NationStates Jolt Archive

The Japanese have created a real mech warrior

Check it out:

http://thatvideosite.com/video/2988

Hmm. Pretty shitty as far as Mechwarriors go (anyone else thinking Chromehounds here?) but as good a start as any I guess. I'd still rather be in a tank than that thing.

*shuffle shuffle shuffle*
"Dammit! Legs go up then down I knew we had something wrong!"

edit: Also what the hell's up with that gun? I was expecting a mingun at least, not some crappy paintball gun that fires about as fast as my grandma runs. :(

Hmm. Pretty shitty as far as Mechwarriors go (anyone else thinking Chromehounds here?) but as good a start as any I guess. I'd still rather be in a tank than that thing.

*shuffle shuffle shuffle*
"Dammit! Legs go up then down I knew we had something wrong!"

edit: Also what the hell's up with that gun? I was expecting a mingun at least, not some crappy paintball gun that fires about as fast as my grandma runs. :(

Give them a break it's a prototype, the first cars and airplanes weren't very impressive either. At least not by modern standards, so imagine what this Mech Warrior might evolve into a hundred years from now. Personally I would design it to have tank tracks inside it's feet, which could be locked when it is walking, or unlocked to travel as tanks do. Of course the mech might be required to bend down some so it wouldn't be so top heavy, further I would make it capable of flight. I believe the possibilities are exciting.

Give them a break it's a prototype, the first cars and airplanes weren't very impressive either. At least not by modern standards, so imagine what this Mech Warrior might evolve into a hundred years from now.

Expensive target practice for tanks and well armed infantry a hundred years from now.

Give them a break it's a prototype, the first cars and airplanes weren't very impressive either. At least not by modern standards, so imagine what this Mech Warrior might evolve into a hundred years from now. Personally I would design it to have tank tracks inside it's feet, which could be locked when it is walking, or unlocked to travel as tanks do. Of course the mech might be required to bend down some so it wouldn't be so top heavy, further I would make it capable of flight. I believe the possibilities are exciting.

Oh no granted it's a first - I understand that. But still... I guess I just had such high hopes - especially from the Japanese. Maybe they should've just handed the design project over to some hardcore gamer, got what they should've from him/her then made it work?

But yeah, given time and extensive planning this could be pretty cool. They will, however, have to make legs that go up and down. Shuffling along like that will mean whoever is inside will be severely screwed the second they come across a hill. Or any slight incline.

I remember this, its a garage project of a guy like you and me. Not a serious project.

Expensive target practice for tanks and well armed infantry a hundred years from now.

Yep.

There's a reason tanks have gone from looking like this:

http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/imgs/matilda.jpg

To looking like this:

http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/customers-t90-702b.jpg

The best defence is not being hit. The smaller the target, the greater the defence.

A big towering mech with spindly legs is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

Yep.

There's a reason tanks have gone from looking like this:

http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/imgs/matilda.jpg

To looking like this:

http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/customers-t90-702b.jpg

The best defence is not being hit. The smaller the target, the greater the defence.

A big towering mech with spindly legs is a pretty fucking dumb idea.

Well it might serve as a distraction. March a load of unmanned walking targets into a city from the north and slip the tanks in from the south while everyone is pointing and laughing and taking potshots in the other direction.

The only kind of mech that would be serviceable would be quad legs or better I think. Improved stability and can better mount heavy weaponry. And of course being able to pop up and sink back under cover (really big terrain) would be nice. But would probably still die to attack helicopter mounted AT missiles.

*Insert ED-209 from Robocop reference here.*

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/lollerskates.gif

Because that's what it is: A lollerskating mech!

mech warriors rock
all I want for christmas is a mech.

Well it might serve as a distraction. March a load of unmanned walking targets into a city from the north and slip the tanks in from the south while everyone is pointing and laughing and taking potshots in the other direction.

A legion of naked people screaming in terror and running away from an overly amorous Barney the Dinosaur singing "I love you, you love me, let me give you HIV..." would be probably more effective. *nods*

A legion of naked people screaming in terror and running away from an overly amorous Barney the Dinosaur singing "I love you, you love me, let me give you HIV..." would be probably more effective. *nods*

*is terrified* O_O

*is terrified* O_O

See? Point proven. :)

A legion of naked people screaming in terror and running away from an overly amorous Barney the Dinosaur singing "I love you, you love me, let me give you HIV..." would be probably more effective. *nods*
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/DeadBarney.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/DeadBarney.gif

That looks more like a purple Jabba the Hutt.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/DeadBarney.gif

Holy shit it's giant purple tadpole! Run![/sarcasm]

That looks more like a purple Jabba the Hutt.
No no no no no. If it were Jabba the Hutt it would've been strangled, not stabbed.
*Stabs Barney repeatedly*

Did I mention I hate Barney?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/lollerskates.gif

Because that's what it is: A lollerskating mech!
Oddly, it did look like it was lollerskating.
A legion of naked people screaming in terror and running away from an overly amorous Barney the Dinosaur singing "I love you, you love me, let me give you HIV..." would be probably more effective. *nods*

Then they'd turn and run, and see the tanks, and shoot at them. Most tanks operate better when not being shot at.

Most tanks operate better when not being shot at.

Well then, back to the drawing board.

Well then, back to the drawing board.

That's it! We'll hide the army behind a massive drawing board!

That's it! We'll hide the army behind a massive drawing board!

You might be on to something. Next step: Where do we find a forty mile drawing board, or do we have to make one?

You might be on to something. Next step: Where do we find a forty mile drawing board, or do we have to make one?

We could glue hundreds of smaller ones together.

We could glue hundreds of smaller ones together.

I've got elmers, crazy, and super. Plus three rolls of duct tape, and some chewing gum, what you got?

I've got elmers, crazy, and super. Plus three rolls of duct tape, and some chewing gum, what you got?

I'm sure I could reappropriate all the sticky things in the SU shops around campus.

I'm sure I could reappropriate all the sticky things in the SU shops around campus.

The world will beOURSMuaHaHahHa....

In other new I just looked at a clock and saw this 5:00 AM

I have to be up in 4 hours, for a 12-14 hour shift at work, which means I should probably go to bed.

The world will beOURSMuaHaHahHa....

In other new I just looked at a clock and saw this

I have to be up in 4 hours, for a 12-14 hour shift at work, which means I should probably go to bed.

My windows clock of doooooooom says 11:55

Give them a break it's a prototype, the first cars and airplanes weren't very impressive either. At least not by modern standards, so imagine what this Mech Warrior might evolve into a hundred years from now. Personally I would design it to have tank tracks inside it's feet, which could be locked when it is walking, or unlocked to travel as tanks do. Of course the mech might be required to bend down some so it wouldn't be so top heavy, further I would make it capable of flight. I believe the possibilities are exciting.


Tachikomas?

Using a giant drawing board to hide the army......

Its insane, but its a good kind

Needs some improovement, obviously, because it has no military utility right now, but this is only a garage project prototype.

I expect that with the military's resources one could make something that worked much better (I.E. give it a better engine, make the movements more co-ordinated, make it heavier, expand the cockpit enough to get some computer electronics into it to do some of the work automatically, and make it's cockpit of something that won't shatter when the first bullet hits it).

I still don't see it being a viable peice of technology in the near future (or, quite possibly ever).

It looks like all you'd have to do to defeat it is wait for it to pass by, walk up behind it, and push it over.

It looks like all you'd have to do to defeat it is wait for it to pass by, walk up behind it, and push it over.

And the thing is it isn't even lifting it's legs, so a tank could do the job much better. Shuffling isn't going to get you through much terrain treads couldn't handle.

And the thing is it isn't even lifting it's legs, so a tank could do the job much better. Shuffling isn't going to get you through much terrain treads couldn't handle.

Aye, you set this sucker on a tear in Ohio, it'll be taken down by the first pothole it comes across.

More than that, tanks have a much lower profile than some sort of AT-ST thing, and really are much more difficult to shoot at, because of that factor.

Then they'd turn and run, and see the tanks, and shoot at them. Most tanks operate better when not being shot at.

What - and leave their rears facing a HIV positive and very horny BARNEY THE DINOSAUR? I don't think so!


I still don't see it being a viable peice of technology in the near future (or, quite possibly ever).

I think something similar could possibly be viable if they were man-sized and completely computer controlled.

What - and leave their rears facing a HIV positive and very horny BARNEY THE DINOSAUR? I don't think so!

I can't believe I didn't think of that.......

I think something similar could possibly be viable if they were man-sized and completely computer controlled.

Where's the fun in that?

Wooo! 500..... wait that's not a milestone :( :confused: :D

The best defence is not being hit. The smaller the target, the greater the defence.

A big towering mech with spindly legs is a pretty fucking dumb idea.


By which reasoning, all NS'ers are actually turtles, less than a foot tall.

After all, being a six-foot-ish figure with 'spindly legs' would be a dumb idea, and not nearly as well defended as being a small armoured reptile.

By which reasoning, all NS'ers are actually turtles, less than a foot tall.

After all, being a six-foot-ish figure with 'spindly legs' would be a dumb idea, and not nearly as well defended as being a small armoured reptile.

Yeah, humanity evolved in an environment where it's challengers weren't making use of projectile weapons. If it were, I'd fully expect the small armored reptile.

Expensive target practice for tanks and well armed infantry a hundred years from now.

It would be now yes but it could become a very formable weapon. Look how much cars & planes have changed since they were first manufactured.

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/farp/hand/Untitled-21.JPG

The future of anti-mech weaponry. Just push.

Oh no granted it's a first - I understand that. But still... I guess I just had such high hopes - especially from the Japanese. Maybe they should've just handed the design project over to some hardcore gamer, got what they should've from him/her then made it work?

But yeah, given time and extensive planning this could be pretty cool. They will, however, have to make legs that go up and down. Shuffling along like that will mean whoever is inside will be severely screwed the second they come across a hill. Or any slight incline.

Yes I think a gamer would be just the ticket, better still would be a group of gamers. I agree it definately needs design upgrades, but it is the prototype, they will get better in the future. If I was designing them I would have gone for Powered Battle Armor similiar to the armor found in Mech Assault 2.

It would be now yes but it could become a very formable weapon. Look how much cars & planes have changed since they were first manufactured.

And I'd imagine that tanks and Anti-armor infantry units will continue to evolve as well. It doesn't have the ability to turn as fast as the turret on a tank, either. It would be a sitting duck in an urban environment.

mech warriors rock
all I want for christmas is a mech.

Seconded!!!!!!!!

Where's the fun in that?

Why, there's plenty to be had!

http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/2360/funforallthefamilyso4.jpg

See? :)

By which reasoning, all NS'ers are actually turtles, less than a foot tall.

After all, being a six-foot-ish figure with 'spindly legs' would be a dumb idea, and not nearly as well defended as being a small armoured reptile.

*sigh* You know very well what I mean. If you're being shot at, damn right it's a pretty dumb idea to stand six feet tall. Hence why soldiers lie prone when under fire.

The only kind of mech that would be serviceable would be quad legs or better I think. Improved stability and can better mount heavy weaponry. And of course being able to pop up and sink back under cover (really big terrain) would be nice. But would probably still die to attack helicopter mounted AT missiles.


Not with intercepter missiles or lasers to shoot the AT's down :D

Not with intercepter missiles or lasers to shoot the AT's down :D

When dealing with short range missiles that would be in the air for a very, very short period of time, interceptor missiles are virtually useless.

Yeah, humanity evolved in an environment where it's challengers weren't making use of projectile weapons. If it were, I'd fully expect the small armored reptile.

So - turtles look like that because... they evolved to cope with projectile-firing predators?

The problem with the assertion I was combatting, is that it makes a bizarre assumption, that is clearly conflicted by evidence in the natural arena. Sometimes being small and armoured is one answer - but it isn't always the only or even best answer.

(Also - the assertion kind of relies on the idea that we won't find technology to outmode projectile warfare...)

Give it a break guys – this isn’t serious military equipment, it is a fan mockup of something from a game. And yes it shuffles around and doesn’t have a heavy machinegun; it was built in a guy’s garage as a hobby.

Get some perspective. I give him major props for such an undertaking.
Before you bitch, why don’t you give it a shot and build a better one.

And I'd imagine that tanks and Anti-armor infantry units will continue to evolve as well. It doesn't have the ability to turn as fast as the turret on a tank, either. It would be a sitting duck in an urban environment.

This is true but the mech designers could study the tanks new designs and design new defensive measures for the mech.

When dealing with short range missiles that would be in the air for a very, very short period of time, interceptor missiles are virtually useless.

But are Lasers?

But are Lasers?

At the moment, yes.

So - turtles look like that because... they evolved to cope with projectile-firing predators?

The problem with the assertion I was combatting, is that it makes a bizarre assumption, that is clearly conflicted by evidence in the natural arena. Sometimes being small and armoured is one answer - but it isn't always the only or even best answer.

What I'm asserting is that when faced with projectile fighting enemy, the best defense is to remain low to the ground, with heavy armor and excellent maneuverability. There's a reason infantry dig trenches and hide behind them.

(Also - the assertion kind of relies on the idea that we won't find technology to outmode projectile warfare...)

Probably not, projectile weapons systems are the most efficient when dealing with mobile units.

Give it a break guys – this isn’t serious military equipment, it is a fan mockup of something from a game. And yes it shuffles around and doesn’t have a heavy machinegun; it was built in a guy’s garage as a hobby.

Get some perspective. I give him major props for such an undertaking.
Before you bitch, why don’t you give it a shot and build a better one.


Oh Please ... alot of serious discoveries and inventions started in some guys garage.

But are Lasers?

At the moment, yes. A laser would be too bulky and slow to target.

At the moment, yes.

Prove it

At the moment, yes. A laser would be too bulky and slow to target.


To slow? I don't think so, what are you mounting the laser on? A Turtle!

Prove it

You're the one who is making the claim that you could down a short range AT missile with a laser. The burden of proof is on you.

You're the one who is making the claim that you could down a short range AT missile with a laser. The burden of proof is on you.

This is my thread ... Koramerica is my MT / PMT stand in. I believe we would have a much better exchange with both sides looking at the burden of proof.

OCC: I'll be back shortly

To slow? I don't think so, what are you mounting the laser on? A Turtle!

The AGM-114 Hellfire Anti-tank missile spends, at the most, half a second in the air. The mechanical and targeting systems to down such a missile would need to be incredibly fast, and when facing multiple trajectory inbounds, I doubt it would have a prayer of downing them.

Prove it

According to http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/stlas.htm the first laser anti missile defense system hit a stationary target and destroyed it. "This was 6 years ago", I hear you say, "they've obviously made advances". Then why is this the first page when you google "laser anti-missile defence"? Makes me thing that they haven't progressed all that far. That and the fact that to destroy a missile quickly the laser would have to be very very powerful.

According to http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/stlas.htm the first laser anti missile defense system hit a stationary target and destroyed it. "This was 6 years ago", I hear you say, "they've obviously made advances". Then why is this the first page when you google "laser anti-missile defence"? Makes me thing that they haven't progressed all that far. That and the fact that to destroy a missile quickly the laser would have to be very very powerful.

That laser was also designed to knock down TBM and IRBM type weapons. Not short range Anti-tank missiles.

What I'm asserting is that when faced with projectile fighting enemy, the best defense is to remain low to the ground, with heavy armor and excellent maneuverability. There's a reason infantry dig trenches and hide behind them.


They don't. Not as a universal rule, anyway.

Chucking stuff hasn't been a recent invention, and it has been delt with in other ways than burying oneself or hiding... although both are effective. Simply being fast has often been enough. Or being hard to see. Both of those ideas are making a big contribution to aircraft design, because aircraft can't functionally bury itself.

(Although, of course, Vectored jets enable some aircraft to make use of terrain... but they are exceptional, rather than the rule).

Knights were an example of making units that were bigger than the other army, slightly heavier armoured, in a much more precarious position, much more expensive, and very visible. And yet they were surprisingly efficient - because mobility allowed them to minimise all their weaknesses, and deliver a greater 'value' of damage wherever they hit.



Probably not, projectile weapons systems are the most efficient when dealing with mobile units.

Not true.

Actually 'passive' weapons are by far the most efficient. Look at how Iraq is reshaping the ideas of mobile war.

Maybe they should've just handed the design project over to some hardcore gamer, got what they should've from him/her then made it work?

.


"ONNOESS!!!TEHZERG!!!!"

The Japanese have created a real mech warrior
Check it out:
http://thatvideosite.com/video/2988

That site requires that I install an "unknown plugin", so no thanks. However, from other comments I assume you are talking about the Land Walker (http://www.sakakibara-kikai.co.jp/products/other/LW.htm). If so, it's a) an old story, and b) laughable.

Expensive target practice for tanks and well armed infantry a hundred years from now.

As the famous saying from a USMC anti-armor school goes, "hunting tanks is fun and easy - what you can see you can hit, and what you hit, you kill."

Mecha are even easier to spot than tanks, and much easier to kill.

By which reasoning, all NS'ers are actually turtles, less than a foot tall.

After all, being a six-foot-ish figure with 'spindly legs' would be a dumb idea, and not nearly as well defended as being a small armoured reptile.


A six foot tall human is quite capable of taking advantage of numerous terrain features for concealment. A thirty plus (and mecha are generally envisioned as being significantly larger) foot high mecha is significantly less capable of doing so, particularly as there are not many terrain features that could conceal a mecha well with out being a serious mobility hazard.

A few other problems with using the standard envisonment of mecha (30 foot plus and bipedal) as combat platforms:
Bipedal platforms are inherently instable. And a mobility kill will be much more effective against a mecha than against a standrard tracked or wheeled AFV.
There are serious manuver difficulties due to the high ground pressures created by the small ground contact area (no soft ground!).
Mobility will also restricted by size - close terrain (urban areas, wooded areas, etc.) will be at least as deadly for a mecha as they are for tanks.
Legs are significantly more complex locomotive mechanisms compared to wheels or tracks (remember, tanks have a relatively short range as is).

The problem with the assertion I was combatting, is that it makes a bizarre assumption, that is clearly conflicted by evidence in the natural arena. Sometimes being small and armoured is one answer - but it isn't always the only or even best answer.
What I'm asserting is that when faced with projectile fighting enemy, the best defense is to remain low to the ground, with heavy armor and excellent maneuverability. There's a reason infantry dig trenches and hide behind them.


Indeed.
(Sorry, but http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/farp/hand/Untitled-21.JPG comes up blank for me...)

Oh, and as far as the interceptor missiles and lasers go, those will be of dubious effect against hyper-velocity KE missiles we can expect to be in service around the same time a viable mecha would be.

To slow? I don't think so, what are you mounting the laser on? A Turtle!

The speed of the platform a laser defense system is mounted on has no bearing on the speed it can detect an incoming projectile, taget it, and fire on it, and adjust fire.

I like the tachikoma idea, but perhaps more armored, like a tank with spider legs for added speed and mobility. To me that seems to add the best of both worlds to the design.

And I don't think I could build something like that mecha, even if it is shuffling along and doesn't shoot fast, so I have to applaud the person who built and presumably pilots it. Brave soul. I wouldn't climb in that thing.

A six foot tall human is quite capable of taking advantage of numerous terrain features for concealment. A thirty plus (and mecha are generally envisioned as being significantly larger) foot high mecha is significantly less capable of doing so, particularly as there are not many terrain features that could conceal a mecha well with out being a serious mobility hazard.

A few other problems with using the standard envisonment of mecha (30 foot plus and bipedal) as combat platforms:
Bipedal platforms are inherently instable. And a mobility kill will be much more effective against a mecha than against a standrard tracked or wheeled AFV.
There are serious manuver difficulties due to the high ground pressures created by the small ground contact area (no soft ground!).
Mobility will also restricted by size - close terrain (urban areas, wooded areas, etc.) will be at least as deadly for a mecha as they are for tanks.
Legs are significantly more complex locomotive mechanisms compared to wheels or tracks (remember, tanks have a relatively short range as is).


Actually, mecha would be at their best in urban environments... the terrain is solid, and the cover is tall enough to hide them... plus, the density of the cover would be efficient against most forms of projective attack that might be utilised... like the difference between hiding behind a wall, or a stand of bamboo.

The big advantage the mecha idea has, is we are usually pretty good at handling big, ungainly bipeds... most of us have been doing it all our lives. The technology is less-than-nascent now, but that doesn't mean a lot of the weaknesses of the design must remain inherent in the concept.

"ONNOESS!!!TEHZERG!!!!"

:D I was thinking more Chromehounds, but come to think of it, swarming an enemy with a robotic Zergling rush would be kinda cool... from a distance at least.

They don't. Not as a universal rule, anyway.

I'm sorry but that is pure and simple BS, at least as far as the serious militaries go. Show me one single military with a decent training that doesn't teach it's soldiers to automatically dig in and take fighting positions in a normal comabt situation.

Chucking stuff hasn't been a recent invention, and it has been delt with in other ways than burying oneself or hiding... although both are effective. Simply being fast has often been enough. Or being hard to see. Both of those ideas are making a big contribution to aircraft design, because aircraft can't functionally bury itself.

(Although, of course, Vectored jets enable some aircraft to make use of terrain... but they are exceptional, rather than the rule).

Projectile weapons have not been around long enough to have seriously impacted the evolution of human morphology to the extent suggested (it's improbable to the point of being functionally impossible that humans could possibly have gone from apes to turtles in that time).

Knights were an example of making units that were bigger than the other army, slightly heavier armoured, in a much more precarious position, much more expensive, and very visible. And yet they were surprisingly efficient - because mobility allowed them to minimise all their weaknesses, and deliver a greater 'value' of damage wherever they hit.

And yet proper use of terrain in concert with projectile weapons allowed the English to win at Agincourt.

Not true.

Actually 'passive' weapons are by far the most efficient. Look at how Iraq is reshaping the ideas of mobile war.

This is indeed true, although not at all new. Landmines in concert with a mobile ambush defense (which is based on prepared positions) does remain the single best defense against tanks. I expect mine warfare to be ever more effective against mecha.

Tanks themselves are becoming more vulnerable than before.
Recent experience in Lebanon proved that the Merkava (one of the world's best protected tanks) is easily killed with the latest generation of ATGMs.

There are improved RPG warheads that will penetrate and M-1.

And there are IED combinations that will defeat any armored vehicle on Earth.

A mech would have the additional penalty of relatively slow speed, and a very tall silhouette.

You could probably trip one using a suitably heavy cable stretched across a street - or if you had many cables stretched in an urban area or wooded area, make it literally impassable to mechs.

This is indeed true, although not at all new. Landmines in concert with a mobile ambush defense (which is based on prepared positions) does remain the single best defense against tanks. I expect mine warfare to be ever more effective against mecha.

This makes great big buckets of sense. If a tank hits a mine and loses a tread, and lets just say the crew and some back up manage to fight of the ambush which would no doubt follow. The tank crew could concievably put a new tread on the tank and be off. Same situation with a bipedal vehicle, steps on a mine, oh snap only one leg. Falls all the way to the ground. Do you think they could attach a new leg to the thing and go along their merry little way?

Actually, mecha would be at their best in urban environments... the terrain is solid, and the cover is tall enough to hide them...

Err... no. The streets in urban areas already prove troublesome for tanks and other heavy vehicles - too much underground to fall into. A Mecha, having it's weight concentrated on a much smaller area is much more likely to fall into the subterrainian infrastructure of most urban areas. And that's not to mention various above ground urban obsticals tanks avois that mecha could not - sky-walks, power lines, etc.

plus, the density of the cover would be efficient against most forms of projective attack that might be utilised... like the difference between hiding behind a wall, or a stand of bamboo.

Again, no. High density cover favors infantry ambushes, not armored forces.

I'm sorry but that is pure and simple BS, at least as far as the serious militaries go. Show me one single military with a decent training that doesn't teach it's soldiers to automatically dig in and take fighting positions in a normal comabt situation.


No - not BS. As I said, projectile weaponry is not 'new', and it has been dealt with in a number of different ways.

I'm not saying modern militaries don't teach infantry to dig in - I'm just saying it isn't the only way to deal with projectile fire.

Most of the reason we 'dig in' is because of how lethal projectile fire has become on a human scale. Being in the open, and being a soft fleshy human, is inviting pain or death... we've got very good at that recently... but it is part of an evolution of defence versus attack.

But, as I pointed out -there have been other defences that were not earthworks... speed or hiding being the biggest two, and the main thrust of progression in the aircraft market now, as I said. Or - simply being armoured.

The reason we hide now, is that we can no longer outrun the attacker, no longer hide from the attacker, and we are not capable of walking around in enough armour to really stop the attacker. But - all of that is just 'at THIS stage' of warcraft.

The minute someone invents (for example) a field technology that de-fangs the projectile attack, we will see another evolution in how wars are fought.


Projectile weapons have not been around long enough to have seriously impacted the evolution of human morphology to the extent suggested (it's improbable to the point of being functionally impossible that humans could possibly have gone from apes to turtles in that time).


But, turtles are that shape already. Thus, they have the advantage over us 6-foot fleshy spindles, and should have replaced us.

That's the point - the other post made an assumption that low defense was the ONLY important factor.


And yet proper use of terrain in concert with projectile weapons allowed the English to win at Agincourt.


Tactics is important. No one ever said otherwise.


This is indeed true, although not at all new. Landmines in concert with a mobile ambush defense (which is based on prepared positions) does remain the single best defense against tanks. I expect mine warfare to be ever more effective against mecha.

So - your claim about efficient weapons was simply not true? You change your angle, but don't recant your former argument?

Tanks themselves are becoming more vulnerable than before.
Recent experience in Lebanon proved that the Merkava (one of the world's best protected tanks) is easily killed with the latest generation of ATGMs.

There are improved RPG warheads that will penetrate and M-1.

And there are IED combinations that will defeat any armored vehicle on Earth.

A mech would have the additional penalty of relatively slow speed, and a very tall silhouette.

You could probably trip one using a suitably heavy cable stretched across a street - or if you had many cables stretched in an urban area or wooded area, make it literally impassable to mechs.

Yep. Not to mention that the subterrainian infrastructure (subways, sewers, various utility tunnels) serve as pre-made "tiger trap" pits, as I mentioned above.

This makes great big buckets of sense. If a tank hits a mine and loses a tread, and lets just say the crew and some back up manage to fight of the ambush which would no doubt follow. The tank crew could concievably put a new tread on the tank and be off. Same situation with a bipedal vehicle, steps on a mine, oh snap only one leg. Falls all the way to the ground. Do you think they could attach a new leg to the thing and go along their merry little way?

Exactly so! That inherent instability is the most significant fault of the standard envisioned mecha. Even a quad mecha will be seriosuly compromised by a single leg mobility kill. I'd say you'll need a minimum of eight, and preferably ten, legs to provide a platform that remains stable after loosing a leg. Even then, a mine or other passive attack can take out multiple legs, rendering an MK that is far more serious than an MK on a tracked or wheeled AFV.

You know, I've got to agree with all of you guys who're slamming the concept of Mechs. They really are a stupid idea... even if they do look pretty cool. Of course, that's the reason that they were chosen as a design in all those video games - a massive, towering, eighty foot walker looks pretty darned scary, I think you'd have to agree, when it's charging towards you... of course, then you shoot its legs off, and it becomes a not-so-impressive pile of burning scrap...
The only semi-practicle walker type idea I could think of would have to be small, about eight feet tall or so, and be basically a glorified suit of battlearmour, meant for infantry support in tight areas where tanks might not be able to manuver. That sort of design might work...

Err... no. The streets in urban areas already prove troublesome for tanks and other heavy vehicles - too much underground to fall into. A Mecha, having it's weight concentrated on a much smaller area is much more likely to fall into the subterrainian infrastructure of most urban areas. And that's not to mention various above ground urban obsticals tanks avois that mecha could not - sky-walks, power lines, etc.


Why do we assume that people would get mecha and turn into idiots? "Ah crap, powerlines? Let's turn round and go home guys"...

Soldiers minimise the strengths of adverse terrain they encounter. Mecha pilots would do the same. You don't walk up and repeatedly smash your mecha's head against a low bridge, you take the sucker down, with the benefit of the much heavier weaponry you are carrying.

Yes - subterranian undrcutting is a problem... but so is deep snow for conventional soldiers. But you work out how to deal with it.

One way to deal would be to make the mecah sufficiently 'tall' that the difference between 'ground level' and 'underground level' becomes trivial... a matter of stepping up. Mecha could 'wade' along city streets.



Again, no. High density cover favors infantry ambushes, not armored forces.

No - it favours both. And the armour has the advantage in such terrain, because it has the armour of the terrain AND the armour of itself.

Example - soldirs firing RPGs from windows of the terrain against a Mecha 'hiding' behind another building. The terrain is stopping most of the damage to troops on each side... but when an RPG hits the Mecha, it damages it... and when it hits the soldiers, it turns them into paste.

There's a reason infantry dig trenches and hide behind them.

They don't. Not as a universal rule, anyway.

I'm sorry but that is pure and simple BS, at least as far as the serious militaries go. Show me one single military with a decent training that doesn't teach it's soldiers to automatically dig in and take fighting positions in a normal comabt situation.
I'm not saying modern militaries don't teach infantry to dig in - I'm just saying it isn't the only way to deal with projectile fire.

You appeared to have made that claim, hence my objection.

I've got to take off for a bit, maybe for good tonight.

Thanks for your replies, I'll try to address your other points when I have time.
:)

While I agree that a big towering mech isn't going to be a viable warfighting system, something more like this could possibly work. If it were to have a .50 slaved to the pilot like the Apache's chin gun is, and with comparable thermal capability it could be dangerous. It's be small enough to hide, and a lot more mobile in thick woods or cities than even HMMWVs. A HMMWV would have a much higher top speed, but this could change direction much quicker and would be hard to block in with roadblocks and such.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/imperialguard/catalog/images/ig_sentinal.gif

Heh. I was off by an hour on the timing of the TV show I left to go watch. :D

The minute someone invents (for example) a field technology that de-fangs the projectile attack, we will see another evolution in how wars are fought.

And the ever evolving arms race continues. :)

But, turtles are that shape already. Thus, they have the advantage over us 6-foot fleshy spindles, and should have replaced us.

But ther's a darn good reason why humans didn't evolve to be thirty foot tall (much less the eighty foot suggested by another poster...)

That's the point - the other post made an assumption that low defense was the ONLY important factor.

Well, at the moment (and in the long run) concealment in whatever for beats out armor or mobility - you can't kill what you can't find. And not skylining one's self is an age old fundamental of concealment. (Aircraft are a special subset.)

Tactics is important. No one ever said otherwise.

The point was the appropriate use of terrain against mobile attacks.

So - your claim about efficient weapons was simply not true? You change your angle, but don't recant your former argument?

:confused: Either you've misunderstood what I've been saying or I missed something, because I'm not sure what that's directed towards.

Why do we assume that people would get mecha and turn into idiots? "Ah crap, powerlines? Let's turn round and go home guys"...

Soldiers minimise the strengths of adverse terrain they encounter. Mecha pilots would do the same. You don't walk up and repeatedly smash your mecha's head against a low bridge, you take the sucker down, with the benefit of the much heavier weaponry you are carrying.

Nowhere did I say mecha would give up or act stupidly. However, urban terrain would provide a much more significant obstical to a mecha sized platform, slowing it down and impeding it to the point that small anti-mecha teams have a significant advantage.

Yes - subterranian undrcutting is a problem... but so is deep snow for conventional soldiers. But you work out how to deal with it.

Exactly so. Do regular soldiers prefer to do combat in heavy snow? No, of course they don't. They'd rather not because it's a significant impediment. It would be much more significant if it slows down mecha to the point where the infantry has the advantage.

One way to deal would be to make the mecha sufficiently 'tall' that the difference between 'ground level' and 'underground level' becomes trivial... a matter of stepping up. Mecha could 'wade' along city streets.

That would most likely invite other problems, such an building collapses onto the mecha due to local foundation disruptions...

No - it favours both. And the armour has the advantage in such terrain, because it has the armour of the terrain AND the armour of itself.

1) Infantry is more mobile in urban terrain, as they are able to mover through buildings easily.
2) With a few exceptions, urban terrain is close enough to constrict feilds of fire for armored weapon platforms.

Example - soldiers firing RPGs from windows of the terrain against a Mecha 'hiding' behind another building. The terrain is stopping most of the damage to troops on each side... but when an RPG hits the Mecha, it damages it... and when it hits the soldiers, it turns them into paste.

That assumes the defenders are as stupid as you though I assumed the mecha pilots were. Proper application of the urban anti-tank ambush would take out a mecha as easily as an Abrams or Merkeva.

While I agree that a big towering mech isn't going to be a viable warfighting system, something more like this could possibly work. If it were to have a .50 slaved to the pilot like the Apache's chin gun is, and with comparable thermal capability it could be dangerous. It's be small enough to hide, and a lot more mobile in thick woods or cities than even HMMWVs. A HMMWV would have a much higher top speed, but this could change direction much quicker and would be hard to block in with roadblocks and such.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/imperialguard/catalog/images/ig_sentinal.gif

That still suffers from the inherent instability of a bipedal design. Also, I am not convinced it's able to bring it's weapons systems on target as fast as a rotating turret or an infantry team, bringing into question it's manuverability in dense terrain. Also, it would either be under armored or have the ground pressure problems I've been harping on about.

Knights were an example of making units that were bigger than the other army, slightly heavier armoured, in a much more precarious position, much more expensive, and very visible. And yet they were surprisingly efficient - because mobility allowed them to minimise all their weaknesses, and deliver a greater 'value' of damage wherever they hit.


Knights were made effective not because of their high visibility, but because of the type of infantry they typically found themselves dealing with. The training of Impact Cavalry in the Medieval world was the best of any troops that served on the line, trained from the very beginning of their lives, Knights were the backbone of the medieval military. On the other hand, infantry were treated as ruffians along for the ride. Typically they were peasants who had been conscripted and told to sharpen their pitchforks, they broke, even when faced with no major assault.

There are three major instances when disciplined professional infantry and Impact Cavalry tangled.
First is the Battle of Tours, where Charles Martel's Franks shattered the Moorish Knights with a combination of discipline, skill and tactics.
Second is the Battle of Stirling Bridge, where disciplined Scottish infantry equipped with Pikes broke the Impact Cavalry of the English Army.
Third is the Battle of Agincourt, where English Longbowmen, the first professional soldiers since the collapse of the Roman Empire, ripped the French Knights to shreds

That still suffers from the inherent instability of a bipedal design. Also, I am not convinced it's able to bring it's weapons systems on target as fast as a rotating turret or an infantry team, bringing into question it's manuverability in dense terrain. Also, it would either be under armored or have the ground pressure problems I've been harping on about.

It's certainly not technologically feasbile at the moment. It may never be, and if it ever is it might not be tactically feasbile. I have serious doubts as to the tactical feasibility of any ground combat vehicle in about 30 years.

As for under-armoured, something like this would be used in a reconaissance role, not as a main battle system like the M2/3 or M1. Think of it as more a 1025/6 HMMWV.

Its friggen mecha-anime come to life.
The Japanese will doom us all.

It's certainly not technologically feasbile at the moment. It may never be, and if it ever is it might not be tactically feasbile. I have serious doubts as to the tactical feasibility of any ground combat vehicle in about 30 years.
They said much the same in 1945, operating under the assumption that nuclear weapons would be used in any ground combat scenarios.

As for under-armoured, something like this would be used in a reconaissance role, not as a main battle system like the M2/3 or M1. Think of it as more a 1025/6 HMMWV.

A recon unit would require massive speed though. And, even more than that, with aerial UAV and UCAV systems, it makes more sense to be able to fly

Knights were an example of making units that were bigger than the other army, slightly heavier armoured, in a much more precarious position, much more expensive, and very visible. And yet they were surprisingly efficient - because mobility allowed them to minimise all their weaknesses, and deliver a greater 'value' of damage wherever they hit.

Yet you prove the other's point. Knights were heavily armored, more expensive, bigger, visible and yet still very efficient.

And in the Battle of Agincourt thousands of heavily armored, highly trained fench knights died and the battle lost despite having far superior numbers, why?

The british figured out the longbow.

They said much the same in 1945, operating under the assumption that nuclear weapons would be used in any ground combat scenarios.

Yes they did. We'll see if I'm wrong. Unless they develop countermeasures for systems like the Javelin MBTs will be in trouble against any technologically capable force.

A recon unit would require massive speed though. And, even more than that, with aerial UAV and UCAV systems, it makes more sense to be able to fly

A recon unit doesn't really need speed. When I was a scout in the Army in Germany we'd generally go no more than 25mph or so during training exercises. Still, you are correct in saying that UAVs and UCAVs would make more sense.

It's certainly not technologically feasbile at the moment. It may never be, and if it ever is it might not be tactically feasbile. I have serious doubts as to the tactical feasibility of any ground combat vehicle in about 30 years.

And that's a very interesting can of worms I'll have to leave til later.

As for under-armoured, something like this would be used in a reconaissance role, not as a main battle system like the M2/3 or M1. Think of it as more a 1025/6 HMMWV.

Which moves it out of the realm of the mecha as typically envisioned...

Yet you prove the other's point. Knights were heavily armored, more expensive, bigger, visible and yet still very efficient.

And in the Battle of Agincourt thousands of heavily armored, highly trained fench knights died and the battle lost despite having far superior numbers, why?

The british figured out the longbow.

I saw a special on this battle on Discovery, and certainly that doesn't make what I'm about to say necessarily true, it's something to consider:

The knights were coming across a very muddy and narrow hill towards the English troops. Riot-simulation technology shows the probability of them bunching up as the terrain became narrow very high. They also got tangled in their own foot troops.

Another consideration is that the French knights assumed that when they went down, the Englishmen would not kill them according to the ideas war was based on. Knight goes down? Good, capture him and ransom him.

English archers to selves: holy SHIT! GIANT METAL KILLING MACHINES!

When the knights went down the Englishmen killed them because the huge metal monsters couldn't stand up when they went into the mud. The mud was incredibly dense and sticky, not to mention they were wearing several hundred pounds of steel.

This is compounded by the crowding and other conditions.



Now, as for mechs, they'll never be viable until a power supply more efficient and smaller than diesel can be devised. The engines work so much harder to lift feet and place them correctly than to just drive a track, mechs would be even less efficient than current armored vehicles.

You also REALLY have to look at what the point of such a vehicle would be. Tanks are a clearly superior design, and the trend in warfare as well as modern technology is towards smaller rather than larger designs. Tanks are smaller, planes are smaller, microchips are smaller, everything is getting smaller.

Another consideration is that a mech would more or less be a front-line type vehicle. The inherent terror of being run down by a giant walking machine is lost in patrols and skirmish actions. They'd need to be on front line-warfare situations, and they'll NEVER have the mobility of tanks, trucks, half-tracks, and so forth.

What we saw in Iraq is what the general trend in military tactics will follow: swift, armored strikes on the ground coupled with swift, accurate strikes from the air. There's no point in giant, lumbering towers of metal when a current-technology Apache could probably bust the POS before it even knew the Apache was after it.

I love mechs, don't get me wrong, I want them to happen. They're just not practical and never will be. Ever.

Now, do I think armored exoskeletons for foot soldiers is viable? Yes. Armored suits seem very likely in the future, but for people familiar with Warhammer 40k, the very best thing we'll see is Terminator style armor. Mechs are just not worth the money and effort.

Which moves it out of the realm of the mecha as typically envisioned...

Yes, but I don't see mecha as typically envisioned as being tactically feasbile. The feasibility of that little walker I posted is highly questionable, but I think it would be more useful than a traditional mech.

Yep.

There's a reason tanks have gone from looking like this:

http://www.roll-of-honour.com/images/OneofOurTanks.jpg


To looking like this:

http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/customers-t90-702b.jpg


Fixed the photo.

But this is a pretty cool propect, and if it follows through us in the West will be pretty dam near invincible...

Now, as for mechs, they'll never be viable until a power supply more efficient and smaller than diesel can be devised. The engines work so much harder to lift feet and place them correctly than to just drive a track, mechs would be even less efficient than current armored vehicles.
Nuclear power could be used – so no worries about carrying a diesel around. Wheels are obviously far more efficient so no, walking around is not exactly a fast and efficient mode of transport.

But there is one simple thing you guys are forgetting: Transformers!

How about one that can function as either a wheeled (or tracked) vehicle but, when needed, could transform into a walking mecha?

Still, as interesting as it would be from an engineering standpoint, it just is not ever going to be practical from a military standpoint. However, if you can develop some really fast humanoid form which could be controlled by brain-power… link it to the brain to use your own sense of balance and control… that kind of improvement would go a long way to making it more practicable as the improved skills of the pilots could make up for the inefficiencies a little.

You also REALLY have to look at what the point of such a vehicle would be. Tanks are a clearly superior design, and the trend in warfare as well as modern technology is towards smaller rather than larger designs. Tanks are smaller, planes are smaller, microchips are smaller, everything is getting smaller.
This is why small specialized robotic units would be more practicable than human-piloted mechs. You could build a bunch of bots and have gamers pilot them around – maybe that is the secret government plan… they are training an entire generation for such possibilities!

Another consideration is that a mech would more or less be a front-line type vehicle. The inherent terror of being run down by a giant walking machine is lost in patrols and skirmish actions. They'd need to be on front line-warfare situations, and they'll NEVER have the mobility of tanks, trucks, half-tracks, and so forth.

What we saw in Iraq is what the general trend in military tactics will follow: swift, armored strikes on the ground coupled with swift, accurate strikes from the air. There's no point in giant, lumbering towers of metal when a current-technology Apache could probably bust the POS before it even knew the Apache was after it.
This is why mechs would have to be limited to blitzkrieg actions – fast mechs for ground assault with good air cover. Of course, if you did this you couldn’t have any wheeled vehicles as once the mechs go down a road, it would be so broken up as to be unusable.

Now, do I think armored exoskeletons for foot soldiers is viable? Yes. Armored suits seem very likely in the future, but for people familiar with Warhammer 40k, the very best thing we'll see is Terminator style armor. Mechs are just not worth the money and effort.

Problem is, it would still be highly vulnerable to small arms – you simply cannot get enough armor on a man to make it worth the massive expense (both in terms of money and lost agility). Current flack jackets are about as heavy as you can go or you risk the same problem facing the medieval knight in full plate – not exactly going anywhere fast.
If you want to go the route of power assisted armor you have to consider how bulky it would be and that there is simply no way to protect the most vulnerable areas. A little shrapnel in the inner thigh, underarm, neck, wherever, and your insanely expensive powerarmored soldier is now a very large, heavy, and hard to move liability that a medic might have a tough time working on.

Consider urban combat – tight quarters where speed and agility are incredibly important. Being slow and heavily armored is not going to do you any good. I will tell you right now that if you weigh a ton you are probably going right through the floor.

The way i see the future of mechanised walkers is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1079019465/img/1.jpg
Plus this:
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6559/untitled2lk7.jpg
Plus about twenty times this:
http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Interceptor-1.jpg
As well as something like this:
http://www.defense-update.com/images/xm307-2.jpg
And at least one of these:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/images/mbtlaw_1.jpg

That HAS to be one of the dumbest things I've seen... that thing couldn't walk up a curb!
Anyhow, mechs won't ever have a chance against the tank designs of today with their low profile and large guns... I mean, a minigun on a pair of two-meter legs is just silly, the highest possible profile with minimum of balance. Even if they would fit a serious gun to that thing, it would just topple over with the recoil... crazy... and yeah yeah, it's just a thing built in a garage.. but there won't be a future for these AT-AT:s, sorry...

Problem is, it would still be highly vulnerable to small arms – you simply cannot get enough armor on a man to make it worth the massive expense (both in terms of money and lost agility). Current flack jackets are about as heavy as you can go or you risk the same problem facing the medieval knight in full plate – not exactly going anywhere fast.
If you want to go the route of power assisted armor you have to consider how bulky it would be and that there is simply no way to protect the most vulnerable areas. A little shrapnel in the inner thigh, underarm, neck, wherever, and your insanely expensive powerarmored soldier is now a very large, heavy, and hard to move liability that a medic might have a tough time working on.

Consider urban combat – tight quarters where speed and agility are incredibly important. Being slow and heavily armored is not going to do you any good. I will tell you right now that if you weigh a ton you are probably going right through the floor.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that you couldn't have some sort of liquid armour covering the joints in addition to kevlar or whatever the future brings and some sort of pauldron of sorts, we are talking about the future here after all. Also I think you underestimate the manoueverability of the medieval knight. They could do pretty much everything an unarmoured soldier could do they just couldn't be expected to do it for as long. But if you've got a powered exoskeleton then you're not worried about stamina in that regard. I'm sure that in the future a soldier in a powered armoured suit could run, crouch, go prone pretty much anything a modern soldier could do .

Clearly you're going to have trouble with entering buildings if the suit is too bulky, but then with future weapons you get the feeling that the armoured soldier supported by miniature UAV's could identify targets within buidings without having to enter them and deal with them appropiately, with either high explosive through the window or a high velocity round through the wall.

For anybody who wants to know, it's called the Sakakibara-Kikai Land Walker. Replace 'Walker' with 'Trooper' and imagine 50 years from now.

"We're being attacked by rogue mechs!"
"DEPLOY THE LAND TROOPERS! LOAD THE WEAPONS! SQUADRONS FORM UP! On the double!"

Holy shit. A true marvel of engineering. The primary issue, of course, is still with the balance, but that thing is cool as fuck. I'd give one of my limbs to be on the project team. Very good work.

Problem is, it would still be highly vulnerable to small arms – you simply cannot get enough armor on a man to make it worth the massive expense (both in terms of money and lost agility). Current flack jackets are about as heavy as you can go or you risk the same problem facing the medieval knight in full plate – not exactly going anywhere fast.
If you want to go the route of power assisted armor you have to consider how bulky it would be and that there is simply no way to protect the most vulnerable areas. A little shrapnel in the inner thigh, underarm, neck, wherever, and your insanely expensive powerarmored soldier is now a very large, heavy, and hard to move liability that a medic might have a tough time working on.

Consider urban combat – tight quarters where speed and agility are incredibly important. Being slow and heavily armored is not going to do you any good. I will tell you right now that if you weigh a ton you are probably going right through the floor.

I agree with you on the fact that armored soldiers as such would be incredibly heavy and such. The point of the matter is, we're a long way away from any of these inventions.

Plus, powered armor guys could be like OMG TELEPORT INTO YUR BASE! LOLZ! and then they could teleport out and stuff. I dunno, I'm sleepy.

Needs some improovement, obviously, because it has no military utility right now, but this is only a garage project prototype.

I expect that with the military's resources one could make something that worked much better (I.E. give it a better engine, make the movements more co-ordinated, make it heavier, expand the cockpit enough to get some computer electronics into it to do some of the work automatically, and make it's cockpit of something that won't shatter when the first bullet hits it).

I still don't see it being a viable peice of technology in the near future (or, quite possibly ever).

I disagree

The AGM-114 Hellfire Anti-tank missile spends, at the most, half a second in the air. The mechanical and targeting systems to down such a missile would need to be incredibly fast, and when facing multiple trajectory inbounds, I doubt it would have a prayer of downing them.


In half a second how far does it travel?

According to http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/stlas.htm the first laser anti missile defense system hit a stationary target and destroyed it. "This was 6 years ago", I hear you say, "they've obviously made advances". Then why is this the first page when you google "laser anti-missile defence"? Makes me thing that they haven't progressed all that far. That and the fact that to destroy a missile quickly the laser would have to be very very powerful.


Da! Ever heard of Top Secret Weapons?

Thats not real.. I saw that in a movie once.

That site requires that I install an "unknown plugin", so no thanks. However, from other comments I assume you are talking about the Land Walker (http://www.sakakibara-kikai.co.jp/products/other/LW.htm). If so, it's a) an old story, and b) laughable.

Well I just found it as I was surfing the net today, you say it's laughable, I say it needs improvement. As do all new inventions when they are first invented.


As the famous saying from a USMC anti-armor school goes, "hunting tanks is fun and easy - what you can see you can hit, and what you hit, you kill." Mecha are even easier to spot than tanks, and much easier to kill.

Maybe ... maybe not, but since no one has ever fought mech in the RL that may be a bit premature.

A six foot tall human is quite capable of taking advantage of numerous terrain features for concealment. A thirty plus (and mecha are generally envisioned as being significantly larger) foot high mecha is significantly less capable of doing so, particularly as there are not many terrain features that could conceal a mecha well with out being a serious mobility hazard. A few other problems with using the standard envisonment of mecha (30 foot plus and bipedal) as combat platforms:
Bipedal platforms are inherently instable. And a mobility kill will be much more effective against a mecha than against a standrard tracked or wheeled AFV.
There are serious manuver difficulties due to the high ground pressures created by the small ground contact area (no soft ground!).
Mobility will also restricted by size - close terrain (urban areas, wooded areas, etc.) will be at least as deadly for a mecha as they are for tanks.
Legs are significantly more complex locomotive mechanisms compared to wheels or tracks (remember, tanks have a relatively short range as is).

Nothing says it has to remain bi pedal, personally I think a spider or scorpion form would work much better and instill fear into the people being attacked by it. As for mobility jump jets or a Vtol ability could make mobility easier, as would tracks on the underside of the feet.

Indeed. (Sorry, but http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/farp/hand/Untitled-21.JPG comes up blank for me...) Oh, and as far as the interceptor missiles and lasers go, those will be of dubious effect against hyper-velocity KE missiles we can expect to be in service around the same time a viable mecha would be.
The speed of the platform a laser defense system is mounted on has no bearing on the speed it can detect an incoming projectile, taget it, and fire on it, and adjust fire.

Yea that where a hyper-velocity defensive missiles with a military fire control computer, radar and extremely good armor that could be added to it comes in I'd say.

Thats not real.. I saw that in a movie once.


IC: Thats funny I saw a real guy inside controlling it.

OCC: Be back Later

Yes, but I don't see mecha as typically envisioned as being tactically feasbile. The feasibility of that little walker I posted is highly questionable, but I think it would be more useful than a traditional mech.

Which has been my whole point throught this thread.

Well I just found it as I was surfing the net today, you say it's laughable, I say it needs improvement. As do all new inventions when they are first invented.

It's laughable because it's an attempt to recreate a cartoon device. Mecha are simply not a viable combat platform, at least as traditionally envisioned.

Maybe ... maybe not, but since no one has ever fought mech in the RL that may be a bit premature.

One doesn't need to have actually done something to be able to see that it's not viable.
So far, several people here have pointed out flaws in the traditonally envisioned designs of mecha that have not really been answered well enough to convince me that mecha would be viable in combat.

Nothing says it has to remain bi pedal, personally I think a spider or scorpion form would work much better and instill fear into the people being attacked by it.

As I said before, eight or more legs would be required to deal with the stability issues of the loss of a single leg, and even then there is the isuue of multipe leg loss. This again moves us out of the realm of the traditionally envisioned mecha.

[QUOTE=Kormanthor]As for mobility jump jets or a Vtol ability could make mobility easier, as would tracks on the underside of the feet.

The energy technology level required to make jump jets or VTOL on a mecha viable would make them obslete.

Yea that where a hyper-velocity defensive missiles with a military fire control computer, radar and extremely good armor that could be added to it comes in I'd say.

:( Sorry, come again?

IC: Thats funny I saw a real guy inside controlling it.

OCC: Be back Later

Why are you trying to RP here? :confused:

I want spidermechs!

I want spidermechs!
spider mechs would be a good answer to tanks.

personally, i'd be more afraid to be in that mech than outside of it.

The only semi-practicle walker type idea I could think of would have to be small, about eight feet tall or so, and be basically a glorified suit of battlearmour, meant for infantry support in tight areas where tanks might not be able to manuver. That sort of design might work...

Like these?
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3171/1sa3.png
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5272/3lm7.png
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7153/4fc4.png

At the moment, yes. A laser would be too bulky and slow to target.

It could be simplified I think. A static laser system firing the beam into a director type heat resistant mirror/reflector. The reflector could be fairly light and quick, and you wouldn't have to worry about the weight and bulk of the laser system.


Probably not, projectile weapons systems are the most efficient when dealing with mobile units.

Depends. If in the future, advances in power generation and energy direction make them viable, I can imagine laser and plasma weaponry easily replacing projectiles as standard weapons with the exception of covert use.

The only semi-practicle walker type idea I could think of would have to be small, about eight feet tall or so, and be basically a glorified suit of battlearmour, meant for infantry support in tight areas where tanks might not be able to manuver. That sort of design might work...

Powered armor. I know that several Japanese Institutes were working on variations of that and that DARPA has an ongoing project into the 21st century soldier with powered armor. Would be able to carry better armor and guns than your average ground pounder. Who knows? It may end up like this.

http://www.jolt.co.uk/popup.php?image=http://assets.jolt.co.uk/picdump/_mainsite/articles/061204/fear/10.jpg

Way better mech

http://www.neogentronyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=54

More ambitious, earlier stages but awsome

What a ridiculous poor excuse for a movie prop gone wrong. It doesn't it even walk, uses an extremely wobbly cumbersome method of feet shuffling. The Japanese have already developed far more advanced walking robots so this one you have shown (referring to original link) is extremely disappointing and i doubt it is a serious attempt at anything other than an expensive toy for someone with too much money/time on their hands. Looks like a 15 year old with a baseball bat could knock it over.

What a ridiculous poor excuse for a movie prop gone wrong. It doesn't it even walk, uses an extremely wobbly cumbersome method of feet shuffling. The Japanese have already developed far more advanced walking robots so this one you have shown (referring to original link) is extremely disappointing and i doubt it is a serious attempt at anything other than an expensive toy for someone with too much money/time on their hands. Looks like a 15 year old with a baseball bat could knock it over.


It's a start, I agree it could be much better, but it is interesting.

Way better mech

http://www.neogentronyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=54

More ambitious, earlier stages but awsome


Very Cool, much better then the one I found, mecha are here to stay.

Fixed the photo.

But this is a pretty cool propect, and if it follows through us in the West will be pretty dam near invincible...

Very Cool, much better then the one I found, mecha are here to stay.

Until some fool tries to use it in battle and it gets pwned senseless.

spider mechs would be a good answer to tanks.

personally, i'd be more afraid to be in that mech than outside of it.


I agree, earlier in the thread I mentioned that I would design my mecha as either a spider or scorpion.

Until some fool tries to use it in battle and it gets pwned senseless.


We will see ... personally I think a group of gamers with the right backgrounds could design one that would kick a tanks butt everytime. What if the mecha could just desend down on top of the tank from straight above the tank, ( I've never seen a tank that could shoot straight up ) then bend the tanks cannon like a pretzel. Now the tank is a multimillion dollar piece of junk. Hey I have a right to my own opinion too.

We will see ... personally I think a group of gamers with the right backgrounds could design one that would kick a tanks butt everytime. What if the mecha could just desend down on top of the tank from straight above the tank, ( I've never seen a tank that could shoot straight up ) then bend the tanks cannon like a pretzel. Now the tank is a multimillion dollar piece of junk. Hey I have a right to my own opinion too.

The problem is that there isn't the technology to allow a mech to do anything like that. Sure, there are pretty good bipedal robots, but none that could drop down from a smallish building, land on a tank and do anything other than fall off and break into lots of very expensive pieces. And by time there is that technology is developed tanks will be far more advanced that they are now, with much better armour and weaponry.

Way better mech

http://www.neogentronyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=54

More ambitious, earlier stages but awsome

Very Cool, much better then the one I found, mecha are here to stay.

You guy do realize that this one's even sillier that the Land Walker, right? At least the Land Walker actually sort of works...

We will see ... personally I think a group of gamers with the right backgrounds could design one that would kick a tanks butt everytime.

Simply not going to happen.

What if the mecha could just desend down on top of the tank from straight above the tank,

A mech capable of doing so would either be so severly underarmorted and powered it would not be able to undertake the assault you fantisize about; or would (again) require such an energy technology that would render mecha obsolete.

I've never seen a tank that could shoot straight up )

Several AFVs can do so. Tanks generally don't because there's no need to. There's nothing reaaly preventing tanks from doing so (at least in comparison to the engineering feats needed to design a mecha capable of this sort of attack).

then bend the tanks cannon like a pretzel. Now the tank is a multimillion dollar piece of junk.

This, like Grave_n_idle's point above, assumes that the tank operators are simply idiots.

Hey I have a right to my own opinion too.

Of course you do. Everyone posting here has their right to whatever opinion, however foolish, as long as we obey the rules, just as the rest of us have the right to point out exactly how foolish someone's opinions are.

BTW, Kormanthor, will you be adressing the points I raised earlioer or are you conceding?


The problem is that there isn't the technology to allow a mech to do anything like that. Sure, there are pretty good bipedal robots, but none that could drop down from a smallish building, land on a tank and do anything other than fall off and break into lots of very expensive pieces. And by time there is that technology is developed tanks will be far more advanced that they are now, with much better armour and weaponry.

Indeed, indeed.

You guy do realize that this one's even sillier that the Land Walker, right? At least the Land Walker actually sort of works...

snip

This one has a bit higher goals then the land walker though actual bipedal movement rather then the shuffle step that the land walker does

I never said it was a practical idea but it is ambitious

This one has a bit higher goals then the land walker though actual bipedal movement rather then the shuffle step that the land walker does

I never said it was a practical idea but it is ambitious

It's my understanding that neogentronyx doesn't actually even do that. It was described in one meomorable review I read as a mechanical sculpture.

Heh. I was off by an hour on the timing of the TV show I left to go watch. :D


Sweet. I usually do that the wrong way - leave in time to catch the closing credits.


And the ever evolving arms race continues. :)


Exactly - that's the point. Mecha might not be perfect now, but might be perfect in ten years time. By which I mean - they may have been 'perfected', but also, that they may have become the 'ideal' warmachine on an evolved battlefield.


But ther's a darn good reason why humans didn't evolve to be thirty foot tall (much less the eighty foot suggested by another poster...)


Yes. Simple dynamics of the building materials. Humans who are more than a foot or so above the average height suffer increasing physical hardship, gain little advantage, and die early.

It is unlikely that a thirty-foot human would live long enough to reproduce.

Mecha are not constrained by the weakness of the flesh.


Well, at the moment (and in the long run) concealment in whatever for beats out armor or mobility - you can't kill what you can't find. And not skylining one's self is an age old fundamental of concealment. (Aircraft are a special subset.)


You just contradicted yourself. Concealment beats armour or mobility... but you've been arguing the tank as a better design (which is all about armour), and then you 'excuse' aircraft as a 'special subset'.... apparently, just because they do not follow the rule you want to suggest.

First - as I said, visibility is mitigated in urban environments.

Second - there may yet be other technologies to make a 80-metre mecha harder to see... or at least, harder to shoot at.

Third - I used to play a lot of tabletop wargames. I had a 'Warhammer Fantasy Battle' army that was unbeaten, basically a peasant army from the Empire forces... basic soldiers with spears, bows, hand weapons... and yet it won battle after battle against 'tougher' opposition.

It wasn't because of my masterful use of terrain, or my tactical brilliance, it was because our built-in threat identifiers are flawed.

I had a large-ish phalanx of spearmen, with a little extra armour, a couple of little banners, and a nice paint job. But, I'd stick them front and centre, and they were very visibly the 'centre-piece' of my army. My opponents would throw expensive units at my spears, which would get cut to pieces by the archery support. They'd fall back to mass a resistance to this marching juggernaut, and my few lightweight knights would sweep in around the flanks.

Sometimes, a really good target is the best weapon.


The point was the appropriate use of terrain against mobile attacks.


And, if the terrain is underground tunnels, mecha probably aren't what you need. This is textbook.


:confused: Either you've misunderstood what I've been saying or I missed something, because I'm not sure what that's directed towards.


You said that projectile armaments were the most efficient method for dealing with armoured mobile targets. They aren't.


Nowhere did I say mecha would give up or act stupidly. However, urban terrain would provide a much more significant obstical to a mecha sized platform, slowing it down and impeding it to the point that small anti-mecha teams have a significant advantage.


Specialist anti-mecha teams would be a problem, the same as specialist anti-tank teams are... but you'd be unlikely to field JUST mecha... you'd also employ much smaller, much faster units to help minimise the risks, and capitalise on the strengths.


Exactly so. Do regular soldiers prefer to do combat in heavy snow? No, of course they don't. They'd rather not because it's a significant impediment. It would be much more significant if it slows down mecha to the point where the infantry has the advantage.


But that's the thing - how slow do you have to make them, before the squishy human becomes advantaged? A big mecha could be carrying a lot of weaponry that little humans can't carry, and if it gets bogged down for a few minutes, it is still an efficient firebase with a good vantage point.


That would most likely invite other problems, such an building collapses onto the mecha due to local foundation disruptions...


This is a risk, obviously. Of course, I wasn't actually suggesting mecha get in there and kick the foundations. Of course - sometimes that would be good, especially if the building was filled with enemy combatants...


1) Infantry is more mobile in urban terrain, as they are able to mover through buildings easily.
2) With a few exceptions, urban terrain is close enough to constrict feilds of fire for armored weapon platforms.


Yes - infantry can move through buildings. This is an advantage. But, if your infantry are behind the building, they aren't much of a threat. And, when they move towards you, you blast the entire facing of the structure, wiping them out in swathes.


That assumes the defenders are as stupid as you though I assumed the mecha pilots were. Proper application of the urban anti-tank ambush would take out a mecha as easily as an Abrams or Merkeva.

By which logic, of course, there are no tanks on modern battlefields?

No - because you use certain platforms where their strengths are favoured. And you combine forces to minimise weaknesses in your own platforms.

Knights were made effective not because of their high visibility, but because of the type of infantry they typically found themselves dealing with. The training of Impact Cavalry in the Medieval world was the best of any troops that served on the line, trained from the very beginning of their lives, Knights were the backbone of the medieval military. On the other hand, infantry were treated as ruffians along for the ride. Typically they were peasants who had been conscripted and told to sharpen their pitchforks, they broke, even when faced with no major assault.

There are three major instances when disciplined professional infantry and Impact Cavalry tangled.
First is the Battle of Tours, where Charles Martel's Franks shattered the Moorish Knights with a combination of discipline, skill and tactics.
Second is the Battle of Stirling Bridge, where disciplined Scottish infantry equipped with Pikes broke the Impact Cavalry of the English Army.
Third is the Battle of Agincourt, where English Longbowmen, the first professional soldiers since the collapse of the Roman Empire, ripped the French Knights to shreds

I'm not saying Knights were made more effective because of their visibility - I'm not sure where you got that from. They were effective despite it.

And yes - tactics and weapons choice is important, obviously.

But - it wasn't being a professional army that won the day at Agincourt - it was the nature of the weaponry, just like Stirling Bridge. It only takes a modicum of savvy to carry the battle if you are reasonably competent with the giantslayer weapon.

Pikes are like mines, for cavalry armies... your best bet is to never hit them. If you charge them head-on, you are mincemeat. But, like mines, with good opposition, pikes become a double edged sword - effective for funnelling troops maybe, but an actual encumbrance to the defender once close battle is joined.

The longbow wasn't a direct fire weapon - it is equivalent to barrage warfare. And it hits hard. It doesn't depend on individual skill, but on a cloud of projectiles. Plus - it had about twice the range of French archers, so they couldn't return fire in any efficient way, and were left with the choice of either retreating, or facing a 'charge-of-the-Light-Brigade' style gantlet run.


But, you are actually making half my argument - warfare evolves. We are still bopping each other on the head in a field, we have just changed the details. Mecha in their current form are drawingboard material and useless as weapons, but they will change... and so will the battlefield.

Yet you prove the other's point. Knights were heavily armored, more expensive, bigger, visible and yet still very efficient.

And in the Battle of Agincourt thousands of heavily armored, highly trained fench knights died and the battle lost despite having far superior numbers, why?

The british figured out the longbow.

How is that not my point? My point was that one can't make decisions on the ultimate effectiveness of a given platform purely on how war is fought 'today'.

You are agreeing...

We will see ... personally I think a group of gamers with the right backgrounds could design one that would kick a tanks butt everytime. What if the mecha could just desend down on top of the tank from straight above the tank, ( I've never seen a tank that could shoot straight up ) then bend the tanks cannon like a pretzel. Now the tank is a multimillion dollar piece of junk. Hey I have a right to my own opinion too.

Even if you got jumpjets working so you could...

Tanks operate in groups, with infantry support.
Jump down on a tank, and the tanks "wingman" will have a clear shot at your mech as it towers over the tank it's rending. Or the infantry support gets to use anti-armor rockets at it while it's busy.

I'd bet the cost of one "uber-mech" would be as much as 3-4 tanks, plus a Brad full of troops.

Friend of mine in the USAF once said back in the '80s (when they were still worried about the USSR) , "The neat thing about F-15's is it can go 5 on one with Migs and win. Bad thing is that an F-15 costs as much as SEVEN Migs.... so we're kinda anticipating seven-on-one. That's not much fun."

I see the Mech concept as similar - no matter how Uber you make it, it's tall, an easier target, had a higher center of gravity, and more guys can shoot at it at the same time.

One of my high school friends was a big Mech advocate, and his argument was that a bipedal can make movements that include jumping to the side, ducking, sudden turns, etc, and that would make it very hard for a tank to shoot it.

My counter argument was, "They'd just cross breed TOW missiles with the guidance from Stingers, and that would become the new anti-mech weapon. A mech can't manuver any faster than a helicopter... "

Even if you got jumpjets working so you could...

Tanks operate in groups, with infantry support.
Jump down on a tank, and the tanks "wingman" will have a clear shot at your mech as it towers over the tank it's rending. Or the infantry support gets to use anti-armor rockets at it while it's busy.

I'd bet the cost of one "uber-mech" would be as much as 3-4 tanks, plus a Brad full of troops.

Friend of mine in the USAF once said back in the '80s (when they were still worried about the USSR) , "The neat thing about F-15's is it can go 5 on one with Migs and win. Bad thing is that an F-15 costs as much as SEVEN Migs.... so we're kinda anticipating seven-on-one. That's not much fun."

I see the Mech concept as similar - no matter how Uber you make it, it's tall, an easier target, had a higher center of gravity, and more guys can shoot at it at the same time.

One of my high school friends was a big Mech advocate, and his argument was that a bipedal can make movements that include jumping to the side, ducking, sudden turns, etc, and that would make it very hard for a tank to shoot it.

My counter argument was, "They'd just cross breed TOW missiles with the guidance from Stingers, and that would become the new anti-mech weapon. A mech can't manuver any faster than a helicopter... "
Your friend would have been wrong about the F-15's performance against mig's (depending on model)

Even if you got jumpjets working so you could...

Don't see the problem, the Harrier is Votl, as is the new JSF. Either of these systems could be modified to work on mecha.

Tanks operate in groups, with infantry support. Jump down on a tank, and the tanks "wingman" will have a clear shot at your mech as it towers over the tank it's rending. Or the infantry support gets to use anti-armor rockets at it while it's busy.

By the same token mecha could operate in groups, and the original mecha's wingmen could drop on your wingman at the same time.

I'd bet the cost of one "uber-mech" would be as much as 3-4 tanks, plus a Brad full of troops.

Any war is an expensive undertaking, but that has not stopped us from repetedly starting new ones has it?

Friend of mine in the USAF once said back in the '80s (when they were still worried about the USSR) , "The neat thing about F-15's is it can go 5 on one with Migs and win. Bad thing is that an F-15 costs as much as SEVEN Migs.... so we're kinda anticipating seven-on-one. That's not much fun."

And yet they built the F-15's anyway

I see the Mech concept as similar - no matter how Uber you make it, it's tall, an easier target, had a higher center of gravity, and more guys can shoot at it at the same time.

Actually my mecha would not be bipedal so it wouldn't have a high center of gravity. Nor does it need to be tall, a spider or scorpion shaped mecha about the size of a tank would not have those problems.

One of my high school friends was a big Mech advocate, and his argument was that a bipedal can make movements that include jumping to the side, ducking, sudden turns, etc, and that would make it very hard for a tank to shoot it.

Well if you could build a mecha with the body of an olympic athlete he might be correct. But that kind of detail would be very hard to do.

My counter argument was, "They'd just cross breed TOW missiles with the guidance from Stingers, and that would become the new anti-mech weapon. A mech can't manuver any faster than a helicopter... "

The vtol systems would probly be a little faster then a helicopter, but you may be right that it still wouldn't be fast enough. But even though helicopters can't out manuever that type of weapon there still being built and used successfully in a wartime battlefield. One day mecha will become a mainstay of future modern warfare, of this I have no doubt.