199 replies to this topic

[Ascaloth]

The UrbanMech.

A solid walking tower, capable of "jumping" to relocate to vantage points or escaping ambushes, carrying (commonly) a big cannon and laser gun.

[Logan Hawke]

All these 'the future is going to be blowing stuff up from miles high in orbit without actual fighting' comments make me a sad panda. You do realize that blowing up massive amounts of civilian infrastructure is not ideal in any way, shape, or form, correct? You don't want to erase that city if you have a chance of taking it to use for yourself. It costs waaaaaay too much to rebuild something like that, nevermind the international outcry and human rights problems causing a PR nightmare and getting your population to drop support of the war like a hot potato.

Know why we lost the Vietnam war? Wasn't because our military got beat. We lost our popular support and it became unviable.

Honestly, chances are that things will eventually turn into an eternal cold war where no one wants to declare war because it's so economically damaging, and instead they just nip and bite at each other with low intensity, small scale conflict.

[CDLord HHGD]

I see the potential for load lifters like in Aliens, but for combat, not unless a lot of advances are made by only one nation in a very short amount of time. Once the technology gets out, it'll either be negated by proliferation or relegated to scrap by cheaper options (tanks).

Having said that, having some form of functional and practical power armor or pilot robot would put some WTF moments into their opponents, until they start shooting for the legs... Like I said, many advances need to be made for it to be viable. but then again, in the lore, mechs weren't invented until far in the future anyways.

[Logan Hawke]

cdlord, on 03 December 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

I see the potential for load lifters like in Aliens, but for combat, not unless a lot of advances are made by only one nation in a very short amount of time. Once the technology gets out, it'll either be negated by proliferation or relegated to scrap by cheaper options (tanks).

Having said that, having some form of functional and practical power armor or pilot robot would put some WTF moments into their opponents, until they start shooting for the legs... Like I said, many advances need to be made for it to be viable. but then again, in the lore, mechs weren't invented until far in the future anyways.

Mechs will never ever outdo tanks on open terrain, but in urban combat they should be able to outdo tanks easily (as long as they are cost efficient, like I mentioned earlier in the thread), so I foresee reason for them to exist if the tech is there. Small mechs will be able to take advantage of urban terrain in ways traditional IFVs and tanks can only dream of. And by small mechs I pretty much mean oversized power armor.
Again, cost permitting they'd be extremely useful as a replacement for IFVs and tanks in urban combat.

Edited by Logan Hawke, 03 December 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Logan Hawke, on 03 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Mechs will never ever outdo tanks on open terrain, but in urban combat they should be able to outdo tanks easily (as long as they are cost efficient, like I mentioned earlier in the thread), so I foresee reason for them to exist if the tech is there. Small mechs will be able to take advantage of urban terrain in ways traditional IFVs and tanks can only dream of. And by small mechs I pretty much mean oversized power armor.
Again, cost permitting they'd be extremely useful as a replacement for IFVs and tanks in urban combat.

Exactly... I just didn't go as granular as to separate urban warfare from say a dense forest or jungle. Desert combat, gimme a tank (or not, no AC ) but going door to door in a crowded city, the "mech" can equip sensor packages that is normally too heavy for a normal person to carry, even an augmented one.

[Water Bear]

Logan Hawke, on 03 December 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

All these 'the future is going to be blowing stuff up from miles high in orbit without actual fighting' comments make me a sad panda. You do realize that blowing up massive amounts of civilian infrastructure is not ideal in any way, shape, or form, correct? You don't want to erase that city if you have a chance of taking it to use for yourself. It costs waaaaaay too much to rebuild something like that, nevermind the international outcry and human rights problems causing a PR nightmare and getting your population to drop support of the war like a hot potato.

Know why we lost the Vietnam war? Wasn't because our military got beat. We lost our popular support and it became unviable.

Honestly, chances are that things will eventually turn into an eternal cold war where no one wants to declare war because it's so economically damaging, and instead they just nip and bite at each other with low intensity, small scale conflict.

Who says that satellite weapons can only blow up a whole city block at a time? Why not mount something the size of a small rocket with no warhead and a tungsten core, give it some guidance, and fire a "giant space bullet" straight down onto your targets head? If it's going too fast you can always use atmospheric drag to slow it down.

Or, if we imagine military lasers are powerful enough, just put a laser on a satellite. Or an anti-tank weapon on a UAV or drone.

Why not fire a guided missile from a boat 100 miles off shore? If mechs were as imporatant to combat as the fiction suggests, there would be an almost limitless number of ways to destroy them. I can bet there are limitless ways to safely destroy a tank in modern times, they just aren't used in conflict between first world countries.

Armoring them safely would also be a problem. Tank armor is designed to deflect incoming shells, not take the shot full-force. AFAIK, positioning a tank so that shells bounce off the hull instead of hitting perpindicular is the whole idea. How exactly do you armor a mech so that it reflects shells like that?

Anyway if mechs offered a real advantage the US military would have funded them by now...

Edited by Water Bear, 03 December 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Fut]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

They arent unfortunately. The niche they have is small. [snip...]

Your lack of imagination and understanding of the future of technology is disappointing.
Look at the amazing advances humans have made in the past 100 years, consider how the rate of advancement continues to increase - now imagine what the world will be like in the next 50 or 100 years.

Think about it, ~100 years ago it was thought that humans could never fly, but now-a-days you can purchase a flight into space (if you have enough money).

Also, take a look at Michio Kaku and his book 'Physics of the Impossible'.

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

There wont be flying cars for instance either.

http://www.aeromobil.com/video

[Water Bear]

Fut, on 03 December 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Your lack of imagination and understanding of the future of technology is disappointing.

I think Einstein said it was better to be creative than smart (or so I heard...).

Having said that, part of being open minded is accepting when something we want isn't a good idea.

The modern world is already a harsh place for a tank to exist, in terms of combat between first world countries. Do you really want to be a tank commander when your enemy has drones you can't easily see carrying phosphorous bombs? I don't want to get cooked alive.

Edit: I just realized that what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we can't already build a mech (or get damn close in the near future), just that I don't think we have a reason to. See the military robots that already exist, such as the 4-legged one that can be found on youtube. Computer vision and robotic mobility are problems that scientists are solving / have solved now, so we are closing in rapdly on a world where robots walk around and could conceivably carry guns. Mechs aren't much different than those, just with a pilot and much larger.

Edited by Water Bear, 03 December 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Water Bear, on 03 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

I think Einstein said it was better to be creative than smart (or so I heard...).

Damn.... THAT's where I went wrong. I can engineer lots of stuff, but I couldn't art my way out of a wet paper bag....

I got kicked out of art class because I told the teacher that art was an inspiration, not an assignment... I was way more successful in mechanical drafting class after that.

Edited by cdlord, 03 December 2014 - 12:50 PM.

[Fut]

Water Bear, on 03 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Edit: I just realized that what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we can't already build a mech (or get damn close in the near future), just that I don't think we have a reason to. See the military robots that already exist, such as the 4-legged one that can be found on youtube. Computer vision and robotic mobility are problems that scientists are solving / have solved now, so we are closing in rapdly on a world where robots walk around and could conceivably carry guns. Mechs aren't much different than those, just with a pilot and much larger.

So damn close to it...

South Korea's Automated Gun Turrets
Robotic Security Guards now Patrolling Microsoft's Silicon Valley Campus

[CDLord HHGD]

Fut, on 03 December 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

So damn close to it...

South Korea's Automated Gun Turrets
Robotic Security Guards now Patrolling Microsoft's Silicon Valley Campus

Don't forget R2D2!!

http://knightscope.com/about.html

Edit: Derp, it is R2D2!

Edited by cdlord, 03 December 2014 - 01:36 PM.

[Water Bear]

cdlord, on 03 December 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Damn.... THAT's where I went wrong. I can engineer lots of stuff, but I couldn't art my way out of a wet paper bag....

I got kicked out of art class because I told the teacher that art was an inspiration, not an assignment... I was way more successful in mechanical drafting class after that.

For an engineer? Yea I absolutely think creativity is important. I get the impression that creativity is how designs get improved.

As a math person I feel like what I do is more like looking closely at what's already there and less like inventing something new, but I think some really good maths people do exactly that.

[DrxAbstract]

The reason Battlemechs became popular in the BT Universe is their combination of mobility and firepower. But first we have to pick what we're going to compare them to: Are you saying BT Tanks would be far better then BT Mechs to have in RL, or BT Mechs are inferior to RL Tanks and Gunships? Putting BT armor on a RL Tank?

Comparing Battlemechs to RL Tanks/Gunships:

-Missiles become a non-issue because of AMS.

-Long-range fire from Tanks/Artillery is out because while RL Tanks feature some pretty amazing fire control systems, being capable of landing a shell several miles away within a 1 square meter box, this only applies to stationary and path-predictable (Constant speed, elevation and heading) targets, not a Battlemech capable of moving at 50+ MPH that can maneuver much quicker than a tracked/wheeled vehicle. A Battlemech could avoid a great deal of cannon fire while closing the distance or reaching a position to eliminate said Tank(s).

-Helicopter gunships are only viable in modern combat because they engage vehicles and positions either from a distance, are too slow or not designed to combat them... basically any situation where they clearly have an advantage. Battlemechs possess the weaponry, equipment and mobility to an extent that Helicopters will not have the engagement advantages they typically exploit in these scenarios. Due largely in part to Helicopters relying on Missile technology from safe distances for anything that is considered a viable threat while rockets and 20-30mm cannons are used only in, relatively speaking, lower risk engagements or hit and runs; A Battlemech would toast them if they tried to get close enough for that.

-The biggest threat to any Battlemech is Infantry: Guerrilla tactics, traps, ambushes... But they are much less vulnerable to these tactics than Tanks and Gunships are.

-Battlemechs run on water and much of their weaponry does not require ammunition. Tanks and Gunships require special grade fuel to function and are entirely ammo dependent, both of which are difficult to protect and safely store while being a continued hazard to anyone near their storage areas against a determined, clever or outright crazy enemy. As well as requiring much more extensive supply lines.

-Battlemechs can resist damage and are much harder to disable than a Tank or Gunship. It would take several extremely well placed shots of large-caliber weapons fire to a joint to destroy it or disable a Mech, whereas a single hit to a track on a Tank is enough to immobilize it and damage to the barrel or turret housing mechanisms puts a Tank out of commission. Gunships are basically one-shot kills for 70% of their airframe to Battlemech weaponry.


The downside to Battlemechs in RL combat is they are considerably more complex which, regardless of your repair methods, is a proven fact the more complex your toys are the longer it takes to fix them and the more maintenance downtime they require. On top of that, losing one constitutes a heavier loss to your forces than a handful of Tanks would. They're more expensive, harder to transport and do not perform in some terrain/conditions as well as Gunships and Tanks would. Which suggests the optimal use for a Battlemech is in tandem with Tanks and Gunships... Kind of like how the BT universe does.

[Pertti Munapirtti]

DrxAbstract, on 03 December 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Battlemechs possess the weaponry, equipment and mobility to an extent that Helicopters will not have the engagement advantages they typically exploit in these scenarios. Due largely in part to Helicopters relying on Missile technology from safe distances for anything that is considered a viable threat

No, this is absurd (like the rest of the post). The mech is huge and thus an easy target, the helicopter is several kilometres away. AMS cannot save you from each and every missile.

Edited by Pertti Munapirtti, 03 December 2014 - 04:32 PM.

[General Pete]

Aside from myomer cable, mechs also made use of armor that was a special mix of alloys and crushed diamonds. Yeah, they used diamond to make mech armor, I don't recall how. But keep in mind that mechs were made by people with an interstellar civilization- lots of materials, elements, etc available to them that we earth-locked folks don't have. I think the point was they had better metals than we do, better armor for the mechs than modern day tanks have, and that's why they were viable. If you look at the old table top rules, you need a critical hit (roll a 2 on 2d6) to hurt a mech's internals when it still has armor protecting that location on it. A tank? Almost half the location table involves disabling the thing, something like 9 or more on 2d6 (I forget exactly how the table went). Tanks were fragile boxes compared to how mechs could hold together in table top. Sure you could lay on unlimited armor, but shoot one, roll a 10 for location and you still impair or even end its ability to move, or something. SRMs and other multiple hit weapons were murder on them.
And mechs were sealed to operate in any environment- that's why they have heat problems- they keep it all inside the mech and liquid nitrogen it so they don't show up on infrared as much (otherwise they'd look like stars or something I guess). One advantage vehicles had- their 'open construction' had the heat from ballistics and missiles venting out so they didn't build up that heat- just energy weapons needed heat sinks.
The real question is how to conform these concepts to what's possible in real life, and we can't- we're missing a needed factor to do it- an interstellar civilization with a vastly expanded periodic table!

[CDLord HHGD]

Water Bear, on 03 December 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

For an engineer? Yea I absolutely think creativity is important. I get the impression that creativity is how designs get improved.

As a math person I feel like what I do is more like looking closely at what's already there and less like inventing something new, but I think some really good maths people do exactly that.

And maybe I dismiss myself too quickly. I can do mechanical drafting and architecture along with looking at code and stuff for work (I am an engineer in reality), but if you asked me to draw a dog? Nope.... Need a person? Hope a stick figure counts. Want some piece of machinery? Expect it to be done on graph paper.

[DrxAbstract]

Pertti Munapirtti, on 03 December 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

No, this is absurd (like the rest of the post). The mech is huge and thus an easy target, the helicopter is several kilometres away. AMS cannot save you from each and every missile.

Some pretty flawless logic you have there - "It's huge and far away so obviously AMS wont work well!"

Whole thing is absurd yet you pick one small portion and cant even refute that properly--You do realize Helicopters do not fire tens of hundreds of missiles at a time, right? Given AMS in the game can shoot down 5-7 missiles travelling together and equal distance from the Mech all at once, that's a lot of wasted munitions and Helicopters returning for rearm. Probably not going to score a hit with less than 3 Helos firing everything simultaneously from 3 different directions and that's assuming the Mech only has 1 AMS.

[Pertti Munapirtti]

DrxAbstract, on 04 December 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Inane blather and wishful thinking

Yes, yes, your pet mechs aren't completely useless at all (hah hah)
BT AMS is basically magic. Helicopters can do magic, too!

Edited by Pertti Munapirtti, 04 December 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Water Bear]

cdlord, on 04 December 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

And maybe I dismiss myself too quickly. I can do mechanical drafting and architecture along with looking at code and stuff for work (I am an engineer in reality), but if you asked me to draw a dog? Nope.... Need a person? Hope a stick figure counts. Want some piece of machinery? Expect it to be done on graph paper.

But you've got the creative skills where it counts.

General Pete, on 04 December 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

A tank? Almost half the location table involves disabling the thing, something like 9 or more on 2d6 (I forget exactly how the table went). Tanks were fragile boxes compared to how mechs could hold together in table top. Sure you could lay on unlimited armor, but shoot one, roll a 10 for location and you still impair or even end its ability to move, or something. SRMs and other multiple hit weapons were murder on them.

The tabletop rules did make it clear that this was because in the BT universe, mechs were supposed to be the focus of the game. AFAIK there's no actual justification in fiction for why tanks in the BT universe act like they're made of paper.

If you give it a moment's thought, there really is no reason you can't put the same magical armor of a mech on a tank and the same magical fusion engine, weapons, etc. The only real difference would have to be that mechs walk, tanks don't.

Edit: In MWO, what would be the biggest difference between a mech without jump jets and a tank, aside from height?

Edited by Water Bear, 04 December 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Love and Kisses from the Coordinator!