Mechas: Pratical?

[InugamiPup]

The heck? Is the post order screwed up? o.O;

[disco ninja]

I think mechas are possible in the future. As tank's get, bigger, faster, and more powerful their design may evolve into mechas.Treads will become legs, the hull will become a body, cannons will become arms, and the periscope will beome a head. I imagine the first ones to look something like a Wanzer (Front-Mission) or a Scopedog (Armored Trooper: Votoms)

[MiaTheOrigin]

Woah, Woah, Woah, with some of the replies on the first page. With current technologies mechas aren't practical. It is a matter of when. Lets say it was equipped with some kind of bladed weapon and can go 0 - 300m/h because of it's legs are powerful enough to make such an acceleration. It would be capable of clearing a battle field of tanks without spending$ on ammunition. Since it is only using a bladed weapon. It would still be vulnerable to are attacks however.

[The20]

MiaTheOrigin

Woah, Woah, Woah, with some of the replies on the first page. With current technologies mechas aren't practical. It is a matter of when. Lets say it was equipped with some kind of bladed weapon and can go 0 - 300m/h because of it's legs are powerful enough to make such an acceleration. It would be capable of clearing a battle field of tanks without spending$ on ammunition. Since it is only using a bladed weapon. It would still be vulnerable to are attacks however.

There is NO blade that would survive a confrontation with a tank.

[Slutty_Eddie]

Golden Dysprosium

Also note that the machine in that video is suspended by a wire the entire time.

It's not suspended by wires, the rope is a fail safe in case the exoskeleton falls over.

That's very common in robot development. When Honda's Asimo was first developed, there was a dude that was paid to follow it around and catch it whenever it failed. Now they let it fall and cover it up with a removable wall. biggrin

[MiaTheOrigin]

The20

MiaTheOrigin

Woah, Woah, Woah, with some of the replies on the first page. With current technologies mechas aren't practical. It is a matter of when. Lets say it was equipped with some kind of bladed weapon and can go 0 - 300m/h because of it's legs are powerful enough to make such an acceleration. It would be capable of clearing a battle field of tanks without spending$ on ammunition. Since it is only using a bladed weapon. It would still be vulnerable to are attacks however.

There is NO blade that would survive a confrontation with a tank.

AS of of now, didn't you read anything I said? Or you just want to say no? For example the blade could be made out of plasma contained by a small but powerful EMF.

[The20]

MiaTheOrigin

The20

MiaTheOrigin

Woah, Woah, Woah, with some of the replies on the first page. With current technologies mechas aren't practical. It is a matter of when. Lets say it was equipped with some kind of bladed weapon and can go 0 - 300m/h because of it's legs are powerful enough to make such an acceleration. It would be capable of clearing a battle field of tanks without spending$ on ammunition. Since it is only using a bladed weapon. It would still be vulnerable to are attacks however.

There is NO blade that would survive a confrontation with a tank.

AS of of now, didn't you read anything I said? Or you just want to say no? For example the blade could be made out of plasma contained by a small but powerful EMF.

So you want to use a plasma-based cutting torch to melt trough a tank in mere seconds? Good luck...

[MiaTheOrigin]

The20

MiaTheOrigin

The20

MiaTheOrigin

Woah, Woah, Woah, with some of the replies on the first page. With current technologies mechas aren't practical. It is a matter of when. Lets say it was equipped with some kind of bladed weapon and can go 0 - 300m/h because of it's legs are powerful enough to make such an acceleration. It would be capable of clearing a battle field of tanks without spending$ on ammunition. Since it is only using a bladed weapon. It would still be vulnerable to are attacks however.

There is NO blade that would survive a confrontation with a tank.

AS of of now, didn't you read anything I said? Or you just want to say no? For example the blade could be made out of plasma contained by a small but powerful EMF.

So you want to use a plasma-based cutting torch to melt trough a tank in mere seconds? Good luck...

Thanks n_n

[Kahalm]

PHYSICS!

saids no to this one sadly...

Anything we know as a mecha from movies, video games, anime, etc, are not a viable. While a small human sized exoskeleton would be practical, anything larger would take more energy to power, be less durable, and otherwise not be economical as a war machine.

The reasons for this are fairly simple. First there is the size and weight distribution problem. If you increase the size of an averaged sized adult human to twice their normal size you would nearly increasing their weight by 4 times ( due to volume compared to surface area ). This trend continues and you can make an exponential graph which will quickly show that bigger you get the weight goes up far too much. So the type of mecha you see in anime would need to be so heavy in its internal structure just to keep it standing that it would be unable to move, even assuming we have some futuristic super metal.

On top of that a mecha is not durable. There is alot of serface area for weapons to be able to hit. To have any kind of armor to protect against that would make it even heavier. It would be impossible to protect the entire thing properly from weapon fire. Also, a humanoid frame has many weak points that other shapes do not have. If you shoot a leg of a mecca it is disabled. A tank shape can have its important functions internal and provide far more protection, making it far more difficult to damage. And even if you have some kind of future shields a mecha would have a larger profile and far more easy to hit, assuming that we don't need to worry about armor, weight, etc.

Another good reason is power. The human body spends alot of energy just to be able to make it stand upright. Why have a large humanoid robot that takes far more energy than say a tank that has the same capability's?

And perhaps lastly, it doesn't give any advantage. A humanoid shape is not magically more effective per ton than a plane or a tank just because it looks like a human. Rather the opposite, it would be far more difficult to build because of all of the complexities involved. It would cost so much more to make per unit for the same reasons. Per ton and per dollar it would be less effective than other shapes. If you want bang for your buck you want a sphere. Volume to surface area its the best. shape, so you can have less weight on armor and protection and use that cost to either make more, or just make it stronger. Either way the sphere wins over the mecha.

Now, dont get me wrong... I would love to see a fully functional mecha warmachine. That would be sick. However asside from novelty it offers no benefit, even if we consider si-fi technology.

[MiaTheOrigin]

Kahalm

PHYSICS!

saids no to this one sadly...

Anything we know as a mecha from movies, video games, anime, etc, are not a viable. While a small human sized exoskeleton would be practical, anything larger would take more energy to power, be less durable, and otherwise not be economical as a war machine.

The reasons for this are fairly simple. First there is the size and weight distribution problem. If you increase the size of an averaged sized adult human to twice their normal size you would nearly increasing their weight by 4 times ( due to volume compared to surface area ). This trend continues and you can make an exponential graph which will quickly show that bigger you get the weight goes up far too much. So the type of mecha you see in anime would need to be so heavy in its internal structure just to keep it standing that it would be unable to move, even assuming we have some futuristic super metal.

On top of that a mecha is not durable. There is alot of serface area for weapons to be able to hit. To have any kind of armor to protect against that would make it even heavier. It would be impossible to protect the entire thing properly from weapon fire. Also, a humanoid frame has many weak points that other shapes do not have. If you shoot a leg of a mecca it is disabled. A tank shape can have its important functions internal and provide far more protection, making it far more difficult to damage. And even if you have some kind of future shields a mecha would have a larger profile and far more easy to hit, assuming that we don't need to worry about armor, weight, etc.

Another good reason is power. The human body spends alot of energy just to be able to make it stand upright. Why have a large humanoid robot that takes far more energy than say a tank that has the same capability's?

And perhaps lastly, it doesn't give any advantage. A humanoid shape is not magically more effective per ton than a plane or a tank just because it looks like a human. Rather the opposite, it would be far more difficult to build because of all of the complexities involved. It would cost so much more to make per unit for the same reasons. Per ton and per dollar it would be less effective than other shapes. If you want bang for your buck you want a sphere. Volume to surface area its the best. shape, so you can have less weight on armor and protection and use that cost to either make more, or just make it stronger. Either way the sphere wins over the mecha.

Now, dont get me wrong... I would love to see a fully functional mecha warmachine. That would be sick. However asside from novelty it offers no benefit, even if we consider si-fi technology.

All very good points but I don't know. Yes I'm disagreeing with no real viable argument, but my point of view. I think it is possible to for it be practical as a war machine. Though your argument about shape is very true. The could follow those rules and build a different looking device out of the same material and it perform better. lol but futuristic mecha's versus current technology win lol. After all that I agree =3.

[Kahalm]

MiaTheOrigin

All very good points but I don't know. Yes I'm disagreeing with no real viable argument, but my point of view. I think it is possible to for it be practical as a war machine. Though your argument about shape is very true. The could follow those rules and build a different looking device out of the same material and it perform better. lol but futuristic mecha's versus current technology win lol. After all that I agree =3.

Also, cant argue with the style of a mecha... They do have some serious class!

Still, I think there is going to be an increase in emphasis on smaller weapon platforms rather than bigger. Cost/benefit the bigger you go the less effective your weapon is. The moment you factor in that countermeasures to any weapon platform will always be cheaper than the platform itself, its better to be small.

Although considering one notion that as a strictly space based platform it could be viable... since the whole weight issue doesn't matter as much. Although how space combat would work in reality is nothing like anyone would imagine.

[50ul84n3]

i'm going to point this little fact out. tanks are very easy to disable. their treads are held together with simple bolts. we have lost a lot of tanks to small ieds simply because it only takes a small pipebomb to dislodge the treads. on top of that it takes more work to repair a damaged track. you have to dismantle the damaged track then replace the damaged treads then you have to re attach the track to the wheels. it's easier to replace the whole tank instead of spending hours to fix damage caused by a weapon that takes less then $50 to make and 30 minutes to build. mecha would have a much greater ability to actually avoid ieds altogether. a mecha can sidestep and even travel through very rocky terrain avoiding common paths of travel which yeild better results then just putting an ied in an area where only things with legs can travel. also a mecha does not have to be the super top heavy humanoid shape. hexapods and quadrapeds are much more stable then bipeds. fortunately for the biped it has a constantly changing profile and the legs would only need to hold hydraulics encased in depleted uranium and ceramic composites. piloting a biped is muck easier too considering you can utilize a 1 to 1 control scheme. arms move arms, jegs move legs, and the human brain is capable of maintaining balence for the most part.

[Van Evok]

Lifting and loading exoskeletons are in practical testing, so at least for such purposes they are somewhat practical. Armed and armored versions are sci-fi for now, but tech advances with astounding speed now, anyone remembers Luke Skywalkers bionic hand? Real life prothesis is now comparable. Big-scale mecha are probably impossible due to ground pressure on the relatively small footprint (literally!), but man-sized powered armor can be in production by 2020.

[The20]

50ul84n3

i'm going to point this little fact out. tanks are very easy to disable. their treads are held together with simple bolts. we have lost a lot of tanks to small ieds simply because it only takes a small pipebomb to dislodge the treads. on top of that it takes more work to repair a damaged track. you have to dismantle the damaged track then replace the damaged treads then you have to re attach the track to the wheels. it's easier to replace the whole tank instead of spending hours to fix damage caused by a weapon that takes less then $50 to make and 30 minutes to build. mecha would have a much greater ability to actually avoid ieds altogether. a mecha can sidestep and even travel through very rocky terrain avoiding common paths of travel which yeild better results then just putting an ied in an area where only things with legs can travel. also a mecha does not have to be the super top heavy humanoid shape. hexapods and quadrapeds are much more stable then bipeds. fortunately for the biped it has a constantly changing profile and the legs would only need to hold hydraulics encased in depleted uranium and ceramic composites. piloting a biped is muck easier too considering you can utilize a 1 to 1 control scheme. arms move arms, jegs move legs, and the human brain is capable of maintaining balence for the most part.

The solution to those problems are wheels, not legs. Also, replacing the whole tank is neither easier nor reasonable in any way.
A vehicle that has legs has a higher profile than a vehicle with tracks or wheels and is therefore easier to hit with AT weaponry, etc., also much slower.

[50ul84n3]

The20

50ul84n3

i'm going to point this little fact out. tanks are very easy to disable. their treads are held together with simple bolts. we have lost a lot of tanks to small ieds simply because it only takes a small pipebomb to dislodge the treads. on top of that it takes more work to repair a damaged track. you have to dismantle the damaged track then replace the damaged treads then you have to re attach the track to the wheels. it's easier to replace the whole tank instead of spending hours to fix damage caused by a weapon that takes less then $50 to make and 30 minutes to build. mecha would have a much greater ability to actually avoid ieds altogether. a mecha can sidestep and even travel through very rocky terrain avoiding common paths of travel which yeild better results then just putting an ied in an area where only things with legs can travel. also a mecha does not have to be the super top heavy humanoid shape. hexapods and quadrapeds are much more stable then bipeds. fortunately for the biped it has a constantly changing profile and the legs would only need to hold hydraulics encased in depleted uranium and ceramic composites. piloting a biped is muck easier too considering you can utilize a 1 to 1 control scheme. arms move arms, jegs move legs, and the human brain is capable of maintaining balence for the most part.

The solution to those problems are wheels, not legs. Also, replacing the whole tank is neither easier nor reasonable in any way.
A vehicle that has legs has a higher profile than a vehicle with tracks or wheels and is therefore easier to hit with AT weaponry, etc., also much slower.

you need to take into account that any explosive that pierces a tank will render it useless. tanks are designed to be as compact as possible there is just barely enough room for the crew and any hot object that enters that area is going to be lethal. a bipedal mecha would be far less dense compared to the tank. the torso would be the most effective target to attack considering that the pilot and the engine are most likely located there. AT weapons depend on the penatrating power of shaped charges. unless it hits the joint, or the hydraulic linkage it would damage but not disable a limb. as for the speed you are probably right. mecha would be slower than a stryker or an abrams tank but a mecha has the ability to sidestep or lean out of the way of incoming weapons. as for the easier to hit part you have just as much difficulty hitting a mecha as a tank. the main difference is what you hit. a limb only damages or cripples the mecha, the torso disables it. with tanks a hit to the treads immobilizes it until repaired, a hit to the turret makes it as useful as a bulldozer if it didn't kill the crew, and a hit to the main hull will either destroy the engine or kill the crew, possibly both. mecha do however fit the military's desires, limbs can be swapped out faster than treads (depending on size of course).