199 replies to this topic

[WonderSparks]

Why does this thread have to be so serious? Can we not just speculate what could be under ideal circumstances?
Perhaps we could assume that, someday, we will have more advanced building materials and whatnot that make the basic structure of a BattleMech viable (so that it does not break itself with its own weight, not including after combat damage of course), and maybe we are not building them to MWO's gigantic standards but rather something smaller with a lower center of gravity and lower mass (even making the Atlas short is not enough, it still weighs 100 tons and that is going to push it into the ground a lot) to make it safer and simpler for them to traverse non-cement terrain.

Or we could just put physical limitations aside and just pretend, for a moment, that these problems are not problems.

I, personally, would love to see a Stalker in the real world. And it could work. Maybe. ...Perhaps.
_{What? I am no engineer, I am just a cartoonist of sorts!}

[Timuroslav]

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.

Edited by Timuroslav, 30 November 2014 - 12:52 PM.

[HlynkaCG]

WonderSparks, on 30 November 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Why does this thread have to be so serious? Can we not just speculate what could be under ideal circumstances?

Because the thread title specifically states otherwise. If we "just put physical limitations aside and just pretend, for a moment, that these problems are not problems" it wouldn't be "in RL" would it?

[KuroNyra]

HlynkaCG, on 30 November 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

[/size]

Because the thread title specifically states otherwise. If we "just put physical limitations aside and just pretend, for a moment, that these problems are not problems" it wouldn't be "in RL" would it?

Lack of imagination in all it's glory.

Ho well, let me remind you that "In Reality" not so long ago. People used to think Earth was Flat, the center of the Universe and... Do I need to say more?

Edited by KuroNyra, 30 November 2014 - 03:22 PM.

[Sug]

HlynkaCG, on 30 November 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

[/size]

Chemical_lasers

Of course having a laser that requires ammunition (or rather fuel) isn't really a laser in the BTU sense of the word.

Kilroy95, on 30 November 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I think it my was grandfather who told me, He's a private contractor for the Navy.

Also, we have Gauss Rifle-esc weapons available right now

I guess I took " and the laser's "heat output" is actually a really toxic chemical" to mean that the laser actually fired chemicals or something the target. But yeah chemical powered lasers are a thing

And they're also in the Battletech universe.


http://www.sarna.net...Chemical_Lasers

[verybad]

Brody319, on 30 November 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

I think once exoskeletons reaches a point tanks will be slowly phased out because suddenly a single foot soldier will be able to kill them.
Also we have to define "mech" if we just talk about a machine a human pilots that can walk, an exoskeleton would be a mech, and we already now those are being made.
I think exoskeletons might eventually evolve into a psudo-mech and possibly a full fledged mech but that will be super far into the future when a mech would be more maneuverable than a tank possibly could.

Foot soldiers can already kill a tank, it's called an RPG They however won't be able to carry a 120mm canon let alone fire one. so an exoskeleton brings nothing new to combat. Nothing is better at killing a tank than a tank.

An exoskeleton would be good at moving stuff from or to a truck, but i really don't expect them to get involved in combat.

[verybad]

KuroNyra, on 30 November 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

Lack of imagination in all it's glory.

Ho well, let me remind you that "In Reality" not so long ago. People used to think Earth was Flat, the center of the Universe and... Do I need to say more?

Actually, removing all constraints from something makes it very easy to fulfill.
With no limits, then we're going to get these...

[Metus regem]

verybad, on 30 November 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Foot soldiers can already kill a tank, it's called an RPG They however won't be able to carry a 120mm canon let alone fire one. so an exoskeleton brings nothing new to combat. Nothing is better at killing a tank than a tank.

An exoskeleton would be good at moving stuff from or to a truck, but i really don't expect them to get involved in combat.

My company had been contracted to look at making one that is resistant to damage up to and including 20mm rounds, while allowing a trooper to carry and effectively use a M2HB.

There are two things holding that prototype back, number one is cost. The second thing is power supply, there is currently nothing avalible to provide the power it needs, and be small enough to be portable in a combat environment.

[Fut]

Brody319, on 29 November 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

America has already created a functioning exoskeleton. The only thing holding them back is a reliable compact lightweight power source or battery. A lot of our technologies are inhibited because of the limits of our battery power.

No worries, they'll solve this little issue in no time.
Soldiers of the future will generate their own power

[verybad]

Metus regem, on 30 November 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

My company had been contracted to look at making one that is resistant to damage up to and including 20mm rounds, while allowing a trooper to carry and effectively use a M2HB.

There are two things holding that prototype back, number one is cost. The second thing is power supply, there is currently nothing avalible to provide the power it needs, and be small enough to be portable in a combat environment.

Doesn't fill a hole, and also, why the hell would you tell people on a videogame site about something that's not open to the world? Quite frankly, I don't believe you. You can put an M2HB on any standard vehicle, why the need for an exoskeleton?
There's no desperate need for such a unit. It's not powerful enough to take down armored ;units, it's not strong enough to suvive a mine or 30mm canon. What does it do, provide a semi mobile 20mm heavy machine gun to SOME places a wheeled or tracked vehicle can't go.

I call Jaberwocky.

Edited by verybad, 30 November 2014 - 04:06 PM.

[Metus regem]

verybad, on 30 November 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Doesn't fill a hole, and also, why the hell would you tell people on a videogame site about something that's not open to the world? Quite frankly, I don't believe you. You can put an M2HB on any standard vehicle, why the need for an exoskeleton?
There's no desperate need for such a unit. It's not powerful enough to take down armored ;units, it's not strong enough to suvive a mine or 30mm canon. What does it do, provide a semi mobile 20mm heavy machine gun to SOME places a wheeled or tracked vehicle can't go.



I call Jaberwocky.

It is a failed non classified prototype, file the correct paper work with the DoD and you should gain access to the documetation.

Edited by Metus regem, 30 November 2014 - 04:33 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It's interesting to read about new tech.

I can see a combo of systems that generate electricity, and stores that in carbon nano batteries for power needs.

Spoiler

http://web.mit.edu/e...acapacitor.html

http://cleantechnica...supercapacitor/

And who knows, we might also see cold fusion reactors also.

Spoiler

https://cosmosmagazi...king-new-ground

http://www.wired.co....into-mainstream

http://www.extremete...ity-of-gasoline

[YueFei]

No matter what new materials evolve, the fact is that given the same materials, the tank is a better shape for a combat vehicle.

Just like, no matter what you make an object out of, it cuts better if it is shaped like a knife with an edge, rather than a round ball.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Tanks have limits also.

They can get stuck in mud and seem easy to flip over.

[verybad]

Praetor Knight, on 30 November 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

Tanks have limits also.

They can get stuck in mud and seem easy to flip over.

You think a mech wuldn't get stuck in mud? Also a lot more likely to fall over and injure the driver.

[151st Light Horse Regiment]

I think they would be relatively easy to create, given the right amount of funding.

Are people seriously saying we can fly a rocket the size of a car for 15 years and precisely land on a 3km comet, but not make something big and heavy that can stand up?

The real problem is purpose, in that they don't have one. If you need a town destroyed, a fleet of B52's could do it in minutes. Need a nuke launching, then just use a sub or ship.

In temrs of ground warfare, I think they'd fare well. The M1 tank can bounce RPG's and T72's shells all day long so I don't think armor is an issue, but they'd be heavily vulnerable to precision airstrikes. You'd have to incorporate some serious air defense on top of them, or have them followed around all the time by AA vehicles.

In reality, they'd probably just end up as huge base defense turrets.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

verybad, on 30 November 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

You think a mech wuldn't get stuck in mud? Also a lot more likely to fall over and injure the driver.

Would depend on mech design though.

[verybad]

Praetor Knight, on 30 November 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Would depend on mech design though.

Same as a tank or other vehicle....depends on it's design. Everything depends on it's design. What would a mech bring to warfare that a tank can't? That's the important part.

Tanks are a more effective basic design in a lot of ways than a mech is. Just because it has legs doesn't make it better or more efficient. The simplicity of a tank's design is part of what makes it efficient.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

verybad, on 30 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

What would a mech bring to warfare that a tank can't?

Traverse terrain a tank cannot.

I posted earlier as to what I would expect to see for such a real life design, utilizing three or four legs (I imagine it functioning like BigDog, in terms of mobility and stability).

---

Also, I don't understand why just because answers need to be thrown about.

Because for me, that argument does not follow anyway; since if a real mech would be created and sent into the battlefield, it would not be completely replacing tanks anyway.

Tanks haven't been replaced in Battle Tech either AFAIK.

---

It's only a matter of time before a portable power source is developed where we could being seeing exoskeletons in different roles for the military; and mechs could be close behind them, if mechs would be able to fit contemporary military needs.

http://www.nerdist.c...rrows-exosuits/

Edited by Praetor Knight, 30 November 2014 - 06:56 PM.

[Timuroslav]

Mechs travel

verybad, on 30 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

. Everything depends on it's design.

Tanks are a more effective basic design in a lot of ways than a mech is. Just because it has legs doesn't make it better or more efficient. The simplicity of a tank's design is part of what makes it efficient.

A Mech can be piloted by One Man. As I stated earlier. If you have money but not Man-power you buy Mechs to defend your unpopulated world.

Mechs can't be one shotted, by most Battletech Technology. Almost All of our Present day Tanks can be one-shotted by Air Ground missiles from above. It's why C-130s work so well.

Mechs can fight in any and All environments. Even in space and on space ships. They can travel on water.
Battleships are water locked.
Tanks are land locked
hover craft lack Armor
Infantry are easily killed.
Aerospace fighters are countered by Turrets. Also Aerospace fighters need an Airbase to operate out of.

Tanks take a crew to operate

Mechs can fulfill any and all roles. They just can't replace infantry or Starships.
Jagermech and Rifleman are designed to shoot down Aerospace fighters. Pheonix Hawk is a land Air Mech. Also Jenner has Jump jets and is fast. That mech alone would be outstanding in our modern warfare.

Pretty sure if there were 10 Jenners on Earth this very moment, they would rule it.
We don't have mechs today because no one wants to put money in Research and development for a new tool that has no historical results of working well.
Also deployment costs would be astronomical for something so big and awkward. It would change military Transportation almost completely.

oh and guerrilla warfare counters anything with machinery. So there's that.

Edited by Timuroslav, 30 November 2014 - 07:11 PM.