30 replies to this topic

[Fabe]

Sim Koning, on 09 May 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

Mechs vs Tanks

I've been a fan of Battletech/Mechwarrior IP for almost 20 years, but I have to admit, the apparent absurdity of the 'walking tank' idea (to many) has always put a bit of a damper on things. I'm currently working on a quasi-hard space opera world building project, and I've been debating on whether or not I should include walking AFVs into the "universe" that I've been putting together. I'm trying to keep handwavium and absurdities to a minimum. Consequently, as much as I like the idea of mechs, I have to consider leaving them out if they are too much in the realm of fantasy. Surprisingly, when I consider recent breakthroughs in nanotechnology such as nanotubes, graphene muscles* and weaponized lasers, I find it harder and harder to dismiss them outright.raffic tank forum, but I do plan on posting something like this there as well.
*sniped*
Sim

I can't offer any thing on mech VS tanks that has'nt already been said but if your world is going to inculde space combat then this site will be of interest to you if you haven't already found it.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

Pretty much every thing you need to put Science in Science fiction

[Niarteloc]

Sim Koning, on 10 May 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Another thing to consider about AI and cyberwarfare: even if we develop strong AI fighting drones/androids etc. replacing human soldiers with them could be *extremely risky. Quantum computers use things like superposition and entanglement, so while their processing power will be vast (processing power and intelligence are not the same btw) their calculations will always be at least slightly fuzzy thanks to the uncertainty principle. This means that given enough numbers and time, you'll probably have some going crazy once in a while. Combine this with advanced cyberwarfare that could possibly lead to some of your forces being turned against you... yeah, you'll still need men and women on the ground.

Your statement about quantum computers is incorrect. Quantum computers, when developed, will not give "fuzzy" results. That is just a misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle.

Additionally, classical computers are plenty powerful enough to power AI drones. See work done with autonomous quadrotors for example:

These things are terrifying and exciting at the same time.

The real danger is in cyberwarfare, and preventing hackers from turning your assets against you. Not a huge danger though. The reason we don't have more drones (which we do have a lot in the air) is that robots are not particularly good at adapting to perform in unknown environments quite yet. That will change, and war will get even scarier. Imagine one of those quadrotors with a dart launcher and neurotoxins, capable of sneaking into buildings, locating a target, and bringing it down...

[Dustfang]

Most of the key points have been stated already (the advantages of legged designs for crossing weird terrain, the ground pressure issue, the real benefits in combined arms, etc) but there are a few points I wanted to touch on.

First. Cost. A smaller suit would be cheaper to build and maintain, as well as cheaper to power. So, while it's not likely to be barey larger than man sized (that would require a very small power plant) we can't reasonably expect giant, towering pieces of machinery, either. In addition. Smaller pieces of equipment are easier to transport to and from deployment zones, so it just makes sense to keep your walkers downsized.

Second. Role. A walking system could prove useful in a number of ways. Scouts, providing information across difficult terrain, or in spaces that require maneuvering too tight for a tracked or wheeled vehicle (for smaller walking units)
But add to their mobility additional firepower. A four legged system is inherently stable. A little slower, but hey. We don't expect self-propelled howitzers to go thundering across the badlands at 80mph, do we? A quadrupedal artillery piece could use the legs (and a lower slung body) to cross to and advantageous spot, anchor, and level possibly several barrels on the enemy, depending on how much material you want to invest in the system. (though arguably, the ranges that artillery operates at could dictate that it not enter the difficult terrain in the first place)

[Sim Koning]

Quote

I can't offer any thing on mech VS tanks that has'nt already been said but if your world is going to inculde space combat then this site will be of interest to you if you haven't already found it.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

Pretty much every thing you need to put Science in Science fiction

Hah, I love that site! Orion's Arm is another good one: http://www.orionsarm.com/

Quote

Your statement about quantum computers is incorrect. Quantum computers, when developed, will not give "fuzzy" results. That is just a misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle.

I got my info from a book by Michio Kaku, a quantum physicist. He stated that quantum computers would actually have to do many calculations and average out the result, so there will always bit a tiny bit of fuzziness with arithmetic on a quantum computer. The other problem is that they would need systems for error correction because any impact or source of radiation could cause the atoms to decohere. Also, I was referring specifically to strong AI, as in a machine that is as smart, or almost as smart as a human soldier. That sort of intelligence could be invented this century, or centuries from now, nobody seems to be sure. Considering it would take 5 years to completely map a 100,000 neuron fly brain, whereas the human brain has 120 billion neurons, I'm willing to bet it's a ways off. Even if we do develop machines that smart, they would be enormously complex, as in the most complex machine ever built. Our brain, the product of over 600 million years of brain evolution, can still go.. well.. crazy, I'm willing to bet that hyper intelligent robots might be a tad bit dangerous for the reasons mentioned above.

Here are some of my favorite mech designs. They are just the right size I think.

Edited by Sim Koning, 10 May 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Jason McComrade]

I think it is a point of view how you see mechs. Some people can not imagine a mech being built and maintained, some people are actually realising those thoughts and creating the prototypes of those mechs for the future generation. It is not the question "are Mechs logical? can they be made and sustained? or is it even possible without being too absurd?" there are still people on this world that believe that the humanity is coming from adam and eva, without even considering all the evidences brought up from archeologists and all those scientists. Some of them even say that the dinosaurs bones are put to those places by the devil in order to defy god and his plans for the humanity (to make you believe that dinosaurs acutally lived they say and that your belief in god got questioned and they shake their heads for the nonsense... poor fellas? yes sadly...)

But the topic is not about people that believe this or that... so why did I brought up all that text wall? well there are allways criticists and nonvisionars that actually cannot think out of their own boxes, and they want to keep other people in their boxes too so that they dont seem stupid or worse.

My thinking on this matter as an ex military officer is like this; Mechs can rule the battlefield, but they have their places to use and there are tactics to use them. For example; Would I use Mechs in desert? that is a real tricky question...

Conrtas are; too much open space, too much dust,too much heat and coldnes (it has abrubt heat drops in the desert that differs up to 30-40 degree celsius that means while youre havin 40-50 degree celsius in daytime, youre gettin close to 0 overnight that worns out pretty everything), Mechs are easy target due to their high profile in open desert

Pro's are; Mechs can walk on terrain where tanks woulndt be able to get further than 1 centimeters, so that gives you a certain maneuver area and therefore more tactical abilities which can make you win the battle/war etc.

Would I use Mechs in woodland terrain? HELL YES!... compared to tanks mechs are much easier to handle on those ground and they can even ambush much better than any tank could ever do.

Would I use Mechs on Mountainous terrain? HELL YES!... what youre thinkin? that is THE terrain where mechs absolutely overrule Tanks by far! if you add the possibility that you can use the mechs to actually "climb" up places (because they have some hand accutators and so on) they have the absolute terrain control than any tank could ever do. If you compare a tank and a mech which has to go trough a terrain which is full of rocks, boulders, big and small stones and etc... after a while you will surely see that the tank maybe has moved about 10 meters and was FORCED to stop due to terrain but the mech moves on. This is a serious thing no military commander would put aside so easily.

So it is actually the use of the machine and how you would use it. In my opinion there are even places where humanoid mechs would rule ahumanoid mechs, or counterwise, like I said before, it is all a matter of tactics.

That said we can come to the second part of the question you asked (or that what I took out between your words) What kind of mech should it be if you put em into your world... well you can make em armored monsters, or you can make em fast tactical and light armored units in coherent maneuvers with the rest of your army... I would like havin both... because in my opinion tanks will get support units in the far future and they will be militia accessory.

Edited by Jason McComrade, 06 December 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[Murku]

We all love us some mecha, Shirow's Landmates being my fave with Heavy Gear/Votoms hitting second.

That being said trying to hard science them is a challenge. Here's my points to ponder, your conclusions being more important than mine:

Soldiers are crucial in any army because they come virtually free (just use a little patriotism/indoctrination). They are the ultimate machine, able to fill numerous roles. Make them expensive and they lose some appeal.

Even governments are suckers for the 'rule of cool'. Check out the actual performance of a P90 compared to it's popularity, money gets spent on the fun looking toys.

Our ability to destroy (through advancing technology) has always outpaced our ability to protect. As cool as any armored system gets, the weapon to destroy it is usually magnitudes cheaper and more available.

Speed and the high ground will always trump armor and cover. Any high value target limited to slow ground movement would be easy pickings for artillery/air cover/ortillery.

I personally see a future in 'powered armor', giving an individual soldier the ability to cope with loads, recoil and armor he could never handle unassisted. Such armor would enable him still to perform what soldiers do best - holding ground and occupying territory. But soon as you talk about anything car size and upwards there's always a better way than legs.

Edited by Murku, 06 December 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[Wooster]

Hey Guys!

I just wanted to add my two cents to this conversation which is one I've given a decent amount of thought to as a player of both MWO and WOT. After looking at all of the arguments I think I can somewhat summarize the feasibility of mechs in the future with mechs being better offensively and tanks being better defensively. However, these divides are purely on the grounds of military capability as I don't know much about the economics and sciences needed for these vehicles.

Summary: Offense(Mechs) vs. Defense(Tanks)

- Offense: Mechs would take the cake here. While being tall and exposing a larger target area is not as great if you are expecting an attack, their size mean that mechs have unparalleled combat flexibility. Having a big gun(or several) is no use if you can't use it and the limited vertical gun traverse and low-lying nature of tanks restricts their offensive flexibility.
EX: Reverse-slope defense: If a slope is relatively steep, infantrymen, whose human body allows them great leeway in taking cover in a variety of different terrain, can gain an advantage against vehicles, which can't conform to terrain as handily. This situation allows for an attacker's height to become a disadvantage, as they can't fire as readily, and creates a cover advantage for the defenders. mechs would have a similar advantage in this situation as they could hide below the hill line and fire on vehicles as they try to get into a downward firing position.(mechs would also dominate an offensive uphill assault as well. Mechs height and posture would allow them to fire on entrenched enemies far quicker than a tank could. A tank would have to reach the top of the hill to bring its full power to bear and would expose its a good amount of its weak armor crossing the top of the hill.)

The mobility of a mech would allow it would allow it to be used on far more worlds than just tanks. In order for tanks to be the dominant force in the far, space-faring, future, there would have to be a lot of worlds of a flatter nature to warrant the mass production of so many movement-limited vehicles. Being as mechs could operate decently on many different types of terrain, it would make sense to make mechs the primary combat vehicle of the space-faring age.

Lastly, while a mech does have more exposed area to target this also means that a mech could bring to bear more firepower, quickly and flexibly compared to its tracked counterparts. While this might not matter as much now being as most of our current weapon endeavours are still ammo based, ammo-less laser weaponry would free up room for more weapons on a vehicle. Tanks, however, would be limited by their posture/traverses/gun elevations and therefore not be able to bring as many of these weapons to bear as their mech counterparts.

Defense: Tanks take this advantage in spades. Limited firing arcs, less room for weapons and lower mobility are less of a disadvantage when you don't have to be as mobile. Not having as many components to guard and the compact nature of tanks would allow for the armor they carry to be heavier where needed and therefore much more difficult to penetrate/melt/ionize for a frontal opponent (While tanks usually do have less side and rear armor this would be negated by a defensive operation in which a tanker can reliably position his front towards an enemy at all times).

I would also like to posit an idea which would allow for many of the heavier mechs to exist. Let us assume that mechs are the dominant force in the far-future based on their superior tactical mobility. On worlds in which tanks and other heavier vehicles are not feasible, forces would need a heavier mech to counter the light/medium size mechs they face. Therefore, while an Atlas would not be very useful against a set of defenses in flat terrain, they would be exceedingly helpful in worlds where only mechs are a useable land vehicle force. Being as light/medium mechs would have a strong future based on their mobile flexibility and that therefore they would be built as a core military force, it would make sense in developing heavier mechs to deal with them. In addition, they would most likely replace tanks in their traditional assault role on these worlds with difficult terrain.

Edited by Wooster, 26 July 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[Helsbane]

The main thing that allows 'mechs to be more effective than tanks is the integration of the human pilot into the humanoid frame via the neural link. It allows the human brain to assist in controlling the mechanical body, helping to balance, providing human like reflexes, and gives the pilot the ability to utilize the exoframe as an extention of his own body. That's the big difference and selling point. If the humanoid (or chicken) frame wasn't assisted by the human brain, the control interface would require too much hands-on piloting to be worth the effort and would get owned by a skilled tank crew every time.

[3Xtr3m3]

The biggest problem (immersion-wise) I have with Mechwarrior is scale.
A 50 ton Hunchback running along a street with its knees being at streetlight height is a little unrealistic to me. Considering that an Abrams battle tank is 60+ tons and can drive under the streetlights.
Maybe that is just me though.
An Atlas towering above everything and dominating the locality is fine.
But a majority of war equipment should be able to duck/dodge/fight/hide in a one story town.

[3Xtr3m3]

Also, I think mechs are an extension of a Commerical idea.
To expound on that.
I think that Mechs were developed as an extension of a need in Industry.
It had to have commercial uses and applications that could then be converted to a military use.
The only worthwhile thing Dark Age did was to make some of the commercial uses real.
A Farm mech, a Forestry mech, or a Construction mech are possible viable commercial builds. IMO.
The platform then just needs modification to it to make a military application.
The back and forth between military and civilian use has always been true.
Tanks started as buldozers and farm implements first.
Radar started as a military application first.
I believe the same logic should apply to walking anything. If it has a viable military or civilian reason to exist, the other will soon try to find a use for it.

[3Xtr3m3]

that card is Alpha if I am not mistaken