NationStates Jolt Archive

i was thinking of desiging a few combat mechs. What do you think about mechs? And Im only talking about mechs that have machine guns and missles, no lasers or anything, have a single person inside to control it, cant fly or anything.

what tech do you think they would be and why? If some people could post and tell me why they think they are MT,PMT,FT,etc

It's obviously future tech! That's probably why no one is answering you.
If it was modern tech they would be made.
If your talking walking mechs, than they only fairly recently came out with that robot in Japan that is human size and can walk, slowly. So that's very simple.
If it is a mech that has tank treads and one person controling it, it would have to be huge for all of the automated loading equipment needed, making it slow and a large easy target. And an interface where one person can control all aspects such to include driver and gunner. It's just not realistic.
A one person tank with a machine gun and a few missiles could be made, but it would not work as easy and would loose often.

not nessecarily, currentlly in the works is a mech being built as a prototype for arena combat

here is the url
http://www.neogentronyx.com/

and I assume the mechs the tokera is talking about are like the ones from the front mission or mechassault series

well I was thinking on a walking mech big enough to fit one or two men, the size of a cockpit, with nothing special for weapons just maby a few machine guns, some anti tank weapons, There have been mechs built in the past that are fairly large. I am thinking that they are defeidntly PMT, but IM just looking for some peoples opinions. IT would be similar to the "mech warriors"
but no lasers, general slow moving not sure how fast yet but I am thinking about 20 mph, possible uses: recon, anti tank, anti air, etc.

yah basically like the size of a car or something nlthing huge. I would think that if a mech like that can be built now that the kind of mechs could be made for PMT. I can see from the poll that people generally think that mechs are either PMT or FT, I would like some more people to justify their answers and tell me your thoughts on these.

Im just asking for opinions here.

Mechas are very ineffeceint vehicles and provide little advantage over a two man light tank or a three man heavy tank. Mechs that walk waste more energy than a treaded vehicle, another disadvantage. Mounting very large cannons, 125MM++ could also have dire side effects on a standing light mech. A super large tank is more feasible than a mech, and either way they will cost millions upon millions of dollars. Mechs are extremely slow as it is so far, and this is all on a PMT basis. Tanks will still and should reign in the slightly PMT range.

Mechas are very ineffeceint vehicles and provide little advantage over a two man light tank or a three man heavy tank. Mechs that walk waste more energy than a treaded vehicle, another disadvantage. Mounting very large cannons, 125MM++ could also have dire side effects on a standing light mech. A super large tank is more feasible than a mech, and either way they will cost millions upon millions of dollars. Mechs are extremely slow as it is so far, and this is all on a PMT basis. Tanks will still and should reign in the slightly PMT range.

well I wasnt tinking on having huge cannons as i said earlier, mostly machin guns, and maby some anti tank missles, I was thinking that the mech could go about 20-30 mph. also I've been playing arround with the idea of a tracked mech.

Mechs can span any tech level from modern to future, depending on factors like size, speed, weapons, maneuverability, and so on. From your description, I'd say the mechs you're looking for are either postmodern or even modern (though my recommendation is definitely PM).

Contrary to what The Newer England says, it probably would be possible to build a reasonable mech today if someone was willing to invest a hell of a lot of money. There are reasons no one has so far: it would be a totally new type of armored force with little or no established doctrine of usage; it would be very difficult to engineer something that big which can operate well under combat conditions; it would be just as difficult to create an intiutive interface and to write programming necessary to "walk" over variable terrain; and so on.

That said, this is NationStates, a place of kilometer-long battleships and nations that could bully China. If you can find a use for a mech, and you know what can be done with a given tech level, nothing can stop you.

Mechs can span any tech level from modern to future, depending on factors like size, speed, weapons, maneuverability, and so on. From your description, I'd say the mechs you're looking for are either postmodern or even modern (though my recommendation is definitely PM).

Contrary to what The Newer England says, it probably would be possible to build a reasonable mech today if someone was willing to invest a hell of a lot of money. There are reasons no one has so far: it would be a totally new type of armored force with little or no established doctrine of usage; it would be very difficult to engineer something that big which can operate well under combat conditions; it would be just as difficult to create an intiutive interface and to write programming necessary to "walk" over variable terrain; and so on.

That said, this is NationStates, a place of kilometer-long battleships and nations that could bully China. If you can find a use for a mech, and you know what can be done with a given tech level, nothing can stop you.

ok thank you, That is pretty much what I was thinking but I just wanted to make sure it would be accepted and not just blown off, before I start designing the thing. Also I see the majority of the people leaning tward PMT.

Mechs are a bad idea regardless of their tech level; they're complicated, vulnerable, and can't be well armed...There may be more reasons, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.That said, this is NationStates, a place of kilometer-long battleshipsSuperbattleships are one of the worse things to happen to NS...>_>

could you go into more detail as to why they are a bad idea, please

could you go into more detail as to why they are a bad idea, pleaseThat was fast. O.o I edited my post after I remembered that (unarmed) walking vehicles have already been made. You could make a mech now, but it'll be slow, easy to kill, underarmed, and complicated (not a good thing on the battlefield).

yes but that is now, I am talking for PMT, there has to be significant improvements between MT and PMT in this kind of thing.

Forgive me if someone has already said the things I am about to point out. It is late, and I do not want to read the entire thread.

Mechs are a bit of a problem. You see, there really is no use for them at the moment. You can mount more weapons, armor, and people in a squat ground vehicle, which would also be harder to hit than an upright, exposed bipedal contrivence. This could all be eliminated in the future, as witnessed by Gundam, Mechwarrior (Mechassault is a f*^&ing retarded perversion of the Mechwarrior series, which in turn is a spin off of the card game, which is (I think) a spin off of the board game), and similar mecha shows.

However, this does not mean that they are an MT impossibility. It is true that modern "mechs" can barely stand, but if a nation were to devote serious development power to their creation, it could be done. If you were to make it your country's prime concern, and then made them rather slow, lightly armed, and relativly unarmored, I believe it could be done within the timeframe for MT.

yes but that is now, I am talking for PMT, there has to be significant improvements between MT and PMT in this kind of thing.I don't think so. The legs joints have to be exposed to function, there'll be relatively high ground pressure so you can't put on a lot of armor, legged vehicles are inherently complicated, heavy armament is a no-go because of the vehicle's light weight and (with a bipedal mech) high center of gravity, a bipedal mech'll be a tall target, et cetera...There'll be improvements, sure, but IMO not large enough ones to make mechs useful enough.

No more speedy replies from me...I'll probably check in again tomorrow.

...not... enough ones to make mechs useful enough.

Not true. I currently have a mech in design for my newest puppet that will be able to do much, much more damage than a tank. I refuse to speak of it much at the moment, but lets just say that these suckers can do a LOT of damage.

There is a 'mech' that actually has been build. While I can't find the link, it was build by a mechanic in the states/in his backyard. Was 18 feet tall, with a 'flame-thrower'. Was to be part of a monster truck show.

Not true. I currently have a mech in design for my newest puppet that will be able to do much, much more damage than a tank. I refuse to speak of it much at the moment, but lets just say that these suckers can do a LOT of damage.I look forward to seeing this, but I don't see how you could make a mech useful against modern tanks...

(I'm really leaving this time.)

Was it red and kind of spindly lookin? If that's what your talking about, then yes, one has been built. However, it can barely stand upright, and I dont even know if it can walk.

I look forward to seeing this, but I don't see how you could make a mech useful against modern tanks...

(I'm really leaving this time.)

Oh no, no, its very FT. VERY FT.

Was it red and kind of spindly lookin? If that's what your talking about, then yes, one has been built. However, it can barely stand upright, and I dont even know if it can walk.
Yes. A properly braced mech, ie: the proper firing stance for people, or kneeling on one knee(The marriage proposal position) could fire a very heavy weapon.

When I think of feasable humanoid mechs, not powered armor (like that in the Fallout game series), I think of the Front Mission game series. Something like 12m tall at most, otherwise it is unstable and requires more legs.
Those mechs were sort of MT...

The whole, mech vs conventional argument went on a couple months ago until the mods locked it or something...

I would say that your design would be PMT. Perhaps a mech could be done MT, but it would be highly ineffecient in fuel and movement, and not too reliable.
With PMT, a light mech could be resonably quick (sprints of forty mph, possibly higher), not to mention more all terrain and more mobile than modern tanks (PMT you should have the computer power to handle the problems with balance, meaning that it can better handle uneven terrain the a modern tank). It would also have access to a reliable and more effecient power system. Though, this mech would probably be used as anti-infantry and recon, but with missles it would easily make it dangerous to tanks as well.
FT mechs would be stuff like Gundam or the heavy Battletech/Mechwarrior mechs.

ah mechs, the favored weapons of the typical conformist japanabies obsessed with some intangible 'cool' factor and typically ignorant of real world military facts and technology.

Lets break the facts down (though no japanaby will ever concede the points I make)
1. Mechs are what military thinkers call BTs, Big Targets, even the fastest mechs, with the most uber camoflauge system (purely FT in this case, though there are many PMT mech designs) are typically twenty or more feet tall, wider than any tank, and generally incapable of withstanding a hit from even a light mortar or RPG and remaining upright, thats just physics, mechs are top heavy, you hit one in the chest with an RPG and it WILL fall over, no matter what special, ultra balance system it has, unless it literally nails itself into the ground with meter long poles, it will fall over. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that when your multi million (and it will cost multiple millions) dollar weapon platfrom falls on its mechanical butt, thats not good.

Now, any self respecting japanaby will tell you that even though mechs are technically Possible now and right now couldn't possibly face up to a tank, any year now they're (who's they anyway?) going to invent <widget> that will make mechs simultaeneuosly plausible and better than any old tank. and while thats true, in a literal sense, whatever widget they come up with would make a mech better than any old tank. you think those artificial muscles, light weight power supply, flexible armor, minituraized servoes, and what have will only work on mechs? you would be mistaken, There's no piece of technology that could possibly make a plausible mech that couldn't make a tank better than that mech. not a single thing. if nothing else, whatever it is will make tanks lighter, and a lighter tank can have more armor and less logistic tail than any mech (thats physics again, mechs simply have to much surface area to be armored as much as a low to the ground box). Seriously though, try me, give me an example of a new invention to make mechs plausible that wouldn't make a tank better, I'll throw it right back at your face.
Here's a breakdown if you haven't got it yet:
Mech| |tank
pros:
mobility| |range
psychological warfare| | lower logistics strain
versatility| |heavy armor
| | heavy weapons
| | small size for increased stealthiness
| | carries its own repair crew
| | can mount additional infantry easily
cons:
large target| | slow
complex| | heavy
big logistic strain| | large crew recquirment
limited self repair ability|
inability to mount extra infantry|
unstable|
low armor values|
restricted to low recoil weapons|
large sections that cannot mount weapons|

thats all I got, but I think the direction is clear
mechs<tanks

Mechs would span over MT PMT and FT but the abilities would vary drasticlly between them a mt mech would be out dated to a FT mech. And even then a FT mech that is built with PMT designs- like veritech from Robotech- would be ineffective against mech of late FT design like my biomech. The manuvearablity of the veritech type wopuld be like a slug...

What type of mecha are useful depends very much on the general situation you'd be employing them in.

On Earth, two-legged designs really shouldn't be made much larger than 5-10 meters or so-- oversized power armor, basically. Otherwise stick with four-legged high speed designs.

In space, of course, humanoid designs are much more practical as they're going to end up having generally superior maneuverability to a conventional space fighter.

Mondoth, tanks are not slow. An M1A2 can make 70 km/h.

On speed in general it would take an engine 10 times more powerful than the M1A2s to move a typical humanoid mecha, and it would be slower than an M1A2.

As Mondoth already mentioned, all of the supertech needed to make a viable mecha can be applied to a conventional vehicle with far better results. There is simply no way for a mecha to be superior to an equivalent tech base conventional vehicle.

AN, humanoid mecha are not better than a traditional design for a space fighter. Adding legs and arms just adds mass which can't be used for anything usefull and won't improve maneuverability in the slightest.

if you apply that space hass no gravity, mass and weight would not be much of a factor. Plus a traditional star fighter is made to act like a fighter on earth. it goes striaght..... a humaniods mech pilot can outfit the mech to move where ever the pilot would like it to go. by making the retroboosters on the mech react to his leaning back and forth or side to side and if your mech moves like the G-gundam suits, or Like my biomech, your body controls the mech it self like an extention of your body. That would make the mech more manuvearable then the fighter. because the mech can move up and down back and forth. at will- as where a fighter ( as far as i know) moves forward...

if you apply that space hass no gravity, mass and weight would not be much of a factor. Plus a traditional star fighter is made to act like a fighter on earth. it goes striaght..... a humaniods mech pilot can outfit the mech to move where ever the pilot would like it to go. by making the retroboosters on the mech react to his leaning back and forth or side to side and if your mech moves like the G-gundam suits, or Like my biomech, your body controls the mech it self like an extention of your body. That would make the mech more manuvearable then the fighter. because the mech can move up and down back and forth. at will- as where a fighter ( as far as i know) moves forward...

Mass is always a factor as it adds inertia. Having worthless mass in the forms of arms and legs makes it harder to move the mecha.

Space fighters would also have retro-thrusters. It too could move up and down, side to side or do a 180 while still moving forward. It would also do this easier as it would have less mass and it would have less moving parts so it would last longer too.

Mechs just plain suck compared to conventional equivalent tech vehicles.

but being a FT weapon I would think that thier makers would equip some form of inertia breakers. that would make mass a none factor. And to the fighters with retro- they made be able to turn one a 180 but a mech can do that just as fast with the right equitment.

but being a FT weapon I would think that thier makers would equip some form of inertia breakers. that would make mass a none factor. And to the fighters with retro- they made be able to turn one a 180 but a mech can do that just as fast with the right equitment.

Then they could do the same to a conventional fighter, which would have less inertia to "break" and would then be more maneuvarable than the mech.

And I'm not saying that a mech couldn't do a 180, I'm saying that a mech would require far more complicated means to do one than a conventional fighter.

Just suck it up and admit that mechs suck when compared to equivalent tech conventional vehicles.

I cant.....:) I have a natural draw to mechs they look cooler. But I am going to say that there are pros and con to both sides.

Mondoth, tanks are not slow. An M1A2 can make 70 km/h.

On speed in general it would take an engine 10 times more powerful than the M1A2s to move a typical humanoid mecha, and it would be slower than an M1A2.

As Mondoth already mentioned, all of the supertech needed to make a viable mecha can be applied to a conventional vehicle with far better results. There is simply no way for a mecha to be superior to an equivalent tech base conventional vehicle.

AN, humanoid mecha are not better than a traditional design for a space fighter. Adding legs and arms just adds mass which can't be used for anything usefull and won't improve maneuverability in the slightest.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here. While a space fighter needs to use thrusters to change it's attitude, a mecha can simply do so by moving an arm or a leg.

Mechs are pretty things to show off with, not a practical weapon.

If you want to make a mech with a half-decent weapon or remotely heavy armour, a four-legged unit would be best. This would still be highly unstable and fairly easy to take down, but it would be more stable than a two-legged one. Although in PMT it would be cumbersome and severely unreliable.

This still wouldn't remove the fact that you would have a great big chunk of hollowed-out metal standing 12 metres in the air on stilts. Wouldn't take a lot to knock it down. And in PMT it would likely have to stop moving in order to fire, a process which would take quite a while. While a mech doesn't suffer from the disadvantages that caterpillar tracks have, instead you can simply shoot its legs off at the weak joints and have done with it. And trust me, the joints would be weak.

And then we have the tank. An awesomely destructive ground force which is often the mainstay of an army. Its squat, ground-hugging form makes it harder to see and tougher to hit, and allows for armour which stands a much better chance of deflecting attacks. Not only that but the stability of a tank allows it to hold much heavier armour and much higher-calibre weapons.

They can move quite quickly over a wide variety of terrains (faster on some than others, of course), and unlike any non-wanked mech, they can fire with some degree of accuracy whilst moving. The technology required to get a tank moving is simple, cheap, reliable and highly effective. Not to mention the fact that they are simplier to maintain and repair. The technology to get a mech moving, on the other hand, is expensive, highly complicated, very sensitive and vulnerable to mechanical failure, harder to maintain and repair, and simply inefficient.

And as has been said, there's nothing you couldn't install on a mech that you couldn't install on a tank with greater effectiveness.
So the mech has an energy shield? So what? Put one on the tank. It's ability to hold more weight would allow for a bigger power source and a more powerful shield. And when said shield fails, it still has superior armour.
So the mech has some kind of new super-armour? You can put more on the tank, and it's less likely to get hit too.
So the mech has a huge gun which somehow doesn't knock it over? So what? You can still put a bigger version on the tank. Even if it means building a bigger tank, the tank is far more stable. Period.
So the mech can fly? Actually, no it can't, unless you put it in space to start with it's not going anywhere. And you could put a tank in space with the same propulsion and suchlike and do just as much good.

Of course, when it comes to pure FT you can do whatever the heck you want, however ridiculous and beyond the realms of possibility, and get away with it, so that's the only place where mechs have any possible use in my eyes. But hey, if you want to waste your money on a more expensive, less effective platform, the only use of which is to 'look cool', be my guest. Your money, after all.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here. While a space fighter needs to use thrusters to change it's attitude, a mecha can simply do so by moving an arm or a leg.

I'm going to assume you don't think that flapping your arms in space will help you change direction and that you mean that a mech would have thrusters on its arms and legs. Seeing as we already have fighter planes with moveable jet engines, what makes you think that a space fighter's thrusters can't be similarly mounted on 'turrets'?

Bipedal tanks have a single really practical use; since they have legs instead of treads, they're easier to parachute drop in support of airborne infantry than likewise-armed tanks would be, though they'd still have to put up with extremely light armour vs. their mass compared to a proper tank. Once the paratroops do what they were there to do they'd be straight off the frontline, replaced with actual tanks.

At any tech level, legs add hugely to the complexity, require thin armour and exposed joints compared to a relatively robust tank chassis built with the same technology, and have less internal space to devote to payload and sensors because they need more for balancing systems, joints and actuators.

The only thing I could see mecha being used for is in terrain that is too tough for tracked vehicles or for paradrops, they would be pretty good for recon I guess but they'd still be too weak against AT rounds as they could never be heavily armoured.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here. While a space fighter needs to use thrusters to change it's attitude, a mecha can simply do so by moving an arm or a leg.

And that's why astronauts can just move an arm and turn completely around and not need thrusters or a handhold... oh wait. :rolleyes:

What makes more sense? Having a fighter with thrusters mounted on its small frame or having a mech with thrusters mounted on its arms or legs which when fire add far more stress to it than the thrusters on the fighter thus making have less maneuvarability than the fighter?

If you pick the latter option you are a hopeless mecha-wanker.

This is the new puppet I was telling you about as Einhauser. So, just send any hate-mail to that account, ok?

Right, my mechs are lighter armed and armored that a tank, that is true. Their advantage is the pilots, not the machines. These pilots are good. Like, really good. Now, this would make up part of the lead a tank has on a mecha, but not all. Fortunatly, my nation (Lumastra, not Einhauser) is an anti-war sort of people, so the mechs dont have to be as good as tank.

Plus, you are simply not going to hit one of my mechs. Dont ask why, because I cant say at this date.

This is the new puppet I was telling you about as Einhauser. So, just send any hate-mail to that account, ok?

Right, my mechs are lighter armed and armored that a tank, that is true. Their advantage is the pilots, not the machines. These pilots are good. Like, really good. Now, this would make up part of the lead a tank has on a mecha, but not all. Fortunatly, my nation (Lumastra, not Einhauser) is an anti-war sort of people, so the mechs dont have to be as good as tank.

Plus, you are simply not going to hit one of my mechs. Dont ask why, because I cant say at this date.


So you have uber-pilots for mechs. If you trained those same pilots to be that good with as a tank crew then guess what happens?

And everything can be hit, it's just to different degrees of accuracy. And a tank being more stable will have a far higher accuracy.

Also, if your mecha is FT, even tanks become more mobile. Hover tanks, to be exact. Who cares about rough terrain when you don't have to touch it? A mecha could possibly move down narrow urban alley's more efficiently, but a tank would rule the streets, and the rooftops/sky. However, power armor would still be a more effective solution than either of these in room to room combat, as it can actually FIT inside the buildings, making the mecha's supposed advantage pointless.

Oh no, no, its very FT. VERY FT.Ah. I was actually thinking of modern tanks as the oldest a mech would be completely useless against, though. I still look forward to reading more about your proposed solution(s) to the problems with mechs.
Bipedal tanks have a single really practical use; since they have legs instead of treads, they're easier to parachute drop in support of airborne infantry than likewise-armed tanks would be.How so? It seems to me unless they hit the ground exactly right, they'd fall over and be out of the battle before it begins.
Also, if your mecha is FT, even tanks become more mobile. Hover tanks, to be exact. Who cares about rough terrain when you don't have to touch it?I don't think hover tanks will ever be practical without some huge scienfitic discoveries, because of recoil and trouble going up and down slopes, for example. I'd be interested in reading thoughts on making hover tanks practical, too, though!

FT.......but i also think mechs are stupid.

Signing in with the "Mechs are stupid crowd."

He has actually subcontracted the mech project to my Arms Companies, and we just plan to modify a MI-24 Hind and a T-55. Still, it'll just be a proof of concept vehicle and of no real purpose. Unless you want to look cool or use it for urban surpression. Even then it sucks. Unless you went FT and all Gundam or Mechwarrior on me I don't see a point.

PT&S finds that 'mechs' are inefficient, and military budgets are better spent on more traditional modes of transportation and assault.

I've noticed one point that no one has seemed to note yet. Though it would only take into acount the Gundam/Macross stlye of humanoid mecha, but the fact that it can simply dump it's weapon if needed and collect another or it can also enter melee style combat, where as a tank and other armored vehicles would simply run out of ammo/power the mech could simply use cover and what not, get close enough, and procede to beat the thing in. Though yes the possibility of it getting destroyed are high but in a sense it can keep on fighting regardless of ammo concerns.
Though it all truely depends on what you prefer.

Of course it's FT, small ones can be FPMT.

well I was thinking on a walking mech big enough to fit one or two men, the size of a cockpit, with nothing special for weapons just maby a few machine guns, some anti tank weapons, There have been mechs built in the past that are fairly large. I am thinking that they are defeidntly PMT, but IM just looking for some peoples opinions. IT would be similar to the "mech warriors"
but no lasers, general slow moving not sure how fast yet but I am thinking about 20 mph, possible uses: recon, anti tank, anti air, etc.

The proper term is "Mecha suit".

Well, I was reading a book by John Ringo, called "Into the Looking Glass", they had a PMT-ish mecha called the Wyvern, it was vaguely humanoid, approximately ten feet tall, mounted a single weapon(common choices were the A-10 30mm cannon, the 25mm Bushmaster, a 130mm South African gun, and a .50 Cal Gatling gun) It was pretty realistic, having to be rather sklow in rough terrain, having limited ammo(to be read as less than 4000 bullets in a "backpack"), medium armor(equivalent to a bradley) and the ability to low-crawl over flat ground very well, it was well balanced, but had a tendency to overred the users motion and try to disco, all of these issues wre fixed in the MkII

How so? It seems to me unless they hit the ground exactly right, they'd fall over and be out of the battle before it begins.

Um, you realise that 'falling over' is not a common problem for actual paratroops, ya?

The proper term is "Mecha suit".

No it isn't.

The most realistic mecha I've ever seen are the ones in Patlabor, which as basically used to carry large weapons in support of infantry. It's worth watching Patlabor 2 and noting the RADHA mech at the start is about twice the size of an Abrams, carries a single 25mm chaingun and was knocked out by one anti-tank missile.

Um, you realise that 'falling over' is not a common problem for actual paratroops, ya?



No it isn't.

Yes, it really is, when referring to a humanoid mech, with full human characteristics(hands and feet, not guns mounted for hands, or a hover platform) you call it a Mecha. Standard SF knowledge man.

Now, the Mechwarrior "Battlemechs" do fall under the heading of 'Mech, since the Mechwarrior books coined the phrase, but other than that, or something like that, it's Mecha.

Yes, it really is, when referring to a humanoid mech, with full human characteristics(hands and feet, not guns mounted for hands, or a hover platform) you call it a Mecha.

No, 'mecha' is Japanese for 'machine' and is commonly used to refer to any giant robot, regardless of form. The Libo Decimator in Orguss 02 [which has no legs] qualifies for the term, as do the numerous mecha in Gungriffon Blaze with no arms.

No, 'mecha' is Japanese for 'machine' and is commonly used to refer to any giant robot, regardless of form. The Libo Decimator in Orguss 02 [which has no legs] qualifies for the term, as do the numerous mecha in Gungriffon Blaze with no arms.

Mecha are not necessarily giant, nor are we working from the Japanese anime version, I'm talking about the Sci-Fi version, that has a noted and accepted difference between humanoid Mecha, and non-humanoid, or partly humanoid Mechs.

Just because it's Japanese does not mean its right nor does it mean that everyone uses their idiotic terminology.

Um, you realise that 'falling over' is not a common problem for actual paratroops, ya?


Actually, yes it is. When rl paratroopers hit the ground, they don't just walk away. They duck and roll, to avoid breaking anything. Mecha can't do that without ending up a pile of useless junk.

I don't think hover tanks will ever be practical without some huge scienfitic discoveries, because of recoil and trouble going up and down slopes, for example. I'd be interested in reading thoughts on making hover tanks practical, too, though!

Fine, grav tank. Same basic effect, but without the fans. I meant hover by the fact that it CAN hover, not that it uses some form of modern day hover technology. Recoil could be compensated for with thrusters easily enough, or by using recoiless/low recoil weapons (lasers, etc). So really, it'd be more of a Vectored Thrust aircraft (SR Thunderbird, anyone?) than a tank, but you could fit about the same armaments on it as a tank.

Mecha are not necessarily giant, nor are we working from the Japanese anime version, I'm talking about the Sci-Fi version, that has a noted and accepted difference between humanoid Mecha, and non-humanoid, or partly humanoid Mechs.

Just because it's Japanese does not mean its right nor does it mean that everyone uses their idiotic terminology.

Anime with giant robots is scifi. What the hell else is it going to be?

Further, this appears to be your personal use of terms. Many Innersphere 'Mechs qualify for your definition of 'mecha;' going through my Battletech cards: Javelin, Fireball, Hatchetman, Falcon, Commando, Banshee, Panther, Quickdraw, Spider, Thug, Atlas, Berserker, Hunchback, Nightsky, Stealth, Wolfhound, Cyclops, Grand Titan and Mongoose all have two arms, hands and human-like legs. Since these are 'Mechs, you're rather obviously just making these definitions up out of thin air. That or confusing 'Mech with 'Battlemover,' which does refer to units with guns-for-hands.

Actually, yes it is. When rl paratroopers hit the ground, they don't just walk away. They duck and roll, to avoid breaking anything. Mecha can't do that without ending up a pile of useless junk.

Um, I don't see wh a robustly build biped which doesn't have a lot of useless precision equipment bolted on couldn't manage a roll without breaking anything; also, with the Patlabor para-mechs they use some kind of thruster or rocket [there's a brief flash] just before landing so they don't have to roll. It isn't quiet or elegant, but seems to me it would get the job done.

Um, I don't see why a robustly build biped which doesn't have a lot of useless precision equipment bolted on couldn't manage a roll without breaking anything

Try flipping a tank over. See what happens to it.

Try flipping a tank over. See what happens to it.

...And are tanks designed to be flipped over? Nope. Though that said, they can come intact out of some fairly silly situations.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/OwnedTank.jpg

ok let me clear up what I am thinking for a mech (mecha or whatever you want to call it). I dont want a big debate about this I just want to know what you think and why(or let me put it this way would it be worth it, or would some people buy it)

TECH:PMT
SPEED: 20-30
USES: recon, urban combat,anti personnel, anti tank(hit and run kind of technique)
LEGS:2,4, or tracks
ARMOR: light
HIGHT: about 10ft
Weapons:GAU-4 20mm Vulcan M61A1/M61A2 20mm Automatic Gun, . 50 Machine Gun,M242 Bushmaster 25mm Automatic Gun, anti tank missles, possibly a mortar, or anti air craft missles.(Obviously not all at once, and nothing huge)
Crew:2
Balance: would have a lowere center of gravity, but not great balance

also with tanks the treads are vulnerable and with mecha the leg joints are vulnerable. Im not saying Mechs are the best or even good right now, Im just trying to start some thoughts for different designs except tanks(there are so many tank designs being done in NS). also I am not saying this will be a good idea to start out with but I am sure someone could come up with a awsome PMT design.When the first tanks came out people thought the makers were crazy, I am sure some of you think that I am now but Im just putting out a idea.

also with tanks the treads are vulnerable and with mecha the leg joints are vulnerable.

The thing is, with a tank the treads are close to the ground and often protected with side skirts; they're difficult to hit. On a 'mech, all the joints are exposed and very difficult to armour effectively. It's not the same level of vulnerability at all.

ok let me clear up what I am thinking for a mech (mecha or whatever you want to call it). I dont want a big debate about this I just want to know what you think and why(or let me put it this way would it be worth it, or would some people buy it)

TECH:PMT
SPEED: 20-30
USES: recon, urban combat,anti personnel, anti tank(hit and run kind of technique)
LEGS:2,4, or tracks
ARMOR: light
HIGHT: about 10ft
Weapons:GAU-4 20mm Vulcan M61A1/M61A2 20mm Automatic Gun, . 50 Machine Gun,M242 Bushmaster 25mm Automatic Gun, anti tank missles, possibly a mortar, or anti air craft missles.(Obviously not all at once, and nothing huge)
Crew:2
Balance: would have a lowere center of gravity, but not great balance

also with tanks the treads are vulnerable and with mecha the leg joints are vulnerable. Im not saying Mechs are the best or even good right now, Im just trying to start some thoughts for different designs except tanks(there are so many tank designs being done in NS). also I am not saying this will be a good idea to start out with but I am sure someone could come up with a awsome PMT design.When the first tanks came out people thought the makers were crazy, I am sure some of you think that I am now but Im just putting out a idea.

I may be able to mod my Wyvwerns to do that, and sell you production rights, but they'd have to be quadri-pedal or reverse joint to keep their balance the way you want.

ok maby a pic will help, mech (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/thetokera/mechs.jpg)

The thing is, with a tank the treads are close to the ground and often protected with side skirts; they're difficult to hit. On a 'mech, all the joints are exposed and very difficult to armour effectively. It's not the same level of vulnerability at all.

Alright look, mecha joints are very small targets when compared with many other systems, the main advantage of the mech arises from the myriad "necessary" systems that infantry are being weighed down with(just ask me, I've humped a few miles in full kit, not fun.) with a Mecha you have quite a bit more size to spread the systems over, and the added benefit of carrying none of the weight yourself, it may bew more vulnerable than a tank, but so is an infantryman.

ok maby a pic will help, mech (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/thetokera/mechs.jpg)

Something like a Terran Goliath from SC then? I have those already, they're best at inner-city fighting.

The thing is, with a tank the treads are close to the ground and often protected with side skirts; they're difficult to hit. On a 'mech, all the joints are exposed and very difficult to armour effectively. It's not the same level of vulnerability at all.

I pretty much agree, but, aren't the side skirts pretty light anyway?

I pretty much agree, but, aren't the side skirts pretty light anyway?

Not always, the ones on the Challenger have ERA.

Not always, the ones on the Challenger have ERA.

Oh, sorry then. I always thought of rubber or some such material when I thought of tank side skirts.

Oh, sorry then. I always thought of rubber or some such material when I thought of tank side skirts.

Nope, they're true armor, light armor, but armor nonetheless.

Nope, they're true armor, light armor, but armor nonetheless.

Ha, I always figured something like that I would know. Well, more reading and paying attention for me.

(Rubber, some thin steel, or something are examples of what I thought. Seems kinda common sense what they are now though. >.< .)

Mechs in urban combat... Wow.

They'll literally sink into roads due to lower PSI, they're still vulnerable as hell (its a lot easier to hide in a building and pop an RPG into its leg, which is why RPGs are such a threat in Iraq).

So you can step over barriers. Big deal. Never mind the fact that due to increased surface area, you have less armor for the same weight as tanks, or that during urban combat, experts like the Israelis are now leaning towards heavier vehicles, modifying Merkava chassis. If you want to deploy those, a bunch of Somalis could figure out how to take down your multimillion dollar mech with a cheap soviet rocket grenade.

Something like a Terran Goliath from SC then? I have those already, they're best at inner-city fighting.
yah That is what i was thinking, for like urban combat or something

Mondoth, tanks are not slow. An M1A2 can make 70 km/h.


you will never, ever see or here of an M1A2 going that fast, yes its possible, but its possible over a thick, wide, smooth road, with no ammo and only a driver as crew. in practical situations top speed is more like 50 or 55 km/h and a properly designed mech could move faster over rougher terrain, but hen so can a hummer, and a hummer can carry more people and weapons and is vastly cheaper.

for comments on Mechs so called 'melee' ability:
Tanks have that too, its called 'Mounted Infantry' and 'Ramming'

as for the picture of a tank flipped in a ditch, they have these things, perhaps you've heard of them, called Armored recovery vehicles that accompany tanks to the battlefield and pretty much haul them out of ditches and mud and quick sand and any other stupid thing they might get stuck, now, a Mech that has doen something stupid is likely to lose a leg. a Tank will have a mildly embarrassed crew but thirty seconds later will still be in full fighting trim, whereas a mech will have to be dragged all the way back to depot for a full limb replacement.

As for Mechs Vs. Fighters:

A conventional fighter is very much like any other ocnventional vehicle in its role compared to a mech doig the same thing (I.E. its better) once again, nothing that can make a mech into a space fighter will not make a mech better than a space fighter using the same technology. try it, same game as with tanks, you give me somethign that a space fighter mech can do that a space fighter can't and I'll throw it right back at you

as for the picture of a tank flipped in a ditch, they have these things, perhaps you've heard of them, called Armored recovery vehicles that accompany tanks to the battlefield and pretty much haul them out of ditches and mud and quick sand and any other stupid thing they might get stuck, now, a Mech that has doen something stupid is likely to lose a leg. a Tank will have a mildly embarrassed crew but thirty seconds later will still be in full fighting trim, whereas a mech will have to be dragged all the way back to depot for a full limb replacement.

Thirty seconds? Yeah, right. This takes thirty seconds to get in place, hook up, pull out, make all checks and replacements necessary to get the tank back in working order, treat any injuries the crew may have, run final checks off, re-crew and then get back into combat, under battle conditions?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/tank-canal040410a_usmc_200441414235.jpg

you will never, ever see or here of an M1A2 going that fast, yes its possible, but its possible over a thick, wide, smooth road, with no ammo and only a driver as crew. in practical situations top speed is more like 50 or 55 km/h and a properly designed mech could move faster over rougher terrain, but hen so can a hummer, and a hummer can carry more people and weapons and is vastly cheaper.

for comments on Mechs so called 'melee' ability:
Tanks have that too, its called 'Mounted Infantry' and 'Ramming'

as for the picture of a tank flipped in a ditch, they have these things, perhaps you've heard of them, called Armored recovery vehicles that accompany tanks to the battlefield and pretty much haul them out of ditches and mud and quick sand and any other stupid thing they might get stuck, now, a Mech that has doen something stupid is likely to lose a leg. a Tank will have a mildly embarrassed crew but thirty seconds later will still be in full fighting trim, whereas a mech will have to be dragged all the way back to depot for a full limb replacement.

As for Mechs Vs. Fighters:

A conventional fighter is very much like any other ocnventional vehicle in its role compared to a mech doig the same thing (I.E. its better) once again, nothing that can make a mech into a space fighter will not make a mech better than a space fighter using the same technology. try it, same game as with tanks, you give me somethign that a space fighter mech can do that a space fighter can't and I'll throw it right back at you


I don't really support mechs, but some of what you said seems a little biased.

A decent mech wouldn't be in a situation like that the tank was in, partly because of the fact that it can simply walk down that dip much like you walk down stairs. I'm not saying that it would never happen, because, we all trip, and we walk all our lives. but an entire busted leg seems a little extreme for that kind of accident.

Also, I'd like to see a tank melee another tank instead of shooting at it. Or how about the mounted infantry engage that other tank in melee combat? It just doesn't make sense.

In the end though, I think that saying that melee is an advantage of mechs simply makes no sense as well.

ok let me clear up what I am thinking for a mech (mecha or whatever you want to call it). I dont want a big debate about this I just want to know what you think and why(or let me put it this way would it be worth it, or would some people buy it)

TECH:PMT
SPEED: 20-30
USES: recon, urban combat,anti personnel, anti tank(hit and run kind of technique)
LEGS:2,4, or tracks
ARMOR: light
HIGHT: about 10ft
Weapons:GAU-4 20mm Vulcan M61A1/M61A2 20mm Automatic Gun, . 50 Machine Gun,M242 Bushmaster 25mm Automatic Gun, anti tank missles, possibly a mortar, or anti air craft missles.(Obviously not all at once, and nothing huge)
Crew:2
Balance: would have a lowere center of gravity, but not great balance

also with tanks the treads are vulnerable and with mecha the leg joints are vulnerable. Im not saying Mechs are the best or even good right now, Im just trying to start some thoughts for different designs except tanks(there are so many tank designs being done in NS). also I am not saying this will be a good idea to start out with but I am sure someone could come up with a awsome PMT design.When the first tanks came out people thought the makers were crazy, I am sure some of you think that I am now but Im just putting out a idea.
The benefits and drawbacks of mechs in general have been dealt with at length. I will say I hold with the tank over mech crowd. Since the arguments have been made, I'll just stick to this unit:

First, the GAU-4 is too heavy and powerful for the poor thing. You fire it and the mech will be knocked clean over, and even if it isn't, it won't be hitting anything very well. A 25mm bushmaster's a bit better, but depending on configuration, may still be too much. I'd look at maybe one or two .50 cal machine guns (possibly up too 15.5mm), or possibly a heavy anti-materiel rifle. I would not put on an aircraft cannon. Too big, bulky, heavy, and too much recoil.
Also, ammunition is going to be too limited for a weapon like that (regardless of what was mentioned about that other unit with the A-10 cannon, that's completely infeasible based on its size, the gun and ammunition each would have been too much to handle, let alone both).
Finally, a crew of 2 is a complete waste. It's going to be too cramped to get anything of much use out of a second crewman, and you'll need to save every bit of weight you can.


Edit:
Tanks can and will get into melee combat. Though certainly not common (but would melee combat in a mech be?), it's been done, and it's actually had a degree of effectiveness. It's called ramming. A 70 ton M1A2 could (without a governer) go over 100 km/h, and has strong construction. Imagine hitting a lighter Soviet tank, especially with the cheaper and poorer construction. It will really hurt it.

I don't really support mechs, but some of what you said seems a little biased.

A decent mech wouldn't be in a situation like that the tank was in, partly because of the fact that it can simply walk down that dip much like you walk down stairs. I'm not saying that it would never happen, because, we all trip, and we walk all our lives. but an entire busted leg seems a little extreme for that kind of accident.

Also, I'd like to see a tank melee another tank instead of shooting at it. Or how about the mounted infantry engage that other tank in melee combat? It just doesn't make sense.

In the end though, I think that saying that melee is an advantage of mechs simply makes no sense.
Actualy the melee advantage can be useful in removing close threats without the use of any ammunition. It can also be used as a last resort move when you can't return for a resuply and waht not you can simply attempt to use melee attacks. Though it is a rarely used one.
And I'm with Kyanges on the tank lacking the ability to use melee usefuly.
EDIT: Though yes the tank does have an effective melee against targets that can not get ot of the way. I'm not saying it lacks melee though the melee is more destructive.
And mouting infantry on a tank? What does that ahve to do with melee? Are they going to try and beat the enemy with their rifle butts?

And mouting infantry on a tank? What does that ahve to do with melee? Are they going to try and beat the enemy with their rifle butts?

Not to mention the infantry dismount from the tank in actual combat and only ride on it to get from a to b.

The benefits and drawbacks of mechs in general have been dealt with at length. I will say I hold with the tank over mech crowd. Since the arguments have been made, I'll just stick to this unit:

First, the GAU-4 is too heavy and powerful for the poor thing. You fire it and the mech will be knocked clean over, and even if it isn't, it won't be hitting anything very well. A 25mm bushmaster's a bit better, but depending on configuration, may still be too much. I'd look at maybe one or two .50 cal machine guns (possibly up too 15.5mm), or possibly a heavy anti-materiel rifle. I would not put on an aircraft cannon. Too big, bulky, heavy, and too much recoil.
Also, ammunition is going to be too limited for a weapon like that (regardless of what was mentioned about that other unit with the A-10 cannon, that's completely infeasible based on its size, the gun and ammunition each would have been too much to handle, let alone both).
Finally, a crew of 2 is a complete waste. It's going to be too cramped to get anything of much use out of a second crewman, and you'll need to save every bit of weight you can.


Edit:
Tanks can and will get into melee combat. Though certainly not common (but would melee combat in a mech be?), it's been done, and it's actually had a degree of effectiveness. It's called ramming. A 70 ton M1A2 could (without a governer) go over 100 km/h, and has strong construction. Imagine hitting a lighter Soviet tank, especially with the cheaper and poorer construction. It will really hurt it.

Eh? who was that edit directed at? If it was me, I'll say it right now. I never said that they wouldn't, or couldn't, just that it doesn't make that much sense most of the time.

I also mentioned that I don't find mech melee to be that feasible either. I'd much rather keep my very complex mech out of as much harm as possible.

If that wasn't directed at me, well, then just ignore this.


Actualy the melee advantage can be useful in removing close threats without the use of any ammunition. It can also be used as a last resort move when you can't return for a resuply and waht not you can simply attempt to use melee attacks. Though it is a rarely used one.
And I'm with Kyanges on the tank lacking the ability to use melee usefuly.
EDIT: Though yes the tank does have an effective melee against targets that can not get ot of the way. I'm not saying it lacks melee though the melee is more destructive.
And mouting infantry on a tank? What does that ahve to do with melee? Are they going to try and beat the enemy with their rifle butts?

Thanks, and well, that other guy mentioned mounted infantry, so I just decided to respond to it as well.

Ya we both responded equaly to that mounted infantry response (in other words blew it away).
And the edit I believe was directed at my comments.

Though also I was talking about the higher end FT mechs like Gundams and Veritechs. For example in the Robotech Books (vol.2 DoomsDay, BattleHymn or Force of Arms not sure) Rick ran out of ammo for his gun pod and went balistic and assaulted a battle pod with the empty gun pod and clubbed it till the pod was useless.
Also the Gundams/Mobile Suits have beam and sword weapons used in melee combat as well as ranged weapons.
Though unless using Gundam stlye mechs melee is about as common as a tank using it (unless you have a Veritech stlye mech with a bayonet on it's gunpod)

Ya we both responded equaly to that mounted infantry response (in other words blew it away).
And the edit I believe was directed at my comments.

Though also I was talking about the higher end FT mechs like Gundams and Veritechs. For example in the Robotech Books (vol.2 DoomsDay, BattleHymn or Force of Arms not sure) Rick ran out of ammo for his gun pod and went balistic and assaulted a battle pod with the empty gun pod and clubbed it till the pod was useless.
Also the Gundams/Mobile Suits have beam and sword weapons used in melee combat as well as ranged weapons.
Though unless using Gundam stlye mechs melee is about as common as a tank using it (unless you have a Veritech stlye mech with a bayonet on it's gunpod)

Actually, I've got the remastered DVD's for that scene. ^_^ . Gundam used to be somewhat realistic, with the big mechs, actually walking somewhat like big mechs (To me anyway.) , and tanks and the like all being similarly effective as the tank, along with jet's and other conventional weapons being just as much of a threat as the big bad Gundam. (There were time, yes, when the Gundam went out of proportion, but I didn't find them too disturbing to the show.) Somewhere along the line though, when Gundams started doing acrobatic flips, I lost interest.

Offtopic: I envy you.



And also I've noticed that in the more current Gundam (Seed and Seed Destiny) that tanks are still effective to the degee that they can kill a MS in one shot (though they use linear weapons). Because if you watch during the invasions of Orb you can see MS taking hits from said weapons or during the Battle of Josh-A in Alaska you see tanks holding up some what against faster MS.

Offtopic: I envy you.



And also I've noticed that in the more current Gundam (Seed and Seed Destiny) that tanks are still effective to the degee that they can kill a MS in one shot (though they use linear weapons). Because if you watch during the invasions of Orb you can see MS taking hits from said weapons or during the Battle of Josh-A in Alaska you see tanks holding up some what against faster MS.

Heh.

I haven't seen the later Seed much, and I didn't watch Seed Destiny at all. To me, they captured, the slightest shred of realism back (Only in the fact that mechs aren't so uber anymore.), but they also shamelessly ripped half the original story line away (From the Original Series.). I tried watching it. It caught my interest for a bit, then, as time went on, I lost interest again. (Partially because I found it to be too much of a rip. From specially talented people Coordinators/ New Types, to the ship, Archangel/White Horse the Gundam, the antagonists, even some of the story line.)

I have read a bit though, so I know for the most part, what you're talking about.

(Anyway, this is getting to be a bit too far off topic. so I'll be stopping my end of this.)

The benefits and drawbacks of mechs in general have been dealt with at length. I will say I hold with the tank over mech crowd. Since the arguments have been made, I'll just stick to this unit:

First, the GAU-4 is too heavy and powerful for the poor thing. You fire it and the mech will be knocked clean over, and even if it isn't, it won't be hitting anything very well. A 25mm bushmaster's a bit better, but depending on configuration, may still be too much. I'd look at maybe one or two .50 cal machine guns (possibly up too 15.5mm), or possibly a heavy anti-materiel rifle. I would not put on an aircraft cannon. Too big, bulky, heavy, and too much recoil.
Also, ammunition is going to be too limited for a weapon like that (regardless of what was mentioned about that other unit with the A-10 cannon, that's completely infeasible based on its size, the gun and ammunition each would have been too much to handle, let alone both).
Finally, a crew of 2 is a complete waste. It's going to be too cramped to get anything of much use out of a second crewman, and you'll need to save every bit of weight you can.


Edit:
Tanks can and will get into melee combat. Though certainly not common (but would melee combat in a mech be?), it's been done, and it's actually had a degree of effectiveness. It's called ramming. A 70 ton M1A2 could (without a governer) go over 100 km/h, and has strong construction. Imagine hitting a lighter Soviet tank, especially with the cheaper and poorer construction. It will really hurt it.

ok I was thinking that the GAU-4 might be too heavy but i wasnt sure,as for the anti aircraft I was thinking on anti aircraft missles, not a big bulky gun, As for the crew of two I was thinking on the size of a aircraft cockpit but yah I see your point, but i put 2 man crew because other people were saying that it would be too much for a single man to handle which I do not agree with. Although I do think that mechs are a good idea I do not think melee is an advantage of mechs because it makes no sense at all, I am thinking that if the mech is going to use melee (which I also do not understand how it would be done) would require the mech to get too close to the target making it too vulnerable.

Although I do think that mechs are a good idea I do not think melee is an advantage of mechs because it makes no sense at all, I am thinking that if the mech is going to use melee (which I also do not understand how it would be done) would require the mech to get too close to the target making it too vulnerable.
If you take a look at the speeds of the mechs I'm talking about you'd understand what I'm getting at. I'm talking only Veritechs and Gundam/Mobile Suits not the stnadard PMT range of things but FT range.
The Veritech rarely if ever sees melee combat and mostly fights with ranged weapons (gunpod and missiles) though when it does it ether can use it's gunpod as a club or if the gun pod as a bayonet (see opening of ep1 in the Macross Plus OVA for reference) said Veritech can gut/slice the enemy.
While the Gundam/Mobile Suit has these melee weapons because not everything can be solved at close range with a long range weapon. For example if you had a beamsaber (most common Gundam melee weapon) and a Beam rifle and an enemy was right infront of you you would ether take the time to quickly move your rifle in to the line of fire when you could jsut swing your beam saber and slice the oppostion in half.
Though most common mech's (Mechwarrior kind) would never see melee combat other than stepping on smaller things (infantry and tanks) or on extremly rare cases run into/ram an enemy.

But I am trying to create a mech that wont have hands and stuff just have guns insetad

But I am trying to create a mech that wont have hands and stuff just have guns insetad

To me, that kind of mech would be just as effective at close range and at long range with the same weapons. Anytime an enemy jumps out in front of you, you simply have to pull the tigger, guns a'blazing.

okay, maybe I was a little unclear and a little hyperbolic. heres some clarification

Armored recovery: maybe it won't take thirty seconds but it will take considerably less time that performing the equivalent action on a downed mech, and while problems with mechs busting legs might be pretty rare, so are problems with tanks getting stuck deep enough to need an ARV. and any problem in which a mech falls over is likely to result in rather serious damage, the head portion will be falling at least 20 ft. and mechs will probably fall over about as often as tanks get stuck because the same people will be driving either system and both systems are just as prone to mistakes as the other.

Melee:
A 70 ton tank ramming you at 55km/hour will ruin your WHOLE day, whether you're a mech or another tank, its just bad news. aand I'd like to see a mech do any 'melee' damage to a tank, the physics of that is pretty ind boggling, as inherently, the parts of a mech doing melee damage would weigh less, be less dense, and would be more fragile than even the turret armor on a tank.
As for Mounted infantry, while its not exactly 'melee' combat, it still an advantage tanks have when the run out of ammo, a Mech just can't carry that many troops into combat, and despite what you say about infantry carrying weapons capable of taking out a mech, I believe a SRAW would do the job quite nicely.

Um, you realise that 'falling over' is not a common problem for actual paratroops, ya?They have to fall over, but they can get themselves up again. Even with rockets to slow them down, mechs'll still have to land at the proper angle to avoid falling down. How will they get back up without help?
A decent mech wouldn't be in a situation like that the tank was in, partly because of the fact that it can simply walk down that dip much like you walk down stairs.A mech that big won't survive long enough to get to that dip. Future AFVs will likely be smaller, not several times larger, and will have better armor than any mech could carry.


I think I'll stay away from the discussion on AFVs fighting with bayonets and stuff...O_o

They have to fall over, but they can get themselves up again. Even with rockets to slow them down, mechs'll still have to land at the proper angle to avoid falling down. How will they get back up without help?

How do you get up without help? Arms and legs might not offer many advantages, but with more movable surfaces righting yourself is relatively easy.

Oops, that wasn't the question I should've asked. (I thought about arms and stuff before posting...I'm not sure why I asked that question.) Now that we've established that mechs will fall over and will need extra systems (and extra complexity) to get back up, why is a mech easier to paradrop than a tank?

Afterthought: I wonder if a mech's legs would just get stuck in the ground...

Personally, I'd say because it's legs allow it absorb the shock of landing better [since a mech must be designed to move relatively quickly, ergo the legs will have to be able to absorb significant amounts of shock]. Tank suspension would have to be horrendously overengineered to meet the same criteria, so taking a well-built and working mech [light armour, large weapon, high-performance suspension] versus a well-built and working tank [heavy armour, large weapon, reasonable suspension for a tank], your mech is actually the better candidate purely because it must have much better suspension to function adequately.

So you're saying that a light mech will paradrop better than a heavy tank? What about light airborne tanks? AFAIK they're not particularly difficult to design.

So you're saying that a light mech will paradrop better than a heavy tank? What about light airborne tanks? AFAIK they're not particularly complicated.

No, a mech of equal weight. A 45 ton mech would still have light armour compared to a 45 ton tank.

Melee:
A 70 ton tank ramming you at 55km/hour will ruin your WHOLE day, whether you're a mech or another tank, its just bad news. aand I'd like to see a mech do any 'melee' damage to a tank, the physics of that is pretty ind boggling, as inherently, the parts of a mech doing melee damage would weigh less, be less dense, and would be more fragile than even the turret armor on a tank.
As for Mounted infantry, while its not exactly 'melee' combat, it still an advantage tanks have when the run out of ammo, a Mech just can't carry that many troops into combat, and despite what you say about infantry carrying weapons capable of taking out a mech, I believe a SRAW would do the job quite nicely.

Well depending on the mech to be exact. A basic mech if the tank hits is screwed yet at the same time the tank is also.
Now there are three mechs that I know of that a tank wouldn't even make wobble. I'll go with the biggest one (and personal favorite). The GFAS-X1 Destroy weighs in at 403.93 tons. Yes it is worthless for anything other than frontline assaults but the fact that mechs at least three times at minium bigger than a tank were crushed under this thing is proof enough that a tank would do nothing.
And as for melee if you take into acount said mech jumping on the tank it would ruin your day because the first Veritech weighs in at 16.191 tons (it was built for speed not direct combat) can still leave massive dents or punch holes through the tank. Now if you include the use of it's foot thrusters the tank is doomed to be destroyed by ether the extra weight or the extreme heat. Not even an tank can aim directly over its self and fire when a mech drops out of the sky and roasts/crushes you.
NOTE: The VF-0 is in the same time frame as the M1A1 Abrahm tank
Now the most basic Mobile Suit (Zaku I) weighs in at 65 tons (fully loaded) and that to could seriously screw with a tank and the fact that it can jump if the pilot wants and it can run at 65kph and if the pilot so choses can simply use one of it's melee weapons and lay waste the the tank.

The GFAS-X1 Destroy weighs in at 403.93 tons. Yes it is worthless for anything other than frontline assaults but the fact that mechs at least three times at minium bigger than a tank were crushed under this thing is proof enough that a tank would do nothing.

How about we go for another ridiculously lopsided comparision and compare your 404 ton mech to an 82,000 ton Ground Battleship? Doesn't seem a fair comparison, ne?

So why does it seem fair to compare a 404 ton mech to a 70 ton MBT?

NOTE: The VF-0 is in the same time frame as the M1A1 Abrahm tank
Now the most basic Mobile Suit (Zaku I) weighs in at 65 tons (fully loaded) and that to could seriously screw with a tank and the fact that it can jump if the pilot wants and it can run at 65kph and if the pilot so choses can simply use one of it's melee weapons and lay waste the the tank.

I think you mean 'it can run at 65 kph if the driver doesn't mind breaking both legs.' Jumping opens you up to antiaircraft fire, attack helos, VTOL aircraft and so on all of which will gladly tear you a new one, and also forces you to carry a lot of highly volitile chemicals [jet or rocket fuel] inside your chassis.

No, a mech of equal weight. A 45 ton mech would still have light armour compared to a 45 ton tank.Hmmm...I still don't understand. Even if you could safely drop a slightly heavier mech than a tank, the mech would still would still be less effective than the tank, so you might as well go with the tank and avoid overloading the aircraft, right?

I'll check in again tomorrow. Bye!

Hmmm...I still don't understand. Even if you could safely drop a slightly heavier mech than a tank, the mech would still would still be less effective than the tank, so you might as well go with the tank and avoid overloading the aircraft, right?

I'll check in again tomorrow. Bye!

No, you're misunderstanding. As has been said, because a 'mech requires more internal systems than a tank of the same weight, any given tank will have heavier armour than a mech of the same mass.

The thing is, one of the necessary internal systems is high performance suspension. An MBT spreads it's weight across 10-14 roadwheels with their own suspension and moves by turning a track around those wheels; a mech has to move by pushing it's feet against the ground. The mech is therefore going to require sturdy-as-all-hell suspension in it's legs if it is to function at all, the tank simply doesn't need it.

Therefore, because a mech must be purpose-built to withstand the challenges of a paradrop if it is to work at all [absorbing large forces in its legs without the joints breaking or the legs buckling, and not falling or recovering quickly from falls] it's pretty well suited to one compared to a tank which would have to be dropped from low altitude because the suspension is only designed to give it a smooth ride rather than have the entire weight of a running 'mech thrown down on it every other step.

mechs would only be useful if you had an advaned enough machining process and large enough stockpile of money, and munitions to use them. tanks, helicopters and other conventional weapons could do the job just as well. the only exception i could thik of at VTs.

I totally misjudged this thread, i thought you meant MT:as in Muscular technology

PMT: Proto-type muscular tech

and FT as Forign Mech...guess i should have read more.

but hey mech tecnology, robotic technology and human genetic enginering will some day probably all merge creating was mechs. we shall see.

Ok this is Phalnix's buddy, ive got a slightly diffrent view then most of you on this thread so here goes.

Allright as for the multiple points that have been made for both sides from what ive read and what ive seen and been filled in on.
For my first point id like to state that a Mech isnt necissarily the big huge machines people are most familure with in games like Mechwarrior or in shows like gundam or robotech. it can be anything from a powerd armor suit for individual infantry men, to being as large and powerfull as an at at from star wars. in my personal views i see both mech and tank working together, with a smaller sized mech roughly larger then a man, such as the machines seen in Blue gender, playing a support role for the tanks. now tanks arnt as high and mighty as you have set them as. and attack choppers dont have to wait untill a mech or tank exsposes themselves to attack either. in fact Attack choppers are predators, Ambush predators to be exact. allso a tank can be taken out by a simple weapon like an RPG-7 if used properly and infact both the mech and the Tank dont have a vary viable role in future combat any ways, this is evedent in many nations down sizing there current armor units, and planning to create light units that can be rapidly deployed within a moment notice, allso a mech would technicaly be more viable then a tank in most casses seing that a small power armor type mech could easily infiltrate a building while a tank can only level it. this is important seeing that todays warfare is more Urban warfare then any other kind.

Mondoth, yes I knew that M1A2s can only make 70 km/h in those conditions. I was just pointing out that tanks are not the lumbering turtles some people think they are. It's also worth pointing out to the pro-mech croud that under those same conditions an average humanoid mech could only make 50 km/h with an engine 10 times as powerfull as the M1's.

Now there are three mechs that I know of that a tank wouldn't even make wobble. I'll go with the biggest one (and personal favorite). The GFAS-X1 Destroy weighs in at 403.93 tons.

Let's put this up against an eguivalent tech tank shall we? We'll use my FT MBT, it fires 10kg rounds at 3000 km/s. Such a round would impart 10.7 kilotons on kinetic energy and 30 million kg*m/s of momentum to the mech. If the nuclear scale energy doesn't destroy it, having it accelerate at 757 million Gs from imparted momentum will.

And it's tiny feet would sink into the ground everytime it took a step on anything other than bedrock.

Edit: I fixed it my point. Tanks aren't slow turtles.

Ok His bud again,
For one, the destroy that was mentioned from Gundam seed Destiny, is so rediculous that it is absolutly in practical period, as ive stated before any mech larger then a house has littl or no purpose in MODERN warfare, Now please keep in mind that future warfare is allways diffrent then the modern yet modern weapons shape the way of the future, by the way by rgust of Phalanix the destroy actualy uses sum big ass turbines to hover and most of its weapons draw on energy allready in the air its cannons exit air molucules, BLAH BLAH BLAH the fact is it dont work, now for the previous mechs i had mentioned being basicly exoskelotens similiar to AT-PTs, them fancy things from the matrix, or the machines from Blue Gender, even sum stuff from Macross zero all would be Feesable weapons on the modern post modern and future battle fields. Hell even the mechs from Ghost in the shell stand alone complex are fisable. These are slightly larger then a tank hieght wize, use both wheels and legs for mobilization and when the wheels are ingaged basicly skidding the machine across the ground or even above it assuming the machine has a decent wieght balancing OS er mechanisim.

Now honestly from what i know and have heard most millitary orginizations are REPLACING a majority of there tanks in favor of lighter vehicles with a domanent Tropp transport role, vehicles like the bradly fighting vehicle, or the New Stryker system. this suggests that the large scale battles of world war one, two, dessert storm and the cold war are dying off, in favor of more strategic insurgencies or swift movements with tanks playing a support weapon or a just in case last resort weapon system.

Now as for a tank that can fire a projectile at a high velocity dishing out near to a nuclear blast upon impact on sumthing sounds more like a Self Propelled artillery piece then a Tank or an MBT, sumthing i notice people tend to forget is that for every new offensive weapon there is allways a new Defensive tech to counter it. besides why waiste money on sumthing that brings your troops into a dangerouse position what happens when your tank takes a direct hit from a RPG designed to penetrate your armor and hits your magazine. Besides the same job could be done by an attack chopper for a lot cheaper and faster, or even by a missle system from miles away or a bomber from thousands of feet above the battle that could waist your whole force with a simple supply of smart weapons, and heres the Kicker that Bomber doesnt have a single soul on it so if it goes down the people using it shrug it off and send another.

the truth of the matter is that the MBT isnt going to be a major player in future wars. as for mechs or Infantry power armors i can see them playing an ever increasing role on the battle field, for instance imagine a machine as armored as a tank that can break into a building and eliminate all the insurgents there, while using only one infantry man and suffering no casualties. or a squad of these power armors in the streets stopping riots or crowd control or even taking a machingun nest or eliminating a sniper, wich it could do easier then sum lumbering tank that can barely fit on the main road. allso a mech wich is a smaller target then a tank(assuming its a power armor as i suggest) and can handle itself as if it where just a regular infantry men.

another good point id like to make is that if you are all heartless leaders and only care about victory over the lives of the men and woman that fight to keep your nations safe or to keep its promises then you are all foolish and have no right leading a nation, keep in mind your goals should be eliminating the human factor or making it as slim as possible without loosing combat effectivness.. your troops are living people and should be the priority when you design these new weapons or weapon systems.

I still reserve my point that as humanity grows and expands Tanks and other hevier combat vehicles are going to be limited and warfare in the near and far future wull be dominated by a combination of air and infantry. The only places we havent dominated in warfare is the very cities that our troops are fighting in now, the new weapon systems are going to be more suited to this enviroment then the large battle fields you all have seen and watched in the movies. the glorious tank battles in egypt or the russian and german tanks clashsing is out dated, the future will have mechs and light vehicles no tanks. now im not saying tanks are useless at least not totaly. but i reserve my opinnion on mechs/power armors and the future of warfare.

Srry bout the clutter im fairly new to the forums, allthough my friend is allowing me to argue for him its still my first few posts so bare with me -.-,

Um...Paragraphs? o_O

[edit]

The only places we havent dominated in warfare is the very cities that our troops are fighting in now, the new weapon systems are going to be more suited to this enviroment then the large battle fields you all have seen and watched in the movies. the glorious tank battles in egypt or the russian and german tanks clashsing is out dated, the future will have mechs and light vehicles no tanks. now im not saying tanks are useless at least not totaly. but i reserve my opinnion on mechs/power armors and the future of warfare.

And that, other than some misunderstandings about the lethality of RPGs against tanks, is the problem with this assessment.

Nationstates is not real life, with a single superpower which doesn't expect to encounter an equally equipped enemy for a generation; enemies with huge armed forces exist everywhere. The military-political situation is as it was in WW1 or even before that: many empires, no particular world leader to them.

This means the role of the tank is secure for the forseeable future in NS because we have not seen the kind of gradual downscaling from massive battles to much smaller actions that's occurred in real life; since you can expect the enemy to have modern main battle tanks instead of Soviet clunkers with armour twenty years out of date, you can't rely on infantry-portable weapons to deal with them.

It's wrong to regard precise reference to real-life as 'realism' because the situation in NS is massively different to that in real life, so real-life trends won't transfer directly.

For the record, what you seem to be talking about is powered armour, not the sort of thing most people regard as 'mechs per se.

id have to agree with you on the fact that in NS the situations are diffrent, and i quite frankly am new to it and havent really entered the Roleplaying half of NS, but the lethality of an RPG is correct from my understanding, infact if my memory is correct ive heard reports of M1A1's being disabled by them, and there are other Anti Tank weapons that can eliminate a tank yet be wielded b a simple infantry men.

Other than that Strategicly talking a long range bombardment or arial strike or the sorts is still the more sound stratagey in a future war unless you blindly continued building newer tanks instead of Attack choppers an the sorts.

other then that im steeping aside form the argument becuase i lack the, experience required to continue, i at least hope i was able to provide a diffrent way of thinking, and even though a power Armor isnt the conventinal thought of a mech, it is still a Mech and even in mech warrior er other games er shosl like Robotech show the usage of smaller mechs over the larger Behomiths, wich in a sense are in effective in combat without support troops. however medium sized mechs could be employed effectivly as a defensive troops being able to conceal them selves where tanks just cant go without noking the whole forrest down...

Now as for a tank that can fire a projectile at a high velocity dishing out near to a nuclear blast upon impact on sumthing sounds more like a Self Propelled artillery piece then a Tank or an MBT, sumthing i notice people tend to forget is that for every new offensive weapon there is allways a new Defensive tech to counter it

No, it's an MBT rounds designed to get through FT energy shields and the like. It is also not an explosive round so the whole RPG setting of the munitions is irrelevant, especially since to infantry portable weapon can get through my tank's armour.

walking
to build a machine that can walk upright on any terrain will be quite quite hard.

Its ever so easy for humans to imagine a machine walking on two legs because walking is natural to us.

BUT.

Humans have had hundreds of thousands of years perfecting it and we are the only animals that do it.

To get a heavy machine with weapons and all the nessarcerys .eg. fuel, controls, sensors. To walk on a sandy desert. would be incredibly hard if not impossible. and then if it was hit by a missile it would be flung backwards. also as seen in star wars, you can bind the legs of one causing it to fall over.

Control
If the machine was not controlled by a human then it would have to be incredibly intelligent or respond to simple changes. or guided by wire/wireless which would require a large control pack and station to control it.

and we know how good the mars landers are as a fighting robot. Because they are controled by radio waves aswell as your mechs.

Conclusion
When you put it like that then you can see that a mech would be slow to react, heavy/unstable, a useless fighting machine really.

notice the nice headings to make it easy reading :)

walking
Humans have had hundreds of thousands of years perfecting it and we are the only animals that do it.

ROFL! Firstly, the timespan was millions of years, not thousands. Second, what about the ostrich, moa and other landed birds? What about the kangaroo? What about the dinosaurs? We are most certianly not the only animal that walks on two legs.

Further, this is totally irrelevant to the point at hand: evolution provides half-assed jury-rigged solutions to problems. You might as well say that because no creature has evolved with tank treads instead of legs, no vehicle with treads could ever be built.

To get a heavy machine with weapons and all the nessarcerys .eg. fuel, controls, sensors. To walk on a sandy desert. would be incredibly hard if not impossible.

Why? All I see is an unsupported assertation. Even if it were supported, so what? You can't deploy a tank in a bog, does that mean you can't deploy a tank anywhere?

and we know how good the mars landers are as a fighting robot. Because they are controled by radio waves aswell as your mechs.

Strawman. Why should it be radio waves? Why should we take a non-combat vehicle like the Mars lander as an example of the greatest possible fighting vehicle when it wasn't designed for that at all? Should we argue that because a steamroller has an internal combustion engine, no vehicle with an internal combustion engine can travel faster than a steamroller?

When you put it like that then you can see that a mech would be slow to react, heavy/unstable, a useless fighting machine really.

You mean when you make vague assertations about weaknesses without justifying them, use strawman distortions like using a tiny unmanned recon vehicle as an example of a combat vehicle and use evolution as an example of engineering?

Personally I hate mecha. They're inferior to tracked vehicles in every way:

1) They use very a complex method of movement, which means more expensive, harder to make and more prone to failure.

2) They use an inferior method of movement, which means many areas are inaccessible to them and unlevel or unstable ground will cause them to fall over.

3) They have a much greater surface area and therefore you cant armour them as much for any given size / weight.

4) They're very tall, slow targets with lots of vulnerable components that can be damaged by the force of an impact even if they dont penetrate the necessarily thin armour. They are easy to topple because they have a high centre of gravity.

5) Their method of propulsion is less efficient so they cant go as fast.

In short they dont have anything I can think of in the way of advantages but plenty of disadvantages. Mechs are a waste of time, money and effort.

Good combat mecha are pretty unrealistic.

Most technological advances that would make mecha good will make tanks even better.

I use small mecha because they're in my source material and I can write them to appear decent in their tactical niche. But I note that even though they're in my OOB I tend to rather show infantry and tanks and artillery. Still, Territory ACPA is IMO pretty cool, what with being non-clumsy and semiautonomous.

I couldn't make myself believe in the big mecha, but that doesn't mean that I'll disparage well-written ones like GMC's Frames.

After all this rambling a blanket statement: Mecha can be Kings of the Battlefield or niche units or whatever depending on the assumptions of the story. I've played in face-to-face RP campaigns going in either direction. In one the mecha were de facto magic because a humanoid chassis could use the pilot's amplified chi powers to work, and work enormously well. In a current one, mecha are more like Patlabor military mecha and the cultural context is rather 70s, with flared uniform pants and flying saucers and giant monsters.

This works in a story or an RP campaign because the author or GM sets the parameters, but in NS one player's background won't necessarily have primacy. But one great thing about the NS RP environment is that backgrounds cross-pollinate; when I made the Territory up big supertanks definitely didn't fit in my post-cyberpunk militarist vision but the pulp imagery of GMC has grown on me.

Being hella cool is the key to paradigm power.

Incidentally, going on about how your c-frac tank guns can destroy a mech and therefore tanks are better, especially when ground pressure is supposedly relevant in an environment that allows for that tank, isn't. You just come off as a prat.

. . . most common mech's (Mechwarrior kind) would never see melee combat other than stepping on smaller things (infantry and tanks) or on extremly rare cases run into/ram an enemy.
Actually, since it's not in the video games, it's not well known, but melee combat is a very important part of the original battletech board game. In fact, the single most damaging attack possible is a melee attack. A high-speed charge (usually done by a fast hovertank or fast light or medium mech) is actually the single most powerful attack in the game. I believe it's possible, though in theory more so than practice, to do upwards of 80 damage in a charge, which is actually better than the theoretical maximum of the two most powerful weapons (Ultra AC20 & MRM-40, both up to 40 damage) combined. My best so far, however, has been a 65 damage hit with an Epona Pursuit Tank.
Other physical attacks include punching ('mech must have lower arm and hand actuators), clubbing (with hand actuators, you can pick up a blown off limb or tree trunk), melee weapons (hatchets, swords, claws, etc built into the 'mech), kicks, thrashing (only if 'mech is down and only against infantry), brushing off (swatting infantry that's swarming), DFA (death from above - jumping onto someone), and pushing.
Most of these do 1 damage for every 5 tons of attacking mech (so max of 20), though charging and thrashing both use different forumlae. Swords and claws do a bit less, and pushing does none, unless it's off a cliff of course. Thrashing does more, but since it's against infantry, it's often not so important.
Charging and DFA attacks also damage the attacker, as does brushing off if it misses.

Mondoth, yes I knew that M1A2s can only make 70 km/h in those conditions. I was just pointing out that tanks are not the lumbering turtles some people think they are. It's also worth pointing out to the pro-mech croud that under those same conditions an average humanoid mech could only make 50 km/h with an engine 10 times as powerfull as the M1's.



Let's put this up against an eguivalent tech tank shall we? We'll use my FT MBT, it fires 10kg rounds at 3000 km/s. Such a round would impart 10.7 kilotons on kinetic energy and 30 million kg*m/s of momentum to the mech. If the nuclear scale energy doesn't destroy it, having it accelerate at 757 million Gs from imparted momentum will.

And it's tiny feet would sink into the ground everytime it took a step on anything other than bedrock.

Edit: I fixed it my point. Tanks aren't slow turtles.


-What make you think FT mecha designs wouldn't also have defenses equal to deflecting something like that? Also your weapon would be rather useless in the atmosphere as it would disintegrate more or less instantaneously due to atmospheric friction.

-What makes you think mecha have to have tiny feet? Most mobile suits, for example, have wide feet to spread out their ground pressure a bit.

-What make you think FT mecha designs wouldn't also have defenses equal to deflecting something like that?

I'm sure shields could take the energy, but the generator would be vapourized by being blasted out of the mech at billions of Gs. Or if it stays in the mech, it itself will be blown to bits by the extreme acceleration.

Also your weapon would be rather useless in the atmosphere as it would disintegrate more or less instantaneously due to atmospheric friction.

As I have told you before, it survives due to its coating of insanely high heat resistant material.



-What makes you think mecha have to have tiny feet? Most mobile suits, for example, have wide feet to spread out their ground pressure a bit.

By the sheer fact that they have feet they will have higher ground pressure than a tank. That is a bad thing for a combat vehicles and would remove the whole "All-Terrain" feature that is toted by the pro-mech croud.

yah That is what i was thinking, for like urban combat or something

Well, I mount twin 50 caliber gatlings as main weapons, with medium SAMs for anti-air work, and that' a simultaneous mount, if you like you can grade all the way up to a 30mm cannon(like the A-10 uses) but that's overkill against infantry, in my opinion at least, though you may want to make some heavies designed for fighting other Mechs and Tanks.

read this

http://mechaps.com/cgi-bin/board/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=118

and check out the rest of the site.

read this

http://mechaps.com/cgi-bin/board/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=118

and check out the rest of the site.

I skimmed it and saw a bunch of mecha wankers claiming that mechs are to supplement tanks and the like. The thing is that mechs can't do that any better than conventional vehicles.

You want to clear out a building, use infantry. Tanks can't go somewhere, use helicopters. Want to support infantry, use a Humvee.

The only possibly usefull mech design is powered armour, and that isn't even a mech according to most definitions.

One thing I noticed is you seem to think that mechs are all on "feet". A good example of a diffrent kind of mech that can almost be considered a tank mech hybrid is the Tachikoma from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. The little guys are equipped with four legs and insted of "feet" they use wheels (though the second season ones use feet that can turn into wheels). Now they are extremly useful as they are able to duck, can jump without the use of boosters and can carry about one to three passengers (though the 2nd and 3rd ones are sitting on the body while the first is in the pod).
Though they are small enough to outrun cars on the freeway plus they are equiped with a wire system that permits them to preform spiderman like movements and "tricks"
Though the larger version (refeered to as the multi-ped tank) uses six legs with six heavy duty wheels. If you see in the second episode of the serries the "tank's" training grounds are extremly difficult to navigate. Now if you look the "tank" resembles a hybrid of mech and tank (mech style of movement with a tank's armorment).
Though the exampleof a Tachikoma can be used in the case of both tanks and mechs it does prove that a mech can carry a tank level of armorment while a tank can have the mobility of a mech (in the second ep you can see the tank version jumping and "driving" across difficult muddy terrain).
I'll bring more of the Tachikoma information when I return.

I skimmed it and saw a bunch of mecha wankers claiming that mechs are to supplement tanks and the like. The thing is that mechs can't do that any better than conventional vehicles.

You want to clear out a building, use infantry. Tanks can't go somewhere, use helicopters. Want to support infantry, use a Humvee.

The only possibly usefull mech design is powered armour, and that isn't even a mech according to most definitions.

I dunno Xess, their reasoning was shit, but the load an infantryman has to carry is getting pretty nasty, as a man who has gone hiking in full kit, I should know, a mecha is good because, while it may not be as tough as a tank at the joints, or even in overall armor, it is more maneuverabe(in theory), can carry more armament(in variety, if not necessarily quantity), and has every "vital" system the infantryman could ever need.

One thing I noticed is you seem to think that mechs are all on "feet". A good example of a diffrent kind of mech that can almost be considered a tank mech hybrid is the Tachikoma from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. The little guys are equipped with four legs and insted of "feet" they use wheels (though the second season ones use feet that can turn into wheels). Now they are extremly useful as they are able to duck, can jump without the use of boosters and can carry about one to three passengers (though the 2nd and 3rd ones are sitting on the body while the first is in the pod).
Though they are small enough to outrun cars on the freeway plus they are equiped with a wire system that permits them to preform spiderman like movements and "tricks"
Though the larger version (refeered to as the multi-ped tank) uses six legs with six heavy duty wheels. If you see in the second episode of the serries the "tank's" training grounds are extremly difficult to navigate. Now if you look the "tank" resembles a hybrid of mech and tank (mech style of movement with a tank's armorment).
Though the exampleof a Tachikoma can be used in the case of both tanks and mechs it does prove that a mech can carry a tank level of armorment while a tank can have the mobility of a mech (in the second ep you can see the tank version jumping and "driving" across difficult muddy terrain).
I'll bring more of the Tachikoma information when I return.


I remember that, where the three mechs fought the walkers that were after the blind guy, they were pretty good at that kind of thing.(very eloquent, no?)

Personally I hate mecha. They're inferior to tracked vehicles in every way:

1) They use very a complex method of movement, which means more expensive, harder to make and more prone to failure.

2) They use an inferior method of movement, which means many areas are inaccessible to them and unlevel or unstable ground will cause them to fall over.

3) They have a much greater surface area and therefore you cant armour them as much for any given size / weight.

4) They're very tall, slow targets with lots of vulnerable components that can be damaged by the force of an impact even if they dont penetrate the necessarily thin armour. They are easy to topple because they have a high centre of gravity.

5) Their method of propulsion is less efficient so they cant go as fast.

In short they dont have anything I can think of in the way of advantages but plenty of disadvantages. Mechs are a waste of time, money and effort.

1) ok we are making walking robots now, I admit they are not good at walking now but they will inprove, for PMT they will have better walking ablilities and stability.

2) how is walking so inferior, dont get me wrong but dosent walking get us arround just fine, over millions of years I think walking should be considered a good mode of transportation.

3)that depends on the size of the mech,you can have a mech the size of a man to the size of a house, I doubt that a mech will have more surface area than the equivilent tank.

4)Again that depends on the mech and most mechs wont have more surface area than a tank

5)not really, a mech can go pretty fast if you have it light enough.

I am not looking to replace tanks in any way, I am just saying mechs can be used perfectly alongside tanks.

To me, that kind of mech would be just as effective at close range and at long range with the same weapons. Anytime an enemy jumps out in front of you, you simply have to pull the tigger, guns a'blazing.

either way you dont want to get close to your targets, it gives your enemy a greater chance of being destroyed.

I see mechs as the perfect solution to urban combat.

either way you dont want to get close to your targets, it gives your enemy a greater chance of being destroyed.

I see mechs as the perfect solution to urban combat.
Like I said, 50cal gatlings for infantry, 30mm cannon for tanks\other stuff.

yah that is what i was going to do

yah that is what i was going to do

You are wise beyond your techbase.

Whatever the hell THAT means... :p

One thing I noticed is you seem to think that mechs are all on "feet". A good example of a diffrent kind of mech that can almost be considered a tank mech hybrid is the Tachikoma from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

Actually, I bought up Patlabor's six-wheeled RADHA ages ago.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/radha.jpg

Wheels don't do anything to solve the problems with ground pressure, require an even more complex drive system and their own suspension, and leave the thing vulnerable to any damage to the lower legs.

Though the larger version (refeered to as the multi-ped tank) uses six legs with six heavy duty wheels. If you see in the second episode of the serries the "tank's" training grounds are extremly difficult to navigate. Now if you look the "tank" resembles a hybrid of mech and tank (mech style of movement with a tank's armorment).

In other words, Shirow's recycled the enormous Spider Gun Platforms from Appleseed?

Though the exampleof a Tachikoma can be used in the case of both tanks and mechs it does prove that a mech can carry a tank level of armorment

Dude, a fictional example doesn't prove anything. By this reasoning, the Hoth scene in Star Wars 'proves' that giant donkey-shaped assault guns are a viable weapon system for assaulting a fixed position.

Dude, a fictional example doesn't prove anything. By this reasoning, the Hoth scene in Star Wars 'proves' that giant donkey-shaped assault guns are a viable weapon system for assaulting a fixed position.

Dude, at the size of an AT-AT, they are viable...

Dude, at the size of an AT-AT, they are viable...

Um...No, they're really not. AT-ATs are slow, ungainly, have a very small fire arc, have no armour on their 'neck' at all and could probably be easily destroyed by a much smaller tank armed with a single one of their heavy guns in a turret.

Um...No, they're really not. AT-ATs are slow, ungainly, have a very small fire arc, have no armour on their 'neck' at all and could probably be easily destroyed by a much smaller tank armed with a single one of their heavy guns in a turret.

No, because the tank would have to get close enough to make the hit, and an AT-AT is well enolugh armored otherwise to hammer anything coming into its arc.

No, because the tank would have to get close enough to make the hit, and an AT-AT is well enolugh armored otherwise to hammer anything coming into its arc.

So you're saying an AT-AT isn't well armed enough to destroy another AT-AT?

So you're saying an AT-AT isn't well armed enough to destroy another AT-AT?

Why would it need to be? Only the Empire operated and fielded AT-ATs.

Why would it need to be? Only the Empire operated and fielded AT-ATs.

That's insane logic. The AT-AT was shown to be quite capable of destroying an enormous shield generator in a single shot, why wouldn't it be able to destroy another AT-AT? In addition, what about rogue Imperial commanders or insurrections? Designing a heavy ground vehicle that couldn't take out another of equal armour is foolish.

In addition, this is a red herring, since we're talking about designing a tank to destroy an AT-AT.

Hey, you're the one who wondered about AT-ATs being able to destroy each other, not me. *shrug*

I just pointed out that they're not intended to attack other AT-ATs and other AT-AT like units.

Doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Always have a failsafe, should elements of your army go rogue'; thats why I have strict discipline; and Commisars :D

Hey, you're the one who wondered about AT-ATs being able to destroy each other, not me. *shrug*

I just pointed out that they're not intended to attack other AT-ATs and other AT-AT like units.

But since they are designed to attack heavy fixed positions, it's irrelevant because a fixed position can potentially have massively more armour than any land vehicle ever could.

In any case, that wasn't the point: the point was the AT-AT mounts four relatively tiny primary weapons on its 'head.' One of the two heavy chin weapons could easily be accomodated into a vehicle with a turret or an ordinary assault gun, with the ability to engage the AT-AT with equal firepower with a much smaller profile.

Hell, just taking the legs off an AT-AT and putting on treads and replacing the head with a limited-traverse quad mount would give you a more practical vehicle, but the 100ft giant mechanical donkey isn't a good pattern for an assault gun.

I dunno Xess, their reasoning was shit, but the load an infantryman has to carry is getting pretty nasty, as a man who has gone hiking in full kit, I should know, a mecha is good because, while it may not be as tough as a tank at the joints, or even in overall armor, it is more maneuverabe(in theory), can carry more armament(in variety, if not necessarily quantity), and has every "vital" system the infantryman could ever need.

That's where power armour comes in. Far more effective than mechs and allows for infantry to carry heavy kits and can stablize heavier weapons like 50 cal machine guns.

what exactly is power armor?

Power Armor or also known as Powered Armor is a full body suit of armor that is powered by a power source and provides the user with increased protection, possible increase in strength depending on the make and thus you get a enhanced level of stabity and bullets are less of a threat.
EDIT: See games like Fallout1, 2 and Fallout Tactics for good power armor examples.

oh ok thanks

Mechs, on the Mech Assault line, would take years of research, trial-and-error, and dozens, maybe even hundreds, of modifications. They probably wouldn't even be mass-produced until around 3000 A.D. and the human race is, supposedly, going to die out then because of the lack of a male population, although I'm skeptical about the death of the human race, knowing the female half as well as I do.

Anyways, my point is that they would be FT indefinitely. And Armored Personel Unit (APU) is much more feasable. Something the size of a Goliath from Starcraft is more feasable. Something the size of a Star Adder from Mech Assault 2 is nearly impossible.

Mechs, on the Mech Assault line, would take years of research, trial-and-error, and dozens, maybe even hundreds, of modifications. They probably wouldn't even be mass-produced until around 3000 A.D.

Why? Most of the technology for building a primitive mech exists today. Are you seriously saying it requires the same timespan that took us from the invention of gunpowder in China to the invention of nuclear weapons that can hit anywhere on the planet [1000-2000AD] to make improvements on technology most of which already exists? We could mass-produce a crappy 'mech today if there was need for one.

Something the size of a Goliath from Starcraft is more feasable. Something the size of a Star Adder from Mech Assault 2 is nearly impossible.

You forgot the classic Silly Giant Robot, Macross' 800ft Super Dimensional Fortress.

Well here are some of my opninions on improving mechs

-give the mech steel threads on its legs and joints (or behind it). Generally if it plans on ducking, it will be able to move quickly. Also on the back of the mech cockpit will work as it gives an auxillary movement method.

-Some sort of extendable "piston" on the mech, I have seen this in a game, basically it can fire heavy artillery without falling over and such.

Thats what I think will improve your mech tak.

You forgot the classic Silly Giant Robot, Macross' 800ft Super Dimensional Fortress.

Just for the record the SDF-1 was A reverse enginered crashed alien space craft, and if you know anythign about macross its suggested in further series like Macross zero that the same aliens that made it allso created life on earth, but thats another debate for another time

Anyways back to mechs -.-,
I noticed that one of you brought up AT-AT's and how there impracticle, wich i would agree on but there not the only Mechs in starwars that could be brought to attention, For instance the AT-PTs as seen in the Rouge Squadron games or mentioned in the Novel Dark Force rising, these Mechs are a perfect example of how a Mech can be used in a supporting role for tanks.

its a lightly armored swift moving Machine, taht sum what resembles the
AT-ST except is of a much smaller size, it is operated by a single pilot and is armed with two Light blaster cannons as an anti infantry weapon, and allso utalizes a cuncussion grenade launcher, wich could probably be replaced with a similiar recoiless weapon for anti Armor usage. it allso has the ability to duck down by folding its legs, and can unfold them to stand erect and get a better vantage point of a situation. Its fairly well balanced and can access numerous terrain types, in various resource books like the StarWars handbook er guide to Vehicles and starships. Its stated that it can cross shollow rivers, and can gain acces to areas that "Repulsorlift" And "Tracked" vehicles can not, as well as keep up with them, and it can move up inclines as steep as 45 degrees. Though it is not a replacement for tanks it would appear to be a perfect support Weapon system for one.

-Some sort of extendable "piston" on the mech, I have seen this in a game, basically it can fire heavy artillery without falling over and such.

.

C&C:TS: FS Juggernaut stylee?

C&C:TS: FS Juggernaut stylee?

Or like the black heavy armament Aestivalis units from Nadesico?

Well here are some of my opninions on improving mechs

-give the mech steel threads on its legs and joints (or behind it). Generally if it plans on ducking, it will be able to move quickly. Also on the back of the mech cockpit will work as it gives an auxillary movement method.

-Some sort of extendable "piston" on the mech, I have seen this in a game, basically it can fire heavy artillery without falling over and such.

Thats what I think will improve your mech tak.

what do you mean steel threads on the legs?

I had a idea similar to the piston, but thanks

Ummm didnt you see the new chicken leg walker that carries a tow launcher and a chain gun yeah guys they are now officially modern tech one was made, hell the japs made some a few years back small yes but still effective the new one is actually quick and agile too its a chicken leg though so sorry its MT PMT and FT lol and they arent stupid, cause anywhere a tank can fight they have advantages and they can fight where tanks cant ie higher profile means they can be seen in broken terrain but they can have higher sensors meaning more coverage also on open ground big or small doesnt matter you still see and fire only the walker may hit top armour more :)

oh and by steel threads they mean the fibres that mimic muscle movement they have some now trying them on prosthetic hands and armour suits for the military, honestly i am a power armour fan any giant robot should have SMS with hover and a fusion plant its just too big let it take advantage of humanoid maneuverabiltiy in air and on ground [skating] cause thats the only advantage the human form has over any other, we are simply the most agile things on the planet lol

Ummm didnt you see the new chicken leg walker that carries a tow launcher and a chain gun yeah guys they are now officially modern tech one was made

Whoa, a production run of one? Steady on, does that mean that the infamous Tsar Tank would also be magically classified as a practical weapon system simply because someone managed to build a prototype?

and they arent stupid, cause anywhere a tank can fight they have advantages

Right, they have the 'advantages' of worse armour, more fragile components, lower proportion of internal area devoted to combat functions, terrible slope angles on their armour, low levels of robustness, greater cost and complexity...

and they can fight where tanks cant

So can submarines. This does not mean a submarine is a practical MBT.

ie higher profile means they can be seen in broken terrain but they can have higher sensors meaning more coverage

So does an AWAC. So does a satellite. So does a recon plane or UAV.

we are simply the most agile things on the planet lol

The hell we are. Every try to swat a fly?

they fly backwards first. then forward. if you position your hands right you can catch them.... Trust me I do it all the time....

Well depending on the mech to be exact. A basic mech if the tank hits is screwed yet at the same time the tank is also.
Now there are three mechs that I know of that a tank wouldn't even make wobble. I'll go with the biggest one (and personal favorite). The GFAS-X1 Destroy weighs in at 403.93 tons. Yes it is worthless for anything other than frontline assaults but the fact that mechs at least three times at minium bigger than a tank were crushed under this thing is proof enough that a tank would do nothing.
And as for melee if you take into acount said mech jumping on the tank it would ruin your day because the first Veritech weighs in at 16.191 tons (it was built for speed not direct combat) can still leave massive dents or punch holes through the tank. Now if you include the use of it's foot thrusters the tank is doomed to be destroyed by ether the extra weight or the extreme heat. Not even an tank can aim directly over its self and fire when a mech drops out of the sky and roasts/crushes you.
NOTE: The VF-0 is in the same time frame as the M1A1 Abrahm tank
Now the most basic Mobile Suit (Zaku I) weighs in at 65 tons (fully loaded) and that to could seriously screw with a tank and the fact that it can jump if the pilot wants and it can run at 65kph and if the pilot so choses can simply use one of it's melee weapons and lay waste the the tank.
okay, so you say
that 70 ton tank<404 ton tank. In principal, I agree but if you take the time to do the math... Your mech would have to have feet about... well, more than a thousand square feet to distrubute the pressure effectively, and even then you will have sinkage problems so, while ramming it with a tank won't do much good, it won't matter, a mech that size is going to be a stationary target, there's simply nothing available to move it and the necesary foot print actually breaks the plausible barrier before it stops sinking. not only will it not be an effective 'frontline assault' vehicle, but it wouldn't even be an effective defensive structure (because its going to be a structure, unless you've conquered gravity while I wasn't looking), for its surface area, it just can't have enough armour to defend againt even a light air strike.

Next you present the black sheep of mechs, the veritech, largely regarded as the single least realistic design for a mech, in fact, I'd go as far as to say it was designed purely for fictional story purposes (oh wait... it was) in any sort of combat any veritech would disintigrate, you say it could punch a whole in a tank? if one tried its arm would be knocked out of its socket, same with kicking it, and those legs jets? Useless there's no way it could acarry enough fuel to make them practical except as a one shot weapon, and because of the armor rating on a V-tech, even that is a useless gesture. The Veritech just includes too much stuff in to small of a package, even in a future tech scenerio they couldn't carry any meaningfull armor, couldn't have any meaningfull speed and would only have token weapons.
A modern tank platoon (four tanks on average, with supporting infantry and IFVs) would rip as many as twenty v-techs apart (they only carry about that many SAMs and TOWs) and an equivalent tech tank would be able to go standalone against a whole army of V-techs without so much as a scratch.

and then you go on to present the VF-0 which I am personally unaware of but you say it is technologically equivalent to an M1A1 (or you say: 'it takes the same time frame', whatever that means), and then you say it ways 65 tons and moves at 65mph, as we've already discussed an M1A2 (even more advanced than the A1, hence the larger number) cannot move that fast except with low fuel, bingo (out of) ammo and with reduced crew. so how does that even make sense?

and check your facts on the 'chicken leg walker' it may be MT and carry a tow missile and be all kinds of maneuverable but there are a few things its not
1. armored: A good .50 cal BMG round would punch right through it.
2. well armed: A TOW launcher with a few missiles, a Humvee has more weapons that that, and is faster and better armored (also more maneuverable and more all terrain)
3. All terrain: the legs just don't have enough clearance for it to move in anything but fields, deserts and urban situations, in all of which its height is a decided disadvantage no matter how supperior its sensors are.
4. fast, if you call 30 mph fast (and I don't think it even moves that fast) then I have to tell you, we've had considerable progress since WW2, tanks can now move almost twice that speed, and can do it in more terrain than your walker can.

Ummm didnt you see the new chicken leg walker that carries a tow launcher and a chain gun yeah guys they are now officially modern tech one was made, hell the japs made some a few years back small yes but still effective the new one is actually quick and agile too its a chicken leg though so sorry its MT PMT and FT lol and they arent stupid, cause anywhere a tank can fight they have advantages and they can fight where tanks cant ie higher profile means they can be seen in broken terrain but they can have higher sensors meaning more coverage also on open ground big or small doesnt matter you still see and fire only the walker may hit top armour more :)

oh and by steel threads they mean the fibres that mimic muscle movement they have some now trying them on prosthetic hands and armour suits for the military, honestly i am a power armour fan any giant robot should have SMS with hover and a fusion plant its just too big let it take advantage of humanoid maneuverabiltiy in air and on ground [skating] cause thats the only advantage the human form has over any other, we are simply the most agile things on the planet lol

oh ok thanks

i was thinking of desiging a few combat mechs. What do you think about mechs? And Im only talking about mechs that have machine guns and missles, no lasers or anything, have a single person inside to control it, cant fly or anything.
so essentially an upright tank? lame! You would need a bit more to make them useful and not just a bigger target!

what about zoids

what about zoids

Basically 4-legged mechs. More stable but still a worthless investment.

That and they look like animals, I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

But If they operated the same way as they did on thier show they would prove to by a very useful form of mech. they are fast agile, and well armed/ anti-air, and ground weapons combination.

But If they operated the same way as they did on thier show they would prove to by a very useful form of mech. they are fast agile, and well armed/ anti-air, and ground weapons combination.

The thing is that they wouldn't operate that way. They'd be lumbering complicated targets and nothing else.

In actuality yes, but in FT RP. They could very well have thier same abilities. Ft mech used in RP's are no RPed in actual form. they are given specs that they go by. Same should go when speaking about them in that sense.

In actuality yes, but in FT RP. They could very well have thier same abilities. Ft mech used in RP's are no RPed in actual form. they are given specs that they go by. Same should go when speaking about them in that sense.

Their method of operation should still be scaled vs. some form of reality; essentially, you iron out the more stupid or twinkish elements of your fantasy universe's stats if you actually want them to be playable. You can't just insist they work because they happen to work where you got them from.

I know you should have then scaled down but, I say that to show that mecha units are RPed as better then standerd battle vehicales. Becuase of thier FT Rped abilities. Now it is true they should be lumbering targets but thats not the way they are RPed.

I know you should have then scaled down but, I say that to show that mecha units are RPed as better then standerd battle vehicales. Becuase of thier FT Rped abilities. Now it is true they should be lumbering targets but thats not the way they are RPed.

So because people RP them incorrectly, we should accept that they are more powerful than conventional vehicles in an out of character debate? That doesn't make any sense at all; by that standard you can prove anything.

fine.... well i am dont wont to argue anymore tonight I am tired good night to you sir.

I know you should have then scaled down but, I say that to show that mecha units are RPed as better then standerd battle vehicales. Becuase of thier FT Rped abilities. Now it is true they should be lumbering targets but thats not the way they are RPed.Yes and no. Back in the day when DA still fielded 64-ton arachnoesque mecha, they were quite agile (I see no reason for machine engineering to not manage to cope with things nature could cope with... Admittedly on a slightly ludicrous scale, but meh)... but they also had truly horrible armour and were considerably huge targets with equally considerable maintenance issues.

The main reason for their existence being that a hyperurbanised society may know perfectly well how to produce infantry-level combat drones, but it has absolutely no fucking idea whatsoever when it comes to constructing a good 'tank'. So the engineers ran wild and went for shinyness, rather than practicality...

Of course, nowadays, they're basically looking at GMC designs, add DA techwank, and barely resist the option of producing their own ground battleship <.<

I just see mechs as FT's equivalant to MT's tank

I just see mechs as FT's equivalant to MT's tank

Then you're wrong. FT tanks are the FT equivalent of modern tanks. It's like saying Dune's Ornithopters are the FT version of modern fighter jets just because they seem shinier. Capability is what counts here, not how 'advanced' they appear to be.

Whoever voted 'Mechs as stupid is on my blacklist.

I went FT. Battletech and all... You know.

Whoever voted 'Mechs as stupid is on my blacklist.

I went FT. Battletech and all... You know.So noted. My heart is truly broken.

what do you mean steel threads on the legs?

I had a idea similar to the piston, but thanks

The Treads are found on the Soles and the back engine of the mech. You know tank treads right? Well mechs can also take advantage of borrowing some concepts from its mechanical familar. Basically, the mech can switch to treads to duck and attack while moving. Another function is to navigate smaller corridors. And finally, auxillary movement in case the joints has problems moving (or is damaged) which in that case the mech enters tread mode. To me, mechs are an offspring of aircraft technology basics and tank basics. Thats it

Something like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/kblaes/gustav.jpg

No, I was think more of the treads are inside the mech legs basically metal plate cover the treads while allowing movement.

so essentially an upright tank? lame! You would need a bit more to make them useful and not just a bigger target!
ok tell me how to make it better

ok tell me how to make it better

Build a conventional tank.

Build a conventional tank.

There are arguments for both systems, contribute something useful man, don't just insult it, make it better then, if it sucks so much.

There are arguments for both systems, contribute something useful man, don't just insult it, make it better then, if it sucks so much.

Ok to make his mech better do the following:

1) Replace the legs with treads.
2) Replace the humanoid body with a low to the ground hull.
3) Mount the weapons on a turret.

What do you get when you do that, a tank.

Ok to make his mech better do the following:

1) Replace the legs with treads.
2) Replace the humanoid body with a low to the ground hull.
3) Mount the weapons on a turret.

What do you get when you do that, a tank.

That is not helpful, or constructive.

I agree mini heim. Xess is pretty much putting Tokera down.

That is not helpful, or constructive.

Well, neither are mechs when compared to tanks. The problem is, this isn't your elementary school class. Not all weapons are equal, and sometimes it isn't worth trying to improve a weapon that is fundementally flawed in concept. Some concepts will last with us for years and years, and some are utterly useless. For example, during WWI there were a variety of designs made for an armored vehicle. The Russians and English had prototypes that looked like giant armored tricycles, and the Germans had proposed a large four-legged walking sausage type contraption. Eventually someone figured out, hey, why not use something that actually works, like treads? And thus, tanks were made.

And here's the key point: In this metaphor, the tank is obviously represented by the tank. Guess what your mech is? It's the giant tricycle with maxims sticking out of it. For every thing that can make mechs just as good as tanks, you can apply it to a tank or other vehicle and make it superior to the mech. There is abseloutely no combat role a mech can fill a tank or other conventional vehicle can't with more efficiency, save for romping around the mountains (well, mountains that are so high up and with weather conditions so bad that helicopters can't fly).

So basically, you're pursuing a dead end in technology. Even in urban combat, vehicles are getting heavier and heavier. If you want proof, I'll find the countless Merkava 4 variants.

So you're free to pursue mechs, its just that during RP they'll get their asses kicked by conventional weapons of the same technology level.

Well, why not just produce a half mech/ half tank mech. As for one, bit, have a tank chasis, then a torso , then a pair of arms, then a head.

The tank chasis (in this case, eh a Leopard II,) will provide the powerplant, and manuverability. The torso will hold the pilot (Guessing in a tungsten/titanium Carbon-60 hybrid cockpit?) then you got your gun wielding arms, in this case, lets say a 105mm Howitzer, then on the back you could have a "backpack" to carrying the auto-loader/ammunition for the gun. Then the other arm could be some rockets, a few stingers, whatever floats your boat. The head could carrying the camera equipment, or another gun pod, whatever. Put the cameras anywhere.

Ofcourse, said design would be difficult, fuel would be the biggest concern, yet say if a hydrogen fuel cell was developed, that would be no issue. Then there is the recoil from the 105mm howitzer, solve that by stopping the vehical, and then implant struts into the ground to fire the gun. Or just make the torso able to twist to absorb the recoil.

But then again, this could only be usefull for an artillery stand-point, nothing more, because if you ran around with this thing, an abrams could easily roll up and nail you in the rear end...or a cruise missile...either way a mech has no purpose in armored warfare except anti-infantry supression, say like a pair of 20mm cannons, and maybe some rockets, on a large two legged vehical, (anyone know of the AT-PT from starwars, that could work?)

Well, neither are mechs when compared to tanks. The problem is, this isn't your elementary school class. Not all weapons are equal, and sometimes it isn't worth trying to improve a weapon that is fundementally flawed in concept. Some concepts will last with us for years and years, and some are utterly useless. For example, during WWI there were a variety of designs made for an armored vehicle. The Russians and English had prototypes that looked like giant armored tricycles, and the Germans had proposed a large four-legged walking sausage type contraption. Eventually someone figured out, hey, why not use something that actually works, like treads? And thus, tanks were made.

And here's the key point: In this metaphor, the tank is obviously represented by the tank. Guess what your mech is? It's the giant tricycle with maxims sticking out of it. For every thing that can make mechs just as good as tanks, you can apply it to a tank or other vehicle and make it superior to the mech. There is abseloutely no combat role a mech can fill a tank or other conventional vehicle can't with more efficiency, save for romping around the mountains (well, mountains that are so high up and with weather conditions so bad that helicopters can't fly).

So basically, you're pursuing a dead end in technology. Even in urban combat, vehicles are getting heavier and heavier. If you want proof, I'll find the countless Merkava 4 variants.

So you're free to pursue mechs, its just that during RP they'll get their asses kicked by conventional weapons of the same technology level.

Then why do Goliath Walkers slaughter Tanks and infantry in equal measure?

Only slightly taller than a tank, and with a weapon that is capable of firing much faster, and still killing a tank, it is in all ways the ultimate light recon vehicle, not a really fast unit, but very deadly inside its engagement range.

Then why do Goliath Walkers slaughter Tanks and infantry in equal measure?

Only slightly taller than a tank, and with a weapon that is capable of firing much faster, and still killing a tank, it is in all ways the ultimate light recon vehicle, not a really fast unit, but very deadly inside its engagement range.

I'm sorry, I completely forgot Starcraft was the best source on combat ever made. In this case, I will write to my congressmen and urge him to vote for the bill to Zerg Rush Iraq.

Do you believe everything you see in videogames? I mean seriously, do you have any perception between reality and what Blizzard programmed?

Here's the thing: any mech that had a faster firing cannon would have to have a smaller caliber cannon. This isn't a rule for tanks, this is a rule for anything. A 30mm gatling gun would knock any mech over, as it generates as much power as a jet engine in recoil. And even then, if you have your uberfast firing gun, you will be able to kill 10 tanks before you run dry of ammo.

Well, why not just produce a half mech/ half tank mech. As for one, bit, have a tank chasis, then a torso , then a pair of arms, then a head.

The tank chasis (in this case, eh a Leopard II,) will provide the powerplant, and manuverability. The torso will hold the pilot (Guessing in a tungsten/titanium Carbon-60 hybrid cockpit?) then you got your gun wielding arms, in this case, lets say a 105mm Howitzer, then on the back you could have a "backpack" to carrying the auto-loader/ammunition for the gun. Then the other arm could be some rockets, a few stingers, whatever floats your boat. The head could carrying the camera equipment, or another gun pod, whatever. Put the cameras anywhere.

Ofcourse, said design would be difficult, fuel would be the biggest concern, yet say if a hydrogen fuel cell was developed, that would be no issue. Then there is the recoil from the 105mm howitzer, solve that by stopping the vehical, and then implant struts into the ground to fire the gun. Or just make the torso able to twist to absorb the recoil.

But then again, this could only be usefull for an artillery stand-point, nothing more, because if you ran around with this thing, an abrams could easily roll up and nail you in the rear end...or a cruise missile...either way a mech has no purpose in armored warfare except anti-infantry supression, say like a pair of 20mm cannons, and maybe some rockets, on a large two legged vehical, (anyone know of the AT-PT from starwars, that could work?)
I tried mentioning the mech tank hybrid (Tachikoma) but people felt the need to try pick up the smalest problems and my friend already mentioned the AT-PT about three or four times and no one even responded to its mention.

It would seem that many people have pointed out the same things over and over here.

PMT mechs wouldnt really be much better or different then an PMT or MT standard main battle tank. Games such as MechWarrior also known as BattleTech are often seen as a PMT type of mech. They would make it seem that a BattleMech can just run over and destroy tanks easy as though the Mechs armor and weapons are better, but the key there is that the mechs are mearly larger and have more armor and larger weapons. In a battle between a tank and a Mech of equal weapons and simular capabilities the out come would most likely be dependent on the pilot or crews abilities.

Mechs really don't become that more effective untill they are capable of having human or animal like reflexes. Many would say that this would be future tech mechs such as those found in the Gundam and Full Metal Panic and simular anime series. However, many argue that by the time these models come out FT tanks would be just as effective. And using the proper tactics anything could be. As with the PMT mech vs. tank again the abilities and skills of the pilot and or crew would again be the biggest reason for the outcome.

In the end, I would think that this topic is solved based on what the person that is building them prefer. The mech or the tech. While the mech is a wonderfull idea in my opinion, I do not believe the tank will ever be eliminated from the battle field. In most cases they would be cheaper and probably easier to learn.

I tried mentioning the mech tank hybrid (Tachikoma) but people felt the need to try pick up the smalest problems

What, like that's it's inefficient and Masamune Shirow's beloved magnetic rollerball wheels would be horrifically prone to fouling?

Well, why not just produce a half mech/ half tank mech. As for one, bit, have a tank chasis, then a torso , then a pair of arms, then a head.Why?

No, seriously, why would you do this? What advantage over a tank would this have? It doesn't even have the shiny factor. Seems to me it'd look rather silly. This would just be an ugly, top heavy, increased profile (and thus increased target) tank.

The torso will hold the pilot (Guessing in a tungsten/titanium Carbon-60 hybrid cockpit?) then you got your gun wielding arms, in this case, lets say a 105mm Howitzer, then on the back you could have a "backpack" to carrying the auto-loader/ammunition for the gun. Then the other arm could be some rockets, a few stingers, whatever floats your boat. The head could carrying the camera equipment, or another gun pod, whatever. Put the cameras anywhere.That puts your pilot in a giant, easy to hit target; puts your weapons on mounts that are, by definition, weak (joints are always weak); exposes your ammo; and drastically increases the weight of your vehicle for no practical purpose.

Then there is the recoil from the 105mm howitzer, solve that by stopping the vehical, and then implant struts into the ground to fire the gun. Or just make the torso able to twist to absorb the recoil.So you've now made it even less useful than a tank. How much time is wasted lowering/raising struts or letting the torso spin around?

But then again, this could only be usefull for an artillery stand-point,Except for the existing artillary that does this much cheaper and better.

either way a mech has no purpose in armored warfare except anti-infantry supressionI'd rather have an M-60 and a dozen sandbags than this monstrosity. Hell, anti-infantry tanks are stupid and pointless, but this is worse.

The point that people seem to be missing is that there is no reason to make a mech. Could it be done? Probably. Would any nation have any reason or incentive to do so? Hell no.

EDIT: And to make Phalanix happy:

(anyone know of the AT-PT from starwars, that could work?)No. They're a damnably stupid idea.

Well, why not just produce a half mech/ half tank mech. As for one, bit, have a tank chasis, then a torso , then a pair of arms, then a head.

So you want to build Ground Hunter-Killers from Terminator?

So you want to build Ground Hunter-Killers from Terminator?That or a "Turbo Meson Cannon" from Wasteland:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/turbo-meson-cannon.jpg

Ooo, boy. You guys are really not going to like my new mechs... All kinds of technology go into them that isnt plausible today. Gravitic manipulation, mind impulse links, flexible metals, etc...

Well, I guess im screwed...

Oh wait, I forgot. I dont care if they are not plausible now. They are plausible in my future.

Oh wait, I forgot. I dont care if they are not plausible now. They are plausible in my future.You also forgot that "plausible" doesn't mean "practical".

Actually, they are practicle. At least, in my nation. The people of Lumastra (I dont know if you saw my earlier posts, but Lumastra and Einhauser are one and the same) are anti-war, and they would never tolerate the goverment using such crude things as tanks (they think all tanks are crude because of their look). Only the fluid grace of the Guardians (the mechs) soothe the public's ire.

Then why do Goliath Walkers slaughter Tanks and infantry in equal measure?

Only slightly taller than a tank, and with a weapon that is capable of firing much faster, and still killing a tank, it is in all ways the ultimate light recon vehicle, not a really fast unit, but very deadly inside its engagement range.
You obviously don't play starcraft very much, Goliaths are easily the worst unit in the game, the lack any kind of armor and the only thing they do well is anti air, and there are many cheaper and more effective ways even to do that. for Terran a group of 'rines' with u-238 ammo is better and costs less than an equivalent group of Goliaths.

Anyway: if you really really really want to have a mech (despite the obvious advantages of tanks) then I will tell you what I tell everyone intent on becoming japanese.

Build a two legged mech, no arms, put the pilot in a pod between the legs (not above them or in front). Legs should be relatively short and have a wide base. weaponry would be maybe a back mounted light (80 or so MM) mortar or a top mounted weapon systems (A Javelin launcher or even a lighter version of a TOW missile would be ideal, maybe with a 7.62mm machine gun coaxial)other weapons might include side mounted Hydra 70s or grenade launchers.
the cockpit should have an IRST night vision system (mounted on weapon turret preferable) and a chin mounted thermal sight.
Armor should be APC type armor, just enough to defeat up to 12.7mm. maybe have optional RPG defeating system like that added to the Stryker LAV.
the role would be that of a heavy weapons platform for support of infantry and tanks in open terrain and psychological intimidation of enemies (though any reasonably trained enemy will just fire a SRAW or Javelin against it and be done.)

Actually, they are practicle. At least, in my nation. The people of Lumastra (I dont know if you saw my earlier posts, but Lumastra and Einhauser are one and the same) are anti-war, and they would never tolerate the govermen using such crude things as tanks (they think all tanks are crude because of their look). Only the fluid grace of the Guardians (the mechs) soothe the public's ire.

It's been said all modern weapons have four dimensions: length, width, height and politics. That's a matter of politics overriding practicality, as with, say, Hitler's insistence on the construction of the V3 guns despite that all tests said they'd be totally bloody useless.

Yup, I hear that.

Build a conventional tank.

well you know what there are so much people coming up with there own tank designs, I dont want to build just another tank, I want to do something not many people have done(something sorta unique) just because I dont want to go with everyone else dosent mean there cant be a totally different design(no offence people who are designing tanks, I love most of your designs, they are probibly better than I could do). I just am asking for some ideas so that i dont put a hole lot of time into this for nothing and just have people just say it sucks.

Well, neither are mechs when compared to tanks. The problem is, this isn't your elementary school class. Not all weapons are equal, and sometimes it isn't worth trying to improve a weapon that is fundementally flawed in concept. Some concepts will last with us for years and years, and some are utterly useless. For example, during WWI there were a variety of designs made for an armored vehicle. The Russians and English had prototypes that looked like giant armored tricycles, and the Germans had proposed a large four-legged walking sausage type contraption. Eventually someone figured out, hey, why not use something that actually works, like treads? And thus, tanks were made.

And here's the key point: In this metaphor, the tank is obviously represented by the tank. Guess what your mech is? It's the giant tricycle with maxims sticking out of it. For every thing that can make mechs just as good as tanks, you can apply it to a tank or other vehicle and make it superior to the mech. There is abseloutely no combat role a mech can fill a tank or other conventional vehicle can't with more efficiency, save for romping around the mountains (well, mountains that are so high up and with weather conditions so bad that helicopters can't fly).

So basically, you're pursuing a dead end in technology. Even in urban combat, vehicles are getting heavier and heavier. If you want proof, I'll find the countless Merkava 4 variants.

So you're free to pursue mechs, its just that during RP they'll get their asses kicked by conventional weapons of the same technology level.

ok dont you think that when tanks just came out they got alot of criticism and people thought they were nuts. Tanks started out as small weak pices od shit and look at them now. If those people that designed the first tanks listened to the criticism you wouldnt have your precious tanks.

I don't think I've ever seen an FT tank design...

Well, why not just produce a half mech/ half tank mech. As for one, bit, have a tank chasis, then a torso , then a pair of arms, then a head.

The tank chasis (in this case, eh a Leopard II,) will provide the powerplant, and manuverability. The torso will hold the pilot (Guessing in a tungsten/titanium Carbon-60 hybrid cockpit?) then you got your gun wielding arms, in this case, lets say a 105mm Howitzer, then on the back you could have a "backpack" to carrying the auto-loader/ammunition for the gun. Then the other arm could be some rockets, a few stingers, whatever floats your boat. The head could carrying the camera equipment, or another gun pod, whatever. Put the cameras anywhere.

Ofcourse, said design would be difficult, fuel would be the biggest concern, yet say if a hydrogen fuel cell was developed, that would be no issue. Then there is the recoil from the 105mm howitzer, solve that by stopping the vehical, and then implant struts into the ground to fire the gun. Or just make the torso able to twist to absorb the recoil.

But then again, this could only be usefull for an artillery stand-point, nothing more, because if you ran around with this thing, an abrams could easily roll up and nail you in the rear end...or a cruise missile...either way a mech has no purpose in armored warfare except anti-infantry supression, say like a pair of 20mm cannons, and maybe some rockets, on a large two legged vehical, (anyone know of the AT-PT from starwars, that could work?)

yah I was thinking the same thing. finally I get some helpful criticism. Thank you to all the people that are actually trying to help me without automatically blowing the shit out of my idea.

ok dont you think that when tanks just came out they got alot of criticism and people thought they were nuts. Tanks started out as small weak pices od shit and look at them now. If those people that designed the first tanks listened to the criticism you wouldnt have your precious tanks.
Tanks started out as horrifying war machines, impervious to machine gun fire, able to cross trenches and breach razor wire with ease. They were in no way weak.

ok dont you think that when tanks just came out they got alot of criticism and people thought they were nuts. Tanks started out as small weak pices od shit and look at them now. If those people that designed the first tanks listened to the criticism you wouldnt have your precious tanks.

Actually, when tanks first came out they rapidly broke the deadlock on the Western Front, and made trench warfare obsolete. Criticism of the tank allowed it to develop from a machine designed purely for crossing obstacles to a lower, more stable machine. All criticism of the tank after WW1 focused on making the tank better; having seen what they had done to end trench warfare, decrying the concept of the tank would be insanity.

The modern tank developed from the enormous WW1 tanks with 12-man crews because people did listen to criticism and redesigned to take account of successes and failures, that's how engineering works.

Tanks started out as horrifying war machines, impervious to machine gun fire, able to cross trenches and breach razor wire with ease. They were in no way weak.

yah they actually were, I am talking about the first tanks, they were weak(especially compared to tanks now) but how can mechs start out as strong as tanks are now if you dont give them a chance, do you think that if tanks were not given the chance they were that they would be so good now?

You obviously don't play starcraft very much, Goliaths are easily the worst unit in the game, the lack any kind of armor and the only thing they do well is anti air, and there are many cheaper and more effective ways even to do that. for Terran a group of 'rines' with u-238 ammo is better and costs less than an equivalent group of Goliaths.

Anyway: if you really really really want to have a mech (despite the obvious advantages of tanks) then I will tell you what I tell everyone intent on becoming japanese.

Build a two legged mech, no arms, put the pilot in a pod between the legs (not above them or in front). Legs should be relatively short and have a wide base. weaponry would be maybe a back mounted light (80 or so MM) mortar or a top mounted weapon systems (A Javelin launcher or even a lighter version of a TOW missile would be ideal, maybe with a 7.62mm machine gun coaxial)other weapons might include side mounted Hydra 70s or grenade launchers.
the cockpit should have an IRST night vision system (mounted on weapon turret preferable) and a chin mounted thermal sight.
Armor should be APC type armor, just enough to defeat up to 12.7mm. maybe have optional RPG defeating system like that added to the Stryker LAV.
the role would be that of a heavy weapons platform for support of infantry and tanks in open terrain and psychological intimidation of enemies (though any reasonably trained enemy will just fire a SRAW or Javelin against it and be done.)

thank you

yah they actually were, I am talking about the first tanks, they were weak(especially compared to tanks now) but how can mechs start out as strong as tanks are now if you dont give them a chance, do you think that if tanks were not given the chance they were that they would be so good now?
No, no, no. You can't compare WWI tanks to modern tanks. In fact, you can't view them in light of modern tech at all. In their time, they were extremely effective. They could cross no-man's-land with ease, as they were impervious to small arms fire. Even if their guiding wheel (the thing on the back) was destroyed, they made excellent pill-boxes and cover for advancing infantry. With gas masks, the crew was safe from chemical weapons, the only real way to destroy a tank was to hit it with an artillery strike, which was rather difficult in those days.

Moral: Tanks are, and where, incredibly powerful tools of war.

No, no, no. You can't compare WWI tanks to modern tanks. In fact, you can't view them in light of modern tech at all. In their time, they were extremely effective. They could cross no-man's-land with ease, as they were impervious to small arms fire. Even if their guiding wheel (the thing on the back) was destroyed, they made excellent pill-boxes and cover for advancing infantry. With gas masks, the crew was safe from chemical weapons, the only real way to destroy a tank was to hit it with an artillery strike, which was rather difficult in those days.The second generation. The first generation was near-impossible to control, had armour that could be broken by gunfire (tungsten-core ammunition), had excessive maintenance issues etc.

yah they actually were, I am talking about the first tanks, they were weak(especially compared to tanks now)

Who cares? The first tanks weren't designed to fight against modern tanks, they were designed to assault trench lines. They didn't have to be fast, and their armour only really needed to defend them from machine guns. Their primary design goal was to be able to cross craters and trenches, hence their shape being different to modern tanks.

By your reasoning, since a entire fleet of 3-masted galleons would be no match for a single modern Iowa-class battleship, 3-masted galleons were 'weak' when they were created.

but how can mechs start out as strong as tanks are now if you dont give them a chance, do you think that if tanks were not given the chance they were that they would be so good now?

Because 'mechs must start out on the modern battlefield, so they must be able to cope with the challenges within it. Tanks were not 'given a chance' in WW1, they were shown to be useful in spite of everything the enemy and the battlefield could possibly throw at them.

It's possible to find combat roles for walkers, but those combat roles will generally be performed better by non-walkers. This doesn't mean you shouldn't build 'mechs, since all militaries make mistakes, but you should be aware of their weaknesses.

But tanks had to be given the initial chance to prove they were useful, I dont even have the plans drawn up and you are already criticizing my idea. Just give me a chance. Also its a fact that tanks are being down sized and being replaced with smaller vehicles like strykers, a MBT is not as useful in urban settings as it is on the field.

Who cares? The first tanks weren't designed to fight against modern tanks, they were designed to assault trench lines. They didn't have to be fast, and their armour only really needed to defend them from machine guns. Their primary design goal was to be able to cross craters and trenches, hence their shape being different to modern tanks.

By your reasoning, since a entire fleet of 3-masted galleons would be no match for a single modern Iowa-class battleship, 3-masted galleons were 'weak' when they were created.



Because 'mechs must start out on the modern battlefield, so they must be able to cope with the challenges within it. Tanks were not 'given a chance' in WW1, they were shown to be useful in spite of everything the enemy and the battlefield could possibly throw at them.

It's possible to find combat roles for walkers, but those combat roles will generally be performed better by non-walkers. This doesn't mean you shouldn't build 'mechs, since all militaries make mistakes, but you should be aware of their weaknesses.


Their weaknesses can only be solved by trial and error, They must be bulit and tested to work out their weaknesses, You never know I might just find a way to solve the weakness. I am not generally saying a mech must go up against a tank, They could be used against anti infantry, and tanks supporting roles, but they will be able to defend themselves against tanks and other threats also(just not as well), they would be perfect for urban combat where tanks lack some of their abilities. The mechs can be the solution to the urban conflict, and since most of the world is now becoming urban areas there might even be a role for mechs that you will accept, You have to admit that tanks are not good in urban areas and there a mech can fill in.

I am going to go now I'll post more tomorrow

But tanks had to be given the initial chance to prove they were useful, I dont even have the plans drawn up and you are already criticizing my idea.

You think nobody criticised the tank at the design phase? A tracked fighting vehicle makes sense on a muddy battlefield; the tracks distribute the weight more evenly, meaning less likihood of getting bogged down. An armoured fighting vehicle makes sense on a battlefield where the machine gun is king: while it didn't work that well immediately, that was recognised to be a flaw in execution, not concept.

The problems with walkers are all concept problems: mechs are more complex, less well armoured and have higher profile and ground pressure for no real payoff. A WW1 tank was more complex than a truck with armour bolted on, but the tank had actual, tangiable advantages over the truck with armour; namely, the treads allowed it to cross the mud and wire of no-man's land. It's difficult to think of a sensible situation where a walker could provide such an advantage that it justified it's disadvantages, aside from the one I already bought up of supporting paratroops.

Just give me a chance. Also its a fact that tanks are being down sized and being replaced with smaller vehicles like strykers, a MBT is not as useful in urban settings as it is on the field.

Western tanks are being reduced in size because in the modern world an enemy is unlikely to be able to meet a large MBT with equal force: tank versus tank battles on the scale of, say, Kursk, are unlikely now compared to when there was reason to imagine a massive clash between Soviet and NATO armour in Eastern Europe. In much the same way, modern warships aren't armoured or designed for massive fleet engagements because the US has the sole major blue-water fleet; there's simply no need to build ships, IRL, that will never need to do what you build them for, hence the lack of new battleships since WW2. The US is also considering reductions in the size of future MBTs to allow for combat forces to deploy more quickly to trouble spots by air.

This has not happened in Nationstates.

There is no reason to believe NS tanks will be getting smaller; they are still very likely to meet equally advanced or even more advanced MBTs. Trying to apply modern military theory to NS without accounting for the difference in political climate is pointless; it's simply not valid reasoning to claim that because RL tanks may be getting smaller, any advanced tank will be small regardless of design goals.

It's even more invalid to make this claim in light of the fact that NS has gigantic tanks like the Eurusean PS-11 Stalin and SU/MT Gnoph-Keh [both 3,000 tons] which obviously don't follow this trend.

You have to admit that tanks are not good in urban areas and there a mech can fill in.

I do? With sensible combined-arms tactics, a tank is very useful in urban operations; the tank provides heavy fire support for infantry, and the infantry handle threats to the tank like RPG teams. In WW2, German and Soviet assault guns proved perfectly capable of operating in urban areas using such tactics.

This would be especially true with the enormous avenues and highways required by NS cities with populations in the tens or hundreds of millions.

well you know what there are so much people coming up with there own tank designs, I dont want to build just another tank, I want to do something not many people have done(something sorta unique) just because I dont want to go with everyone else dosent mean there cant be a totally different design(no offence people who are designing tanks, I love most of your designs, they are probibly better than I could do). I just am asking for some ideas so that i dont put a hole lot of time into this for nothing and just have people just say it sucks.

If you want to build your mech go ahead and build your mech. Just don't cry when they get slaughtered on the battlefield, urban, open or otherwise, by conventional arms and vehicles.


And for your whole "Give mechs a chance" spiel all I have to say has already been said, but I'll say it again just to make sure it sticks.

The first tanks were ugly, lumbering beasts that still had losts of problems to work out, but the concept of the tank was sound. Mechs would face those same problems and would have the added problem of their basic concept being unsound. There is simply no role on any battlefield that a mech could fill better than a conventional vehicle, and no amount of mechwanker whining will change that.

Well, I think I will post on opinion on mechs:

Granted, mechanized walkers are perhaps one of the most silly and to be considered one of the most impractical ideas in our time. But lets face it, most armored weapons are the end result of ultilising different types of mechanical breakthroughs and such. There is no perfect weapon in war and for the mech, it true strengh can not be tapped from earth, instead look into the future. Future planets that your nation or earth itself will not always have the characteristics of our home planet. We can change a mech without removing its fuction say for hyradulics. We can customise something that will give it some sort of jumping ability. Basically Mechs have a greater horizon of customization as compared to tanks really.

You obviously don't play starcraft very much, Goliaths are easily the worst unit in the game, the lack any kind of armor and the only thing they do well is anti air, and there are many cheaper and more effective ways even to do that. for Terran a group of 'rines' with u-238 ammo is better and costs less than an equivalent group of Goliaths.

Anyway: if you really really really want to have a mech (despite the obvious advantages of tanks) then I will tell you what I tell everyone intent on becoming japanese.

Build a two legged mech, no arms, put the pilot in a pod between the legs (not above them or in front). Legs should be relatively short and have a wide base. weaponry would be maybe a back mounted light (80 or so MM) mortar or a top mounted weapon systems (A Javelin launcher or even a lighter version of a TOW missile would be ideal, maybe with a 7.62mm machine gun coaxial)other weapons might include side mounted Hydra 70s or grenade launchers.
the cockpit should have an IRST night vision system (mounted on weapon turret preferable) and a chin mounted thermal sight.
Armor should be APC type armor, just enough to defeat up to 12.7mm. maybe have optional RPG defeating system like that added to the Stryker LAV.
the role would be that of a heavy weapons platform for support of infantry and tanks in open terrain and psychological intimidation of enemies (though any reasonably trained enemy will just fire a SRAW or Javelin against it and be done.)

That's funny, because, on NS, my main tech base is SC, and if used properly Goliaths are very deadly, they can take out swarms of air power, and still be relatively effective against land based targets, but my point was a weapon mod to an MT 50 cal gatling, or a 30mm Chain, allowing them to take out tanks or infantry with ease, no tank yet developed can beat an A-10 Warthogs Tankbuster cannon, which is a 30mm depleted uranium ammo chaingun.

Well, I think I will post on opinion on mechs:

Granted, mechanized walkers are perhaps one of the most silly and to be considered one of the most impractical ideas in our time. But lets face it, most armored weapons are the end result of ultilising different types of mechanical breakthroughs and such. There is no perfect weapon in war and for the mech, it true strengh can not be tapped from earth, instead look into the future. Future planets that your nation or earth itself will not always have the characteristics of our home planet. We can change a mech without removing its fuction say for hyradulics. We can customise something that will give it some sort of jumping ability. Basically Mechs have a greater horizon of customization as compared to tanks really.

I never even thought of that, and I play Armored Core so often that I should...

Is that a complement or a cut?

Is that a complement or a cut?

Neither, that's me berating myself for stupidity, although it is a good point you make there...

That's funny, because, on NS, my main tech base is SC, and if used properly Goliaths are very deadly, they can take out swarms of air power, and still be relatively effective against land based targets, but my point was a weapon mod to an MT 50 cal gatling, or a 30mm Chain, allowing them to take out tanks or infantry with ease, no tank yet developed can beat an A-10 Warthogs Tankbuster cannon, which is a 30mm depleted uranium ammo chaingun.

Hmm, well, A .50 call will not take out a tank, even an APC is armored up to 12.7mm (.50 cal), and as for 30mm chain, the A-10 uses a 30mm GAU-8 Gatling cannon, the rounds are betwen two and three feet long, most chain guns and even most gatling cannons use much shorter 30mm rounds, and the sheer weight of ammo reduces the effectiveness of a ground based platform using he GAU-8, the A-10 has around 15 seconds of continuos firing and it takes a minimum of about five rounds to make a kill probable, the A-10 has the advantage of being to unlaod its ammo and fly back to base for a reload, once a walker is out of ammo it has to walk back to a reload point. And an A-10 remains mostly immune to fire from tanks by moving fast, being well armored, having redundant systems and flying high. A goliath, again, has none of those advantages and a good 120mm shell (most NS tank shells are bigger and therefore longer ranged) havs an effective range far beyond that of a 30mm gattling canon, coupled with the sheer height and visibility of a goliath, against ground units it ceases to become even 'moderately effective' and instead becomes a big juicy target.

Actually, the GAU-8/A is not an effective ground based antitank platform, even if it could be employed on a tank or mech. The only reason it can effectively eliminate modern tanks is due to the fact that it is fired from above, at the rear, and at very close range. That 30mm cannon is not going to hurt many tanks if fired from more than a few hundred meters away or against the normal side, front, or rear armor. Similarly, if it hits the front armor, even from above, the rounds will most likely not penetrate effectively.

You think nobody criticised the tank at the design phase? A tracked fighting vehicle makes sense on a muddy battlefield; the tracks distribute the weight more evenly, meaning less likihood of getting bogged down. An armoured fighting vehicle makes sense on a battlefield where the machine gun is king: while it didn't work that well immediately, that was recognised to be a flaw in execution, not concept.

The problems with walkers are all concept problems: mechs are more complex, less well armoured and have higher profile and ground pressure for no real payoff. A WW1 tank was more complex than a truck with armour bolted on, but the tank had actual, tangiable advantages over the truck with armour; namely, the treads allowed it to cross the mud and wire of no-man's land. It's difficult to think of a sensible situation where a walker could provide such an advantage that it justified it's disadvantages, aside from the one I already bought up of supporting paratroops.



Western tanks are being reduced in size because in the modern world an enemy is unlikely to be able to meet a large MBT with equal force: tank versus tank battles on the scale of, say, Kursk, are unlikely now compared to when there was reason to imagine a massive clash between Soviet and NATO armour in Eastern Europe. In much the same way, modern warships aren't armoured or designed for massive fleet engagements because the US has the sole major blue-water fleet; there's simply no need to build ships, IRL, that will never need to do what you build them for, hence the lack of new battleships since WW2. The US is also considering reductions in the size of future MBTs to allow for combat forces to deploy more quickly to trouble spots by air.

This has not happened in Nationstates.

There is no reason to believe NS tanks will be getting smaller; they are still very likely to meet equally advanced or even more advanced MBTs. Trying to apply modern military theory to NS without accounting for the difference in political climate is pointless; it's simply not valid reasoning to claim that because RL tanks may be getting smaller, any advanced tank will be small regardless of design goals.

It's even more invalid to make this claim in light of the fact that NS has gigantic tanks like the Eurusean PS-11 Stalin and SU/MT Gnoph-Keh [both 3,000 tons] which obviously don't follow this trend.



I do? With sensible combined-arms tactics, a tank is very useful in urban operations; the tank provides heavy fire support for infantry, and the infantry handle threats to the tank like RPG teams. In WW2, German and Soviet assault guns proved perfectly capable of operating in urban areas using such tactics.

This would be especially true with the enormous avenues and highways required by NS cities with populations in the tens or hundreds of millions.

you know I dont even want to even discuss this with you, you are so set on your MBTs you wont even give me the benefit of the doubt. You cant even give me the chance to designe it. I try to come out with something new that not many people have done and what do i get a load of crap, Why cant you just accept a new concept, Im not trying to replace tanks or anything, IM trying to just come up with a idea no body has done before, There are so many tanks that people are designing all the time that it would be pointless for me to try to make a tank design. There are too many tank designs.

Yeah, mechs are cool!

Too bad they're a horrid platform for any real combat.

Tokera, don't listen to the doubters. Just build the thing. It's not like they are physically blocking the development process. If it works, it works.

that is debaitable, and all depends on the design.

Tokera, don't listen to the doubters. Just build the thing. It's not like they are physically blocking the development process. If it works, it works.

ok thank you

you know I dont even want to even discuss this with you, you are so set on your MBTs you wont even give me the benefit of the doubt. You cant even give me the chance to designe it.

In general, you should accept that there are fundamental flaws in the concept of a walker if you intend to design one. This doesn't necessarily mean one wouldn't be built if political will overrode common sense, but it does mean that they would always be weak compared to conventional armour.

There is no giving the 'benefit of the doubt;' at an equal level of technology, a tracked vehicle [or at higher levels, a hovertank / grav-tank] of equal mass will always be a more effective combatant in the field than its walking equivalent. That's just the way things are.

Why cant you just accept a new concept

It's not a new concept. The Federation fields four types of Frame in the First and Second Parachute Armoured Divisions: three bipedal [ART, MAC and COM Frames] and one quad [AA Frame]. Don't you get it? My own nation uses them!

There are so many tanks that people are designing all the time that it would be pointless for me to try to make a tank design. There are too many tank designs.

No, there aren't.

In general, you should accept that there are fundamental flaws in the concept of a walker if you intend to design one. This doesn't necessarily mean one wouldn't be built if political will overrode common sense, but it does mean that they would always be weak compared to conventional armour.

There is no giving the 'benefit of the doubt;' at an equal level of technology, a tracked vehicle [or at higher levels, a hovertank / grav-tank] of equal mass will always be a more effective combatant in the field than its walking equivalent. That's just the way things are.



It's not a new concept. The Federation fields four types of Frame in the First and Second Parachute Armoured Divisions: three bipedal [ART, MAC and COM Frames] and one quad [AA Frame]. Don't you get it? My own nation uses them!



No, there aren't.

There is nothing saying the flaws cant be worked out(no one here is a expert on this so you dont know).

No it depends on the design and idea

I am talking about the mech I am making, and yes do you know how many tank designs there are, there are too many, then if you use them why are you giving me a hard time

no, the flaws can't be worked out, they're conceptual flaws. the only thing that could make a Mech practical would be some sort of huge paradigm shift in the way wars are fought. While Mechs might be somewhat practical in certain urban or open terrain situations (they will die instantly in open terrain battles unless they are very far from enemy tanks and will die instantly in Urban battles unless they are protected from RPGs and there are no enemy tanks ont he field, in any other situation they will die instantly unless the enemy has no anti armor weapons, and even then they might be in danger) but unless warfare is faought in a tottally different way than how it is doen now and in the forseeable future, then a conventional design will always win.

There is nothing saying the flaws cant be worked out(no one here is a expert on this so you dont know).

It doesn't take an expert to recognise a flaw that can be worked around from a flaw which is actually part of the fundamental concept.

No it depends on the design and idea

No, no matter what the design you will always have some fundamental weaknesses as a result of the concept; the severity of these will vary, but they'll always be there. Engineering is an exercise in compromise; you take on some disadvantages in order to gain any given set of advantages.

For example, the modern tank mounts a large engine to make it more mobile and faster; however, since this engine is normally mounted to the rear it gives a significant 'dead space' where the tank cannot fire. It's a trade-off; there have been attempts to work around this fundamental flaw using multiple turrets, but this just results in a different set of problems [T-35; too large a crew, too high, turrets interfered with each others' fire arcs, and so on]. This doesn't mean some NS tanks don't still have multiple turrets because they haven't learned that lesson or have chosen to ignore it or limit it to missions where it's less of a disadvantage [Federal Mk7 A3 Mammoth Tank, SU/MT Gnoph-Keh, Eurusean Ground Battleships...] but for the MBT mission, an equally sized tank with a single turret will outperform one with multiple turrets.

Another good example of a trade-off is the turbine engine used by the M1 Abrams: while it provides a lot of power, it also creates incredibly hot exhaust gases meaning infantry standing in a 45 square foot area directly behind the tank risk serious injury. How can you work around this? Well, you can't, really; you can either ditch the turbine and lose the extra power, or keep it and live with having to teach your guys to keep clear of the rear of the tank.

The problem with 'mechs lies in the simple fact that you don't get much for what you trade; you take higher cost, greater complexity, become a much more visible target on the battlefield, increase your ground pressure and become easier to damage for the rather minimal payoffs of [possibily] slightly better handling in extremely rough terrain, slightly longer sensing distance due to inceased height and such. Taking a step back and looking objectively, you don't get much for what you pay.

I am talking about the mech I am making, and yes do you know how many tank designs there are, there are too many, then if you use them why are you giving me a hard time

Because my designs take into account the fundamental weaknesses of walkers; they're poorly armoured, expensive and will generally lose in a stand-up fight against conventional armour. They're only used for the immediate securing of critical areas by paratroops and are pulled off the front line as soon as regular armour is available to relieve them. While this is expensive and a lot of them are going to get trashed in the process, if the objective is critical to an operation's success it's worth it to provide the paras with heavy, mobile firepower.

As far as I can tell, that's one of the few practical applications available; there's a certain attraction to the idea of bipeds being used in policing operations, crowd control or such because they're relatively imposing and aren't likely to be the targets of heavy weapons [read: crew-served or greater], and there might be some call for using them to handle unusual loads in warehouses, but on the battlefield there's surprisingly few uses where a mech can excel.

As said, this shouldn't stop you using mechs in your forces if there's a reason for you to [which is what I've said all along], but you should take it in account when designing one; something else could generally do the job either better, do it with a less complicated set of systems, or do it cheaper.

Don't mistake this for meaning you can't or even that you shouldn't go ahead and do it anyway, but you can't wave a magic wand and make mechs as practical as you seem to want them to be. Isn't playing a military with actual flaws more fun anyway? =^_^=

you know I dont even want to even discuss this with you, you are so set on your MBTs you wont even give me the benefit of the doubt.

There is no "benefit of the doubt" to be given. Mechs are inherently inferior to traditional vehicles. Nothing save magic and handwaving can change this.

You cant even give me the chance to designe it.

No one has stopped you from designing it. We're telling you what's wrong with mechs in concept.

I try to come out with something new that not many people have done and what do i get a load of crap,Why cant you just accept a new concept,

95% of ALL FT nations use mechs. It is not a new concept and many many people have done it.

Im not trying to replace tanks or anything, IM trying to just come up with a idea no body has done before,

So make your mech and use it as you see fit. Just don't think it's an original idea or that they'll be superior to traditional vehicles in anything other than the "shiny" factor.

There are so many tanks that people are designing all the time that it would be pointless for me to try to make a tank design. There are too many tank designs.

No, it wouldn't be pointless for you to make a tank design. It would provide you with hard hitting armour vastly superior to any equivi-tech mech.

There is no "benefit of the doubt" to be given. Mechs are inherently inferior to traditional vehicles. Nothing save magic and handwaving can change this.



No one has stopped you from designing it. We're telling you what's wrong with mechs in concept.



95% of ALL FT nations use mechs. It is not a new concept and many many people have done it.



So make your mech and use it as you see fit. Just don't think it's an original idea or that they'll be superior to traditional vehicles in anything other than the "shiny" factor.



No, it wouldn't be pointless for you to make a tank design. It would provide you with hard hitting armour vastly superior to any equivi-tech mech.

its not a new concept for FT but for PMT it generally is

The tokera, you are simply not listening to anyone. It is possible to build a mech. No one is disputing that, I think. However, everyone is disputing if this mech is useful. As everyone has almost universally argued, the mech, modern or future, is inferior to traditional tank designs. Not because there are issues with the enginering, but because there are flaws inherent in ALL mech designs.

If you seriously want to make mechs, make them. However, realize that A) they will cost lots more than tanks B) you will have to develop completely new tactics to use whatever advantages a mech might have C) a modern tank army will, if you make mechs your standard unit, beat your mechs.

Mechs are like superbattleships, huge multiturreted tanks, and plasma weapons. While they may look or sound 'cool', and could be used effectively in an unrealistic sci-fi universe, trying to use them in a realistic situation (even paradrops AFAICT) will be a very bad idea.

I do think little mechs for laser tag at amusement parks would be great fun if they don't cost too much to use, though.

Mechs are like superbattleships, huge multiturreted tanks, and plasma weapons. While they may look or sound 'cool', and could be used effectively in an unrealistic sci-fi universe, trying to use them in a realistic situation (even paradrops AFAICT) will be a very bad idea.

Except as a device for purposes of plot rather than realism, where they're perfectly valid as long as agreed with in advance; the only trouble there is this is an OOC thread, so 'for plot reasons' doesn't apply here.

Except as a device for purposes of plot rather than realism, where they're perfectly valid as long as agreed with in advance; the only trouble there is this is an OOC thread, so 'for plot reasons' doesn't apply here.I don't have a problem with people RPing with such stuff if they don't try to use it in an otherwise realistic RP without agreeing on it in advance. I wouldn't agree on using them, but I'm just one of many inactive RPers. (Well, I think of myself as more of a freeform wargamer than an RPer, but I don't think that really affects this discussion...)

I don't have a problem with people RPing with such stuff if they don't try to use it in an otherwise realistic RP without agreeing on it in advance.

Well, really you should agree on everything in advance, be it a brigade of T-72s, a brigade of mechs, a brigade of supertanks or a brigade of giant nuclear gorillas.

its not a new concept for FT but for PMT it generally is

Tokera here are some ideas for a good PMT mech (As in the framework and such)

1.Install a special hydraulics for the legs and such, I remeber watching ride with flunkmaster flex and a low rider had the ability to "jump". This can be useful for a mech, You could make the mech jump to crush veichles or raise up a cloud of dust.

2. For heavier mechs, You are going to need a tank base. Without it, your mech wont be able to fire without falling over completely.

3. Make sure the weapons are attached to the cockpit and move with it and also allow manual aiming computers (as in placing a camera on the guns to see what is attacking).

For the frame design it is up to you, I am just making some of the strategies for basic mech building.

Tokera here are some ideas for a good PMT mech (As in the framework and such)

1.Install a special hydraulics for the legs and such, I remeber watching ride with flunkmaster flex and a low rider had the ability to "jump". This can be useful for a mech, You could make the mech jump to crush veichles or raise up a cloud of dust.

2. For heavier mechs, You are going to need a tank base. Without it, your mech wont be able to fire without falling over completely.

3. Make sure the weapons are attached to the cockpit and move with it and also allow manual aiming computers (as in placing a camera on the guns to see what is attacking).

For the frame design it is up to you, I am just making some of the strategies for basic mech building.

as for the dust thing I dont think Ill need it to do that because I was going to have it have smoke granade launchers similar to what is on some tanks
thank you