51 replies to this topic

[AWOL 01]

Stealth really isn't that much of an issue with ground units, its more for air units that can be detected by radar.

The thing is carbon nanotube muscles can't be used by tanks, or any other wheeled vehicle. It's a linear actuator rather than a rotational actuator. Wheels need constant rotational motion to move, and CNT muscles can't provide that. They simply contract like biological muscle, although much faster and with more power. CNT muscles are so incredible it would be foolish not to use them, and the only way to do this would be to have a walking machine. They are 1,000s of times faster and stronger than biological muscle, they use very little power (they can be made to trigger using body heat or sunlight), they are very light, weighing only as much as the wax that they're dipped in, and they're performing research on giving it the ability to "heal" itself. A tank's locomotion system (it's engine, radiator, transmission, etc.) weighs many tons, but this would be replaced in a mech by CNT muscles that altogether would weigh less than 1-2 tons. This extra weight could be used to cover the mech, which would have about the same surface area as a tank, and wouldn't need as much anyway because the CNT muscles would act as its own armor.

Here's a picture I drew up a while back to show the size/surface area comparison of a mech and a tank:


This one shows the tank's side profile better:


I play War Thunder so I know how well you can protect yourself by using proper technique, but mechs can also use these techniques. However, I believe mechs would benefit in an urban situation. (Pardon the crappy picture)


When a tank takes cover behind a building in tight spaces, it's going to be about perpendicular to the edge of the building so that it can dart in and out. Tanks can do this pretty quickly, but they still expose a large portion of their surface area before they can even fire. They mech on the other hand, exposes very little of its surface area since it is more vertical than horizontal.

I think that mechs will be more of a walker type than a humanoid type. Arms don't really make sense. It would be more beneficial to have a tank turret on legs. A mech may not be able to go hull down in as many positions as a tank could because it is slightly higher, but the mech can also crouch, meaning it can pop up and fire much faster than the tank can drive up the hill, fire, and go back.

[Anjian]

Being vertical means you can be spotted earlier and get shot at.

Even if you compare frontal aspect, what you should be comparing is the total surface area --- meaning the total 'skin' area of the mech vs. the tank. The tank will have a much lower surface area, which means lets say, if you have a 1000 points of armor, this armor is more concentrated on a smaller surface area than the mech, making it much thicker. The surface area of the mech also includes underneath the mech torso, plus the covering for the legs.

Having your profile on the lower extremities means more ways to hide them in the terrain as well, which is an advantage for the tank. You can find far more ground depressions, boulders and rubble that can hide the tank hull than you can find structures to hide your mech.

Mechs have to protect their legs, so assuming if you have 1000 value points of armor, a considerable portion has to go to protect the legs, which means lessening the distribution to the top. Plus you also have to protect the bottom of the mech.

On a tank, since the hull can be concealed, you can distribute less armor to the hull and more to the turret. This has been the practice since the end of World War 2 where the turret armor can be double over that of the legs.

Another advantage for the tank armor. They can be seriously sloped. Sloped armor greatly increases the effective thickness of the armor. A 100mm of physical armor on a 45 degree slope results in excess of over 200mm in effective armor.

Plus the tank armor can be designed with little shot traps, while there are many on the mech.

Considering the argument that the tank will expose part of the hull lets say when peeping in the corner, if it exposes it in an angled way (read side scraping and armor angling), the effective armor thickness becomes much greater because it is angled. Then factor sloping into it.

Edited by Anjian, 28 April 2015 - 07:03 PM.

[Anjian]

I try to imagine a mech walker like the ST-1 fight in a War Thunder map like White Castle. In order to take advantage of the cover the mech has to have legs that enable it to elevate down, like to crouch, then while low, to crawl and creep. The mech would act like a pregnant hen doing so. But it can protect its legs and maintain cover.

If its elevated, the mech should be able to point its body downward or upward, depending where the hostile fire is at. The body cannot be at completely parallel to the ground surface all the time. This way it can adjust the slope of its armor towards the source of the hostile fire, increasing armor effectivity.

The mech cannot be "stompy". Sound and vibrations give away its position, its tactical advantages and being stompy is in reality, a serious tactical disadvantage. It has to be the opposite of a stompy robot --- bird like, it needs to move fast and lithe across the landscape.

Mechs can have a potential problem in muddy terrain. That is how to distribute weight and ground pressure. Its the reason why tanks evolved having wider tracks, as wider tracks do a better job in distributing ground pressure and prevents the tank from sinking. A mech would need wider foot pads, which can potentially increase weight. Dirt can get into the joints of the feet. I am brainstorming a design that looks to have some kind of lightweight buoyancy pads at the feet, instead of lets say, all metal surfaces. This is taken by looking at the feet of animals like cats and dogs. The pads also work like Dr. Scholes for mechs, the shock absorbance would also reduce the overall strain on the mech frame from movement, reducing wear and tear. I would also consider a design where the feet would have extensible claws, so they can bite down into the soft surface for even better grip and pressure distribution.


***

Looks like War Thunder is getting a major patch in May 1, quite likely 1.49. Very good chances the T28 and T95 tank destroyers will be in it in playable form.

[Anjian]

I am brainstorming the problem of reducing surface area on the torso and increasing armor deflection. One has to consider that unlike the tank, the mech also receives fire from the lower. I can't see any other way, or lets just say I am in the conclusion that the best solution is to taper the front torso so it forms into something like a flattened cone. The front is the area where the enemy fire is most likely to come from. From the top, you can say the planform might look a bit like the Millenium Falcon or a even flattened egg. A similar approach is to start with a hexagonal, then stretch one side and bring the points together on the stretched side, creating a sort of diamond look from the top.

[AWOL 01]

Being vertical also means you have a higher vantage point to survey the battlefield. This can be useful in scouting situations, where the mech can peak over hills or structures quickly, or in defensive positions where the mech is stationary and hard to spot, but can easily see anything that moves at a larger distance than tanks can. It's also an advantage considering the Navy and Army are looking into laser weaponry, which needs a direct line-of-sight to hit the target.

Mechs will definitely need to have feet similar to birds. This way it can use its toes to spread out the weight, but if it is walking through mud or water it can fold its toes together to have less resistance when being pulled out.



Mechs will probably have troops nearby just like tanks usually do, so I doubt enemy infantry will get close enough to fire directly up at it. Really as long as the mech is facing the enemy the sloping can be similar to a tanks; maybe slightly at more of a downward angle. The sides and back can be almost vertical like a tank.

[Kalimaster]

I must admit, that the advantage and disadvantage to a Mech when compared to a tank is height. Yes tanks are lower, can angle armor, while Mechs have an advantage of being able to shoot over a wall or other obstruction. Once more in battle, the basic infantry soldier will play a vital role.

[Anjian]

When a mech looks down on a tank, and a tank looks up at a mech, which will have the first fire advantage? The tank will be harder to discern due to the ground background, as the tank is camouflaged, and thermal vision affected by the fires or even the heat of the ground. A mech silhouetted against the cold blue sky is going to be a different matter. First shot advantage is enough to determine winner or loser. Optically guided missiles are going to get faster locks against tall targets silhouetted against the sky as opposed to low borne targets with patterns matching the ground set as their background.

This is one reason the military doesn't make tall vehicles. In many areas, there are a lot of open fields, where a high silhouette has nowhere to hide. Any design must take consideration of all possible enviornments, including open ones, and assume worst case basis, that it may not find any cover.

Just being a tall tank, like the Sherman tank in World War 2, is more than enough to get it in trouble. It is also one reason why the Russians like to design tanks with a low silhouette.

For this reason, we need our mech height to be adjustable. It needs to be able to go low when required. Height is useful on the other hand, in situations like fording rivers.

If spotting is required, we can also do a telescopic pole or periscope and put the sensors on it, or better yet, use a drone.

Or simply let the scouting vehicle climb into a higher place. Scouting vehicles, like armored cars and light tanks, had no need to be tall, and they are not tall for a reason.

Benefit of height is for another thing --- clearance for radar. In particular AA radars. Like in particular, engaging aerial targets at the horizon at longer ranges.

Going back to mech design, I come upon two designs that may offer the minimum surface area and can offer sloping to deflect projectiles.

One is to use an ovoid shape for the mech torso or central body.

The other is to use an ogive (bullet) shape.

To further reduce surface area, we need to reduce the internal volume of the mech. There is a good possiblity we simply have to remove the "living space" of a mech by elininating the pilot and go completely automated. Without that volume to support a pilot, the mech body can be made even more compact, allow a greater density of armor for the same weight.

If you are worried about troops, mechs can use fragmentation devices attached at the skin which explode outward. IEDs can also be a problem, you need some form of scanner that detects IEDs and mines before the mech steps on them. We can deploy side turrets with machine guns that can also eliminate enemy infantry that might use shoulder born HEAT weapons. This is similar to the AMS in Mechwarrior but this time, its directed towards infantry.

Edited by Anjian, 30 April 2015 - 11:20 AM.

[Anjian]

To sum it up, or express it in MWO terms, something like a Raven, it can move fast, the claws and toes support adequete ground pressure. The body though should be more similar in shape to a Stalker or Timberwolf or Catapult, but more blended and rounded, pointed at the very tip. I prefer the stance to be similar to a Marauder or King Crab, that is keep the underbelly away from the front and looking more to the rear. The King Crab's body will also be acceptable if we blend it more in a rounded more ovoid shape and so is the Marauder's.

Edited by Anjian, 30 April 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[Kalimaster]

Tanks have proved themselves over and over again in combat. With Mechs all we have are simulations such as MWO. I would like to see a few tanks here on MWO so that even if simulated these advantages can be seen when comparing Mechs vs. Tanks. However if you look at the ballistic ranges here on MWO, they are much shorter than in real life, where missiles and also various gun calibers have some impressive ranges.

[AWOL 01]

What we need is what War Thunder did for April Fool's day:



They actually did pretty well, but their armament was a little OP. I'd like to see a game with modern tanks facing more modernized mechs. MWO wouldn't suit this well because the mechs are very unrealistic and honestly wouldn't stand a chance against a tank. They'd need to be small walker-type mechs with sloped armor and NO ARMS. The only thing arms could be used for would be to protect the mech from enemy fire, which we could do a lot more simply by removing the arms and using the extra weight to apply more armor.

[JarheadEd]

I see this thread title and I'm all excited. I'm thinking "Hey, a T-28 thread! I used to work on a T-28,..I'll get my T-28 picture" (Not the one I used to work on).....aaaaaaaaaaaaand it's not the right T-28.

[Kalimaster]

Nice plane. Sorry to disappoint you. I am more of a "tank" guy instead of the "plane" type. Thanks anyway for the nice pic.