NationStates Jolt Archive

Sci fi/Anime fans know all about "mecha" or "mechs", giant humanoid armored fighting vehicles like Battletech or Gundam (the latter often using flashy moves like "Shining Fist of Heaven Super Punch!" :D ) which are piloted by the main characters and plow their way through the opposition.

Outside the realm of fiction though, can anyone think of any practical application of mecha that doesn't break the laws of physics? Restricted to current and possible future technology of course.

I think I read somewhere that if a mech were to exist in real life, the concentration of weight on 2 legs would cause it to sink into the ground.

Leaving that aside, they may be useful, if not nearly as dominant as mech-based fiction would indicate. Their vertical profile is so large that pretty much anything that shoots them will hit, and because they're relatively thin, any hit is likely to hit an energy reactor, ammo, or whatever. The pilots are generally in an exposed position in the head. The need for balance prevents them from having really big cannons- the recoil would knock them off their feet. If a mech falls, it's going to be difficult to get back up. And so on.

The main advantage of a mech is its mobility; feet can go places where treads and wheels can't. As such, I could see mechs providing some light armor support in difficult terrain- swamps and cities, for example. However, the tank's low profile and large gun would ensure its supremecy as the primary armored units.

I would think something along the lines of that forklift thing that Ridley piloted in Aliens would be the most likely and practicle. Though everyonce in a while I watch some future tech show on Discovery or it's ilk that talks about terran that tracked vehicles can't get through that they suggest legged vehicles could, but even then they're not really talking about bi-pedal machines. The only thing I could really think of for a bi-pedal machine is the aforementioned forklift.

I can only see mechs affecting war. Greater destruction and possibly less casualties. I don't know peaceful tasks they would be good for.

Biggest prob with two legged mechs is that it has a massive weak spot: It's legs. Blow one up and it's useless. Hell, wouldn't even need to blow it up. Damage some of the hydraulics so it seizes up would do the trick.
To counter that, you'd need to so heavily armour the legs that it'd be too heavy to move quickly.
They're cool but I can't see them being useful (*sigh* I'd love to own my own mech)

The main advantage of a mech is its mobility; feet can go places where treads and wheels can't.

Ahh, but aircraft can go where feet cannot, and will be cheaper too :D As for city, that's a deathtrap for any armored vehicle, leave it for the infantry.

Biggest prob with two legged mechs is that it has a massive weak spot: It's legs. Blow one up and it's useless. Hell, wouldn't even need to blow it up. Damage some of the hydraulics so it seizes up would do the trick.
To counter that, you'd need to so heavily armour the legs that it'd be too heavy to move quickly.
They're cool but I can't see them being useful (*sigh* I'd love to own my own mech)
That's not really all that different than tracks or wheels. Method of motivation is the weak spot of any vehicle, not really exclusive to mechs. For bi-pedal ones I imagine it would be balance and what someone else had mentioned, verticle profile. But like I said, I've never seen anyone outside of a cartoon talk about biped mechs, usually it's six or more.

Still, I'm sticking with forklifts. That seems the best application to me.

True, but with a tank, say, if you blow up one track it can still be effective. It can still aim and fire. With a mech, blow up a leg and it's down on it's side.
Agree with you about Ridley's forklift suit. Always thought that'd be cool.

Well for low gravity enviroments where precise movement is needed, mechs may play a bigger role since we will exprience blast craters, lower amount of traction and most of all exploiting gravity's jumps by propelling a mech into the air and dropping over 40 tons of hard tugsten steel on the enemy. Granted mechs are not suited for Earth's fighting conditions but they will be vital in protecting outer space assets.

Sci fi/Anime fans know all about "mecha" or "mechs", giant humanoid armored fighting vehicles like Battletech or Gundam (the latter often using flashy moves like "Shining Fist of Heaven Super Punch!" :D ) which are piloted by the main characters and plow their way through the opposition.

Outside the realm of fiction though, can anyone think of any practical application of mecha that doesn't break the laws of physics? Restricted to current and possible future technology of course.
it depends on your definition of "Mecha"

Giant Humanoid Robots? possibly in space. mining or terraforming.

powered armor "Gasaraki" style: can be used in many application. heavy construction, work in hostile environments (antartic or even in space)

powered armor "Bubblegum Crisis" Style: law enforcement or even military.

any armoured vehicle could be viewed as a mech, only it doesnt have legs but wheels or tracks. the huge problem i see with the legged mechs from scifi as Pennterra allready mentioned is, that they stick out through their height and you want a combat vehicle to be as flat as possible, so it is hard to spot. added mobility for legged machines is not really important, a combination of planes and armor would do a much better job than mechs.

look at the springwalker (http://www.springwalker.com/) for an exoskeleton type bipedal device.

In the related catagory of power suits, I found this-
New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1072) on power suits for nurses to help them lift patients. (Hyperdrive, power suits, what is going on at New Scientist? Is their mission statement "Fullfill nerd fantasies!!")

Or perhaps Cyborg Grandpa!!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8656746/) Whippersnappers beware!

Apparently my favored forklift idea has a way to go (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/ironmen.html) before it it can lift anything.

A dubious source (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547812/posts) (I know nothing about it and only read the first few lines. For all I know it's a fictional article for some sci-fi setting) talks about UC Berkeley making power suits for the military. I think I've seen things close to this on shows before.

I'm kinda tired of looking things up, I'll stop at this for now.

any armoured vehicle could be viewed as a mech, only it doesnt have legs but wheels or tracks. the huge problem i see with the legged mechs from scifi as Pennterra allready mentioned is, that they stick out through their height and you want a combat vehicle to be as flat as possible, so it is hard to spot. added mobility for legged machines is not really important, a combination of planes and armor would do a much better job than mechs.
I think that it's the spiderleg types that can get where the wheeled vehicles can't and is still low and can survive one of the legs going out.

look at the springwalker (http://www.springwalker.com/) for an exoskeleton type bipedal device.
I watched the video of that thing, damned goofy looking...

Mechs usually have arms too, so you could prop your guns to whatever angle and direction you want.

Just to put the thinking in a different perspective, imagine that you were a tank-sized person (which is what the mech concept creates) complete with weapons and armour (equivalent to those on the tank). If you were told you had to fight a tank, what would you do to take advantage of the tank's limited design?

Mechs usually have arms too, so you could prop your guns to whatever angle and direction you want.tanks can too as they have a turret. also you dont get up close and personal today, you would engage the enemy over a few kilometers away, when you cannot even see the target with the naked eye.

Or perhaps Cyborg Grandpa!!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8656746/) Whippersnappers beware!

They call it HAL! Now that's tempting fate.

This guy (http://news.com.com/New+on+eBay+18-foot,+flame-fisted+mech/2100-1026_3-5783802.html) has built his own. Why aren't all geeks that proactive?

Wouldn't quadrupped units be better for stability and profile?

Wouldn't quadrupped units be better for stability and profile?

I say eight! There's nothing that can't be improved by mechanical spider legs.

This is (http://www.philoneist.com/50226711/first_military_exoskeleton_reaches_prototype.php) I believe another version of one of the earlier links. That dude looks like a cheap action figure...

Same dude, better outfit (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/79369aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html).

Here's (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Cool121604,,00.html) something about exoskeletons, robotic fish and ray guns.

They call it HAL! Now that's tempting fate.
I thought the same thing

I say eight! There's nothing that can't be improved by mechanical spider legs.

Mmm, I doubt we would be seeing mecha that could move like real spiders though. Although if we did, it would be quite useful I think.

While height can be seen as a disadvantage, it is also an advantage. It's fucking scary. How would you feel to know that 100 tons of 16 meter tall walking death is coming to blow the shit out of you. Not only that, but unlike a tank, it can be fashioned to look like the Grim Reaper. Psychological warfare. Treds are only so terrifying. A big walking monster is a whole other ballgame.

Plus, if you're tank is flat, it'll be even flatter when I step on it.

Not only that, but a mech can go places tracked vehicles can't, and can provide sustained support fire for allied infantry. VTOL aircraft, whether helicopter or jet, would be improbable for real cover, because their armor would be too thin to be able to sustain the kind of blows a large battlemech could.

Also, if the mech is humanoid, the mech has two arms. He can, if his targetting array is sophisticated enough, target two enemies at the same time at polar opposites of him (180 degrees) and fire away. A single turreted tank can only engage one enemy at a time.

Also, his height is even more of an advantage, though in close range fighting. The mech can fire down onto tanks, and in urban fighting, can topple buildings. Infantry in a high rise don't mean shit if the building gets knocked over.

*snip*

I would mention vulnerabilities to airstrikes, but then I realized that with today's precision munitions, a tank is about just as vulnerable.

I can only see mechs affecting war. Greater destruction and possibly less casualties. I don't know peaceful tasks they would be good for.

Really really big forklift type thingies for shipping containers. There you go. :p


I think they would be practical in some sense - not massive building sized ones, but human-sized robots that look similar would be, especially in indoor settings where wheels and tracks are far less useful.

Really really big forklift type thingies for shipping containers. There you go. :p


I think they would be practical in some sense - not massive building sized ones, but human-sized robots that look similar would be, especially in indoor settings where wheels and tracks are far less useful.

How about disaster management? I can see it being used to dig out people trapped in rubble when the stuff blocking you is too large for humans and too fragile to support heavy movers. Heck, it would be handy in construction crews too won't it?

How about disaster management? I can see it being used to dig out people trapped in rubble when the stuff blocking you is too large for humans and too fragile to support heavy movers. Heck, it would be handy in construction crews too won't it?
Good call.

Good call.

Yeah, I second that.

Hmmm....when the inevitable robot apocalypse comes (movies and computer games told me so), I wouldn't want to be in the path of a mech with a wrecking ball. :p

Yeah, I second that.

Hmmm....when the inevitable robot apocalypse comes (movies and computer games told me so), I wouldn't want to be in the path of a mech with a wrecking ball. :p
A friend of mine has a way to prevent being killed in the robot apocalypse, or at least his theory. It's really very simple.

When you go to get gas when the pump asks if you want a receipt, actually press 'no' instead of ignoring it. It's this simple act of courtesy that he thinks the robots will recognize when they start killing those who took them for granted.

A friend of mine has a way to prevent being killed in the robot apocalypse, or at least his theory. It's really very simple.

When you go to get gas when the pump asks if you want a receipt, actually press 'no' instead of ignoring it. It's this simple act of courtesy that he thinks the robots will recognize when they start killing those who took them for granted.

Hahaha, awesome!

Hmm, Windows hasn't crashed in a while...*hugs computer case*

This would look really weird if someone walked in on me.

in my opinion it is neither practical nor sensible to base the external appearance of any sort of mechanism on the human form. good science fiction and even good fantasy balances sense of wonder with suspension of disbelief. battlebots sure; bolo mark 2's or even 20's, but jolly green metal giants? give me a (explative) break.

=^^=
.../\...

in my opinion it is neither practical nor sensible to base the external appearance of any sort of mechanism on the human form.

Yeah, I guess it would be pretty stupid to do something like give a mechanism two separate optical sensors on the same side of its head to aid in depth perception, or opposable digits if it needed to pick something up. :rolleyes:

There are practical size limits, of course (you wouldn't expect a typical mech to be bigger than a typical tank), but all you really need to make a mech useful is an application that requires the power of a machine, but the flexibility of a human.

For example, I wouldn't put a mech against a tank on open ground, but in thick forest or jungle you're looking at a different proposition. Legs give you fantastic ground clearance, quick turning speed, and good height adjustment (if you can't see over an obstacle in a tank, your only option is to go around it), and there are a lot more advantages to having a pair of hands (beyond just giving you a weapon mount with greater articulation than a tank turret, that is).

If you're thinking of a mech as just a weapons platform with legs, you're missing a large portion of its usefulness, because the idea of a mech is to have a giant soldier, and soldiers aren't just guns on legs (even if they sometimes seem that way).

I can only see mechs affecting war. Greater destruction and possibly less casualties. I don't know peaceful tasks they would be good for.


a mech could easily get a kitten out of a burning tree

A long time ago (long ago enouh that it appears to have dissapeared), I wrote up a little guide for RPers on the subject of how to defeat mechs. They are really quite vulnerable, at least when you're talking about giant bipedal ones.

The problems for a practical mech would include (in no particular order):

1) High Profile: As the famous USMC anti-tank traning ditty goes, "what you can see, you can hit. What you can hit, you kill." Mechs simply stand too high. Some mech designs are supposed to include the ability to lower this by ducking down, but I don't see this as being practical.

2) Weight: The weight required for the armor and powerplant of mechs as they are usually concieved, especially when concentrated on only two relatively small points of contact, would prohibit movement over soft terrain - sorry Pennterra, mechs in a swamp would be a big mistake. Further more, there would be a significant danger of collapsing streets, particularly as more and more infrastructure is underground - mechs would have to be very careful in urban areas.

3) Instability: Two points of contact is an inherently unstable set up. Consider how easy it is to push over a standing person, particularly in comparison to a person on their hands and knees. Four points would be better, but six to ten would be practical.

4) Limited Armaments: Due to the stability problem, high recoil weapons simply can't be mounted, as they would knock the mech over.

5) Vulnerability of Legs: First of all, the mechs legs could not mount significant armor, particulalarly at the joints. Secondly, articulated joints are particularly vulnerable to significant wear and tear from envivironmental dust and grit. Consider the problems encountered by both AFVs and aircraft operating in desert environments, and multiply that several times. Finally, a bipedal design would be easy to score a mobility kill on, simply by interfering with the legs.

6) Lack of Sloped Armor: Look at modern tank designs (mid-WWII onwards) and you'll see the glacis and usually other surfaces are sloped. This serves to a) deflect projectiles and b) present a greater thickness of armor. Mech desgins are vertical, and would have a limited slope, if any.

7) Complexity: Articulated legs are significantly more complex than wheel or tracks. That means more maintanance and expense. Plus, it's much easier to replace a busted track than a leg, meaning a tank will be back in action much faster than a mech.

8) Close Terrain: Anything as big as a mech would be has trouble moving in close terrain (urban areas, forests, and the like). (Yes, tanks have the same problems. That's why tankers try to avoid close terrain.)

Small, multi-legged walkers may have a future as combat vehicles, particularly as engineer vehicles, but no, we won't see Battlemechs or Gundams replace tanks.

x

Yeah, I guess it would be pretty stupid to do something like give a mechanism two separate optical sensors on the same side of its head to aid in depth perception, or opposable digits if it needed to pick something up. :rolleyes:


Er... would a mech even need anything like a pair of human eyes to have depth perception? I mean, if it was acting as a vehicle for a human, people can usually determine depth pretty well from video-feed taken from a single camera. If it was an automated machine with no driver, would a mechanism imitating the human eye (or any eye) be the most practical?

As well, the human hand isn't exactly the best possible design for a gripper, and an appendage could probably be designed that can do everything a human hand can do, and more. If not all in one, then you could have something with multiple appendages or hand attachments.

How would you feel to know that 100 tons of 16 meter tall walking death is coming to blow the shit out of you.


1. Generating what kind of PSI when it has only on foot on the ground?

2. Sounds really light. 40 tons heavier than an Abrams tank*, and you expect to be able to have armour over its entire surface area? To say nothing of the additional weight that the elaborate walking mechanism will produce.

3. Visibility is hardly going to be great, is it? Tankcrews have a hard enough time with ambushes by concealed infantry. Now you want to add the problem of having the observer another 14 metres or so from ground level. Sounds like an open invitiation to an RPG up the mechanical ass.


* EDIT: and while we're on that subject the square-cube law suggests that this behemoth will have approximately eight times the volume of a MBT, which further adds to your weight problem.

As well, the human hand isn't exactly the best possible design for a gripper, and an appendage could probably be designed that can do everything a human hand can do, and more. If not all in one, then you could have something with multiple appendages or hand attachments.

Are we talking a sink plunger on one arm and a death ray on the other here?

Are we talking a sink plunger on one arm and a death ray on the other here?

Hah! Well, more like a gripper, a mallet and a rotating saw blade on one and a death ray, tranquilizer and a suction hose (leading to a containment vessel of some sort) on the other. Plus a third arm that launches grenades.

Hah! Well, more like a gripper, a mallet and a rotating saw blade on one and a death ray, tranquilizer and a suction hose (leading to a containment vessel of some sort) on the other. Plus a third arm that launches grenades.

Basically a 16 metre tall, 100 tonne Leatherman then?

Basically a 16 metre tall, 100 tonne Leatherman then?

Yes. And it may even have a flamethrower that shoots out of it's forehead.

A friend of mine has a way to prevent being killed in the robot apocalypse, or at least his theory. It's really very simple.

When you go to get gas when the pump asks if you want a receipt, actually press 'no' instead of ignoring it. It's this simple act of courtesy that he thinks the robots will recognize when they start killing those who took them for granted.

YAY! :D

There was a prototype shown in an old issue of Popular Science of a two-legged fire support unit, nothing fancy, just a 10-foot walker with missiles and a seat. Seemed like a nice idea.

I'm pro-military mecha as long as we stay away from that prettied-up Gundam shit. Mechwarrior and Exo Squad all the way, baby.

While height can be seen as a disadvantage, it is also an advantage. It's fucking scary. How would you feel to know that 100 tons of 16 meter tall walking death is coming to blow the shit out of you.

Except that if it is both 16 metres tall and 100 tonnes heavy, it's freaking lightweight. An Abrams tank weighs around 70 tonnes and it's nowhere near the size a battlemech.

Battlemechs would have quite reduced visibility I think. You can't make a big armoured glass window, because it'd get splashed by bullets and making it impossible to see. A periscope would fix this, but visibility from those is also very limited (especially vertically). Several cameras could be fitted, but that'd probably make pilots nuts when they try to see what's going on in those screens.

Then there's balance things. A two-legger would have no chance to stay in balance, as taking one step would make it very unsteady (especially when in terrain). Tripods and other stuff would fix this, but they'd need more room (urban areas, anyone?) and a very advanced control system.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Fuel. How are you gonna get any fuel in them? Or use fission reactors which would cause a big reduction in space? Use a fusion reactor when they're completed and tested (test reactor should be ready somewhere in 2010 or so)? Inefficent solar panels?

If there will be battlemechs, good luck signing up mechanics for them.

Maybe they should try and make tanks with legs. Or at least extendable legs.

Well, they look cool, but I doubt they're practical.

While height can be seen as a disadvantage, it is also an advantage. It's fucking scary. How would you feel to know that 100 tons of 16 meter tall walking death is coming to blow the shit out of you. Not only that, but unlike a tank, it can be fashioned to look like the Grim Reaper. Psychological warfare. Treds are only so terrifying. A big walking monster is a whole other ballgame.

Plus, if you're tank is flat, it'll be even flatter when I step on it.

Not only that, but a mech can go places tracked vehicles can't, and can provide sustained support fire for allied infantry. VTOL aircraft, whether helicopter or jet, would be improbable for real cover, because their armor would be too thin to be able to sustain the kind of blows a large battlemech could.

Also, if the mech is humanoid, the mech has two arms. He can, if his targetting array is sophisticated enough, target two enemies at the same time at polar opposites of him (180 degrees) and fire away. A single turreted tank can only engage one enemy at a time.

Also, his height is even more of an advantage, though in close range fighting. The mech can fire down onto tanks, and in urban fighting, can topple buildings. Infantry in a high rise don't mean shit if the building gets knocked over.

You want PSYWAR? How about an M1A2 Abrams firing a depleted uranium SABOT round through your pretty mech's head from a defilade position. Never see it coming, and you would not feel it hit. Or an infantry grunt with a javalin, or an Apache Longbow tracking your toy from the backside of a hill, popping up for the split second necessary to fire. Height = death. Your pilots would either need to be suicidal or psychopaths that can't comprehend the dangers. Heck a decent sniper with an M107 kitted with either an SLAP or RAUFOSS round would eat you for breakfast. :sniper:

PSYWAR aside, and the myriad methods of destruction your mech faces, the cost-benefit anaylsis alone would kill it in development.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan

You can use mecha to wedgie really tall people . :)

An exo-skeleton could be useful for shipping and storage and such, but the military use of mecha will decline as weapon systems become automated. Unless a mech could move with extreme agility, there'd be little use in a combat role, because they'd be so easy to destroy.

Note: When talking about mecha, that does not include powered armor or exo-skeletons, which are quite practical.

Off hand, I can think of two "practical" applicatoins of Mecha:

1.Gladiatoral Combat. Imagine the TV show Battlebots, except they're all much larger, the arena is the size of a football field or larger and littered with cover, and they get to use whatever weapons they want. I'd pay to see that :)

2.Making a statement. And that statement is "We are so uber, we can use Mecha as our main fighting vehicle and still kick your ass." :D

-snip-

Yay for acronyms! They give you a perfect sense of elitist superiority, because you know that almost nobody knows wtf you're talking about. And in your own little mind, you win the argument.

Off hand, I can think of two "practical" applicatoins of Mecha:

1.Gladiatoral Combat. Imagine the TV show Battlebots, except they're all much larger, the arena is the size of a football field or larger and littered with cover, and they get to use whatever weapons they want. I'd pay to see that :)

So one of your 'practical' applications is essentially the Special Olympics?

While height can be seen as a disadvantage, it is also an advantage. It's fucking scary. How would you feel to know that 100 tons of 16 meter tall walking death is coming to blow the shit out of you.

Probably a lot less scared than anti-tank troops feel when faced with an MBT. The MBT can use cover. That mech is going to be a great big target.

Treds are only so terrifying. A big walking monster is a whole other ballgame.

Tracks aren't supposed to be scary. They are supposed to be a reliable means of traversing rough terrain.

Plus, if you're tank is flat, it'll be even flatter when I step on it.

That reminds me of something I didn't really cover above - mines. A simple track buster AT mine is an inconvenience for an MBT, which has to replace the track. The equivilant leg breaker would put the mech completely out of commision. And even steping on an AT mine would be enough to knock a mech off balance, bringing it down, even if it did little damage.

Not only that, but a mech can go places tracked vehicles can't, and can provide sustained support fire for allied infantry.

The only places where MBTs simply can't go are: soft ground, densely forested or urban terrain, and very steep terrain. Mechs weigh too much, and put that weight on too small a surface to traverse soft ground. (No taking that mech to the swamps!) Forests and urban tarrain presents the same difficuties for a mech as a tank - no room to manuver. And mech mobility would likely be quite limited in steep terrain.

VTOL aircraft, whether helicopter or jet, would be improbable for real cover, because their armor would be too thin to be able to sustain the kind of blows a large battlemech could.

No aircraft would ever come close enough to a mech for the mech to get physical. And aircraft would have the advantage of range and ceiling.

Also, if the mech is humanoid, the mech has two arms. He can, if his targetting array is sophisticated enough, target two enemies at the same time at polar opposites of him (180 degrees) and fire away. A single turreted tank can only engage one enemy at a time.


Also, his height is even more of an advantage, though in close range fighting. The mech can fire down onto tanks,

This assumes that the mech will survive long enough to get into close range.

and in urban fighting, can topple buildings. Infantry in a high rise don't mean shit if the building gets knocked over.

You seem to assume mechs will have sufficient power to do so physically. Assuming they do, there would be a significant danger of the building collapsing onto the mech. And even if it didn't just the act of hitting the building would likely cause some serious damage to the mech. And if we're talking about a city like New York, the buildings will be much higher than the mech (any building 6 floors or more is higher than you 40 meter example), and thus trying to collapse one will bring it down on your head.

(If you are talking about missiles or artillery, why do you need a big, complex, expensive target to do what artilley already does so well.)

Furthermore, most infantry tends to operate at ground level or below. Usually who you'll operateing in high buildings will be artillery spoters, snipers, and the like.

I mentioned the problem of underground infrastructure above. A mech of realistic weight would run serious risks of breaking though streets level into the sewers, subway system (especially older "cut and cover" tunnels), and the like.

Another urban difficulty for mechs would be powerlines, skyways and the like.

Finally, by knocking down structures, you create all that nice rubble, which suits the defender very well. Observe the defense of Monte Casino, Stalingrad, and Grozny to take a few good examples. In all three cases, the cities were bombed or shelled into rubble that made attack more difficult.

Yay for acronyms! They give you a perfect sense of elitist superiority, because you know that almost nobody knows wtf you're talking about. And in your own little mind, you win the argument.

Ummm... any time the subject is military, you're going to be reading lots of acronyms. And with all the ex-military and military knowledgeable folks running around here, I knda doubt nobody knows what he's talking about.

Would you make the same complaint if the topic was computers, and acronyms like ROM and GUI were being used?

If an MBT is more effective than a mech, what about artillery-specific mechs like the Guntank? Granted they're just as tall as a regular mech and as big a target, but they retain the treads of a tank and (theoretically) better range of fire...and correct me if I'm wrong but you can't outfit tanks w/cranes and/or winches (like the Guntank), can you?

BTW I'm no mech apologetic, but I just thought I'd bring up a hybrid mech-tank weapon for discussion...

How The Future Force Warrior Will Work (http://science.howstuffworks.com/ffw.htm)
Something like that will probably the only military aplication for mecha. Superhuman infantry would be more advantageous than a huge walking battle tank/target. But in any case this kind of technology is years away. If any of our grandchildren join the army they might use these things.

Ummm... any time the subject is military, you're going to be reading lots of acronyms. And with all the ex-military and military knowledgeable folks running around here, I knda doubt nobody knows what he's talking about.

Would you make the same complaint if the topic was computers, and acronyms like ROM and GUI were being used?

Oh, I knew what he was talking about. Mostly. I know what a SLAP/APDS round is, but not a RAUFOSS one, off the top of my head. No matter. I think sometimes it just gets a little overboard, particularly in a thread such as this where nobody was throwing around terms like that (not that I saw, anyway).

Though i'm guilty of being easily irritated lately and I apologise if you think I was out of line.

(As for ROM and GUI being thrown around, that's fine, but when we start talking FLOPS and CMOS, it's a little out of the range of the average poster.)

If an MBT is more effective than a mech, what about artillery-specific mechs like the Guntank? Granted they're just as tall as a regular mech and as big a target, but they retain the treads of a tank and (theoretically) better range of fire...and correct me if I'm wrong but you can't outfit tanks w/cranes and/or winches (like the Guntank), can you?

BTW I'm no mech apologetic, but I just thought I'd bring up a hybrid mech-tank weapon for discussion...

Based on the stats here:

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/msgundam/rx-75-4.htm

So, we've got less crew, more volume, more and heavier armament than an Abrams (which seems to have become the default comparison)?


So what are the drawbacks here:
- it will obviously have much less armour than the Abrams according to the weight comparison
- it will have a much higher profile than the Abrams
- it is lacking in any kind of close in anti-infantry capability
- it has more joints than the Abrams which essentially only has two (turret and gun), whereas this has waist, torso, neck, shoulders, elbows and two guns. These create shell traps and are also the most lightly armoured parts of the vehicle. The waist and gun mountings will also be faced with taking up recoil... a nice bit of engineering if you can manage it.
- completely unprotected treads: BAD move. Do you really want your new cutting edge piece of kit knocked out by a bunch of partisans with a railway sleeper?


Advantages:
- heavier armament: hard to discuss without really knowing its intended role, you suggest artillery, yet a pair of Paladins and an MRLS would probably equal it, and also work out a hell of a lot cheaper (although your Guntank does carry heavy calibre howitzers than the Paladins, but if we wanted to go on a straight comparison of fire power it would lose out to a pair of towed 203mms and an MRLS, to say nothing of the monetary savings if you go down that route). This is all, of course, to say nothing of the fact that reloading this sucker is going to be a bitch with a crew of only two...
- ability to be reconfigured as a crane... that's why you have the Engineer Corps and their specialised engineer tanks. When it comes to that kind of work its better to call in the experts rather than to try and get the job done with some jack-of-all-trade compromise vehicle and crew.
- you claim greater range, but I fail to see why this critter would have any greater range than either an artillery piece or an MBT. Maybe I'm missing something.

Still, at least it isn't completely off in the land of fantasy.

So one of your 'practical' applications is essentially the Special Olympics?

Well, it's about the only combat-oriented environment where the Mecha won't get its ass kicked, it's fun to watch and you might make money off of it ;) I don't see you coming up with any ideas :p :D

Based on the stats here:

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/msgundam/rx-75-4.htm

So, we've got less crew, more volume, more and heavier armament than an Abrams (which seems to have become the default comparison)?


So what are the drawbacks here:
- it will obviously have much less armour than the Abrams according to the weight comparison
- it will have a much higher profile than the Abrams
- it is lacking in any kind of close in anti-infantry capability
- it has more joints than the Abrams which essentially only has two (turret and gun), whereas this has waist, torso, neck, shoulders, elbows and two guns. These create shell traps and are also the most lightly armoured parts of the vehicle. The waist and gun mountings will also be faced with taking up recoil... a nice bit of engineering if you can manage it.
- completely unprotected treads: BAD move. Do you really want your new cutting edge piece of kit knocked out by a bunch of partisans with a railway sleeper?


Advantages:
- heavier armament: hard to discuss without really knowing its intended role, you suggest artillery, yet a pair of Paladins and an MRLS would probably equal it, and also work out a hell of a lot cheaper (although your Guntank does carry heavy calibre howitzers than the Paladins, but if we wanted to go on a straight comparison of fire power it would lose out to a pair of towed 203mms and an MRLS, to say nothing of the monetary savings if you go down that route). This is all, of course, to say nothing of the fact that reloading this sucker is going to be a bitch with a crew of only two...
- ability to be reconfigured as a crane... that's why you have the Engineer Corps and their specialised engineer tanks. When it comes to that kind of work its better to call in the experts rather than to try and get the job done with some jack-of-all-trade compromise vehicle and crew.
- you claim greater range, but I fail to see why this critter would have any greater range than either an artillery piece or an MBT. Maybe I'm missing something.

Still, at least it isn't completely off in the land of fantasy.


I'd hesitate to compare this things dual 4 tube 40mm rockets to an MRLS. Hows about 2 203mms and 8 M203s? ;)

Sci fi/Anime fans know all about "mecha" or "mechs", giant humanoid armored fighting vehicles like Battletech or Gundam (the latter often using flashy moves like "Shining Fist of Heaven Super Punch!" :D ) which are piloted by the main characters and plow their way through the opposition.

Outside the realm of fiction though, can anyone think of any practical application of mecha that doesn't break the laws of physics? Restricted to current and possible future technology of course.
Something no one's meant to know about: The American military has developed a sort of kangaroo type leg extension exoskeleton which allows people to run up to 30 miles an hour with minimal effort. Can carry only limited amounts though before it keels over so the project was scrapped.

An exo-skeleton could be useful for shipping and storage and such, but the military use of mecha will decline as weapon systems become automated. Unless a mech could move with extreme agility, there'd be little use in a combat role, because they'd be so easy to destroy.
<Drools> Super agile combat robots...<Drools profusely>

Your pilots would either need to be suicidal or psychopaths that can't comprehend the dangers.
Sign me up! Gwahahahahaaa!!!:D
Anyway, people don't seem to be talking much about the 10-30 foot stompy robot range. Any of the scout bots from Battletech for instance, able to accellerate to over 100kph and swivel their cockpits 360 degrees whilst carrying huge amounts of ordinance would lord it over the battlefield, whilst remaining totally immune to most small arms fire.

Mechs would be useful for support of infantary in urban combat, were their (always lighter than of a tank, mainly heavy machine guns) would be very useful to clear away pockets of resistance, and their mobility would help, being able to go were tanks, or even wheled vehicles cannot. I mean, check out Lebanon, during the civil war: ZSU's were being used for urban warfare due to their 20mm cannons being so good at taking out entrenched infantry. But ZSU's are tanks with AA guns, they lack mobility. Imagine those 20mm guns mounted on a mech accompanying a infantry squad. They find out enemies in a building that is of hard access.. and instead of calling an airstrike, they turn the defenders into minced meat with the mech!

But in open field, a tank would own them. Basically, in a same weight tank vs battlemech, the second wouldn't stand a chance. A tank can carry more armor, and more powerful guns, has its locomotion system (the treads) are lighter than two bulky legs. And if the mech shots of the tank's tread, the tank can keep on fighting. Shot up the mech's leg, and.. boom. A heavier battlemech could take out a tank, but that likely wouldn't be cost effective.

If you ever played Mechwarrior games, you will recognize their coolness, but come on, those things are overhyped.

I'd hesitate to compare this things dual 4 tube 40mm rockets to an MRLS. Hows about 2 203mms and 8 M203s? ;)

Yeah, something like that. After checking the diameter of the rockets, I reckon you're probably right.

Anyhow, I still spectacularly fail to see the point of the vehicle. Basically its a tower with treads and artillery pieces on it. Someone point out to me the advantaghe of having such an ungainly high profile (look out for the low bridges) and high centre of gravity.

The whole human body shaped design seems utterly pointless to me: why not just mount the artillery on a flatbed truck and so have easier access to their breaches for loading and repair, whilst also maintaining a lower profile and increasing stability vastly.

Ouch. Just noticed that the 188s only have 30 round magazines. The crew are going to be seriously tired if they're reloading that thing without any help.

ell, unless the Angels show up in 2014, we won't need any Evangelion units... ;) *ducks* Sorry, had to add that in.

Mechwarrior or Gundams are impractical really. If we're going more towards the 'traditional' mecha, something closer to Patlabor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patlabor ) would be more realistic. Mechs about (at most) a one and a half stories tall. Good for industrial construction, special urban combat situations, special police forces (can you say road block?), mainly backup situations where it would be mech to mech. Or where having a heavy frame needing dexterity would work out better, but not open warfare or as frontline troops.

Now, if we use mecha as the Japanese use it (anything remotely mechanical), that opens the playing field a bit. I can see good and practical combat use for special forces using hardsuits ala Bubblegum Crisis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblegum_Crisis ), powered armor that mounts weapons and sensors, but is worn like a suit of armor, not driven. However, I think that Masamune Shirow got it right in Ghost in the Shell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell ) with his Fuchikoma ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchikoma ) mecha/AI who act as a (smart ass'ed) battle tank for police special forces.

with his Fuchikoma ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchikoma ) mecha/AI who act as a (smart ass'ed) battle tank for police special forces.

I don't know. The whole spider mech series there seemed to have some serious center of gravity issues, what with the tower unit near the rear. And the Tachikoma units were so small the operator had to sit in the tower. A lousy idea if your opponent is packing anti-armor weaponry since the pilot becomes more vulnerable as a bigass target. Lose the tower though, and it seems a lot better.

Although you'd have a nightmare trying to get it to work in narrow alleys.

I don't know. The whole spider mech series there seemed to have some serious center of gravity issues, what with the tower unit near the rear. And the Tachikoma units were so small the operator had to sit in the tower. A lousy idea if your opponent is packing anti-armor weaponry since the pilot becomes more vulnerable as a bigass target. Lose the tower though, and it seems a lot better.

Although you'd have a nightmare trying to get it to work in narrow alleys.
Realistic trade off, if you wanted the AI and other toys packed into them, you needed the hump on the back, and that's probably the reason for the spider design, in order to increase stability with extra legs, like a real spider does with its abdomen. That, and trying to find a way to make a human pilot fit in one comfortably.

Though yeah, enclosed spaces are a problem with ANY mecha, but they are also so with any current military/police tansport/weapon.

Mechs would be useful for support of infantary in urban combat, were their (always lighter than of a tank, mainly heavy machine guns) would be very useful to clear away pockets of resistance, and their mobility would help, being able to go were tanks, or even wheled vehicles cannot. I mean, check out Lebanon, during the civil war: ZSU's were being used for urban warfare due to their 20mm cannons being so good at taking out entrenched infantry. But ZSU's are tanks with AA guns, they lack mobility. Imagine those 20mm guns mounted on a mech accompanying a infantry squad. They find out enemies in a building that is of hard access.. and instead of calling an airstrike, they turn the defenders into minced meat with the mech!

But in open field, a tank would own them. Basically, in a same weight tank vs battlemech, the second wouldn't stand a chance. A tank can carry more armor, and more powerful guns, has its locomotion system (the treads) are lighter than two bulky legs. And if the mech shots of the tank's tread, the tank can keep on fighting. Shot up the mech's leg, and.. boom. A heavier battlemech could take out a tank, but that likely wouldn't be cost effective.

If you ever played Mechwarrior games, you will recognize their coolness, but come on, those things are overhyped.


Actually, the Russians used ZSUs to quite good effect in Grozny to take out anti-tank teams. The advantage isn't taking out entrenched infantry - tanks do that well - but in their ability to engage targets in upper stories.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm

Realistic trade off, if you wanted the AI and other toys packed into them, you needed the hump on the back, and that's probably the reason for the spider design, in order to increase stability with extra legs, like a real spider does with its abdomen. That, and trying to find a way to make a human pilot fit in one comfortably.

AI and processing was actually stored in the upper half of the main body though. Not too sure where the power unit goes. As for trying to fit a human in one, it looked like a hunched over design. Not really that comfortable.

Balancing issues on the other hand makes it a bit unusual though. Unless the main body is waaaaay heavier than the tower, not impossible if the power unit is there, the thing could get thrown over easily when it moves quickly and tries for a hard turn. Spiders seem to keep their abdomens close low when travelling if I remember correctly.

AI and processing was actually stored in the upper half of the main body though. Not too sure where the power unit goes. As for trying to fit a human in one, it looked like a hunched over design. Not really that comfortable.
It was that, plus power, plus all other gizmos, such as the 'line spinner'. And from what I saw, it looked akin to racing bike style. Not something you'd want to spend 8 hours in, but then again, neither is a tank. ;)

Balancing issues on the other hand makes it a bit unusual though. Unless the main body is waaaaay heavier than the tower, not impossible if the power unit is there, the thing could get thrown over easily when it moves quickly and tries for a hard turn. Spiders seem to keep their abdomens close low when travelling if I remember correctly.
Are you talking about the Tachikoma models? Those were just silly, so yes, it would be a bad trade off. The Fuchikoma was closer to the design I had in mind.

From what I have recently heard, the U.S. military is working on a fabric which becomes extremeley rigid whenan electrical current is passed through it. If this is implemented correctly, it should be able to turn your standard camo's into fabric-thin ballistic-proof protective suit. Additionally this could be implemented to enhance the strength of normal body functions, allowing GI's to lift cars, punch holes through walls and bend steel. Finally they are combining this research with a photosentive fabric which (if successful) should produce fabric which changes colour according to the background it is seen upon. This is hardly a mecha, or even a mechanical exoskeleton, however it is an external mechanical which physicall enhances the wearer.

Are you talking about the Tachikoma models? Those were just silly, so yes, it would be a bad trade off. The Fuchikoma was closer to the design I had in mind.

Aaah, you mean the tank model types then? One has to ask though. Where would you store the ammunition? It doesn't look very roomy.

*snip*

What you're thinking off is a gel pack embedded in the suit where iron particles are suspended in silicon oil and bond together when an electrical current is passed through it. It doesn't provide powered movements nor does it blend in the environment actively. Both are seperate mechanisms.

Small footnote - legs are substantially less vulnerable than treads, particularly to mines. What you want to look at are the number of external moving parts.

But yes, height is a real killer, as is surface area. I can think of scenarios where I'd trade the increased mobility for increased vulnerability, but it's not great.

Utility work, though... small "mecha" may be very useful for that.

I would like to see mech's little larger than humans(Maybe nine feet tall), and otherwise mostly like humans.

They would use two legs, but relatively big feet, so their weight was better distributed.

This mech could carry an ATGM in one arm, and a .50 cal machinegun in the other, along with a number of ammunition in its back.

Its armour would be negligant, and only enough to protect from .50 cal bullets.

This would allow the mech to operate in cities, forests, etc. It would have the firepower to kill just about anything, and with its small profile(Its tall, but thin! I would rather try to hit a 3x7m tank than a 0.8x3m mech!

The mech, if using good ATGM's(HOT 3, Javelin, etc) could bust up pretty much any tank, especially in close quarters areas, where they can manuver around to a side shot, etc.

The .50 would allow it to mow down infantry in cities. Grenades would probably not do too much to it, being mostly shrapnel damage, though light AT weapons could hurt it, as well as explosives otherwise.

The main issue would be the powerplant. I am thinking it would have a good sized body for this. If it could move at even 35km/h, that would probably be plenty.

Aaah, you mean the tank model types then? One has to ask though. Where would you store the ammunition? It doesn't look very roomy.

Yup, these guys:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/fuchikom.jpg
As to where the ammo rides, it doesn't carry all that much, but I believe the specs call for them to be housed in and around the housing for the arm manipulators, which makes sense as the arms also double as the machine guns anyway.

But again, these are meant as support for special forces, where you're not looking to carry a lot of supplies or ammo in the first place.

I would say for power suit style mech the anime Madox-01 metal skin panic gave good techincal background for such at its beginning of the anime along with weapon load that would make sense. Although would remove its jet engine.

As someone else commented. A heavy machine gun and missile launcher with enough armor to stop light weapons or schrapnel is what I would say good load. Power source most likely would go battery with multifuel engine (read Brazil makes some) to recharge it so could be quiet moving up if needed.
Be more like heavy infantry with anti air/armor with the missiles. They would be smaller then tank size and lighter with ability to be loaded on truck or plane for transport rapidly in numbers to be viable unit strength on deployment. Give them the targeting with the MG like attack helicopters so what they look at the gun can auto target and could be nasty amush with a drum magazine on back. Have one hand articulate for holding human size guns for backup use or semi delicate activites.
In open feild it would not hold its own but in terrian infantry could use it would be decent danger.

The mech, if using good ATGM's(HOT 3, Javelin, etc) could bust up pretty much any tank, especially in close quarters areas, where they can manuver around to a side shot, etc.

ATGMs are not much cop at close range: bth HOT and Javelin have a minimum range of about 70m.

I personally reckon a squad of infantry would be more effective than one of these contraptions: infantry retain flexibility and an ability to soak up damage which even lightly armoured units like this one do not manage to hold on to.