124 replies to this topic

[Skanderborg]

I started to think about how battlemech performance would translate over to a real battlefield.

From my understanding , the main reason battlemechs reign supreme in the BT universe is the dramatic increase of mobility and agility from using a huminoid form over a traditional tank. Unlike this game , mechs are able to essentially move around like a human would , extending its arms to point its weapons , kneeling and ducking with its legs and a range of other movements.

With this being said , i feel like some of the designs in the battletech universe just don't make any sense in this regard. Take a look at these two mechs , the commando and locust.

The commando benefits from complete freedom of movement. I imagine this mech would act just like a soldier would , able to fire its arm mounted weapons from all kinds of ackward positions , along with using cover in very creative ways.

Now the locust , it does not have arm mounted weapons , they are all torso based. This essentially makes the mech a traditional tank with chicken legs instead of tracks. I would think the locust would have better rough terrian capability than a traditional vehicle but weapon use would be the same. Why waste the resources making this thing when it is just marginally more capable than the vehicles it was ment to replace?

Take a look at two other mechs , the Thunderbolt and Catapault. The thunderbolt again , gains of the benefits of having a huminoid form , just a bit more clumsy because of its weight and strange weapon locations on the torso.

The catapault on the other hand , is just some missile launchers on legs. How does this have any benefit over a tracked vehicle with two LRM launchers instead? Why waste tremendous resources making a catapault when a truck with some rockets in the back can accomplish the same thing? The only thing that redeems the catapault is its off road capability in my opinion.

Another thing i find funny , in the game high mounted torso weapons are the prefered weapon location. If mechs had the ability to actually use there arm mounted weapons , they would be the prefered location. I feel like thats why in the BT universe most mechs have there primary armament in the arms.

I would imagine in a real world scenario using a torso mounted weapons would be frustrating. Imagine trying to shoot a rifle located on your hip rather than your arms. I think if the pilot wasnt very careful , he could also blow off his arms if they were in the way of his torso weapons.

Thoughts?

[kesmai]

i think:
science fiction board role playing game

[Roughneck45]

Skanderborg, on 14 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Thoughts?

If you try to apply real world physics and concepts to BT and mecha you're gonna have a bad time.

Mechs never make sense without some very specific sci fi world building to support them.

My personal favorite is that they travel the stars but can't build a missile that fires more than 1000m.

Edited by Roughneck45, 14 February 2017 - 11:14 AM.

[Metus regem]

Mechs are bad weapons platforms, they would have more disadvantages than tanks do...

Don't know what I mean, look at the ground pressure from their motive systems, a tank will spread it's weight across both tracks the entire length of the tracks that are in contact with the ground, resulting in a lower PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) than a human...

Mechs will lack agility in an urban environment, just like tanks do. Cities are death traps for tanks, thanks to the prevalence of ATW (Anti-Tank Weapons) in infantry units... This also extends to forests and swamps....

Mechs will have thinner armour than a tank, this is due in large part thanks to the need of joints, you cannot armour up a joint and expect it to be useful.

About the only terrain where a mech would have an advantage is a mountain, but even then, CAS (Close Air Support) would be more valuable than a Mech.

[Skanderborg]

Roughneck45, on 14 February 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

If you try to apply real world physics and concepts to BT and mecha you're gonna have a bad time.

Mechs never make sense without some very specific sci fi world building to support them.

I actually think most of the mechs do make sense in most regards. Theirs just some outliers to me. Why would you take a dire wolf over an executioner? The dire wolf is a building with legs , offers little to the agility advantage mechs are suppose to have. The executioner on the other hand , has all the benefits of a huminoid.

Then again , i think assault mechs really don't make sense. But a bunch of commandos would be like super soldiers the size of traffic lights with the armament of a vehicle.

Edited by Skanderborg, 14 February 2017 - 11:25 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Skanderborg, on 14 February 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

I actually think most of the mechs do make sense in most regards. Theirs just some outliers to me. Why would you take a dire wolf over an executioner? The dire wolf is a building with legs , offers little to the agility advantage mechs are suppose to have. The executioner on the other hand , has all the benefits of a huminoid.

Then again , i think assault mechs really don't make sense. But a bunch of commandos would be like super soldiers the size of traffic lights with the armament of a vehicle.

Well, all of this depends on context.

If were talking real world, it never makes sense. Anything a BT mech can do is done cheaper and more efficiently by a tank or any other purpose build craft. The cons of building something humanoid far outweigh the pros.

If were talking BT universe, you are right, humanoid would give you more agility. You have to consider how the mechs are built too, the dire was feared because it was the most potent weapon platform at the time. Atlas level armor with even more weaponry.

[Metus regem]

Roughneck45, on 14 February 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Well, all of this depends on context.

If were talking real world, it never makes sense. Anything a BT mech can do is done cheaper and more efficiently by a tank or any other purpose build craft. The cons of building something humanoid far outweigh the pros.

If were talking BT universe, you are right, humanoid would give you more agility. You have to consider how the mechs are built too, the dire was feared because it was the most potent weapon platform at the time. Atlas level armor with even more weaponry.

And yet, I'd rather face a Dire Wolf then a Tech 2 Demolisher tank in a city.....

[SmokedJag]

As implemented in BattleTech, the 'Mech is poorly justified. The humanoid form isn't necessary because most of the piloting is traditional (actual direct control like Avatar is rare) and 'Mechs having fusion while vehicles having ICE is strictly game mechanics. The general crap nature of vehicles is also game mechanics.

A "real" use for a 'Mech could be as big battle armor, like a running, jumping attack helicopter that doesn't have to refuel. Oh and it is a true extension of the person rather than all this conventional piloting bulk. Small 'Mechs only, like the irritating Arctic Cheetah. The big BT 'Mechs - Atlas, Dire Whale etc. - are still impossible for multiple physics reasons even if you allow the reactors and the neural control. The ammo feeds don't work, they would mass much more than they do and sink into the ground, they are top heavy as hell, their armor would be all but nonexistent...

Edited by SmokedJag, 14 February 2017 - 11:43 AM.

[TheArisen]

Another issue a robot has is it takes much more energy to make a 20+ ton vehicle walk than to have it on treads or even wheels.

Weight dispersion would be a huge issue, armoring joints, a robot is much taller than a tank so it's easier to shoot and harder to hide... Simply put, mechs will probably never be a thing.

The biggest robot I could potentially see happening would be something like Votoms or about the size of the robots in Avatar but they'd need big feet cuz weight dispersion.

[Metus regem]

SmokedJag, on 14 February 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

As implemented in BattleTech, the 'Mech is poorly justified. The humanoid form isn't necessary because most of the piloting is traditional (actual direct control like Avatar is rare) and 'Mechs having fusion while vehicles having ICE is strictly game mechanics. The general crap nature of vehicles is also game mechanics.

A "real" use for a 'Mech could be as big battle armor, like a running, jumping attack helicopter that doesn't have to refuel. Oh and it is a true extension of the person rather than all this conventional piloting bulk. Small 'Mechs only, like the irritating Arctic Cheetah. The big BT 'Mechs - Atlas, Dire Whale etc. - are still impossible for multiple physics reasons even if you allow the reactors and the neural control. The ammo feeds don't work, they would mass much more than they do and sink into the ground, they are top heavy as hell, their armor would be all but nonexistent...

Even then, a lot of vehicles have fusion engines too, oddly enough the ones that are some of the most frightening are Fusion powered... As far as TT rules went they had to nerf vehicles into the ground so that they didn't totally out class the mechs...

[Roughneck45]

Metus regem, on 14 February 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

And yet, I'd rather face a Dire Wolf then a Tech 2 Demolisher tank in a city.....

But bro, Dire can engage at all ranges. If your ride can't engage at all ranges what good are you...

Edited by Roughneck45, 14 February 2017 - 11:53 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Metus regem, on 14 February 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Don't know what I mean, look at the ground pressure from their motive systems, a tank will spread it's weight across both tracks the entire length of the tracks that are in contact with the ground, resulting in a lower PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) than a human...

People parrot this one, but everyone knows its the least of the problems, even more so with how light battle mechs are.

[Antares102]

Why mechs would suck:

• High center of gravity, makes shooting slugs a nightmare for balancing
  
• High specific ground pressure. Would make mechs sink in wet grass land. (Did you know that a 65t tank has LESS ground pressure per square meter than your car?)
  
• Lots of moving parts/joints which cannot be armored very well.
  
• Exposed cockpit which would be the primary target for every semi-decent targeting algorithm
  
• They are over-complicated which is a NOGO in warfare. Always go for the simple and robust solution and ONLY make it more complicated if you cannot avoid it. Because when a situation starts to go south on you, you want your equipment to f...ing work.
  
• They have a HUGE profile which is something you dont want in warfare. A tank can hide behind a small hill. A mech needs a building to hide.
  
• They would have enormous heat signatures due to their fusion reactor not having an energy efficiency of 99%. Heat signature = easily visible = you're dead.
  
• Most mech designs are absolutly rubish. Why do you think the Victor sucks and the Battlemaster is great in this mech "simulation". Because the Victor design sucks and the Battlemaster design does its job.

Well thats enough for the moment I guess.

Battlemechs are fantasy constructs which serve no other purpose than entertainment.

Edited by Antares102, 14 February 2017 - 12:54 PM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Giant Mechs are probably the worst thing you can build for combat.

I shizzles you not, a Humvee armed with a BGM-71 can take out pretty much any Battle/Omnimechs with exposed cockpits. Hit them in the dome piece and they're done. A lot of modern weaponry, especially those mounted on vehicles far outranges BT weapons. 1 ton Medium Lasers? Your standard M16 can out range it (though I wouldn't advice using M16s against Mechs)

Can a 100 ton, ~14 meter high Mechs even stand? To put it in perspective, the US T28/T95 is 95 tons just under 3 meters.

Edited by Shiroi Tsuki, 15 February 2017 - 03:08 AM.

[xe N on]

Smaller mechs aka "elementals" or "exo- skeleton" could maybe work, but battlemechs ... no way.

[Kyrie]

BattleMechs make no sense. Unfortunate, but true. :-)

John Ringo, in volume 1 his Posleen series discusses various factors why giant mechs and tanks make no sense even with magical technology. ;-)

[Metus regem]

Roughneck45, on 14 February 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

But bro, Dire can engage at all ranges. If your ride can't engage at all ranges what good are you...

But Bra, I sighted in a city, long range is pointless in a city, you never get long sight lines anyways... and that Demolisher can dish out up to 60 damage every turn at up to 3 locations... Not to mention it never has to worry about heat, unlike that Dire Wolf...

[- World Eater -]

Elementals/power armor could probably excel well today.

[Trollfeed]

Battletechs vehicle design is actually pretty much retarted too, not just for battlemechs. Most of the stuff just wouldn't work or would be really unoptimal. How many tanks in real life have windscreens?

Walking combat vehicles will come at some point, there are reasons why they are so fervently researching technologies connected to them.

[Alistair Winter]

Battlemechs as they behave in MWO make no sense. However, if you can build a humanoid mech with the agility of a human, or even a super-human, then things are really different. It's not just a matter of whether an M1 Abrams has a smaller front profile than a Centurion. It's also about whether that Centurion can hide behind buildings and fire its ballistic weapon around the corner or over the top without looking, like human infantry with camera gunsights. It's also about whether that Centurion can sprint, jump, climb, crouch and behave like a human. In MWO the mechs are really slow and sluggish, but what if that Centurion could literally jump across canyons while firing with perfect accuracy in mid-air, like a gundam?

Of course, physics change as a mech goes from human-sized and 100 kilos to 1000 kilos or 10,000 kilos or 100,000 kilos. An Atlas won't really be able to do a backflip from standing position if it's standing on a swamp or muddy grassland. It'll just sink into the ground. As things get bigger or smaller, they move differently, which is why insects and small lizards can run on water, while humans can't. It's why small mammals run on top of the snow while big mammals sink through the snow. In MWO, a 100 ton mech can just jump from rooftop to rooftop. In reality, a 100 ton mech on top of a building is most likely going to collapse the whole structure.

The real answer to any discussion about "mechs in the future" or "spaceships in the future" or "hovertanks in the future" is most likely "drones". Lots of cheap drones. Any machine piloted by a human is going to be needlessly big, fragile and, in the case of airborn or spaceborn vehicles, far less agile due to limits on G-forces.