Mechas: Pratical?

[The20]

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).

Bigger unit = more area to hit. Also, an IED that will pierce trough a tank will likely also destroy the foot of a mecha, making it fall, which will likely kill the pilot.
Edit: If it is a two legged vehicle that is.

[Slutty_Eddie]

50ul84n3

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.

This is an extremely interesting justification for Mecha.

I think my favorite justification for Mechas are that Tanks have a very large area for overhead bombing and an alternative history of an overabundance of mines made Tanks less suitable than mechas. (Think Angola, but on a world wide scale).

This was written before guided weapons were more standard, making the first justification rather humorous. A dog can still get around on two legs, so I could see an "over-mine" world using some sort of multi-legged design. As long, of course, as the legs were long enough to place a crew 10 or 15 feet above ground and there was a redundant amount of legs to keep the mecha going. (Along with lots of drones)

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

50ul84n3

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.

This is an extremely interesting justification for Mecha.

I think my favorite justification for Mechas are that Tanks have a very large area for overhead bombing and an alternative history of an overabundance of mines made Tanks less suitable than mechas. (Think Angola, but on a world wide scale).

This was written before guided weapons were more standard, making the first justification rather humorous. A dog can still get around on two legs, so I could see an "over-mine" world using some sort of multi-legged design. As long, of course, as the legs were long enough to place a crew 10 or 15 feet above ground and there was a redundant amount of legs to keep the mecha going. (Along with lots of drones)

This is where hover tanks come into play.
Mines? Whatever.

[Slutty_Eddie]

Never mind. It gets too crazy when we start discussing which fictional form of future warfare will win.

Next up. Death Star vs. Unicron

[50ul84n3]

The20

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).

Bigger unit = more area to hit. Also, an IED that will pierce trough a tank will likely also destroy the foot of a mecha, making it fall, which will likely kill the pilot.
Edit: If it is a two legged vehicle that is.

you need to understand the way a shaped charge works. the diameter of the entrance hole of a shaped charge is close to that of a pencil, you only need to inject a small amount of liquid metal into the crew area to kill everyone inside. as for the engine when the jet of liquid metal enters the engine it either seizes the moving parts or just leaves a hole in the engine block and cylinders. a shaped charge would be ineffective if it hit anything other than a joint or actuator which would be only 25% or so of the limbs composition. any mine that would have the forces to disable a tank range from small pipebombs to 5000 pound unexploded airdropped ordinances. depending on placement a pipebomb could destroy treads, turret assembly, engine, or crew. the same goes for a mecha. depending on where you place the bomb you can disable a leg, arm, engine, weapon, or pilot. there is in fact an advantage bipedal mecha. they fall down. instead of completely destroying the leg it is much more likely that the mecha will be knocked over, this would redirect the weight from acting against the explosion and allowing the forces to be slightly deflected. any explosive that will shear the leg off would flip a tank or any other vehicle, even the MRAPS would be useless against such force. not to mention that the crew of the ground vehicles would suffer brain damage. the pilot of the mecha would probably be subject to the same forces but it is more likely that due to the mecha design the pilot would be further from the explosion.

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

Never mind. It gets too crazy when we start discussing which fictional form of future warfare will win.

Next up. Death Star vs. Unicron

We could build hover tanks right now. Probably no MBTs, but light tanks should be possible. The basic idea for this technology is from 1875.

50ul84n3

you need to understand the way a shaped charge works. the diameter of the entrance hole of a shaped charge is close to that of a pencil, you only need to inject a small amount of liquid metal into the crew area to kill everyone inside. as for the engine when the jet of liquid metal enters the engine it either seizes the moving parts or just leaves a hole in the engine block and cylinders. a shaped charge would be ineffective if it hit anything other than a joint or actuator which would be only 25% or so of the limbs composition. any mine that would have the forces to disable a tank range from small pipebombs to 5000 pound unexploded airdropped ordinances. depending on placement a pipebomb could destroy treads, turret assembly, engine, or crew. the same goes for a mecha. depending on where you place the bomb you can disable a leg, arm, engine, weapon, or pilot. there is in fact an advantage bipedal mecha. they fall down. instead of completely destroying the leg it is much more likely that the mecha will be knocked over, this would redirect the weight from acting against the explosion and allowing the forces to be slightly deflected. any explosive that will shear the leg off would flip a tank or any other vehicle, even the MRAPS would be useless against such force. not to mention that the crew of the ground vehicles would suffer brain damage. the pilot of the mecha would probably be subject to the same forces but it is more likely that due to the mecha design the pilot would be further from the explosion.

Well ok, you don't kill the crew or the engine, you destroy the structure. Now the mech can't walk anymore. Immobile targets get a -4 hit modifier.

And you can't simply add more armor, the engine will not be able to handle this at some point.
Also, who said you're not targeting the head (or whatever else part the pilot is in)?

If a large mech falls and the pilot is high above the ground the force on impact will cause really bad injuries if you don't put him in some kind of damped seat that has no hard connection with the mech. Not even speaking of the damage done to he mech itself.

If the force and the angle of said force applied to a mech as well as it's weight is the same as that in a scenario with a tank the result will be similar to what would happen to said tank. Maybe he wouldn't be flipped upside down, but the damage would still be catastrophic.

Finally, why do you think ants can carry a hundred times their weight, we about 3 times and elephants only 1/4?
The larger a machine gets the more material you need in comparison to the overall weight to keep it stable. Same principle with bones (I heard a cats skeleton is lighter in comparison to the overall weight than ours, it but i couldn't find any useful numbers).

[Slutty_Eddie]

The20

Slutty_Eddie

Never mind. It gets too crazy when we start discussing which fictional form of future warfare will win.

Next up. Death Star vs. Unicron

We could build hover tanks right now. Probably no MBTs, but light tanks should be possible. The basic idea for this technology is from 1875.

A hover craft does not weigh less than a normal craft. A hover craft puts down the same amount of overall psi as a normal vehicle does, it just does it evenly. It's still going to set off land mines, and you'll have additional problems of a very vulnerable skirt and underside. It actually would be interesting to see what an extremely small explosion does to a hovercraft, but fluid dynamics are pretty difficult maths.

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

The20

Slutty_Eddie

Never mind. It gets too crazy when we start discussing which fictional form of future warfare will win.

Next up. Death Star vs. Unicron

We could build hover tanks right now. Probably no MBTs, but light tanks should be possible. The basic idea for this technology is from 1875.

A hover craft does not weigh less than a normal craft. A hover craft puts down the same amount of overall psi as a normal vehicle does, it just does it evenly. It's still going to set off land mines, and you'll have additional problems of a very vulnerable skirt and underside. It actually would be interesting to see what an extremely small explosion does to a hovercraft, but fluid dynamics are pretty difficult maths.

Wait, air flow can trigger mines?

[Van Evok]

anyone heard of magnetic detonators? any large mass of metal will trigger such mines. BTW, many hovercraft are large enough to carry MBT's themselves.

[Slutty_Eddie]

The20

Wait, air flow can trigger mines?

For every action there is a reaction.

While a hovercraft has a very light signature, since the pressure is distributed evenly rather than through wheels and treads, it still presses down. Lifting a 2000 pounds still exerts 2000 pounds of pressure downwards.

For example, the Chinese built Type 62 light tank is 20 feet x 6 feet and weighs 42 000 pounds.

Assuming the tank has 1 foot treads and all treads connect to the earth evenly, the psf would be 1050 psf or 87.4 psi. That's fairly heavy.

Assuming the conversion to hover tank neither adds or subtracts any weight, the T-62 will have 350 psf or 30 psi. Now it has the footprint of a very large man, almost 1/3 the original pressure. We can decrease the weight by removing armor and increase the width as well as the length to lower the psi even more. However, we will NEVER get a hover craft to be weightless.

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

The20

Wait, air flow can trigger mines?

For every action there is a reaction.

While a hovercraft has a very light signature, since the pressure is distributed evenly rather than through wheels and treads, it still presses down. Lifting a 2000 pounds still exerts 2000 pounds of pressure downwards.

For example, the Chinese built Type 62 light tank is 20 feet x 6 feet and weighs 42 000 pounds.

Assuming the tank has 1 foot treads and all treads connect to the earth evenly, the psf would be 1050 psf or 87.4 psi. That's fairly heavy.

Assuming the conversion to hover tank neither adds or subtracts any weight, the T-62 will have 350 psf or 30 psi. Now it has the footprint of a very large man, almost 1/3 the original pressure. We can decrease the weight by removing armor and increase the width as well as the length to lower the psi even more. However, we will NEVER get a hover craft to be weightless.

I never expected it to be weightless, but i may have misunderstood the concept of how it hovers.

And maybe watched one or two James Bond movies too many ...

Edit: wait, aren't anti tank mines triggered by HEAVY objects? So a tank with the psi of a man shouldn't actually trigger them?

Edit 2: How are hovercrafts able to move over water?

[Slutty_Eddie]

Quote:

I never expected it to be weightless, but i may have misunderstood the concept of how it hovers.

The basic idea is to trap a pocket of air underneath the craft , making it rise slightly. It doesn't physically touch the ground, which means it's virtually frictionless, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exert pressure on the ground.

A Hovercraft is able to go over water because it can maintain the cushion of air over that water.

The20

Edit: wait, aren't anti tank mines triggered by HEAVY objects? So a tank with the psi of a man shouldn't actually trigger them?

Correct, most anti-tank mines that are triggered by weight would NOT be triggered by a hover craft. Not all anti-tank mines are triggered that way, but the cheapest are. North Korea is heavily invested in hover crafts for that reason, but all of their hover crafts are troop transports, not tanks.

If we are able to pull numbers out of my a**, a 10 x 6 ft hover craft weighing 2000 pounds would give us 33 psf or 2.75 psi. That is an extremely small number, we're talking about the weight of a dog. I don't think that's unreasonable, if we give up armor all together.

However, it doesn't mean it won't trigger anti-personal weapons. Hovercraft's bottoms are extremely vulnerable. They ride on a cushion of air, so a rapid increase and decrease of air pressure might tip them over or ground them. Any damage to the skirt will pretty much will ground a hovercraft. And remember, the military lays down anti-personal mines all around an anti-tank mine, just to make sure no one removes the anti-tank one. biggrin

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

Quote:

I never expected it to be weightless, but i may have misunderstood the concept of how it hovers.

The basic idea is to trap a pocket of air underneath the craft , making it rise slightly. It doesn't physically touch the ground, which means it's virtually frictionless, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exert pressure on the ground.

A Hovercraft is able to go over water because it can maintain the cushion of air over that water.

The20

Edit: wait, aren't anti tank mines triggered by HEAVY objects? So a tank with the psi of a man shouldn't actually trigger them?

Correct, most anti-tank mines that are triggered by weight would NOT be triggered by a hover craft. Not all anti-tank mines are triggered that way, but the cheapest are. North Korea is heavily invested in hover crafts for that reason, but all of their hover crafts are troop transports, not tanks.

If we are able to pull numbers out of my a**, a 10 x 6 ft hover craft weighing 2000 pounds would give us 33 psf or 2.75 psi. That is an extremely small number, we're talking about the weight of a dog. I don't think that's unreasonable, if we give up armor all together.

However, it doesn't mean it won't trigger anti-personal weapons. Hovercraft's bottoms are extremely vulnerable. They ride on a cushion of air, so a rapid increase and decrease of air pressure might tip them over or ground them. Any damage to the skirt will pretty much will ground a hovercraft. And remember, the military lays down anti-personal mines all around an anti-tank mine, just to make sure no one removes the anti-tank one. biggrin

/k/ seems to disagree about the easily-damaged-by-mines part. And if there is one thing i trust those ******** with it's weapons.

Pic instead of link because i have no idea how long it will stay alive:
http://i37.tinypic.com/8yt5jc.png

[Slutty_Eddie]

The20

]/k/ seems to disagree about the easily-damaged-by-mines part. And if there is one thing i trust those ******** with it's weapons.

I agree with /k/, however, your question is somewhat misleading. The craft pictured is 88 x 47 ft. The Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus, the largest tank ever used was 33 x 12 ft, while the largest tank ever built, T-28 Super Heavy was 36 x 14ft, never left the prototype stage.

That craft's function is troop transport, not direct assault. Well, it's called an amphibious assault ship, but it's mission isn't to directly assault, but to bring troops to assault mission targets. It does not fill the role of tank in any way. As I pointed out before, North Korea is heavily invested in hovercraft troop transports for the very reason of avoiding mines, so I do agree in this possibility.

Being an indirect assault vehicle and it's huge size gives it's advantage. It is both very, very light and very, very huge. I agree with /k/. This hovercraft will not set off any pressure land mines, and the rapid increase and decrease of pressure due to an explosion would be mitigated by it's large size. Like in your ant vs. elephant post, decreasing the footprint of that hovercraft, while increasing the armor and weaponry will greatly increase the pressure on the ground, and make it more vulnerable. A tank sized hover craft is going to be a different beast than one wider than a 4 lane highway designed to carry 180 fully equipped troops..

[The20]

Slutty_Eddie

The20

/k/ seems to disagree about the easily-damaged-by-mines part. And if there is one thing i trust those ******** with it's weapons.

I agree with /k/, however, your question is somewhat misleading. The craft pictured is 88 x 47 ft. The Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus, the largest tank ever used was 33 x 12 ft, while the largest tank ever built, T-28 Super Heavy was 36 x 14ft, never left the prototype stage.

That craft's function is troop transport, not direct assault. Well, it's called an amphibious assault ship, but it's mission isn't to directly assault, but to bring troops to assault mission targets. It does not fill the role of tank in any way. As I pointed out before, North Korea is heavily invested in hovercraft troop transports for the very reason of avoiding mines, so I do agree in this possibility.

Being an indirect assault vehicle and it's huge size gives it's advantage. It is both very, very light and very, very huge. I agree with /k/. This hovercraft will not set off any pressure land mines, and the rapid increase and decrease of pressure due to an explosion would be mitigated by it's large size. Like in your ant vs. elephant post, decreasing the footprint of that hovercraft, while increasing the armor and weaponry will greatly increase the pressure on the ground, and make it more vulnerable. A tank sized hover craft is going to be a different beast than one wider than a 4 lane highway designed to carry 180 fully equipped troops..

Hm, ok, i admit i didn't think about that.

The Maus, however, never saw service. The whole project only managed to get up to two prototypes (both destroyed at the end of WW2, but i believe the Russians where able to put one together from all the parts).