facts are we could, with some more research, create a 3m tall quad mech that could run at ~100 kph in the next 30 years or so , but are still missing a reason why we should do that , other than to amuse a very rich person, wich is my point all along.
WE COULD DO IT IN OUR LIFE TIME, just we have no reason to as we have better options.
Hm, a better idea, instead of amusing a few rich people, having a very expensive robot fight live or on television would work for me...
LocationTVM-Iceless Fold Space Observatory Entertaining cats...
Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:43 PM
Marack Drock, on 09 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:
Yeah like I said again we have: A 4.5 foot tall robot and a 2 foot tall robot that is being suspended. Not a 15 foot unsuspended robot with a pilot, weapons, and more moving parts than any of those. So again proof a robot will work in combat environment. You have provided me with no proofs of concept for these design requirements. Do some more research I was on top of both these things when they came out. Also the Cheetah animal can top out at 60mph... not 18. Do your research.
Also that 4 legged Military thing was developed in the early 2000s and nothing more sophisticated has really come out. Also notice how wide it is, and how slow it is going up hill.... yeah if you wanna be in 15 foot tall one of those and get your head blown off because you weren't fast enough to avoid a missile from 2 miles. Also this thing goes only 5 mph...
So I was right. Legs have less speed than wheels and you have yet to prove me wrong.
In cheetahs defense, the cabling is not supportive. However it did have some issues with high speed failures looking like a cross between a drugged up cat and a machine hell bent on self destruction.
That being said, eventually fielded combat robotics will most likely end up being tiny devices in many shapes and modes of locomotion. Released in both solo as well as in swarms depending on the necessary required outcome. I do have hopes of eventual Tachicoma style personal tanks (albeit with much less imbedded tech) in domestic policing roles of noncombat zones.
You missed the latest video from Boston Dynamics, introducing the new quad legged 'device' Spot.
- quite, designed for inside or outside work, all electric.
- from its name I'd assume it will have advanced sensors.
(do we see the military calling 'spot, go look for some targets', like you would a dog?)
The development we see in this field, 'in the public realm', is mostly on designs built to assist or help us overcome problems we have in carrying loads, crossing/moving through dangerous locations, and assisting those with limited mobility. We are still quite a way from outright removing them from public use and strictly military applications of these devices.
Even NASA and the public Space industry are keenly watching this tech's development, operation in hazardous environments without human assistance is 'right up there ally'. If you didn't know, there's a fully articulated robot working with the mission crews on the Int. Space Station. (designed for inside and exterior work)
LocationTVM-Iceless Fold Space Observatory Entertaining cats...
Posted 09 March 2015 - 04:08 PM
Marack Drock, on 09 March 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:
Nice. Its a hauler right now. I'd like to see a combat ready one though. I don't see the greatness in legs though cause they would be so easily destroyed.
I dont think we are allowed to invoke true combat robotics under the current conventions of war.
Of course full size remote control 4x4s with poseable metal mannequins are always an option.
Just look at that level of sad.
I almost forgot to add as old and slow as the John Deere walking Timberjack is.. I love that green and yellow hunk of steel, diesel and plastic.
There are roles that bipedal mechs could fill and work along side existing tech like tanks. That argument never makes sense to me since there are different tools used for different missions. Tanks do have limits, as would mechs or any other piece of high tech equipment, if mechs would have a sufficient power source.
Something I've been curious about is that in BattleTech, the tallest mechs are around ~16 or so meters with the average for other tall mechs being around ~12 or so meters on average, so to get a feel for that sense of scale I took to googling statues!
And I found the Brownhills Miner, which stands 12 meters tall and weights 5.5 short tons.
Another neat one is the Willow Man also standing 12 meters tall and weighing at least 3 tonnes.
So in terms of realistic height scaling, BattleMechs can be plausible to see with the right sorts of tech available.
And I can see why the Atlas can be described as being so imposing with its increased height and likely width, closer to 16 meters tall, and for any curious, here is a list of other small statues.
In little mechs (Hight 5-7m)I could use areas such as "Black Hawk Down" thinking where neither tanks nor helicopter or wheeled vehicles are well suited for difficult terrain (buildings destroyed, roadblocks), where a high overview position are important (snipers on roofs), and good armor for heavy fire support and passenger transport
And that is much of the point, a much smaller mech , likely not a bipedal design could be a useful weapon in rough terrain , but even if we could build 10+ m high real BT battlemechs we wouldn't do that as it is so very impractical, because of the afore mentioned reasons.
I started a topic a while back asking for input on a mech design. It's not really a frontline armored vehicle because we might as well let tanks do their job for the time being. It's more of a scout vehicle. If you'd like to see it I can post a link.
Nik Reaper, on 09 March 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:
Sorry but the fact it is so big from the front , and the inherant instability of being upright , ei prone to falling negates almost every bonust to dificulty of shooting a moving stick instead of a brick + because mechs have more extruded parts they have more surface are needed to be covered and they have more moving parts wich are all a much larger viability then the advantage they provide.
PS. link the nanotube muscles article, seems like an interesting read.
Inherent instability isn't always a bad thing. Most fighter jets today couldn't fly without a computer making small corrections. A bipedal mech would be able to catch itself and make much quicker turns than even a 4-legged mech. As I said before, mechs are in no way going to be the end-all-be-all on the battlefield, but a heavily armored walking machine would definitely be helpful in some situations. Variety is a good thing.
problem is a 5-7 meter high robot is: 15-21 feet high.... or as much as a two story building. NO PERSON EVER WOULD BE ABLE TO MISS THAT. Also we are yet to develop something that can handle rough terrain effectively. So far infantry and tanks suit rough terrain best. Those Boston Dynamics robots can barely handle the terrain and are so slow a sniper would take them out in seconds. To put these in perspective: i can run a consistent 7.3 MPH, the Boston Dynamic Carrier, only 5 MPH. Now that Cheetah can run 18.... on a treadmill so far it does not look as though it can handle any varying terrain.
A 7 Meter high robot is easy prey for anything.
If they're so terrible then why are the Marines using them? You may be able to run a consistent 7.3 MPH, but try doing that for hours with over 100 pounds of equipment. These machines free up the soldiers so they aren't exhausted when they have to go into battle, and snipers are probably going to focus on the soldiers that are actually armed rather than the machine carrying their equipment, which would give away the sniper's location and simply inconvenience the soldiers since they've already had to carry all their equipment in the past.
Also, we're not saying we need mechs right this second, we're saying that at some point in the future with some development we could have a working armored vehicle that has legs instead of wheels or treads. If we don't experiment with things like the LS3, BigDog, Cheetah, and Atlas, then we'll never get anywhere. For the funding and tech we have now, these machines are pretty dang amazing. I agree with you that BattleTech-sized mechs are outrageous and that tanks are very effective at what they do, I just disagree that there is no place for an armored walking vehicle. Why shoot down the idea before it's even been given a chance? If it is battle tested then we'll see what needs to be improved or if it's even viable, but if we never try it out then we might be missing out on something.
I think we need to make a petition for someone to make a game/simulator with modern-day tanks, armored vehicles, infantry, and mechs to test this out and end this argument once and for all. Have them consult with experts to make sure the mechs are realistic and everything performs as it would in real life and pit them against each other in different scenarios and environments with different objectives. Then we'll see what happens, and if mechs are horrible weapons I will concede and cease to advocate mech warfare. If mechs do have a use then we'll finally know and this argument won't be based on speculation and personal opinion.
LocationTVM-Iceless Fold Space Observatory Entertaining cats...
Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:18 AM
I fear Megabots is going to disappoint.. But I hope they prove me wrong. Its just Ive such a bad taste left over from what every other fighting robot show did verses what they could have done.
Just came up in my mind, speaking of mechs. How tall is a Jaeger from Pacific Rim (they all seem to be about same height) in comparison to the largest mechs (Atlas, Daishi)? Now theres another doozy about getting walking tanks to seem realistic, regarding functions, height and weight
I fear Megabots is going to disappoint.. But I hope they prove me wrong. Its just Ive such a bad taste left over from what every other fighting robot show did verses what they could have done.
They seem to have the right idea, they just need to stay on track. They're saying the tournament should be in May of 2016, so we'll see.
Tordin, on 10 March 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:
Just came up in my mind, speaking of mechs. How tall is a Jaeger from Pacific Rim (they all seem to be about same height) in comparison to the largest mechs (Atlas, Daishi)? Now theres another doozy about getting walking tanks to seem realistic, regarding functions, height and weight
As XphR said, Jaegers are 75 to 85 meters, with Gypsy Danger being 79 meters tall. An Atlas is 17.6 meters tall, so about up to Gypsy Danger's knee. It would definitely get stomped.
wow, the first airplanes did what? flew a few meters
The first helicopters did what? hovers a few seconds.
If you think it will never be then you are mostlikely just one of many who thought this in the past too.
and why has no one posted a vid of Asimo so far?
the asians make the stuff a bit different,
but they have their robos as well.
The asians go more for natural behavior, that is atm more complex and slower, but maybe later if someone would make combat gear out of them may be more suitable. They will be more versitile then, insead of specialised to some specific tasks.
funny hwo they make toys out of it,
so if you have a lot of spare money, you can just buy your own robo
Marack Drock, on 10 March 2015 - 05:12 AM, said:
problem is a 5-7 meter high robot is: 15-21 feet high.... or as much as a two story building. NO PERSON EVER WOULD BE ABLE TO MISS THAT. Also we are yet to develop something that can handle rough terrain effectively. So far infantry and tanks suit rough terrain best. Those Boston Dynamics robots can barely handle the terrain and are so slow a sniper would take them out in seconds. To put these in perspective: i can run a consistent 7.3 MPH, the Boston Dynamic Carrier, only 5 MPH. Now that Cheetah can run 18.... on a treadmill so far it does not look as though it can handle any varying terrain.
A 7 Meter high robot is easy prey for anything.
one cheap bazooka and multimilion dollar tool is gone xD
Edited by Lily from animove, 10 March 2015 - 09:27 AM.
Dude we are not talking about another way to haul around cargo, we are talking about Mechs. These are not mechs. A mech is only a mech when it is above 10 feet tall.
Next up, why the heck do I care if these things go around carrying someone's baggage? Also Soldiers run a lot faster than I do for more hours than I do and are trained to do so. That is part of the job. All that base equipment won't come off their backs till the day of fighting is over practically. Should ask my uncle who served 2 Tours in Iraq, 1 in Germany, and 1 in Afghanistan. He ended up with neck and spine problems from the weight and he was in the marines and was fighting with and without those 4 legged monstrosities hauling cargo.
You first off have no idea what the definition of Mech is. A Mech is short for BattleMech in the current context. Also referred to as BattleDroids originally and in Robotech they are Battloids and such. They are always Piloted by someone for one, always have weapons for 2, and are at the minimum 12 feet tall.
These 4 legged walking camels are just robots. They are not innovative in any way. These
are more innovative as they have set the ground for Bipedal mechanoid units. These sony robots with balancing and tons more equipment and the Asimo that Lily posted runs faster than that 4 legged camel.
As you just said these things probably are never shot at thus they have never been tested to withstand combat. They can walk up and down a little terrain and can barely do so.
We were talking about those robots though, and you used their current weaknesses to dismiss the possibility of ever having a walking armored vehicle. I was simply showing that they've already started using walking vehicles in the military. All they need now is to put a pilot and armor on it. Boom. Mech. It doesn't need to be over 10 feet tall, the definition of "mech" is very open. Also, I already agreed with you that soldiers run faster for longer with more weight. What I was saying was that we will be able to decrease the number of soldiers coming back with neck and spine injuries because these machines are doing their job. Because they're being tested and doing their job, soldiers and will look for and find more uses for them on the battlefield. It's a progression. They're actually very good at walking up and down "a little terrain" (including snow, ice, mud, steep hills, rocky...). Have you watched any of the videos about these robots or are you just going off your opinion? Please actually listen to what I'm saying instead of dismissing it because you don't agree. If you can listen to the other side's arguments I'll continue to debate with you. If not, I'll ignore your naysaying and continue to follow my dreams.
LocationTVM-Iceless Fold Space Observatory Entertaining cats...
Posted 10 March 2015 - 09:54 AM
Poor adorable Asimo, I love it (so much that it is my name on NaturalSelection) but its got a long way to go before running or lifting cars. Once they do pin down some of its greater issues, I would love to see them as rented tour guides in museums.
As XphR said, Jaegers are 75 to 85 meters, with Gypsy Danger being 79 meters tall. An Atlas is 17.6 meters tall, so about up to Gypsy Danger's knee. It would definitely get stomped.
Yikes... And they say Battletechs Mechs are unrealistic? Bogus, totally bogus I tell ya!
dude..... I don't count camel carrying baggage work as a mech. I am pointing out these robots are barely good for... anything. Carrying baggage is not new. We have had hundreds of different robots for carrying baggage. I looking at this from a logical perspective for: Combat Use. These things have all these flaws and they haven't been fixed. If they haven't been fixed after half a decade or more, then they stand in the way of real mechs and so I have a perfect reason to say these things.
We won't be able to help spine and neck issues also in any form of combat as these soldiers will still be carrying all that baggage. Logic man. They will be carrying that baggage in any combat situation.
Also I did watch those videos on that four legged camel. It took almost 2 minutes for it to trudge through that mud and we never once saw it on snow or ice.
I am pointing out what you refuse to. One RPG and a mech down. Whereas a tank can take half an arsenal before it is destroyed in these days. And in order to put the pilot in it they need:
Bigger Cockpit, Armor, Bigger engine, weapons, cockpit control (thus leading to a lot of reengineering in the mech itself), and about.... 10 million dollars more work at least.... for a single prototype. Then we are still left with the fact that a mech is such a stupid idea because of: Pilot (kill the pilot mech down), damage to any joint immobilizes it (i.e. the open places, Knee, foot, hip), the mech would have to be as big as a tank to protect any ammo it has or risk ammo explosion, if they use a nuclear reactor to run the mech any damage to it could trigger an nuclear explosion killing anything within the vicinity, Glass cockpit means easy to hit pilot from, if they use computer sighting they have to have exterior sensors and if those go out the mech is blind, Torso twist would be easy to damage, and it would be as slow as everything here... just a few MPH.
So in short you have provided me with proof of: Walking mechanical Camel that is slower than my granny and its only purpose is to carry baggage, a Robot that goes 18MPH but only on a flat surface and it has no extra weight other than what it needs, and then the only bipedal robot which is easy to break or destroy and which I can still outrun on foot and yet its also the most innovative robot here. Seriously provide me with something innovative. We had 4 legged walking robots in the 1980s. Its not new technology. All we did was figure out how to shrink the size of the machines. There is nothing very innovative other than Amiso here which truly is but seriously other than a caddy for carrying your gold clubs... what good do these do?
There is no Ideal purpose for these yet. They can't fight (like a mech), can barely move faster than an 80 year old person unless the robot is the size of a cat on a treadmill, and they don't handle terrain with any amount of haste.
And finally did you see that Tank video I posted? Cause that tank went up a hill at more than a 60 or 70 degree inclination (more than anything that camel did) and did it ten times faster. When you consider a tank will: take more damage, doesn't have the weaknesses of legs, goes faster than any robot we have developed (fastest tank is in the 60 mph range or as fast as a cheetah unlike the Cheetah robot) and also doesn't have a NUCLEAR BOMB WAITING TO HAPPEN as its power source (cause for a mech we need a renewable power source as it will require TONS of power as it has MANY more moving and complex parts) then why the heck do we need a mech? Tanks handle Terrain fine (better than anything with legs), is harder to destroy (no legs with easy to damage joints), and is faster than any robot we have.... then why do we want to make mechs? Any mech that will be effective has to be the size of a tank to protect the pilot (cause you know Tanks can take a couple RPGs where as these robots could be brought down with a 9mm pistol to one of those joints), has to move as fast to avoid damage (which none can yet), and has to carry the weaponry to deliver the damage.... why do we even need them? No advantages to mechs in the modern world. BattleTech realistically portrayed them as tanks being literally the size of a tank and bigger. It unrealistically portrayed their weaknesses though. One single damaged joint of a leg... the mech goes over. A few bullets through the cockpit, kills the pilot, and any breach of that reactor would level a city.
Tell me the advantages of these things would ever be over a tank?
(Also has to be bigger than ten feet tall otherwise you talking like you want Star Craft Marine Battle Armor which also with today's technology is not going to happen but that is a whole new topic)
You act as though I don't listen when... you haven't once until now acknowledged any of my points and still argue these camels are effective for carrying baggage but you have not provided me with any proof. Logic dictates that Mechs and robots with these weaknesses will never have a place on the modern battlefield except as camels.
well the camel is just the beginnign as well
they now made a dog of the camel
And it will in the end only be a small step between carryign laod or a cokcpit and a guy with guns.
What the issue is for me now is the engine, still very loud. And I guess the dog thingy will in the end more or less turn into a sentry wielding combat vehicle.
Asimo and NAO are yet toys, but they get use, in first place to server old people. there si the romeo project going on from the https://www.aldebara...ompany/projects
I guess the step is small between a natural behaving robot to a soldier, because this simply is programming him some combat behaviors.
And honestly I doubt we will ever see MW like mechs in reallife. I guess robots will more or less instantly start as standalone deciding units or remote controlled drones.
but in the end all thsi stuff is basic reseach, trying to test concepts which is the most suitable basic one to see and take ot truly over to the next level.
Edited by Lily from animove, 10 March 2015 - 11:37 AM.
dude..... I don't count camel carrying baggage work as a mech. I am pointing out these robots are barely good for... anything. Carrying baggage is not new. We have had hundreds of different robots for carrying baggage. I looking at this from a logical perspective for: Combat Use. These things have all these flaws and they haven't been fixed. If they haven't been fixed after half a decade or more, then they stand in the way of real mechs and so I have a perfect reason to say these things.
We won't be able to help spine and neck issues also in any form of combat as these soldiers will still be carrying all that baggage. Logic man. They will be carrying that baggage in any combat situation.
Also I did watch those videos on that four legged camel. It took almost 2 minutes for it to trudge through that mud and we never once saw it on snow or ice.
I am pointing out what you refuse to. One RPG and a mech down. Whereas a tank can take half an arsenal before it is destroyed in these days. And in order to put the pilot in it they need:
Bigger Cockpit, Armor, Bigger engine, weapons, cockpit control (thus leading to a lot of reengineering in the mech itself), and about.... 10 million dollars more work at least.... for a single prototype. Then we are still left with the fact that a mech is such a stupid idea because of: Pilot (kill the pilot mech down), damage to any joint immobilizes it (i.e. the open places, Knee, foot, hip), the mech would have to be as big as a tank to protect any ammo it has or risk ammo explosion, if they use a nuclear reactor to run the mech any damage to it could trigger an nuclear explosion killing anything within the vicinity, Glass cockpit means easy to hit pilot from, if they use computer sighting they have to have exterior sensors and if those go out the mech is blind, Torso twist would be easy to damage, and it would be as slow as everything here... just a few MPH.
So in short you have provided me with proof of: Walking mechanical Camel that is slower than my granny and its only purpose is to carry baggage, a Robot that goes 18MPH but only on a flat surface and it has no extra weight other than what it needs, and then the only bipedal robot which is easy to break or destroy and which I can still outrun on foot and yet its also the most innovative robot here. Seriously provide me with something innovative. We had 4 legged walking robots in the 1980s. Its not new technology. All we did was figure out how to shrink the size of the machines. There is nothing very innovative other than Amiso here which truly is but seriously other than a caddy for carrying your gold clubs... what good do these do?
There is no Ideal purpose for these yet. They can't fight (like a mech), can barely move faster than an 80 year old person unless the robot is the size of a cat on a treadmill, and they don't handle terrain with any amount of haste.
And finally did you see that Tank video I posted? Cause that tank went up a hill at more than a 60 or 70 degree inclination (more than anything that camel did) and did it ten times faster. When you consider a tank will: take more damage, doesn't have the weaknesses of legs, goes faster than any robot we have developed (fastest tank is in the 60 mph range or as fast as a cheetah unlike the Cheetah robot) and also doesn't have a NUCLEAR BOMB WAITING TO HAPPEN as its power source (cause for a mech we need a renewable power source as it will require TONS of power as it has MANY more moving and complex parts) then why the heck do we need a mech? Tanks handle Terrain fine (better than anything with legs), is harder to destroy (no legs with easy to damage joints), and is faster than any robot we have.... then why do we want to make mechs? Any mech that will be effective has to be the size of a tank to protect the pilot (cause you know Tanks can take a couple RPGs where as these robots could be brought down with a 9mm pistol to one of those joints), has to move as fast to avoid damage (which none can yet), and has to carry the weaponry to deliver the damage.... why do we even need them? No advantages to mechs in the modern world. BattleTech realistically portrayed them as tanks being literally the size of a tank and bigger. It unrealistically portrayed their weaknesses though. One single damaged joint of a leg... the mech goes over. A few bullets through the cockpit, kills the pilot, and any breach of that reactor would level a city.
Tell me the advantages of these things would ever be over a tank?
(Also has to be bigger than ten feet tall otherwise you talking like you want Star Craft Marine Battle Armor which also with today's technology is not going to happen but that is a whole new topic)
You act as though I don't listen when... you haven't once until now acknowledged any of my points and still argue these camels are effective for carrying baggage but you have not provided me with any proof. Logic dictates that Mechs and robots with these weaknesses will never have a place on the modern battlefield except as camels.
So do you count this as a tank?
It's original use was to - get this - haul artillery and supplies! There really haven't been that many baggage carrying robots, so I don't know where you're getting this "hundreds" figure, and they've only been around a few years, so obviously we're not just going to jump into multi-ton vehicles and equip them with heavy weaponry. You have to establish the basics. These researchers are learning to walk before they start running, literally.
If soldiers aren't carrying 100 pounds of gear then it will help spine and neck issues. I don't really see why you don't agree with that. The "camel", as you call it, is a more advanced version of BigDog, which was tested on ice, and there are videos of the LS3 on all the other types of terrain I mentioned.
Spoiler
At least the robot got through the mud.
A tank can take a whole arsenal huh? If you read those articles on CNT muscles you'd understand that the legs of the mech could probably be the strongest part. Small arms fire would basically do nothing even without armor. One example of its strength is its ability to hold the weight of an elephant on a strand as thick as a pencil. More on that later.
Why would a mech need a bigger cockpit? If you look at the size of a tank's lower half it has plenty of surface area covered in armor, so covering a mech's legs that has a tank turret on top shouldn't be a problem, plus the weight of its movement system would allow for even more armor. Why would it need a bigger engine? CNT muscles run off of extremely small amounts of power. A battery could do just fine, and even then the majority of power would be for the computer. Weapons are the same size whether they're on a tank or a mech. They don't magically get bigger. A tank nowadays cost quite a bit too, and the US military budget isn't exactly small.
Your reasons for a mech being stupid are also wrong. If you kill the pilot of a tank it will also cease to work. That's the reason there's a pilot. Unless you want unmanned vehicles, which still require a computer to receive inputs. Again, a tank is immobilized by a single tread being missing. Engineers are pretty ingenuitive so I think they'll be able to do something as simple as cover a joint, which is also covered with artificial muscles and are very durable. If the mech is as big as a tank there isn't really a disadvantage because we're already using tanks. As I said before, a mech would need nothing near a nuclear reactor, and batteries are much quieter than the engines tanks use currently, so plus one for mechs. Glass cockpits are a stupid idea, I agree. They can use the same sighting equipment as tanks do if need be, but sensors just need to be set into the mech's body and exposed as little as possible. They'd be small targets, especially when you're running away or trying to shoot quickly from behind cover. Torso twist could be the same as a tank so that's not a disadvantage. Once they've had a chance to be tested out then we'll see how slow they are. Do you know how fast an ostrich is? Faster than a racehorse. Study their leg design and replace their muscles with artificial ones. Bipedalism actually has many advantages, and Quad mechs could also be used. For the third time, they're not the end-all-be-all, they would simply allow the military to have more variety and approach situations from different angles.
Tanks originated in the early 1900s in WWI. The same for aircraft. They've had 100 years to advance. You act as though tanks were automatically the amazing fighting machines they are today without going through many many issues along the way, and the technology for it had been there previously. They already had treads, wheels, cannons, and engines to work off of. How long have computers been around? Technology is advancing very quickly. Robots have been around only a few decades, so how do you know how far they'll advance by the time they've been around 100 years?
Your tank video did not show a tank going up anything near a 60 degree angle (Look at your forward and backslash keys, they're about 60-70 degrees). The BigDog video shows a new machine going up the same slope as a machine that's had 100 years of testing.
The advantages of having a mech are: a higher vantage point for scouting and firing. If mechs don't do well in urban warfare because of their height so be it. They can also crouch, which tanks can't do to get hull-down. They would make use of the awesome efficiency, speed, and power of CNT muscles which tanks and other wheeled vehicles can't use. They can implement the pilot's own brain to control the mech's locomotion at some point. They can lean to absorb recoil from heavy weapons and shock from hits from other weapons. They can step over some obstacles rather than driving over them. Their light locomotion and power systems would allow them to have similar psi on the ground to a tank, and still be able to step out of mud and other sticky situations instead of having to be towed out. Like the Timberjack used in Finland, there are some situations where legs are more effective. Battles can take place anywhere, and you need to have machines that can fight anywhere. This doesn't mean one is suitable for every situation. It means that if there is a situation they'll have a machine to use. A mech will provide more variety for the military. Plus there's the psychological factor of a mechanical beast stomping toward you
2
