Well that was the original strength of tanks. But we have HEAT, .50 caliber rifles, KE penetrators, and a whole slew of specialized weapons.GodsAndFishes said:
Are humongous mechs practical?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, the mech suit that guy built is cheap, but any modern MBT has tons of sophisticated equipment on board - FCS, comm equipment, plus the main gun, turret control, composite armor, etc. I'd be willing to bet that with all of that equipment thrown onto the mech plus the $150 million plus it'd take to develop it into a working weapons platform would drive the build cost up to around the price of the tank. All that for a new piece of equipment that hasn't ever been used outside of fictional settings.BrynThomas said:
Cost-to-benefit is one of the biggest considerations any military takes into account when they buy equipment, so why have a multimillion dollar mecha when for the same price you could have a tank that you already know works? Or no tank and a crap-ton of guys armed to the teeth with heavy weapons?
Kiefer13 said:
These pretty much sum up the whole situation.Godavari said:
Military funding IS being put into powered armour and mechs, however, due to legs and feet being better on a wider range of terrain than tracks or tyres ever could be. Of course, there are times when Tracks would be better from an economic standpoint, but mechs could always be build to fold the legs in and run on tracks as a secondary drive method should some of the hydraulics or whatever movement systems used in the leg motions failed.
If done right, mechs might actually not be so impractical after all.
All depends on the structure of the mech.
For example,if it was a big o or a gundam,it would'nt bound to its feet,it would have to shift its entire body,which would have a harder time for a mech,as it would weigh several tons,regardless of its power,human technology has limits.
and if it was a Smaller Mech,like the size of a house,or even a Bank,then it would'nt take much damage before breaking,unless weighed down with tons of amor,slowing it.
balanced mech,sized like a high school,would be the best bet,and instead of thousands of guns or eergy swords reliant on generators,the best bet would be missiles and high powered cannons.
Nothing like a 15 ton ball bearing at 3000 MPH to the face to say good morning.
For example,if it was a big o or a gundam,it would'nt bound to its feet,it would have to shift its entire body,which would have a harder time for a mech,as it would weigh several tons,regardless of its power,human technology has limits.
and if it was a Smaller Mech,like the size of a house,or even a Bank,then it would'nt take much damage before breaking,unless weighed down with tons of amor,slowing it.
balanced mech,sized like a high school,would be the best bet,and instead of thousands of guns or eergy swords reliant on generators,the best bet would be missiles and high powered cannons.
Nothing like a 15 ton ball bearing at 3000 MPH to the face to say good morning.
I see no reason why they can't work. If that thing can stay stable when people are kicking it, it's walking on ice etc I see no reason why a 2 legged system could work, in time it could probably learn to account for having its legs shot out etc. It could happen one day, though I've never really understood why you'd have a manned mech.
Building-size would be very impractical. Besides the depression-inducing cost of building one, they would be just as destructive to their allies as their enemies.
I think that a maximum of ten feet tall would be practical for a mech. Also, I think that retrograde (three joints, similar to a dog or cats hind legs. I think that's the right word.) legs would be a must. Human legs just aren't suitable for machines from what I've seen so far.
Flying/hovering mechs would be much more practical. Especially since we already have UAVs.
I think that a maximum of ten feet tall would be practical for a mech. Also, I think that retrograde (three joints, similar to a dog or cats hind legs. I think that's the right word.) legs would be a must. Human legs just aren't suitable for machines from what I've seen so far.
Flying/hovering mechs would be much more practical. Especially since we already have UAVs.
I'd say it's because computers always have one core limit: They can ONLY do what they are programmed to do. Having a human pilot would make decision-making far easier, as well as eliminating any potential judgement errors if a mech was unmanned and autonomous. For the foreseeable future, a robot that can truly act 'human' is a pretty far-off realisation.Dys said:
Another option would be the pilot controlling the mech from a remote location, which would eliminate risk to the pilot.
I'm not saying its the most practical use of money, but I'm just saying it'd be possible to make them for a couple of millions, which in military spending isn't that much. Its possible but not practical.the_dancy_vagrant said:
Yes, it turns out that some of them are INCREDIBLY practical. Allow me to name three:
If you've seen any of these in their respective games, I'm sure you'd agree.
(And yeah, Hunters and Striders are technically as biological as they are mech, but who cares?)
If you've seen any of these in their respective games, I'm sure you'd agree.
(And yeah, Hunters and Striders are technically as biological as they are mech, but who cares?)
Actually, what good is it?
Rough Terrain? I'm sorry, what the hell am I employing these infantrymen for? Send a mech into a city and I will give it two minutes before an enterprising private puts an AT rocket through it's cockpit armour.
Open Ground: I'm sorry....tanks win.
It can fly? Bullshit, it can. Even then, a purpose-built fighter will knock it out of the sky with a wave of a hand.
The reason it's not going to be seen, is because it's a stupid idea to begin with. Awesome...but retarded.
Rough Terrain? I'm sorry, what the hell am I employing these infantrymen for? Send a mech into a city and I will give it two minutes before an enterprising private puts an AT rocket through it's cockpit armour.
Open Ground: I'm sorry....tanks win.
It can fly? Bullshit, it can. Even then, a purpose-built fighter will knock it out of the sky with a wave of a hand.
The reason it's not going to be seen, is because it's a stupid idea to begin with. Awesome...but retarded.
If the mech had more then two legs it will be practicable (like the giant fortresses from Appleseed http://www.anime-junctions.net/aj/poze-capitole/appleseed-mobile-fortress.jpg )
To legged models would only work if they were close to the ground and not 50 bloody stories high
To legged models would only work if they were close to the ground and not 50 bloody stories high
I was going to say "no, but they kick ass," but then I thought a little deeper.
When you get down to it, Transformers actually could be very, very effective in combat. I was extremely impressed at how the moviemakers managed to portray a kung-fu-style fight between two giant robots. It was much more interesting and overall more practical than the classic King Kong vs Godzilla stompfest.
Optimus Prime would admittedly be far too big to be practical, but a robot of Bumblebee's size, operated by a solitary pilot... It could transform into a sort of wheeled or treaded armored vehicle for travel. Or, with the Harrier technology, a miniature Starscream seems plausible.
The biggest thing would be training the pilots to make full use of the robot's agility. If I remember correctly, the only Bots that were damaged by humans were standing wide out in the open (rather like my brother in an all-sniper match) and not really moving or making use of cover.
When you get down to it, Transformers actually could be very, very effective in combat. I was extremely impressed at how the moviemakers managed to portray a kung-fu-style fight between two giant robots. It was much more interesting and overall more practical than the classic King Kong vs Godzilla stompfest.
Optimus Prime would admittedly be far too big to be practical, but a robot of Bumblebee's size, operated by a solitary pilot... It could transform into a sort of wheeled or treaded armored vehicle for travel. Or, with the Harrier technology, a miniature Starscream seems plausible.
The biggest thing would be training the pilots to make full use of the robot's agility. If I remember correctly, the only Bots that were damaged by humans were standing wide out in the open (rather like my brother in an all-sniper match) and not really moving or making use of cover.
Well then I say that the Mechs will either have energy/plasma shieldsBudZer said:
http://gizmodo.com/256147/covenant-beware-us-army-developing-plasma-shields
or have anti-weapons defense systems that could protect them from any and all incoming fire. Like those automated Phalanx CIWS anti-missile systems that they have on larger Navy ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
The problem with mecha is the cube/square law.
Let's say you build a human sized robot, and it's pretty agile. You'd -think- you'd just double the dimensions and you're good to go but it -doesn't- work that way.
First: The mass is multipled by 8 for every doubling of height, which means that to move it at the same speed, you need 8 times the force. More troublesome is that to achieve the same level of agility you need to move it twice as far, which means that you need 16 times as much power to move something twice the size of a human with the same degree of agility relative to the size of the object.
Now, -ten- times the height requires -ten thousand- times as much force in order to accomplish the same degrees of articulation and agility.
Secondly, the amount of pressure on the structure itself changes. In this case, the square law kicks in, so you need legs, for example, that are 4 times as thick/strong for every doubling of height. For this ten-times-the-size mecha, that means that you need legs that are 100 times as thick/strong.
Thirdly, there is the problem of weight distribution. Your center of gravity needs to be relatively lower in a mecha than in a human because of the instability of having the center of gravity in a mecha that weighs 1000 times a human tipping over the fulcrum point.
So, let's say you wiegh 160 lbs. That means you're dealing with 160 000 pounds of machine, which is 80 -tons-. 80 -tons- tipping a meter past the fulcrum is a LOT harder to stop than 160 pounds. It's just harder to balance.
Let's say you build a human sized robot, and it's pretty agile. You'd -think- you'd just double the dimensions and you're good to go but it -doesn't- work that way.
First: The mass is multipled by 8 for every doubling of height, which means that to move it at the same speed, you need 8 times the force. More troublesome is that to achieve the same level of agility you need to move it twice as far, which means that you need 16 times as much power to move something twice the size of a human with the same degree of agility relative to the size of the object.
Now, -ten- times the height requires -ten thousand- times as much force in order to accomplish the same degrees of articulation and agility.
Secondly, the amount of pressure on the structure itself changes. In this case, the square law kicks in, so you need legs, for example, that are 4 times as thick/strong for every doubling of height. For this ten-times-the-size mecha, that means that you need legs that are 100 times as thick/strong.
Thirdly, there is the problem of weight distribution. Your center of gravity needs to be relatively lower in a mecha than in a human because of the instability of having the center of gravity in a mecha that weighs 1000 times a human tipping over the fulcrum point.
So, let's say you wiegh 160 lbs. That means you're dealing with 160 000 pounds of machine, which is 80 -tons-. 80 -tons- tipping a meter past the fulcrum is a LOT harder to stop than 160 pounds. It's just harder to balance.