Are humongous mechs practical?

[firedfns13]

Until there's some feasible way to armor it against AT weaponry we have now with its mobility unhindered, mechs will be unpractical. A sabot round from an Abram's 120mm cannon will rip through a joint or cause such structural weakness it will fall.
Unless it jams... then its got a radioactive(?) super strong part of the suit.

 

[Ph33nix]

Tanks have a range of over a mile with a 120 mm cannon, most mechs have pulse lasers or machine guns, based on the fact that most mechs can absorb quite a bit of that kind of fire 120 or more likely by the time of mechs the 155mm cannon will rip holes in their armor especially in joints while there are few weak points in a tank. Also if you have a level of technology high enough to build mechs you could likely build tanks that "hover" either by using electro-magnetism or some other form of "hover" technology they could likely cover most terrain difficult, rivers, steep. Also the tanks could likely have railguns by this point seeing as the army plans to equip either their next generation tank of a newer varriant of the Abrams with a mach 4 railgun by 2040. by the time you build mechs you could likely have a mach 10 or 11 railgun of significant caliber that could go clean through a mech but might not puncture a large tank.

 

[Dys]

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.

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.

Another option would be the pilot controlling the mech from a remote location, which would eliminate risk to the pilot.

The tech shown in the video highlights that they are more than capable of pathfinding without any human guidance (a massive acheivment in itself), presumably by the time such things are practically affordable computer technology will have further evolved and such machines would only need command inputs (go to coordinate x,y, destry target z etc). Failing that piloting through a proxy makes more sense than weighing it down with a person in there, pilots can change shifts so that it is constantly in use.

 

[axia777]

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.

Gyroscopes. Lots and lots of them all hooked up to a synchronized computer system to keep the balance of the Mech. Then make all the materials super light yet super strong like a next gen carbon fiber or high density ceramics.

Until there's some feasible way to armor it against AT weaponry we have now with its mobility unhindered, mechs will be unpractical. A sabot round from an Abram's 120mm cannon will rip through a joint or cause such structural weakness it will fall.
Unless it jams... then its got a radioactive(?) super strong part of the suit.

Unless they have viable plasma shields. See my link above.

 

[Overlord2702]

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.

Somebody went to collage or payed attension in psychics

 

[Spekter068]

Even if mechs ever became practical battlefield weapons, we always have harpoons and tow cables. They're like mech kryptonite.

Engineer a shock system in the outer layer of the armor. When a harpoon latches on, an electrical current runs through the cable and electrifies who or whatever is attached to it. zzzzt

This would also help prevent the mech from being hijacked (although, I suppose it would also make it extremely susceptible to ownage by C4, but it's an idea).

 

[Mr. Purple]

Haha, I hope they make their way onto the battlefield. Probably not practical. But if they were. I would be soooo happy.....till war breaks out.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Well, they have no treads to break and the pilot would be far away from any land-based explosive devices.

Not to mention you've probably got a pretty good view of the battlefield from up the top of a mecha, but at the same time, you're a big target, so you need some awesome armour and if someone gets up behind you, you better have something back there so you don't end up getting out-maneuvered

Camera and a machine gun on the back would probably cover your ass.

 

[Antari]

From the awesome factor, what could be cooler?

Practical? ... Not in the form we know them. If you wanted a properly redundant walking robot it'd have to have more than a few legs to maintain itself with the loss of others. Spiders come to mind. We could possibly see them in the future but they won't look anything like the mechs we see in shows today. They are only taking into consideration a small number of negative factors, and one that is good. How it looks.

 

[axia777]

Well, they have no treads to break and the pilot would be far away from any land-based explosive devices.

Not to mention you've probably got a pretty good view of the battlefield from up the top of a mecha, but at the same time, you're a big target, so you need some awesome armor and if someone gets up behind you, you better have something back there so you don't end up getting out-maneuvered

The large ones always have multiple gunners like in BattleTech and Robotech. Most often protecting the front and the back. So that is no issue at all. Either that or have automated systems that would protect the various sides of the Mech.

 

[Spekter068]

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.

Phew! That's the first post I've ever seen that actually made my head hurt.

There are lots of educated and well-thought-out opinions on this thread, but you just took the cake.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Nah, a walker maybe able to climb over stuff better, but one of the those legs go, the whole thing goes down.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Like you said in the OP, and also that they wouldn't be able to move twenty inches unless they had several small nuclear reactors on board. Fear factor nonetheless, it's much more practical to use bombers and tanks.

 

[axia777]

Phew! That's the first post I've ever seen that actually made my head hurt.

There are lots of educated and well-thought-out opinions on this thread, but you just took the cake.

Nah, super light yet super strong materials takes care of the weight to strength ratio and a computerized synchronous gyroscope system would take care of any balance issues. It could all work.

(this is all just for the sake of argument after all)

Like you said in the OP, and also that they wouldn't be able to move twenty inches unless they had several small nuclear reactors on board. Fear factor nonetheless, it's much more practical to use bombers and tanks.

Really, one small contained nuclear reactor would provide more than enough power. Several would be overkill unless they did develop the plasma shield technology for defecting large shells and missiles. Then you would need the extra juice.

 

[Roxas1359]

Although giant mechs are indeed awesome, they can have many downsides. For example, the cost to build them, the amount of space to store them, and the amount of power it takes to use them. Not to mention if there is a time of peace you have to take in account the money needed to maintain them, you'd probably want security to make sure that no one steals it, and there will probably be people protesting the use and storage of such mechs. So to summarize it, awesome yes, practical no.

 

[Megawizard]

Using current tech, 2 legs just aren't feasible what with the whole "fall over and you're done" thing. 4+ is more realistic due to stability, support, and dealing with terrain.

 

[Gruthar]

I don't think the giant anime mechs are practical.

But, along the lines of a few other posts here, I think they would be useful in a supporting role. If you made them small enough and with a decent control interface, they could get to places where wheeled and tracked vehicles can't. I could see a lot of benefits to having a small mech support an infantry squad. It could carry spare munitions, comms/targeting equipment... It would be impervious to small arms fire, so you could use it to do things like clearing a building, breaching walls, or taking out a sniper. It could probably lay down pretty fearsome covering fire, and have some use against light vehicles (engaging technicals and such). It would basically be the squad's Swiss army knife. It would itself be vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, but I imagine those would be hard to use against it if it's working with a squad, and hard to aim if it's fast and maneuverable enough.

As a replacement for a MBT, though? Worthless.

 

[Berethond]

The reason they stopped building extra large tanks (such as the King Tiger) was because of their extreme vulnerability to AT weapons. Mecha would just magnify the problems. Imagine it getting hit with an RPG or AT missile on the cockpit or top of the body. It would just fall.

 

[axia777]

The reason they stopped building extra large tanks (such as the King Tiger) was because of their extreme vulnerability to AT weapons. Mecha would just magnify the problems. Imagine it getting hit with an RPG or AT missile on the cockpit or top of the body. It would just fall.

Unless they had a balancing system that compensated for opposing forces.