199 replies to this topic

[StandingInFire]

There are many problems with mechs that will prevent them from ever being used in the mechwarrior style design. First you have to figure out the purpose of a large armored weapon system.

Weapons will always outstrip armour in terms of effectiveness, e.g. RPG a few hundred dollars, Tanks millions of dollars. This gets exaggerated the bigger you get and results in armour not being effective after a point (Tanks are pretty much the upper limit) thats why we don't have battleships anymore but cruisers and such with stuff like anti-missile misses and phalanx systems (like the anti-missile system we have now but can intercept much better + take out artillery shells). These will be upgraded to laser systems when we figure that stuff out (prototypes already work but are not terrible feasible in the field, mainly power requirements).

So using the progression of tech systems its pretty much counter weapons with weapons, so any large battle vehicle will have 1 or more anti-projectile system this pretty much would massively reduce the effectiveness of missiles/artillery (to such a point it isn't cost effective to try to over saturate the systems with mass fire, after the cold war Russia had ships built with the idea of over saturation but it didn't work out and they no longer make those ships).

To counter the anti-projectile systems you either use:
A ) Railguns: very large mostly solid high speed rounds(with the idea the shot can't be broken up before hitting doing mostly kinetic damage [which is pretty much explosive at high speeds]).
B ) Metal storm systems to pretty much sand blast of any sensors etc on the outside incapacitating but not destroying.
C ) Lasers (which couldn't be intercepted as the by the time you could sense the shot, you are already getting hit, speed of light and all that).
Both B and C require line of sight while A can be used as an artillery replacement.
Both A and C require a large power source, as such will be required to be vehicle mounted or turret style.
B will be relatively inexpensive 1 shot system (long time to reload) so may be the equivalent of an antitank gun on a "light vehicle" or infantry crewed.
So as the only weapon system that would both require vehicle mounting and line of sight (exposed to fire and require armour) would be laser systems.

As a result you would have a vehicle that has a massive powersource, probably multiple "light" anti-projectile laser turrets, and one or more large lasers (the reason to have more than 1 laser is cooling of the turret). As it would effectively provide a bubble of anti projectile protection for nearby troops it would be prudent to use them to escort normal troops/vehicles into areas of combat. To be able to mount multiple light turrets you would probably want a flatish top to give them optimal fields of fire and mount the large turrets below that. This would mean you want the most armour on the all the sides as that would be the vulnerability point where the least light laser turrets can be brought to bare. Also you would want them low to the ground again for optimal field of fire.

So you pretty much you end up with a funky laser tank with a bunch of "small" turrets that would function as a protection system for nearby troops. Now those nearby troops will likely eventually get power armour, in which case you could also use the tanks as a portable power source since it already has a big power plant to recharge the troops (more feasible than having every soldier have a power generator in the armor just need a decent battery).

[Sandpit]

Technology continues to advance.

Never say never in regards to technology. Imagine if you walked around town with a modern cell phone 20 years ago
30?
40?
100?

They thought that was "impossible" as well.

[Brody319]

Sandpit, on 30 November 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Technology continues to advance.

Never say never in regards to technology. Imagine if you walked around town with a modern cell phone 20 years ago
30?
40?
100?

They thought that was "impossible" as well.

a Mech isn't impossible. Its just it won't be used for a while. A walking automated machine sure, but why would you want to put a human inside it? Even if we do make mechs why put a human pilot IN the mech when you could just have them control it from a command center farther away?

[Popper100]

Brody319, on 30 November 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

a Mech isn't impossible. Its just it won't be used for a while. A walking automated machine sure, but why would you want to put a human inside it? Even if we do make mechs why put a human pilot IN the mech when you could just have them control it from a command center farther away?

I would counter with why would you want your tool that wins the fight for you to have such an obvious weakness? To control something remotely requires a stable, high bandwidth connection which is easily scrambled, blocked, or modified. Having the ability to control a force multiplier directly allows you to react as fast as possible, removes the weaknesses listed, and ultimately isn't that much of a price to pay should the unit be entirely scrapped.

[ShinobiHunter]

Popper100, on 29 November 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

I believe the naysayers are forgetting a few crucial features that have made Mechs the number one fighting machine in the Battletech universe.

1. Every combat mech is armored to take multiple 150 mm rounds. This is large since modern combat vehicles operate on a kill first or be killed doctrine, this is a huge difference. It allows for a variable combat strategy and a failsafe in case of bad planning.
2. Every combat mech is capable of lifting itself. (loremaster requested) This enables a combat mech to change its profile when and where needed and utilize terrain to its advantage.
3. Weapon loadout. A combat mech can wield weapons and mount weapons, meaning it is possible that a handheld weapon may gain popularity and manipulators would allow for variable combat capability.
4. Ease of repair. This is subjective to the design, but a humanoid mech which has lost an arm need only have the arm unit refabbed and the wiring/myomer reattached for it to be functional. Same goes for legs, although the obvious result of leg damage in a battle is death by piranhas.

I believe that each mech could find a place if technology advances to a state where we have partial ai, muscle simulacra, and fusion tech. I believe Stalkers would reign until sufficient refinement in myomers allows for hand to hand combat, in which case it's anyones guess.

My personal want for a RL mech is a Victor, an elegant beast with all the grace of an elephant and the teeth of a walrus.

A track vehicle, like a tank, would probably make much better use of this technology. But for as for the OP, a Locust would probably be very likely.Heavy machine guns in an agile, armored platform would be quite effective in quick strikes.

[ShinobiHunter]

HlynkaCG, on 30 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

[/size]

The largest biped to ever live (that we know of) was Shantungosaurus at 23 tonnes.

Like I said, the simple mathematics of ground pressure make bipedal motion impractical for anything heavier. Your mech's feet would be sinking into the ground with each step.





This is simply not true. A treaded or wheeled chassis will outperform a walker over any terrain other than steep (and by steep I mean near-vertical) inclines by virtue of having lower ground pressure and lower center of gravity.

The only terrain that a mech would provide any advantage would be severely broken ground or an area with barriers that a mech could step over, but a tank couldn't climb over.

[Brody319]

Popper100, on 30 November 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

I would counter with why would you want your tool that wins the fight for you to have such an obvious weakness? To control something remotely requires a stable, high bandwidth connection which is easily scrambled, blocked, or modified. Having the ability to control a force multiplier directly allows you to react as fast as possible, removes the weaknesses listed, and ultimately isn't that much of a price to pay should the unit be entirely scrapped.

Have an AI that can automatically locate, recognize and kill targets without any human input, then have a kill code for each one created so if it gets hacked or goes rouge you can send that out and have it melt its components so the enemy couldn't use it.

[YueFei]

Timuroslav, on 30 November 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Mechs travel [size=4]
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.

There's no reason why a Tank would need a crew if the technology exists to allow one pilot to drive a Mech.

There is a Science Fiction setting where the premier planetary combat vehicle is a gigantic tank commanded by a single human pilot and driven by an incredibly intelligent AI. "Bolo".

Quote

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.

Battletech Mechs using Battletech armor technology can't be one-shotted by Battletech weapons. Guess what, Battletech tanks also don't get one-shotted by Battletech weaponry.

If we develop materials that can withstand one-shotting by modern weapons, those materials can be made thicker and with better angles for deflection if used to construct a Tank. A mech using the same materials would need to be heavier and bulkier to achieve equivalent protection, because it presents a larger surface area to be hit.

Quote

Mechs can fight in any and All environments. Even in space and on space ships. They can travel on water.

Tanks can operate in space and on space ships, burrow through the ground, and operate under water.... in the "Bolo" science fiction setting.

Hell, modern-day Tanks can ford through a river if it's not too deep.

There's nothing inherent in a Mech's form that allows it to do those things and yet a Tank cannot.

Quote

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.

Would you be shocked if I told you that Tanks in the Boloverse can also jump jet?

Those things have batteries of weaponry bristling all over it, and a main turret that moves with snake-like speed to rapidly aim and fire, and react with the speed and accuracy of an aimbot. They are equipped with expendable drones and sensor probes which they use to recon without exposing themselves. They have a large stock of missiles which they can use for indirect-fire by using spotting from their own drones. A point-defense system that makes Battletech's AMS look pathetic. And a main gun with hellish firepower. If there's a hill in front of them that they need to go past to shoot the enemy, they'll BLAST A GAP in it and drive through it rather than driving over it and exposing their underbellies, so their front glacis plate with the strongest armor faces toward the enemy.

Most people haven't really thought through the kind of things Tanks would be capable of with future technology applied to them. Most people focus on how awesome mechs would be with future technology. While mechs would be amazing, any tanks made with the same future technology would be EVEN BETTER.

[Alek Ituin]

Brody319, on 30 November 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

Have an AI that can automatically locate, recognize and kill targets without any human input, then have a kill code for each one created so if it gets hacked or goes rouge you can send that out and have it melt its components so the enemy couldn't use it.

That's unnecessarily expensive, requires time and massive amounts of resources to develop, and still leaves it open to being hacked/scrambled/EMP'd/confused, while requiring a massive amount of cooling systems and hardware (which cost big money). Not to mention it wouldn't (couldn't) be creative or learn anything useful, unless you used a biological computer that mimics the human brain in both function and operation.

It's seriously cheaper to just have a person pilot it in a vast majority of circumstances. People are cheap, plentiful, easy to care for, and simple to train. Crew gets killed? Few thousand down the drain, no biggie. AI system gets destroyed? Millions down the drain, "oh f**k, we're screwed".

[FupDup]

Giant stompy robots are based on the Rule of Cool™, not "Fisicks." They probably wouldn't work out too well in the real world (at least in combat anyways) but at least they're fun in vidya games.

[Brody319]

Alek Ituin, on 30 November 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:

That's unnecessarily expensive, requires time and massive amounts of resources to develop, and still leaves it open to being hacked/scrambled/EMP'd/confused, while requiring a massive amount of cooling systems and hardware (which cost big money). Not to mention it wouldn't (couldn't) be creative or learn anything useful, unless you used a biological computer that mimics the human brain in both function and operation.

It's seriously cheaper to just have a person pilot it in a vast majority of circumstances. People are cheap, plentiful, easy to care for, and simple to train. Crew gets killed? Few thousand down the drain, no biggie. AI system gets destroyed? Millions down the drain, "oh f**k, we're screwed".

Its already being worked on so....

[Alek Ituin]

YueFei, on 30 November 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Most people haven't really thought through the kind of things Tanks would be capable of with future technology applied to them. Most people focus on how awesome mechs would be with future technology. While mechs would be amazing, any tanks made with the same future technology would be EVEN BETTER.

No, actually, they wouldn't be. Tanks are bulky, slow, inefficient, hard to transport, and difficult to operate with speed. They require nearly constant maintenance, break for no f**king reason, suck up valuable fuel, and require ~4 people to operate. I know for a fact that the Abrams is generally a giant PITA to deal with... A friend of mine is a tanker in the US Army, and operates the Abrams.

I listened to him talk about how: The turret drive broke randomly, the manual drive broke randomly, the frontal turret armor plates started randomly buckling when the turret traversed, the hydraulics system randomly broke, the tracks get shredded by basically everything, the engine will randomly f**king explode for no apparent reason (3 Mechanics and the manufacturer couldn't figure out why a gas turbine exploded), the engine starters randomly break (meaning another tank has to jump it), they leak FRH (Fire Resistant Hydraulic fluid, or "liquid cancer") at the drop of a hat, Their cooling systems don't work 99% of the time (the crew bakes in 120* heat wearing their heavy fire-proof gear most times), the ammo rack door impedes the loader more than it helps the crew, and the roadwheels get mangled quickly if you aren't careful.
That's a list of problems that happened in one exercise. One. And his old company? Only 2 tanks out of the 30 could start by themselves, and maybe 10 of them were combat ready. What makes it worse is that they were state-side, not in the field.

As for armor, tanks couldn't effectively use the ablative armor found on Mechs. They'd lose too much armor mass with each hit for it to be better than current compound armors. But a Mech could use it to great effect, and with advanced design, be just as tough as a tank for the same mass. It's all about angling and deflection, not actually stopping the round dead in its tracks. Plus, modern tanks use APFSDS, which is only truly useful for killing crew or setting off ammunition. An APFSDS penetrator causes so little physical damage as to be comical, so they'd be mostly useless for disabling a Mech in the best of circumstances. Just like an A-10, a Mech could focus the heaviest armor on the cockpit, reducing the overall mass of required armor over a tank, which needs to armor everything.

As for battleships, they aren't around anymore because before CIWS systems aircraft could have their way with them, simple as that. A modernized BB could destroy any enemy fleet by itself, but they'd be expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and require a lengthy retraining for its crew. It's simpler and cheaper to stick to DD's and CL's, and as the old adage goes: "If it aint broke, don't fix it". It's not that they're inherently superior at their jobs.


So no, tanks would not necessarily be a better option than a Mech in all cases. Servos and EAP's are much more reliable than hydraulics as it happens, fuel cells could replace the need for messy (and flammable) liquid fuels, and you wouldn't need a massive (and heavy) engine block to provide mechanical power.

[Tincan Nightmare]

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).

[Alek Ituin]

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).

You could completely vaporize a planet by firing a Class 1 utility-pole made of tungsten carbide at .99 C.

The kinetic energy on impact would be equal to ~332 Exajoules, or 0.3 Zottajoules. To put that in perspective, the entire world uses 0.5 Zottajoules of energy each year.


Space combat would be a boring, brutal affair in reality.

[kf envy]

Metus regem, on 29 November 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

None, as someone whom works in the weapons industry, a mech is just silly. A tank provides a much more stable platform for weapon systems.

Metus regem, on 29 November 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I can tell you, that several groups are in a race for the first suit of powered armour, but they are a ways off right now.

sorry have to take what you say with an ton of salt

now i do remember reading the DOD wants an walking IFV


but on topic i have to say were more likely to see stuff around the size of battle armor and protomechs

but remember not that long ago the navy's of the wold thought carriers were an wast an should never have been built because battleships were far better for naval warfare. now look at them carrier still in use and battleships our no longer used. so maybe some day MBT will fallow the ironclad battleships

[Pertti Munapirtti]

Alek Ituin, on 30 November 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

No, actually, they wouldn't be. Tanks are bulky, slow, inefficient, hard to transport, and difficult to operate with speed.
...
An APFSDS penetrator causes so little physical damage as to be comical, so they'd be mostly useless for disabling a Mech in the best of circumstances. Just like an A-10, a Mech could focus the heaviest armor on the cockpit, reducing the overall mass of required armor over a tank, which needs to armor everything.

I felt the need to respond at length, because these claims are completely absurd.

Modern tanks are remarkably fast and agile for what they can carry. They aren't significantly bulky for combat purposes -- most have a height less than 3 metres (BT mech and tank sizes are absurd, too), and other AFVs with modern FCS can hit targets that size and smaller with relative ease. To planes or ATGM teams it hardly matters how bulky the target is anyway; if it is plainly visible, it's likely to be destroyed. Not all modern ATGMs even need LOS.
The ground pressure of a tank is very small compared to a bipedal mech (unless the mech would have built-in skis or snowshoes?). They aren't very fuel efficient, but neither would mecha using current technologies be. Future tanks can, after all, utilize future technologies.

Tanks require 3-4 operators because it is more efficient. In most modern (~1970s onwards) tanks, the commander and gunner can spot targets independently, and the commander can automatically slew the turret onto the target he has spotted. Often the TC can also fire the gun(s) independently if the gunner has no LOS or is disabled (redundancy!).

As for APFSDS rounds being useless against mechs, a) the claim is false b) it isn't the only kind of round tanks carry anyway. Much like a tank, a mech can be disabled without killing the crew. Tanks can take APFSDS hits to road wheels, tracks, optics, etc.-- these will be damaged and may or may not effectively disable the tank. Similarly a tungsten rod passing through a myomer muscle or joint will damage it, the effect being largely the same (although a mech would probably have fewer redundant components). The mech cannot carry as much armour in general, so the bit about the cockpit being better armoured is rubbish. It can also still be disabled through hits to the extremities/cameras/periscopes/what have you, and with less armour overall that would only get easier.

I have also heard a ridiculous claim that APS (e.g. AMS) would somehow be more effective mounted on mecha. I have no idea what this is even based on, as a mech of BT proportions would certainly need to protect a larger arc to have a chance of e.g. protecting the legs.

Powered armour or exoskeletons would be useful to teams having to carry heavy loads. ATGM teams could carry more ammo, one man in a mortar team could carry the entire weapon, light radar equipment (still ~200 kg) could be moved with ease. They have little to do with the viability of BT-like mecha.

To answer the question of the OP, I'd go with the Bushwacker. It has a helicopter-y chassis, so it wouldn't look terribly out of place. It still wouldn't be viable, but I do like mechs.

Edited by Pertti Munapirtti, 01 December 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[NextGame]

A real life mech would be nothing more than a vanity project for whoever funded it.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Nick Makiaveli, on 29 November 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

In TT, tanks etc have the same armor and in some cases way more of it. Canon mechs have half the stock armor MWO mechs come with and some tanks would have far more than that. Thing is they only have 4 sides, so if you hit the front armor, no spreading at all. Whereas a mech you were lucky to hit the same location twice (random locations and all that).

So while tanks outnumbered mechs by orders of magnitude (Locusts numbered in the thousands, and were far and away the most common mech), they died horribly when facing mechs...

There's also the fact that tanks/vehicles have far more punishing critical hit and TAC (through armor critical) rules than mechs in TT. It's far easier to get a TAC on a tank than on a mech (where you have to roll 2 on 2d6 for hitlocation of memory serves). So, yeah, these rules are why Mechs are considered more powerful than tanks in TT. Of course, for the price of one mech you could field a crapload of tanks, and some of them come with serious guns. Schreck PPC carrier with 3 PPCs for example, or the Ontos heavy tank with 8 medium lasers and no heat problem to fire all of them all the time since tanks never build up heat... Or the Demolisher with its two AC/20 cannons. Or, hey, cheap LRM carriers with 3 LRM 20 launchers or SRM carriers 10 SRM6 launchers.

And then there's the Savannah Master hovercraft swarm. The first choice of trolling vehicle players in TT battletech since the introduction of the 3026 vehichle TRO way back when. A 5 ton vehicle with a single medium laser, a top speed of 216 kph and a Battle Value of 215, where a single Atlas had a BV of 1800+. So for 1 Atlas you could get about 9 Savannah Masters with fast enough movement to be almost impossible for the Atlas to hit reliably due to the movement hit modifier rules.

[HlynkaCG]

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?

Are you seriously suggesting that the world was actually flat until Eratosthenes observed shadows in a well and said that it wasn't? Or that the sun really was orbiting the earth until Galileo got frisky with a telescope and ruined the fun? Can I have a hit of whatever it is that you're smoking?

Timuroslav, on 30 November 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Pretty sure if there were 10 Jenners on Earth this very moment, they would rule it.

Only because having access to working light fusion reactors would make them functionally wealthier than most governments.

A modern military would still tear them apart in minutes if they tried to take over the world by force. Your medium laser has a range of 270 meters? that's cute, my Rheinmetall L44 has a range of 4,000. Also allow me to introduce my close personal friends Mr Tornado, Frogfoot and Thunderbolt II. GG Close

ETA

Sandpit, on 30 November 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Technology continues to advance.

Never say never in regards to technology. Imagine if you walked around town with a modern cell phone 20 years ago...

If we somehow reach the level of techno-magic where simple physical laws like conservation of energy and the surface area of a sphere become arbitrary no one will be fighting in giant robots except as entertainment.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 01 December 2014 - 08:50 AM.

[Fut]

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

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.

Melee for when the ammo runs out!