44 replies to this topic

[AWOL 01]

Anjian, on 01 May 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Spoiler

Basically what I mean is that right now, its a tank on legs, with the turret up. What if you put the tank upside down, widen the space between the legs, so that the turret, which is now facing downward, forms like a crotch, and the gun between the legs. The top joints of the legs would be over the torso. Of course the look of the mech does have a more "male" sexual look, but it can now cover targets much closer. 10 degrees of depression just won't be enough to cover closer targets at low height and you will encounter closer targets. Putting the hardest part of the mech --- the turret --- beneath also protects the most vulnerable part of the mech which is the underside belly. Turret transverse might be limited unless the turret protudes past the central point between the two legs, which also needs to be reverse jointed, so that can give you at least 120 degrees of turret coverage.

Once you put the turret underneath and between the two legs, missiles launchers can be installed on the upper part. The center of gravity is also lowered, reducing the top heaviness of the mech.

The original picture of the Locust from Crusher Joe shows how the reverse turret looks like.




The exception to this if we want to make a mech that features AA support. Then you are likely to have a design that looks more like an Urbanmech, R2D2 or the Google Android mascot or even Dalek design. You must have complete 360 degree turn and point vertically straight 90 degrees.

The thought of that design did cross my mind, but it would put the mech at a severe disadvantage because it would put too much height above the main gun, making humping and hull-down positions difficult, and the gunner would have to turn the entire mech to fire at a target past a certain angle, or we'd have to shorten the barrel, making it much less accurate. Instead, I was thinking of putting a turret on the bottom, similar to the belly-gunner on a B-17 Flying Fortress, only it would be automated/remotely operated.

Praetor Knight, on 01 May 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

Spoiler

The way I've been trying to think about this is, what problem(s) is a real mech going to solve that can't be solved by what's already available?

Some problems can range from a lack of manpower, to simply not having a good tool to handle a particular problem safely, such as urban fighting, or rapid medivac and/or search and rescue in rough terrain / weather.

So, I could see types of power armor and small bipedal mechs along side quad-legged walkers as possible options for urban vehicles and as an intermediary for when tracked or wheeled vehicles and air support are not possible or safe options to deploy.

I have a few ideas as to what I'd expect to see, but the main challenge is a good and reliable power supply!

I could definitely see something similar to Pararescue using mechs. They need a vehicle that can go behind enemy lines even in adverse weather conditions and can provide covering fire and a few Pararescuemen to whoever is in need of assistance, and evacuate them if need be.

Power armor and small bipedal mechs will definitely be used, and quads could be used for support (i.e. artillery, IFVs) but probably not front-line fighting because they wouldn't be as fast since they wouldn't have the flexible spine that that allows for high speeds that we see in the animal kingdom. We'd also see them working alongside traditional wheeled and tracked vehicles; they wouldn't be the end-all-be-all of warfare simply because of the "cool factor."

For a power supply the main draw is going to be from the computers/operating systems. The artificial muscles will use very very little. With the advances we've made in batteries we could probably just throw one of those on there and have a relatively cheap, quiet, stealthy frame.

Lily from animove, on 02 May 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

Spoiler

Well, asimo is not designd for battle, it is designed as humaoid robot. So it does of course not care how his legs are shaped.

ASIMO isn't designed for battle, but it is one of the most advanced bipedal robots in the world, and most bipedal robots use a leg design similar to ASIMO's to allow for 14 degrees-of-freedom like humans have:

Nik Reaper, on 03 May 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

Spoiler

Yap, humanoid robots of BT mech size could only see use in construction and disaster relief as helpfull giants with articulated hands and other extra, useful, large size equipment.

For war we are going in to smaller and smaller automated platforms, think automatic golf cart with missile launcher and so on.

Our firepower is so overpowering the armor protection that if we don't need to care for the human pilots, as automatisation and remote control are the next big thing, we might as well only protect weapon platforms from small arms fire and the elements and concentrate on counter measures, mobility and small profile.

So unless we get armor that can stop 2-3 missiles hitting the same place, and somekind of scaleing power that demanded a large size but instead gave exponentialy more power per unit of size, and if we even needed such power, only then such large constructs as mechs might be considered and even then it is so much more likely that they do not have legs but instead are more of an centaur, with a torso mounted on a track lower part, lowering the centre of gravity and stabilizing the construct if robotic arms seemed needed.

I think automization is definitely where military vehicles are going, and it would be a much better idea for a mech to controlled more like drone since it would be difficult to damp the jostling of the walking/running motion to a point where it wouldn't injure the crew or make it impossible for them to operate the mech.

Our armor is actually pretty great. Many anti-tank missiles are useless against the Abram's frontal armor. Usually it's the older Cold-War-era tanks that are in danger. Obviously missiles fired from aircraft will be a problem but operating an aircraft is much more expensive than operating a tank or mech, so cost-wise the ground vehicle is better, and the US is looking for cost-effectiveness right now.

Combine this with sloped armor and it would be pretty survivable:

Helmstif, on 03 May 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

Spoiler

I've answered this in an old post before and I'll answer it here again: to create a "realistic" mech, all you have to do is one thing: think with physics. You'll need either a relatively low center of mass (think of ostrich), or a very wide distribution of mass (think of carnivore dinosaurs with their long tails), or a very complicated system to make sure you can find the balance on two legs (that is us, **** sapiens). Ideally two of the three.

As for your tank on legs, well, it is possible - can you walk on the tip of your toes with your hands folded behind your back? Yes? Then it is possible, at least theoretically. But anyway, regarding "realistic" mechs, unfortunately we're still looking at technology that is not here yet. On the horizon, but won't be reality any time soon.

EDIT: welp, unfortunate Latin name is unfortunate....

The problem with a wide base is that the mech will have to "waddle" back and forth to keep the center of gravity over the feet when moving. I high leg-lenth to hip-width ratio will decrease that effect. I agree that the technology is not really here yet, but we're right on the brink with advances in computers, robotics, and artificial muscles.

SethAbercromby, on 04 May 2015 - 02:05 AM, said:

Spoiler

I think real life Mechs would be very much fill the same niche as their BT Lore counterparts. Namels urban conflict. Mechs are smaller and more manouverable than a tank, which allows for much better flexibility in narrow pathways with limited space to either side. The smaller profile coupled with high speed makes them harder to hit and with sophisticated anti infantry and anti missile systems would be pretty hard to take down in an urban environment, where infantry is the worst enemy to armored vehicles.

Replace the medium laser with another set of machine guns and the Locust would be a pretty realistic first design for a mech designed for urban conflict (since flamethrowers are considered unessecarily cruel by most nations). Fast, manouverable and the large caliber machine guns would be cabable of dealing with both small armored vehicles and infantry troops (the arm-mounted ones would probably be something like 12.7mm anti vehicle HMGs, while the reverse turret would hold a pair of 7.62mm anti infantry MMGs for improved control in conjuntion with the turret mount). Equip it with a similarly sophisticated system as modern tanks to deal with RPGs and the biggest threat would come in the form of vehicle mines which would probably rip the feet right off. Not too sure how to deal with those.

The way I see it, even if the foot is ripped off, the leg will absorb much more of the impact than tank treads will, and it can still limp, while if a tank is hit it loses tread(s) and is rendered immobile.

Calebos, on 04 May 2015 - 05:02 AM, said:

Spoiler

Center of mass is not so heavy problem here(as you mentioned humanic physiognomy, we as humans have center of mass roughly in the center of pelvic area and of course it is changing with posing of body parts). It is not neccessary to move it down. The real problem is matter and gravity. The materials we know are not able to withstand so heavy tensions during even slow movement. I rather do not dare to speak about extreme velocities, or twisting some body parts. A top of it we do not know any kind of enough capable, strong and quick engines.
Shortly said: with our knowledge of materials and its use it is waste of time to plan something as the mech ...

If you're interested I can post links to articles on carbon nanotube muscles that I used in a research paper I wrote last year. Conventional materials won't work, but with the insane properties of carbon fiber materials it's definitely possible.

[Anjian]

Urban conflict requires building and bunker busting. Which means high explosive weapons, like in the form of large caliber shells or rockets. This means conventional ballistics where you can switch between armor piercing antitank weapons to high explosive shells for bunker busting to sharpnel shells for antiinfantry.

Lasers are completely useless weapons in urban conflict. Smoke alone makes a good shield against lasers. The truth about ballistic weapons is that they are extremely versatile, you can change the purpose of the weapon by switching to a different type of ammunition.

In the future, I don't really concieve of mechs being made out of metal, but by carbon nanofiber, nanotubes, or graphene.

[SethAbercromby]

AWOL 01, on 04 May 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

The way I see it, even if the foot is ripped off, the leg will absorb much more of the impact than tank treads will, and it can still limp, while if a tank is hit it loses tread(s) and is rendered immobile.

Wher's a major difference though: A tank moving at 60kp/h that gets its track blown off and slides to a halt until its momentum wears off. Most modern tanks also have the ability to drive without tracks for a limited distance. A Bipedal Mech like the locus losing its foot at the same speeds would very likely stumble and fall, which is a risk to both pilot and hardware and makes the machine highly vulnerable to incoming fire.

[AWOL 01]

Anjian, on 04 May 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

Urban conflict requires building and bunker busting. Which means high explosive weapons, like in the form of large caliber shells or rockets. This means conventional ballistics where you can switch between armor piercing antitank weapons to high explosive shells for bunker busting to sharpnel shells for antiinfantry.

Lasers are completely useless weapons in urban conflict. Smoke alone makes a good shield against lasers. The truth about ballistic weapons is that they are extremely versatile, you can change the purpose of the weapon by switching to a different type of ammunition.

In the future, I don't really concieve of mechs being made out of metal, but by carbon nanofiber, nanotubes, or graphene.

Lasers are being designed with "adaptive optics" that compensate for atmospheric distortion of laser beams, which will adjust for some of those factors. Also, lasers are most effective against targets that must be engaged quickly and accurately, like rockets, missiles, or artillery rounds in-flight, or against targets that must be disabled by focusing damage on small areas, like lightly-armored vehicles. Lasers need a suitable target to be most effective, so the mech could be armed with a laser that defends against missiles, artillery, or personnel, and a ballistic weapon to take out heavily armored vehicles.

SethAbercromby, on 04 May 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Wher's a major difference though: A tank moving at 60kp/h that gets its track blown off and slides to a halt until its momentum wears off. Most modern tanks also have the ability to drive without tracks for a limited distance. A Bipedal Mech like the locus losing its foot at the same speeds would very likely stumble and fall, which is a risk to both pilot and hardware and makes the machine highly vulnerable to incoming fire.

I agree that this would be a risk to crew, which is why I'm starting to think an unmanned vehicle would be much more effective. This is another advantage a mech would have over a tank. When you take the crew out of a mech you effectively have a gun on legs, and you can make the turret and legs as small as technology and materials allow. When you take the crew out of a tank it still requires long treads to drive over obstacles. Shorter treads make the tank more likely to flip or less effective at bridging gaps.

[Anjian]

Smoke doesn't just distort lasers, they reflect it completely. The fact that the enemy can now see where the source of the laser is. is an enormous tactical blunder.

Lasers are probably more useful in space combat.

[Calebos]

AWOL01: in case of ASIMO it is complettely unable to move itself in curvy terrain. You have to count with "ball" joints and fingers for pedal stabilization. A top of it you need to have a bit squishy jonts to withstand any direct damage during collisions and twisting of whole endoskeletal structure.

Edited by Calebos, 08 May 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[AWOL 01]

Anjian, on 07 May 2015 - 10:31 PM, said:

Smoke doesn't just distort lasers, they reflect it completely. The fact that the enemy can now see where the source of the laser is. is an enormous tactical blunder.

Lasers are probably more useful in space combat.

It really depends on the amount of smoke. Small amounts can be compensated for, but yes, large amounts of smoke would defract it enough to render it useless. That's why I suggested using it more for protection from missiles and rockets or other air targets that need to be taken out quickly and accurately, while ballistic weapons will still be used for offense. They're also able to change the wavelength of the laser so that it's not visible to humans.

I believe that the military is already working on a Space Based Laser (SBL) and NASA has already launched lasers for communication into space.

The Navy is also a leader in laser weapons systems:

Calebos, on 08 May 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

AWOL01: in case of ASIMO it is complettely unable to move itself in curvy terrain. You have to count with "ball" joints and fingers for pedal stabilization. A top of it you need to have a bit squishy jonts to withstand any direct damage during collisions and twisting of whole endoskeletal structure.

With artificial muscles I think we would probably expect to see biomimetic (biology mimicking) designs. The hip joint would probably resemble a human's or an ostrich:

[Repasy Cooper]

I think mobility will be the most important aspect to make battlemechs feasible irl. With that in mind, I would actually expect to see Battle Armor before mechs. Several battlemechs could be taken out easily by one jet fighter, or one Apache helicopter. The only reason the slow crawling mechs are feasible in the BTU is because there was a MAJOR loss of technology.

[AWOL 01]

You're right:



This is just one of a few exoskeleton designs being looked into by the military. Once they're able to run for longer periods of time they can be armored and armed with heavier weapons.

[Anjian]

Repasy, on 09 May 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I think mobility will be the most important aspect to make battlemechs feasible irl. With that in mind, I would actually expect to see Battle Armor before mechs. Several battlemechs could be taken out easily by one jet fighter, or one Apache helicopter. The only reason the slow crawling mechs are feasible in the BTU is because there was a MAJOR loss of technology.

BTU has plenty of aerospace fighters, VTOLs, tanks, artillery, motorized infantry and just plain infantry.

I remember when we were playing the Dark Age clix games, we can win entirely with mechless armies, which led to Wizkids majorly buffing up the mechs. Mechwarrior Dark Age and Age of Destruction has an AWESOME collection of VTOLs and futuristic tanks.

Edited by Anjian, 10 May 2015 - 12:52 AM.

[Repasy Cooper]

Anjian, on 10 May 2015 - 12:50 AM, said:

BTU has plenty of aerospace fighters, VTOLs, tanks, artillery, motorized infantry and just plain infantry.

I remember when we were playing the Dark Age clix games, we can win entirely with mechless armies, which led to Wizkids majorly buffing up the mechs. Mechwarrior Dark Age and Age of Destruction has an AWESOME collection of VTOLs and futuristic tanks.

;P I'm well aware of that, but what I'm trying to say is that the fighter weapons technology available in BTU circa 3050 pales in comparison to what we have now. Many high-tech weapons and equipment became lostech throughout the first millenium of space travel (*cough* nuclear warfare), and thus you don't see such high-tech jets in the battletech universe because at this point space travel is well established, so military forces would rather develop rugged weapons better suited to interplanetary combat. Since a large majority of planets (colonies, mines, uncharted, etc.) would have varying atmospheric density, you would need different aircraft designs that work with different atmospheres.

That is a logistical nightmare, and so aside from Aerofighters and Omnifighters you would not see much variety of conventional aircraft on most battlefields. At most, maybe a handful of two or three local models produced solely for reconnaissance and quick-strike on the garrisoned planet in question. These models would have obsolete tech as far as other weaponry is considered, as the high-tech would be reserved for rugged and transportable weaponry (ie. Battlemechs, Aerofighters, conventional land vehicles, Dropships, etc.)

AWOL 01, on 09 May 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

You're right:



This is just one of a few exoskeleton designs being looked into by the military. Once they're able to run for longer periods of time they can be armored and armed with heavier weapons.

No surprise here COD certainly did NOT make up any of the tech envisioned in their games. They don't have enough brain matter for that lol!

Edited by Repasy, 10 May 2015 - 01:22 PM.

[Anjian]

First of all, the BT planes are all Goldilocks planets capable of sustaining human life without a suit. That means they have similar atmospheres, densities, chemical compositions, temperature range, and so on. It won't be hard to create VTOLs and fighters to compensate for that.

And most assuredly, the BTU tech hasn't gone backwards enough to stop the development and manufacture of space fighters in that universe. Which they have. Furthermore, the BT aerospace fightes are capable of operating in space and atmosphere, in addition to conventional fighters that operate in atmosphere only.

http://www.sarna.net...rospace_Fighter

http://www.sarna.net...ntional_Fighter

Many tanks also exist in the BTU, they remind me of the overpowered monsters you find in Command and Conquer Generals. They can destroy Battlemechs.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rommel

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Patton

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Axel

Edited by Anjian, 10 May 2015 - 10:07 PM.

[SethAbercromby]

Repasy, on 10 May 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

;P I'm well aware of that, but what I'm trying to say is that the fighter weapons technology available in BTU circa 3050 pales in comparison to what we have now. Many high-tech weapons and equipment became lostech throughout the first millenium of space travel (*cough* nuclear warfare), and thus you don't see such high-tech jets in the battletech universe because at this point space travel is well established, so military forces would rather develop rugged weapons better suited to interplanetary combat. Since a large majority of planets (colonies, mines, uncharted, etc.) would have varying atmospheric density, you would need different aircraft designs that work with different atmospheres.

Despite the dominance of Aerospace Fighters, conventional fighters are cheap to produce and can be well-equipped, see the ASF-23 Protector, a 50 ton fighter which is equipped with 2 LRM10 launchers for ground bombardement and 3 MGs to fend of other aircraft (Price: 799,917 C-bills per Fighter) or the Boeing Jump Bomber which has no internal weapons but is instead designed for delivering up to 4 pieces of external ordnance at a high speed (Price: 159,060 C-bills per fighter).

In contrast to the Protector, the Corsair aerospace fighter of the same weight costs almost 3 times as much at 2,293,958 C-bills per fighter. Local garrison would usually stock up on conventional fighters, which are much cheaper to produce and replace and aerospace fighters tend to suffer in performance in an atmosphere (though not quite reflected in TT rules as far as I know) due to their prime focus being space combat.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 11 May 2015 - 04:58 AM.

[StompingOnTanks]

I promise you that unmanned humanoid battle robots will happen, and mechs aren't very far from that at all. Just look up videos from DARPA.

Mechs will very likely happen.

However, I disagree with the notion that everything will be unmanned. MOST of everything will be unmanned, but I believe manned ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft will remain to be developed and produced, because no artificial intelligence will ever be able to replace a human's ability to make tactical decisions in real time on a real battlefield. Robots are just that, robots; they do not have a "thought process" like we do, they are simply number crunchers, and unless we make a sentient AI and put it in command of our military hardware (an extremely bad idea) then there will always need to be humans making the important decisions on the front lines, leading and commanding their robot squadmates.

But yeah, the more I watch robots evolve the more I can see mechs in the future.

Edited by StompingOnTanks, 11 May 2015 - 11:46 AM.

[Anjian]

Robots are not just number crunchers. They are the encoded embodiment of a series of heuristic rules designed to respond to certain patterns and follow set objectives. Its not numbers, once again, its about rules.

Surprisingly, its game developers that are leading the development and theories in heuristic tactical AIs for obvious reasons.

[AWOL 01]

I really see our military being mainly autonomous. For example, the smallest unit in the US Army is a fireteam, consisting of 3-4 soldiers. I could see one human soldier wearing an armored exoskeleton that is surrounded by 2-3 drones that he can issue commands to. They could clear rooms for him, they could provide support fire, and they could carry all the heavy equipment the human needs in the field.

The next largest unit is a squad or section, consisting of 8 or more soldiers, so I could see 2 fireteams being supported by a slightly larger drone that is controlled from a nearby base and serves as a sort of Humvee and could be wheeled or legged.

The next largest is a platoon of 15-30 soldiers, which could consist of a few fireteams and their "support drones" and 1 or 2 "mechs" that would be the equivalent of a tank, but is also controlled by a crew of officers at the base, similar to how modern day pilots or tank commanders must be officers. The term "mech" could apply to either a tank-like or walker-like vehicle that is controlled remotely.

I could also see the special forces units forgoing the exoskeleton and instead committing to physical augmentations a la cyborg.

[StompingOnTanks]

You guys are giving me some great sci-fi writing material here.

[SethAbercromby]

StompingOnTanks, on 12 May 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

You guys are giving me some great sci-fi writing material here.

You're welcome.

[AWOL 01]

StompingOnTanks, on 12 May 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

You guys are giving me some great sci-fi writing material here.

I'm happy to help! What kind of sci-fi writing do you do?

[Anjian]

Chappie already gives you a good idea how drones and mechs can be used with fire teams. They maybe used to enter a hostile area first, then survey the situation and gather data.

Military will never leave autonomy for machines but they are always under pressure to save costs and lives, and it is because of that, they are the ones spearheading all the autonomous robotic development. We already have drones in the air, we are going to have submarine drones soon, ground forces are coming soon enough.