From a properly-armored tank, I wouldn't think it to be too much a problem. But, if we ever get another civil war, I have no doubt that will be involved somehow.Private Custard said:
Also: Big mechs are a no, but exoskeletons feel feasible enough.
The Mech: Militarily Feasible?
- Thread starter The Heik
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Also: Big mechs are a no, but exoskeletons feel feasible enough.
As people have said mech's are just to vulnerable, and costly to be effective. The only thing I could thing of a mech being useful for in todays times, would be a highly mobile artillery platform. Like the Thor with it's 250mm strike cannons. Far behind the line's where it isn't in any more threat than other artillery. But than just like tracked, wheeled, or conventional artillery. If it's attacked it's pretty much fucked so why pay the half billion price tag compared to half a million.
Unless your that rich, cool and want it.
Unless your that rich, cool and want it.
gundam sized(+- 18M)? no it will be too big
Patlabor sized(5-10M)? that might work assuming you would use multilegg,s (like Spiders on that UN labor at the first movie)
Patlabor sized(5-10M)? that might work assuming you would use multilegg,s (like Spiders on that UN labor at the first movie)
War is about maximising death and land/sea/air control.
Wars are only won when land is overwhelmed and the death toll of the loser becomes too high.
A mecha will frustrate these ends.
Hmm, I understand now...
There is no enemy
Wars are only won when land is overwhelmed and the death toll of the loser becomes too high.
A mecha will frustrate these ends.
Hmm, I understand now...
There is no enemy
As a rule of thumb firepower will always defeat armor. Doesn't matter how much armor you're hiding behind, they going to hit you with something enough to penetrate your armor.RT-shotgun-support said:
In the modern battle field if you're seen you're dead. First look first kill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSGZQV_E0g&feature=player_embedded
The question is, why would you even want to? No, not feasible, and if someone went out of their way to make one, no one would use it.
Mechs are feasible, but they're not very cost effective versus their actual usefulness.
A mech can be knocked over, a tank can not. Their legs are far more vulnerable than treads. You have to balance them correctly so they won't fall over, thus you have to reduce and center their weight. (Which means less armor plating and less firepower)
So no, I don't think they'll be much of a future.
A mech can be knocked over, a tank can not. Their legs are far more vulnerable than treads. You have to balance them correctly so they won't fall over, thus you have to reduce and center their weight. (Which means less armor plating and less firepower)
So no, I don't think they'll be much of a future.
They would work for about a week when only one side had them and they'd scare the living crap out of their sci-fi savvy enemies.
Soon as both sides have them, both sides wouldn't have them, because their just not really workable as a war machine.
Soon as both sides have them, both sides wouldn't have them, because their just not really workable as a war machine.
Bleh, I know it's been said, but it would be completely pointless. You'd get next to no major tactical advantages, only disadvantages, making it a costly waste of time.
Seriously?
Mechs will never happen. They are as unfeasible during war as trying to make a corn kernel gun that that pierce tank hulls.
Battle Armor is feasible when power options have been enhanced.
Mechs will never happen. They are as unfeasible during war as trying to make a corn kernel gun that that pierce tank hulls.
Battle Armor is feasible when power options have been enhanced.
Only feasible with reasonable eletric muscles (muscles that work by contraction rather than rotation by motor) and power supplies. Battletech (and, by connection, Mechwarrior) has a pretty good idea there. They have fusion power, so they generate far more energy than any movement system would require, so power efficiency isn't an obstacle. Second, they have eletric muscles offering greater strength, greater density, and presumably greater robustness: half a muscle has partial efficiency, half a wheel has zero efficiency.
Add to that the increased potential to cover differing terrain and the ability to, with a good interface, more intuitively control the vehicle and I think you have something worthy of consideration.
As for the people talking about things like instability and falling over, that's a problem that bipedal species have evolved a nice way of dealing with: getting back up. Of course the thing is going to be terrible if it doesn't have the maneuverability to get back up when it falls over or the durability to survive such a fall. You're falling into the trap of asking whether a mech is feasible with CURRENT technology. The question is whether the technology that WOULD be required for feasibility is itself feasible, and I think the answer is probably yes. It's likely that we'll develop better sources of portable power, it's likely that they could be used to run even extremely inefficient mechanical muscles, and it's likely that you could achieve the flexibility and control necessary to allow for complex movements like standing up. As for the likelihood that significant research money would ever go that direction in the first place, these are all things that are either independently desirable or desirable in full mech form for a huge variety of professions. Large-scale working bipedal vehicles would be inestimably useful for all sorts of work from construction to farming. The military could then do what it does best: take the idea and turn it into a weapon.
Add to that the increased potential to cover differing terrain and the ability to, with a good interface, more intuitively control the vehicle and I think you have something worthy of consideration.
As for the people talking about things like instability and falling over, that's a problem that bipedal species have evolved a nice way of dealing with: getting back up. Of course the thing is going to be terrible if it doesn't have the maneuverability to get back up when it falls over or the durability to survive such a fall. You're falling into the trap of asking whether a mech is feasible with CURRENT technology. The question is whether the technology that WOULD be required for feasibility is itself feasible, and I think the answer is probably yes. It's likely that we'll develop better sources of portable power, it's likely that they could be used to run even extremely inefficient mechanical muscles, and it's likely that you could achieve the flexibility and control necessary to allow for complex movements like standing up. As for the likelihood that significant research money would ever go that direction in the first place, these are all things that are either independently desirable or desirable in full mech form for a huge variety of professions. Large-scale working bipedal vehicles would be inestimably useful for all sorts of work from construction to farming. The military could then do what it does best: take the idea and turn it into a weapon.
I think the only possible thing that would make them feasible is basically as RC combat drones that prevent actual soldiers from getting killed, but even then they'd probably be more likely to use small tanks with turret mounts rather than your traditional 'mech'. Sort of like the robot bomb units, only without the arms, I guess. Maybe they would have arms in urban environments, to open doors and such, but still, you see what I mean. Not really 'mechs'.
Really, the main reason that your classic mechs should be created is for pure awesomeness factor, not for any military purpose, but maybe by some kind of private company that specialises in giant wastes of money for rich bastards to buy.
Really, the main reason that your classic mechs should be created is for pure awesomeness factor, not for any military purpose, but maybe by some kind of private company that specialises in giant wastes of money for rich bastards to buy.