http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files/imagecache/970wide/files/soviet-bomber-1.jpgValiance said:
Are humongous mechs practical?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gunships usually have the small problem of "range in relation to a target" (though that is becoming less and less of a problem as time goes on) so, while that would be practical for most nations that have access to the sea, what do you do with, say, inland China? You can't really hit most targets there without using Cruise Missiles and the like, so something has to be done. Thus, artillery.Valiance said:
However, typical artillery has the problem of the inability to move once it's been set up. Really, it needs to be torn down, or placed on a mobile platform, in order to move it from place to place. So, in the case of inland artillery, which is better? Tracks and wheels? Or legs?
A tank with legs could deffinatly be seen some day but deffinatly not Japan's super agile doom machines with laser swords and boosters coming out of every orifice.
That has been the consensus for the last past 4 pages of thread so far. It will take a couple of hundred years at least to make Mech's a viable machine of war, but I think most of us agree that they can in fact happen. It will just take time.Akai Shizuku said:
Do you people actually read the thread? It IS at 5 pages now. We have been discussing these issues for the past 4 pages. Read them and you will see. *sigh* Oh well. I am done here. This thread have been finished as far as I am concerned.paragon1 said:
To say a mech is impractical in a combat situation is foolish. They clearly have some distinct advantages that a tank does not:
Mobility- Say what you will about bi-pedals, but having a three dimensional range of movement (that being X,Y and Z axis) as opposed to a tank which only has two dimensional movement (clearly lacking jumping/flying) is a huge advantage. Probably more of a nessesity, really. Everyone keeps talking about munitions that can pierce armour, but last time I checked you have two types: slug based weaponry (bullets, tank shells, etc) that may move very fast but also only in a straight line, and guidance based (missles) that move slower-ish but have some form of maneuverability. On both accounts, the mech has a distinct advantage on being able to move in a wider veriaty of directions to DODGE (and that word is key) the attack. Looking on most Japanese mecha anime/manga, most mechs are terribly vulnerable to incoming fire. The solution was to train pilots to avoid getting hit, much like dog fighting. The practicality of making mechs more humanoid to ease the learning curve on pilots to learn how to execute these dodging maneuvers is probably something that's more realistic than not. It would be much easier to take conventional tactics for surviving under fire in the open on a humanoid robot than some weird looking quadra-pedal spiderant.
Speed- Mechs are typically fast. Very fast. Mach something fast. Realistically you're looking at a tank with a small arms weapon (maybe a high caliber machine gun?) and A LOT of jets. Moving fast is going to be key because of the point stated above and my very next point to be mentioned.
Close Quarters Battle- A mech is not made to kill things from miles away. That's what warheads and ballistics and orbital bombardments are for. Mechs are made to get in close and shoot conventional-like weaponry (rifles, rockets, SMGs, etc) to destroy targets. The fact that the armour gives them rediculous speeds and mobility to take effective evasive action (again, also resembling humans for familiarity) only reaffirms this. You could potentially use all close quarters martial arts in a completely funcional mecha without having to reinvent any techniques. And say what you will about tanks, but equip a machine moving at mach 10 with a can opener and a flamethrower and you have as good an anti-tank weapon as any. It gets in fast without the tank being able to effectively target the incoming aggressor and then opens the tank with said can opener appendige, then flames anything inside the tank.
You also have the potential to make other style mech, which would be far more functional/practical for battlefield deployment. Robotech seems to have the best idea with a mecha that also has a jet mode AND a half jet, half robot mode. It affords better air-to-air combat than any mobile suit would with the added bonus of a travel mode for long distances. It then has the half/half mode for urban warfare at high speeds, and of course the complete robot form for trench/hand-to-hand combat. The dreadnaught from Warhammer 40K is also another viable solution. More of a tank-style walker, these mech have a turret-like body with interchangable weaponry. One arm is usually kept free for grasping/smashing opponents with a mounted flamethrower as well, while the other has the long range/main cannon weapon. The body has solid armour and a low profile, not much larger than a tank's. These two concepts seem the most likely as proto-types for the Japanese styled mecha of the future.
To say we'll have a mech in another year or so is foolish, but to say that it's not a practicle battle tool is just as foolish.
Mobility- Say what you will about bi-pedals, but having a three dimensional range of movement (that being X,Y and Z axis) as opposed to a tank which only has two dimensional movement (clearly lacking jumping/flying) is a huge advantage. Probably more of a nessesity, really. Everyone keeps talking about munitions that can pierce armour, but last time I checked you have two types: slug based weaponry (bullets, tank shells, etc) that may move very fast but also only in a straight line, and guidance based (missles) that move slower-ish but have some form of maneuverability. On both accounts, the mech has a distinct advantage on being able to move in a wider veriaty of directions to DODGE (and that word is key) the attack. Looking on most Japanese mecha anime/manga, most mechs are terribly vulnerable to incoming fire. The solution was to train pilots to avoid getting hit, much like dog fighting. The practicality of making mechs more humanoid to ease the learning curve on pilots to learn how to execute these dodging maneuvers is probably something that's more realistic than not. It would be much easier to take conventional tactics for surviving under fire in the open on a humanoid robot than some weird looking quadra-pedal spiderant.
Speed- Mechs are typically fast. Very fast. Mach something fast. Realistically you're looking at a tank with a small arms weapon (maybe a high caliber machine gun?) and A LOT of jets. Moving fast is going to be key because of the point stated above and my very next point to be mentioned.
Close Quarters Battle- A mech is not made to kill things from miles away. That's what warheads and ballistics and orbital bombardments are for. Mechs are made to get in close and shoot conventional-like weaponry (rifles, rockets, SMGs, etc) to destroy targets. The fact that the armour gives them rediculous speeds and mobility to take effective evasive action (again, also resembling humans for familiarity) only reaffirms this. You could potentially use all close quarters martial arts in a completely funcional mecha without having to reinvent any techniques. And say what you will about tanks, but equip a machine moving at mach 10 with a can opener and a flamethrower and you have as good an anti-tank weapon as any. It gets in fast without the tank being able to effectively target the incoming aggressor and then opens the tank with said can opener appendige, then flames anything inside the tank.
You also have the potential to make other style mech, which would be far more functional/practical for battlefield deployment. Robotech seems to have the best idea with a mecha that also has a jet mode AND a half jet, half robot mode. It affords better air-to-air combat than any mobile suit would with the added bonus of a travel mode for long distances. It then has the half/half mode for urban warfare at high speeds, and of course the complete robot form for trench/hand-to-hand combat. The dreadnaught from Warhammer 40K is also another viable solution. More of a tank-style walker, these mech have a turret-like body with interchangable weaponry. One arm is usually kept free for grasping/smashing opponents with a mounted flamethrower as well, while the other has the long range/main cannon weapon. The body has solid armour and a low profile, not much larger than a tank's. These two concepts seem the most likely as proto-types for the Japanese styled mecha of the future.
To say we'll have a mech in another year or so is foolish, but to say that it's not a practicle battle tool is just as foolish.
Japanese mechs have MOAR MISSLES!!!1111!1!!paragon1 said:
Seriously though, they do have more missiles, usually. They also have shields that can block them...usually.
You like those, you should check out Kieth Thompson's artwork. Freakin AmazingFiria said:Those babies are nice. Where did you find them?Chipperz said:Anime style thirty-story mechs of jet boosting laswer-sword wielding deathness? Yup, impractical.
These babies? Slightly more feasible. World War 2 would have been so much cooler if they actually existed...
Well then, lets discuss the practicality of energy resources needed to Fly a highly non-aerodynamic several ton behemoth. Lets alone landing-- even the japanese need to land.Akai Shizuku said:Japanese mechs can fly.Firia said:there have been 5 pages about the mechs themselves, so far. But has anyone spoken about the surroundings of a mech? Say, the surfaces these bipedal tanks need to rest on? If a mech is "bounding over buildings," its surface contact with the ground is quite large. It's also likely resting on street surfaces, which are hollow. City roads have sewer systems pikes and other tunnels within them. So its own weight makes them impractical for urban deployment.
rural? That same weight will cause them to sink into the ground (bipedal, so two points are absorbing several tons). Rock-- really sturdy rock is your best bet, but even then it's subject to turning into gravel, or breaking away.
Smaller scaled mecha- half the size of a tank? Maybe full size? Maybe. Still largely impractical.
How many Nuclear reactors does it take to never touch ground cept to land? Nay to your "japanese mechs."
Even if a mech can move in three dimensions, how exactly do you propose an armoured vehicle dodge an APFSDS shell (read: superheavy spear/sabot of depleted uranium) moving at 1.5 kilometers per second? Those shells are fired from tanks with electronic gun control systems, so any nonrandom movement by the mech will be compensated for.HellsingerAngel said:
Then there is the problem of how a mech will dodge a guided missile, which is something no heavy ground vehicle can do at the moment. The reason tanks have extremely thick armour is that dodging is simply not possible for a guided projectile moving at the speed of sound (and that's just infantry AT launchers).
A third problem for dodging is that in the near future (i.e. before mechs are feasible) railguns will have entered service. Just as an example, the US navy prototype railgun can shoot a 90mm projectile at nine times the speed of sound. A solid tungsten slug fired at this speed carries with it as much energy as an explosive warhead from a cruise missile. Given that this is a very early prototype, it would be safe to assume that any vehicle targeted by future versions of this gun will be instantly smashed with what can only really be compared to a small meteor.
If the mecha were to be airborne, they would be outclassed in every single way be either an attack helicopter or a jet. Maneuverabiliy is not an option for a mecha-shaped object with jet engines attached to it, even if it did get to the mind-boggling speed of mach 10 (seriously, at this speed, the mech pilot will be crushed into his seat). Besides this, you suggested that the mech could act in an anti-tank role... while moving at mach 10... with a "Can opener" and a flamethrower. How, exactly, do you propose to open the tank while airborne and moving? If you used fire to melt through the side of the tank, it will have plenty of time to load a shell and shoot directly at the mech. Blades won't work. Explosive breaching charges stopped working since someone came up with the idea of coveing tank armour with explosives to counter other explosions, which is why we currently use kinetic energy penetrators. Also, Anti-aircraft missiles will have a very fun time targeting the flying brick with multiple heat sources on it, regardless of what speed it travels at.
I'm making a note here. When I mean humongous, I generally mean tank size or larger. Think the mechs from Shadow Complex or the Gekkos from MGS4 and bigger. I don't mean power armor, which is already being considered by the military.
If I could say, mechs with shields practically beat any cons you can think of. Their joints can't be shot, weaknesses can't be exploited without taking down the shield, tanks and infantry will be nothing but cannon fodder, and etc. This is why mechs, if ever used, should have shields.
Though the shields won't protect it against the obstacles the legs will have to walk over, I'd say they're awesome enough to walk over them.
(that's why I love Armored Core so much. They thought of this ahead of time. UNLIKE THEM OVERRATED GUNDAMS. D:<)
But hey, I'm not Bill Nye the Science guy, so chances are mechs will still be impractical in some way. But hey, everything is a little impractical. That's what makes them fun.
Though the shields won't protect it against the obstacles the legs will have to walk over, I'd say they're awesome enough to walk over them.
(that's why I love Armored Core so much. They thought of this ahead of time. UNLIKE THEM OVERRATED GUNDAMS. D:<)
But hey, I'm not Bill Nye the Science guy, so chances are mechs will still be impractical in some way. But hey, everything is a little impractical. That's what makes them fun.
