadrupedal movement becomes less of an advantage and more of a liability the heavier you get. A 60 ton mech would get bogged down in terrain that a 60 ton wheeled or tracked vehicle could traverse with ease. This is why something like a proto or industrial mech makes at least some sense while true "battlemechs" do not.

Quote

As I tried to explain to Pertti, Mechs aren't a replacement for tanks. They have advantage over tanks, but disadvantages as well. You wouldn't phase out all of your MBT's, you would just introduce Mechs as a supplementary combat vehicle. Just like strategic bombers weren't phased out by fighter/bombers, they're different vehicles for different jobs. Pertti just bulldozed over that little fact so he could keep saying "no". Ergo, my previous post came in to existence.

Problem is that this is not what you were saying a couple of pages ago.

Myself and several others have already acknowledged the usefulness of mechs in certain circumstances. I imagine that we will be seeingindustrial mechs / power loaders in the near future. Likewise, I could see something like a Locust (heavy machine guns or rockets on a fast and agile frame) being quite effective as a scout vehicle or raider.

However when it comes to real life combat, the fact remains that any battlemech would be outclassed by a tank of similar tonnage and tech-level.

[Alek Ituin]

HlynkaCG, on 01 December 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

[/size]

This is simply not true as height is not the issue, surface area is. Any vehicle with legs is going to have more surface area than one of similar mass and volume that does not. More surface area to cover means that the armor must be spread thinner to cover it.



bipedal/quadrupedal movement becomes less of an advantage and more of a liability the heavier you get. A 60 ton mech would get bogged down in terrain that a 60 ton wheeled or tracked vehicle could traverse with ease. This is why something like a proto or industrial mech makes at least some sense while true "battlemechs" do not.

[/size]


Problem is that this is not what you were saying a couple of pages ago.

Myself and several others have already acknowledged the usefulness of mechs in certain circumstances. I imagine that we will be seeingindustrial mechs / power loaders in the near future. Likewise, I could see something like a Locust (heavy machine guns or rockets on a fast and agile frame) being quite effective as a scout vehicle or raider.

However when it comes to real life combat, the fact remains that any battlemech would be outclassed by a tank of similar tonnage and tech-level.

Let me organize here, going through the points one by one.

1.) You assume a Mech must have a high surface area, and must have consistent armor. That assumption doesn't even hold true for the tanks you like to talk up. They have varying armor thicknesses, focusing primarily on the front, thinning in the rear, and thinnest on the top and bottom. You prioritize armor layout by the likelihood of incoming fire impacting the area, you don't just coat something in armor and call it a day. Hell, we don't even do that in BT/MW.

2.) Tanks don't actually spread their weight all that much as it happens, they still have incredible ground pressure. It'd be just as easy to spread the weight of a Mech over a large, articulated foot pad. You seem to be assuming it's going to be like the brick-feet we have on most Mechs. In fact, the best choice would be something like a Dragon. It allows the Mech to move "toe" pads to adjust with terrain, while spreading weight over a larger surface area. And legs would allow for a variety of movements that a tracked vehicle simply cannot do, such as side stepping or even jumping. Once you've solved the issue of ground pressure for legs, they become a superior choice.

3.) Strategic bombers are slow, heavy, inefficient, and largely defenseless. Doesn't mean they aren't useful in combat. My apologies if I didn't make it clear, but you lot seemed ignorant of the drawbacks inherent to a tank. My point wasn't to say that they're horrible vehicles all the time, but rather that they aren't the über-vehicles people think they are. Tanks have just as many issues as a Mech would, and they're doing just fine on the modern battlefield. In fact, when tanks first came about, they were largely useless at everything. Easily destroyed, easily stalled, and more hazardous to their crew than the enemy. A century later, tanks are a staple on the battlefield. People said aircraft were just trinkets back in WWI, and would never be weapons of war... A century later, and they're the go-to weapon of war for just about everybody. Mechs may not have a large role to fill now, but it's plain ignorant to assume they won't ever have a role to fill later.

So my point is, in summary: Mechs can and will become a staple vehicle in future battlefields, because there can and will be a role for Mechs to fill. To blatantly dismiss a new technology because "what we have now works better" is folly, history has shown us this many times.

[Mercules]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 November 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Well if we every get to the point of sci-fi space warfare, ground combat becomes pointless as the winner is who controls the high orbitals. Push a few asteroids of the right size to the right speed and you can take out cities and continents. Mechs won't stop that, so once your space forces are gone its time to raise the white flag (if the other side will let you).

Which is pointless unless you really don't care about controlling the planet. The primary driver behind war will likely be resources. Capturing a water rich world in which you contaminated all the water and/or turned it into steam would be pointless.


---------------------------------

One other thing people are forgetting is that some of the systems that nature has designed are superior for movement compared to some of the systems man has designed. A 160 pound "tank" design could not be able to vault over concrete barriers the way a human can nor make rapid direction changes.

In MWO battlemechs move like tanks. In Battletech they are supposed to move like living creatures. They have joints similar to organics, myomer muscles similar to organics, and more. They tie into a pilots sense of balance and movement. Because of this a mech could drop low and elbow crawl along a low ridge then pop up to it's knees to drop a few shots downrange. It could twist and lean out of cover to fire and then duck back in like a trained soldier.

----------------------------------

In the Battletech universe there was one other guiding factor for the use of mechs. It was honorable. The great houses trained special warriors, much like knights, who even though their style of fighting was not really practical in certain aspects of war... they were elite, specially trained, and held in awe by the rabble.

[Pertti Munapirtti]

Alek Ituin, on 01 December 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

Have a good day, and welcome to my ignore list, you worthless genetic flotsam.

Imbecile Ituin loses argument, cannot deal with it.

[Scratx]

Timuroslav, on 30 November 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

I think people are missing the core idea of Battlemechs in the Battletech universe
Many Factions rely on Tanks, ships , turrets, Infantry, and Artillery IF they HAVE the Man-Power to deploy them. All those equipment are cheap and they only take a lot of Man-power for the amount of fire power they have. In a lot of Cases they have More Fire power than regular Mechs. See the Demolisher, Paladin, and Daimyo HQ Battle vehicles. Any of those would blow the living poop out of the Vehicle.

you Deploy Battlemechs into combat for several reasons.
Prestige and fame.
You don't have a lot of man-power
you have a lot of money
You need to quickly fight on multiple different planets with different types of terrain.
You need a multi-tool combat vehicle that does Multiple roles not just one. Battleships are water locked. Tanks are land locked. Hover craft lack armor. Infantry are easily killed, Aerofighters are countered by Turrets.
Battlemechs do EVERYTHING. Land-Air-Mechs.

You deploy everything else if you have Population, but not money.
Scratch that Starships are the most Effing Expensive and crucial thing in the whole Cosmos of Battletech.

Battlemechs in the Battlemech universe are the Cadillacs of the Battlefield; they're the Multi tools. Mechs with Arms are used to move equipment around in Dropships, they weren't just placed there to look humanoid ish.

that said the most Realistic mechs would probable be the Commando, Spider, Jagermech, Cataphract, and Catapult.
the Timberwolf would be the most Imbalanced mech lol the legs are behind it's center of gravity and it's all nose weight. I'd love to fight that thing as knocking it on the nose would cause it to fall over.

(bolding a few things I'm addressing)

Land-Air Mechs are nearly extinct even in 3025. They basically become so after the Nova Cats obliterate the last factory. Blakists resurrect it briefly but frankly, those LAMs were ****. The building rules make them utterly worthless and a waste of resources. Especially considering that just to train a LAM pilot you'd have to basically train someone to pilot mechs AND ASFs AND a weird hybrid mode. That's triple the work and you better hope the guy's got talent at all three things otherwise you get a **** pilot.

Regarding manpower... excuse me, but every major faction... actually, every inner sphere faction, pretty much, has at least one, if not multiple, worlds with population counts in the billions. Somehow, I don't think manpower is really a problem.

FASAnomics, really. Don't try to rationalize it, BT doesn't work at the Inner Sphere's scale. If it were maybe ~50 worlds, at most, I could buy army sizes and deployments as big as touted. As is, lolnope.

Quite bluntly, the only good reason I see for Battlemechs is that they pack more power and flexibility and, in particular, less vulnerability than tanks and infantrry, in a single unit. When you want to cram as much power potential in limited space (dropships/jumpships), it makes sense to minimize the use of "bulky" units such as masses of infantry. Tanks will also always be more vulnerable than mechs to being destroyed or immobilized due to the rules they're under.

(and once higher tech levels, DHS in particular, comes into play, mechs have more artificial mechanics advantages... tanks _can't_ use DHS and they MUST have enough heatsinks to dissipate all energy weapon fire-derived heat)

[HlynkaCG]

Alek Ituin, on 01 December 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Let me organize here, going through the points one by one.

Ok, let me address them one by one.

Quote

1.) You assume a Mech must have a high surface area, and must have consistent armor.

I do not. I assume that a Mech must have a higher surface area than a tank of similar mass and volume. Which isn't an assumption so much as it is a mathematical certainty. I never said anything about the armor thickness being consistent.

Quote

2.) Tanks don't actually spread their weight all that much as it happens, they still have incredible ground pressure. It'd be just as easy to spread the weight of a Mech over a large, articulated foot pad.

Actually they do. Despite being 30 times heavier M1 Abrams exerts only half as much pressure on the ground as a typical 4-door sedan does. Articulated toe pads don't get rid of the Square-cube law. P = F / A. The heavier a mech is, the bigger a footprint it will need to keep from becoming bogged down.

Quote

3.) Strategic bombers are slow, heavy, inefficient, and largely defenseless. Doesn't mean they aren't useful in combat. My apologies if I didn't make it clear, but you lot seemed ignorant of the drawbacks inherent to a tank...

...So my point is, in summary: Mechs can and will become a staple vehicle in future battlefields...

It seems to me that you are moving the goal-posts. The usefulness of mechs in specific roles/circumstances was conceded a while ago. But as far as a viability as an armored fighting vehicle is concerned, the supposed advantages of a mech, and the suppsed drawbacks of tanks that you have chosen to highlight are either largely fictional or effect both platforms equally, In short, you have failed to make your case.

ETA:

Mercules, on 01 December 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

A 160 pound "tank" design could not be able to vault over concrete barriers the way a human can nor make rapid direction changes.

A 60 ton "Human" wouldn't be able to do those things either.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 02 December 2014 - 12:21 AM.

[zortesh]

I dunno about mechs vs tanks....

But I'm pretty sure any semi-industrialized would could pump out hordes of cheap tanks good enough to fight against mechs with.

I mean think about this in mwo....

Size up one guass rifle tiss it does 45 or 60 dmg, Build tank around it... (or two guass + ppc)

You now have 45-60 ppfld mounted on the highest point of your vechile, in a turret, in a vechile that can spin itself about rather quickly.

Now If a mech had a 50ppfld attack on the highest point of its body in mwo that mech would be the scariest and most deadly mech in mwo.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

The OP is vague, so I'm not surprised to read how the discussion went off on different tangents, such as Tank vs. Mech.

So I'm going to go down a separate tangent!

---

Something that needs to be considered is that the military has to account for the evolving battlefield; so from my understanding Urban Combat and fighting in rough and rugged terrain are going to remain complex and dangerous arenas to contend with, where existing strategies, tactics and equipment can sometimes face too many new obstacles or limitations, and require the military to continue to develop new strategies, tactics and equipment to complete complex and evolving mission requirements and minimize loss of life.

Right now that's the drone stuff, which fills a particular niche for the military that has it's own set of benefits and drawbacks. So the military does have interests in pursuing projects that will help soldiers fight better in evolving environments.

Therefore, if there can be a viable design that looks like a BattleMech, that can support soldiers to that end, it will see R&D to get in on the battlefield. Exoskeletons and Battle Armor are on the horizon; so who knows if we can see big stompy mechs at some point in the future also?

---

I like reading history, so I wanted to share some info and links that I found interesting. The primary reason we saw tanks get first developed was to tackle the trench warfare of WWI.

They were first deployed in 1916. They were code named "Water Tanks" or "Water Carriers" (Later shortened to Tanks) so they can ship them to the combat theatres secretly!

Otherwise, I assume they might have been named something like Caterpillars or maybe even gotten stuck with the early nicknames for the prototypes, being called ******* after this guy! I kinda like that the name tank stuck.

[Alek Ituin]

HlynkaCG, on 02 December 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

It seems to me that you are moving the goal-posts. The usefulness of mechs in specific roles/circumstances was conceded a while ago. But as far as a viability as an armored fighting vehicle is concerned, the supposed advantages of a mech, and the suppsed drawbacks of tanks that you have chosen to highlight are either largely fictional or effect both platforms equally, In short, you have failed to make your case.

You call problems an actual tanker experienced on exercise "largely fictional". The arrogance in that statement is just... mind boggling. Tanks suffer from severe problems a large amount of the time. They spend more time refueling and resupplying than they do actually fighting. Problems that affect a tank won't necessarily affect a Mech, and vice-versa, but tanks have a very real set of issues. We don't know anything about what a Mech may face in reality until we make one.

That said, I have not failed to make my case. In fact, I've made a solid argument and laid out the design of a Mech that would be possible to construct using modern day technology. You however, have decided that you know better than several government agencies and actual soldiers using the equipment being discussed (tanks, in this case). Seriously, you've just skimmed over everything and disproved... well, nothing, really.

Instead of addressing the fact that a Dragon's foot pad design could easily provide the necessary surface area to avoid sinking problems, you've just skimmed past it, ignored it. Instead of addressing the fact that a Mech could easily be of the same volume as a tank, you've completely skimmed past it, just like before. You create your arguments after ignoring basically everything I've said, and then shoot it down to make a case. In fact, I've described what a probable Mech design would look like twice now, only for the same arguments to be regurgitated back at me, despite them barely applying in this scenario.

Quite honestly, I have neither the time nor the patience for naysayers with nothing useful to provide. You, clearly, do not believe any form of Mech would be useful in combat. I, however, do believe they would be useful in combat. Having provided more than enough reason as to why they can be, only for it to fall on deaf ears, I'll be leaving this fairly pointless argument. Mind you, it's pointless because both parties will inevitably argue in endless, useless, circles.

On a personal note, I feel that people with your narrow-minded view of what's possible are a problem in the world. Nobody ever tries to make the improbable a reality anymore, because of people like you. It's a solid wall of "nope, can't be done, stop trying" when anything remotely outside the box comes up. But I'll give you what little respect I can muster and remain civil with you, as you have made a cogent and rational argument for your position. I can respect that, at least.


Therefore, unlike when I said it to Pertti, I actually mean it when I say: Have a good day.

[Pertti Munapirtti]

HlynkaCG, on 02 December 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

reasonable posting

You're wasting your time with that obtuse wanker.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

Alek Ituin, on 02 December 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

You call problems an actual tanker experienced on exercise "largely fictional". The arrogance in that statement is just... mind boggling. Tanks suffer from severe problems a large amount of the time. They spend more time refueling and resupplying than they do actually fighting. Problems that affect a tank won't necessarily affect a Mech, and vice-versa, but tanks have a very real set of issues. We don't know anything about what a blah blah blah I like to listen to my own voice

blah bla more repeated arguments I am always right

I find it funny that you speak in such authoritative manner on the subject of modern armored combat when you've already been shown to be wrong on many occasions, and mostly your knowledge seems to be based more on myth and hearsay than actual military experience. I was intending on writing a longer post here explaining clearly and politely to you how you are wrong about these matters and how your arguments make very little sense. Then I realized that numerous people have already done that in this thread, but you either ignored all parts of the arguments presented against you that you couldn't dispute, or resorted to outright personal insults as your own counter-argument and claimed that there are no faults at all in your own claims.

So instead of trying in vain to debate the issue with you, I would just like to say that people like you are the sole reason that having sensible discussions on the internet is impossible. You refuse even the slightest hint that you could be wrong, and instead repeat your same faulty arguments over and over again until no one else can be bothered to discuss the matter with you anymore, and then claim the resulting silence is proof that you were right. Well done, you managed to kill yet another thread that had interesting discussion with your endless blathering. I hope you are happy with yourself now.

[KuroNyra]

Who said Battlemech does not exist?

[CDLord HHGD]

Pertti Munapirtti, on 01 December 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

The Apache has a 2-man crew for a reason. The only solo attack helicopter (probably) is the Ka-50, which suffers from the pilot's attention being constantly divided. There's a reason it's used mainly for reconnaissance.

True, but to balance that, you are giving the vehicle wheels and taking away it's ability to fly. Nobody else here has sighted their Mercedes hood ornament on the slow ******* in front of you and squeezed the "trigger" on your gear select lever?
I bet it would work. Someone gimme funding..

[KuroNyra]

There is a huge difference between a vehicle able to move in all dimension (one who can fly) and one bound to the earth.


Tanks have crew because we can't do in another way at the same moment. But we are trying more and more to make the task easier for one man.

Who know, considering the technology and the advance we make each year. We might see tanks controled by just one guy.


To say battlemech are viable today is stupidity. But to say they will never be viable no matter what is just spite at the science and the progress of the human race.

A thousand years ago people would have said it was impossible to create tank, cars and stuff like we have today. Yet we managed to do it.



The expert of todays could be the fools of tomorrow.

[Logan Hawke]

Alek Ituin, on 02 December 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

*sad butthurt sh**posting intensifies*

Anywho, as for the OP, the only real 'mecha' sort of walker vehicle I could ever see happening in real life is something akin to a Gear (from the Heavy Gear universe).
Something smaller and nimble and capable of good road speed that is a halfway point between an infantry soldier in powered armor and an IFV, used mostly as infantry support in Ubran combat. Most likely autonomous/remote operated to decrease its size further. Capable of carrying weaponry roughly equivalent with an IFV or light tank. Of course, that assumes that they could be produced at a resonable cost. If it's double the price of an MBT, you're probably going to buy two MBTs instead for that urban combat, downsides be damned.

Edited by Logan Hawke, 02 December 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[StandingInFire]

Something that may also work is stuff like spider tanks in ghost in the shell.



Now obviously ignore the bad design choices made for artistic stuff (such as small feet), but the feet have wheels to allow them to drive at high speed down roads/flat terrain (can be done with inwheel electric motors) and can still get the maneuverability of legs, also 4 legs is much more stable than 2 for firing weapons. Still has a low profile (higher than a tank but much less than a 2 legged mech).

[Logan Hawke]

StandingInFire, on 02 December 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Something that may also work is stuff like spider tanks in ghost in the shell.



Now obviously ignore the bad design choices made for artistic stuff (such as small feet), but the feet have wheels to allow them to drive at high speed down roads/flat terrain (can be done with inwheel electric motors) and can still get the maneuverability of legs, also 4 legs is much more stable than 2 for firing weapons. Still has a low profile (higher than a tank but much less than a 2 legged mech).

The wheelies are an important part of why the concept I mentioned would be useful too. Most gears have a secondary movement system consisting of wheels or treads in their feet so they can get good road and flatland speed, while still have the manueverability of a bipedal system, since a bipedal system is more manueverable than a quadruped. Plus, arms allow it to climb or poke a weapon around a corner and not expose itself, or pick things up.

Edited by Logan Hawke, 02 December 2014 - 08:14 AM.