Mechas: Pratical?

[50ul84n3]

hovertanks are a bit of a joke. any person who understands newton's laws of motion would know that any effective weapon you place on it will either knock it over or send it sliding across the battlefield. as for setting off AT mines, there are a few models that will go off when they are vibrated. a hovercraft creates a lot of vibration.

[50ul84n3]

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).

there are multiple systems that could be used. a shock dampening liquid encasing the pilot, or even a harness similar to the ones in racecars. as for the armor issue, it doesn't take much, a steel shell that is about 12 inches from the actual composite armor reduces the effectiveness of shaped charges. the active part of the armor sysem would be just open space. as for the main structure you only need to protect the actuators, engine, and pilot. other than that the armor would be protecting non-critical parts.

[The20]

50ul84n3

The20

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).

there are multiple systems that could be used. a shock dampening liquid encasing the pilot, or even a harness similar to the ones in racecars. as for the armor issue, it doesn't take much, a steel shell that is about 12 inches from the actual composite armor reduces the effectiveness of shaped charges. the active part of the armor sysem would be just open space. as for the main structure you only need to protect the actuators, engine, and pilot. other than that the armor would be protecting non-critical parts.

So now you have a walking tank that has more moving parts than a usual tank, has the same armor than a normal tank, is way more complicated to armor because of all the actuators, has a way larger area to get hit, is easier to spot and also slower. Why did we do this again?

Also, there are non-recoil weapons. Rocket launchers mostly.
And the recoil of a machine gun can hardly make a 15 ton vehicle (yea, optimistic) drift that much.

[50ul84n3]

The20

50ul84n3

The20

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).

there are multiple systems that could be used. a shock dampening liquid encasing the pilot, or even a harness similar to the ones in racecars. as for the armor issue, it doesn't take much, a steel shell that is about 12 inches from the actual composite armor reduces the effectiveness of shaped charges. the active part of the armor sysem would be just open space. as for the main structure you only need to protect the actuators, engine, and pilot. other than that the armor would be protecting non-critical parts.

So now you have a walking tank that has more moving parts than a usual tank, has the same armor than a normal tank, is way more complicated to armor because of all the actuators, has a way larger area to get hit, is easier to spot and also slower. Why did we do this again?

Also, there are non-recoil weapons. Rocket launchers mostly.
And the recoil of a machine gun can hardly make a 15 ton vehicle (yea, optimistic) drift that much.

a standard tank has more external moving parts than a mecha. you have to count every sprocket and tread-link. a mecha only has around 50 joints and about 46 hydraulic actuators. the size of the mecha can vary greatly from the same mass as a tank to several times the mass. as for the hovercraft if you fire a 50-cal 200 times you are going to move the tank in a direction opposite the direction of fire, it may not be very fast but enough to make it a hazard to anyone standing nearby. mounting a weapon smaller than a howitzer on a 15 tonne vehicle is just a waste of steel. as for rockets you are better off just using an A-10 it's faster, more maneuverable and is a lot harder to hit than a hovercraft. considering the terrain of our current battlefields a hovercraft would be useless. we are no longer fighting in the sandy deserts but in rocky foothills. hovercrafts do not do well in mountains and valleys.

[The20]

50ul84n3

The20

So now you have a walking tank that has more moving parts than a usual tank, has the same armor than a normal tank, is way more complicated to armor because of all the actuators, has a way larger area to get hit, is easier to spot and also slower. Why did we do this again?

Also, there are non-recoil weapons. Rocket launchers mostly.
And the recoil of a machine gun can hardly make a 15 ton vehicle (yea, optimistic) drift that much.

a standard tank has more external moving parts than a mecha. you have to count every sprocket and tread-link. a mecha only has around 50 joints and about 46 hydraulic actuators. the size of the mecha can vary greatly from the same mass as a tank to several times the mass. as for the hovercraft if you fire a 50-cal 200 times you are going to move the tank in a direction opposite the direction of fire, it may not be very fast but enough to make it a hazard to anyone standing nearby. mounting a weapon smaller than a howitzer on a 15 tonne vehicle is just a waste of steel. as for rockets you are better off just using an A-10 it's faster, more maneuverable and is a lot harder to hit than a hovercraft. considering the terrain of our current battlefields a hovercraft would be useless. we are no longer fighting in the sandy deserts but in rocky foothills. hovercrafts do not do well in mountains and valleys.

This is starting to deteriorate

Anyway, ok, i missed the tracks (again...). Still doesn't solve the other problems.

Also, what about the silhouette? Could you post a picture of what you would regard as a good design, because i have no idea what you're working with right now. It would also help to know how big it is supposed to be and where the different parts (like the engine) are situated (a gross overview)

Example for the design i use for references:
http://plaza.across.or.jp/~gerd01/mech/pic/awesome2.gif
(Note: i assume a height ~8 meters, the mech shown in the picture should be closer to 12, maybe even 15 meters)

[50ul84n3]

The20

50ul84n3

The20

So now you have a walking tank that has more moving parts than a usual tank, has the same armor than a normal tank, is way more complicated to armor because of all the actuators, has a way larger area to get hit, is easier to spot and also slower. Why did we do this again?

Also, there are non-recoil weapons. Rocket launchers mostly.
And the recoil of a machine gun can hardly make a 15 ton vehicle (yea, optimistic) drift that much.

a standard tank has more external moving parts than a mecha. you have to count every sprocket and tread-link. a mecha only has around 50 joints and about 46 hydraulic actuators. the size of the mecha can vary greatly from the same mass as a tank to several times the mass. as for the hovercraft if you fire a 50-cal 200 times you are going to move the tank in a direction opposite the direction of fire, it may not be very fast but enough to make it a hazard to anyone standing nearby. mounting a weapon smaller than a howitzer on a 15 tonne vehicle is just a waste of steel. as for rockets you are better off just using an A-10 it's faster, more maneuverable and is a lot harder to hit than a hovercraft. considering the terrain of our current battlefields a hovercraft would be useless. we are no longer fighting in the sandy deserts but in rocky foothills. hovercrafts do not do well in mountains and valleys.

This is starting to deteriorate

Anyway, ok, i missed the tracks (again...). Still doesn't solve the other problems.

Also, what about the silhouette? Could you post a picture of what you would deem a good design, because i have no idea what you're working with right now. It would also help to know how big it is supposed to be and where the different parts (like the engine) are situated (a gross overview)

Example for the design i use for references:
http://plaza.across.or.jp/~gerd01/mech/pic/awesome2.gif
(Note: i assume a height ~8 meters, the mech shown in the picture should be closer to 12, maybe even 15 meters)

that mecha is far too top heavy and the footpads are too small. www.karridian.net/.../mecha_sc_ebsis_perun.gif http://th03.deviantart.net/fs4/300W/i/2004/221/b/f/M_18G_Juggernaut_Assault_Mecha.jpg these 2 mecha are ones that i think of when trying to come up with a military class mecha. the feet need to have a large surface area, they also need to be thicker to support the rest of the system. as for the arms i think a gorilla-like posture and ratio would be more balanced. the engine would be in the torso of course but instead of using a head-like appendage the pilot is located inside a cockpit that inserts into the mecha either from the front-bottom, from the rear-top, or rear-bottom. Evangelion is a good concept for the cockpit but if you hybridize the design with Blue Gender then you get a medium sized mech that does not need a gantry for the pilot to safely dismount. in Evangelion they use a fluid to supply oxygen to the pilot but a better fluid would be a PVL polymer gel. in the event of a physical shock the gel will seize up and basically lock the pilot in a static postion until the collision is over. this concept is most effective if the control scheme only requires the pilot to move only slightly. as for the issue of vision. the same system employed in the F-35 would allow the pilot to view the environment through multiple cameras across the hull.

[The20]

50ul84n3

The20

This is starting to deteriorate

Anyway, ok, i missed the tracks (again...). Still doesn't solve the other problems.

Also, what about the silhouette? Could you post a picture of what you would deem a good design, because i have no idea what you're working with right now. It would also help to know how big it is supposed to be and where the different parts (like the engine) are situated (a gross overview)

Example for the design i use for references:
http://plaza.across.or.jp/~gerd01/mech/pic/awesome2.gif
(Note: i assume a height ~8 meters, the mech shown in the picture should be closer to 12, maybe even 15 meters)

that mecha is far too top heavy and the footpads are too small.
www.karridian.net/.../mecha_sc_ebsis_perun.gif
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs4/300W/i/2004/221/b/f/M_18G_Juggernaut_Assault_Mecha.jpg
these 2 mecha are ones that i think of when trying to come up with a military class mecha. the feet need to have a large surface area, they also need to be thicker to support the rest of the system.
as for the arms i think a gorilla-like posture and ratio would be more balanced. the engine would be in the torso of course but instead of using a head-like appendage the pilot is located inside a cockpit that inserts into the mecha either from the front-bottom, from the rear-top, or rear-bottom. Evangelion is a good concept for the cockpit but if you hybridize the design with Blue Gender then you get a medium sized mech that does not need a gantry for the pilot to safely dismount. in Evangelion they use a fluid to supply oxygen to the pilot but a better fluid would be a PVL polymer gel. in the event of a physical shock the gel will seize up and basically lock the pilot in a static postion until the collision is over. this concept is most effective if the control scheme only requires the pilot to move only slightly. as for the issue of vision. the same system employed in the F-35 would allow the pilot to view the environment through multiple cameras across the hull.

The first link doesn't work (did you miss to copy the middle part of it?)

As for the arms, i'd actually remove them altogether if possible, unnecessary moving parts. Just attach the weapons directly to the shoulders. If it absolutely has to be arms use only the upper arm and attach the weapons to them.

I'd change the example you posted in those ways: make the torso a bit larger so it can house all the stuff that it needs. Remove the shoulders and the arms completely. put the weapons directly at the shoulders (or maybe add a single element between torso and weapons to get them away from the legs, so they can move a bit better). Remove the head, put the pilot inside the torso.

[50ul84n3]

The20

50ul84n3

The20

This is starting to deteriorate

Anyway, ok, i missed the tracks (again...). Still doesn't solve the other problems.

Also, what about the silhouette? Could you post a picture of what you would deem a good design, because i have no idea what you're working with right now. It would also help to know how big it is supposed to be and where the different parts (like the engine) are situated (a gross overview)

Example for the design i use for references:
http://plaza.across.or.jp/~gerd01/mech/pic/awesome2.gif
(Note: i assume a height ~8 meters, the mech shown in the picture should be closer to 12, maybe even 15 meters)

that mecha is far too top heavy and the footpads are too small.
www.karridian.net/.../mecha_sc_ebsis_perun.gif
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs4/300W/i/2004/221/b/f/M_18G_Juggernaut_Assault_Mecha.jpg
these 2 mecha are ones that i think of when trying to come up with a military class mecha. the feet need to have a large surface area, they also need to be thicker to support the rest of the system.
as for the arms i think a gorilla-like posture and ratio would be more balanced. the engine would be in the torso of course but instead of using a head-like appendage the pilot is located inside a cockpit that inserts into the mecha either from the front-bottom, from the rear-top, or rear-bottom. Evangelion is a good concept for the cockpit but if you hybridize the design with Blue Gender then you get a medium sized mech that does not need a gantry for the pilot to safely dismount. in Evangelion they use a fluid to supply oxygen to the pilot but a better fluid would be a PVL polymer gel. in the event of a physical shock the gel will seize up and basically lock the pilot in a static postion until the collision is over. this concept is most effective if the control scheme only requires the pilot to move only slightly. as for the issue of vision. the same system employed in the F-35 would allow the pilot to view the environment through multiple cameras across the hull.

The first link doesn't work (did you miss to copy the middle part of it?)

As for the arms, i'd actually remove them altogether if possible, unnecessary moving parts. Just attach the weapons directly to the shoulders. If it absolutely has to be arms use only the upper arm and attach the weapons to them.

I'd change the example you posted in those ways: make the torso a bit larger so it can house all the stuff that it needs. Remove the shoulders and the arms completely. put the weapons directly at the shoulders (or maybe add a single element between torso and weapons to get them away from the legs, so they can move a bit better). Remove the head, put the pilot inside the torso.

you can't replace hands with guns because if the mecha falls over then it won't be able to get back up. hands are essential to proper operation of a bipedal mecha. hands also provide a much more adjustable platform for weapons, especially if the mecha were to run out of ammo. i agree with placing the cockpit inside the torso simply because it's easier to armor than anything else. (as for the links, i realized that and didn't feel like changing my post.) you seem to favor a mecha more akin to mechwarrior those designs are subject to being incapacitated simply by knocking them over.

[A Liberal Media]

mechs will never be practical on earth.

that said, I expect they may have use on other planetary bodies.

Take the moon, for instance. there's no atmosphere, so aerodynamic flight is impossible. the gravity is low enough that if you try to accelerate to combat speeds in a traditional tank, you are likely to be propelled above the surface without any method of reorienting yourself. a mech, on the other hand, would be rather well suited to the environment - being able to manuever itself about by "hopping", it would be able to cover ground quickly. combine this with some maneuvering thrusters and using limbs to reorient itself, a mech would be able to fulfill a unique tactical niche in low-gravity, low-atmosphere environments.


mind you, there's absolutely nothing about this that says it has to be humanoid.

[The20]

50ul84n3

The20

The first link doesn't work (did you miss to copy the middle part of it?)

As for the arms, i'd actually remove them altogether if possible, unnecessary moving parts. Just attach the weapons directly to the shoulders. If it absolutely has to be arms use only the upper arm and attach the weapons to them.

I'd change the example you posted in those ways: make the torso a bit larger so it can house all the stuff that it needs. Remove the shoulders and the arms completely. put the weapons directly at the shoulders (or maybe add a single element between torso and weapons to get them away from the legs, so they can move a bit better). Remove the head, put the pilot inside the torso.

you can't replace hands with guns because if the mecha falls over then it won't be able to get back up. hands are essential to proper operation of a bipedal mecha. hands also provide a much more adjustable platform for weapons, especially if the mecha were to run out of ammo. i agree with placing the cockpit inside the torso simply because it's easier to armor than anything else. (as for the links, i realized that and didn't feel like changing my post.) you seem to favor a mecha more akin to mechwarrior those designs are subject to being incapacitated simply by knocking them over.

I assume that if a mech falls over the structural damage would take him out anyways (or would a tank survive a fall from 4 meters height?)
Even if not, the time it takes him to get up the enemy will score hit after hit. So if he is down he's done for either way.
(Is it even possible for a design with feet that big to fall? It looks like one of the legs weights almost more than the torso.)

As for my affection to Mechwarrior style mechas, i just don't believe that an 80 metric ton chunk of metal can accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 5 seconds.

So why do i want to get a design that we both agree on anyways? Simple: to pick it apart afterwards. I want to know what we're working with so that i can pinpoint the problems with it directly, without having to resort to general stuff. I want examples to destroy them.

Edit:
By the way, i hope with "hands also provide a much more adjustable platform for weapons" you are not talking about weapons that resemble stuff infantry uses in big?

[50ul84n3]

preferably the design for a mecha would have very broad feet it wouldn't do to have a mecha get stuck in sand. try to move away from the belief that the limbs are completely solid. both legs would only weigh half as much as the torso due to density. solid limbs would also be a great deal harder to move with actuators. if a mecha were to be rendered completely useless if knocked over then there would be no advantage to fielding it in battle. as for the weapon system being similar to rifles and pistols, i see no disadvantage to using such designs. the modular aspect of dropping a clunky howitzer for a chaingun when suppressing infantry is an important objective. an adaptive platform that can change it's armament almost as fast is more effective than having to use an entire support crew to change the weapons. there are much better ways of firing a large weapon than a big trigger. electronic triggers and RF transmitters are really a better way especially if there is the chance of the weapon being left on the battle field. in the event that the mecha falls down there is always the option of shooting at the attackers, your design leaves the weapons in a useless static position. it does you no good if your attacker is a tank and you are stuck on your back with your cannons pointed at the sun. of course there is bound to be damage when the mecha falls over but you can easily counter that with a honeycombed rubber that will be able to absorb the majority of the impact before it is transmitted to the structural frame.

[The20]

50ul84n3

preferably the design for a mecha would have very broad feet it wouldn't do to have a mecha get stuck in sand.

What?
Ah, NOW i get it. Mind to use periods and comas once in a while?

50ul84n3

try to move away from the belief that the limbs are completely solid. both legs would only weigh half as much as the torso due to density. solid limbs would also be a great deal harder to move with actuators. if a mecha were to be rendered completely useless if knocked over then there would be no advantage to fielding it in battle.

Well guess what i am trying to say the whole time ...

50ul84n3

as for the weapon system being similar to rifles and pistols, i see no disadvantage to using such designs. the modular aspect of dropping a clunky howitzer for a chaingun when suppressing infantry is an important objective. an adaptive platform that can change it's armament almost as fast is more effective than having to use an entire support crew to change the weapons. there are much better ways of firing a large weapon than a big trigger. electronic triggers and RF transmitters are really a better way especially if there is the chance of the weapon being left on the battle field.

My main concern with that is, again, structural integrity and the behaviour of materials if you take an existing concept and make it 100 times larger. It more than likely won't work the way you expect it to.
If we're using mechs anyway you can as well add 3 or 4 different weapon systems to it, a 120mm gun at one arm (though i don't know of any reliable autoloader for them, which could become a problem), a 20 or 30mm autocannon on the other arm, a pair of MGs on a turret on the head, etc.

50ul84n3

in the event that the mecha falls down there is always the option of shooting at the attackers, your design leaves the weapons in a useless static position. it does you no good if your attacker is a tank and you are stuck on your back with your cannons pointed at the sun.

Your mech would still be immobile and the attackers could keep moving.

50ul84n3

of course there is bound to be damage when the mecha falls over but you can easily counter that with a honeycombed rubber that will be able to absorb the majority of the impact before it is transmitted to the structural frame.

The majority of the force comes from the 80 metric tones or metal behind the rubber, that will still move with almost the end speed. That rubber will be squashed.

Also, i'd like to see some tests with static cells that weight 80 metric tons and a few layers of rubber to stop them in a way that the cell and the inner systems survive the shock.

Come to think of it, what was the worst IED that hit a tank so far? If we have one where the tank was lifted in the air, at least 3 meters, we can use that to get an idea what will happen to your precious mech if he falls down.

[O R G A 5 M]

moonbreaze

Vryko Lakas

If you need agility and mobility with heavy firepower over difficult terrain, use an attack helicopter. Faster and more maneuverable than any mech will ever be, it gains the high ground advantage automatically. If you need heavy armor and a BFG, that's a job for tanks and mobile artillery. Tanks can still be made small enough to fit into an urban warfare scenario, whereas mobile artillery just lobs enormous shells from a safer distance. Precision? I've got more faith in "smart" ammo and munitions than in big slow expensive fragile floppy robots with squishy people inside and no practical range before running out of onboard fuel.

Big mechs are fun. I make them out of Lego. They're not going to be practical war machines any more than my Lego versions are going to be lethal weapons.

I think by the time we have the technology to make a mecha pratical, the armor itself will have solar pannals on it, or something like that anyways, to eliminate the need for "fuel" so to speak.

Solar panals on a mech would be impractical due to the fact that you would need to protect them so the mech wouldn't run out of power, so armor over them would make it useless, unless you plan on putting them on one point, which causes a huge weak point in the system.
Any questions?