The Mech: Militarily Feasible?

[Slash2x]

http://www.mechaps.com/ I think it is a moot point if this is already under construction. It is going to happen. I think that the potential for manoeuvrability is higher with some thing that is not limited to straight lines like a tank is. The most obvious benefit will come from the ability to swap weapons the way people do. Want a rifle then pick it up, want a flame-thrower then pick it up, want a different calibre weapon then pick it up. That kind of change would require rebuilding a tank.

 

[Therumancer]

It's like this, in the final equasion creating any kind anthromorphic design (human or otherwise) means spending a lot of space on giving it movement and articulaton. Space that on more traditional designs (which are traditional for a reason) could go into armor and weapons.

The advantages of moving over terreign and such are rapidly mitigated when you consider that by the time you had the technology to make something like that, you could also probably produce a hover tank that could just fly over that kind of thing (Hover in this case does not nessicarly mean 2" above the ground). By the time you get to the point where your dealing with flying mechs, your looking at the fact that you could be making Grav tanks and such which could keep up with them and operate in flight or low to the ground just as easily.

Some of the more sensible approaches to future combat, written by actual science fiction (as opposed to science fantasy) writers have basically talked about things like "Combat Pods" which would work in all enviroments, as once you get to the right level of technology being able to move a vehicle easily in three dimensions and target weapons around the pod is going to be easy. Thus treads, legs, jump jets, or even (when dealing with gravitics) space flight engines become meaningless. The end result being that by the time you got to the point where you could build something like a "Gundam" it would be an obselete design, and combat would totally be resolved by "The Pod". As far as the advantages to hands and such, adding something like EVA arms to certain units would work better than building a whole humanoid configuration. Or honestly, looking at the tech involved in some of the "Gundam" franchises for comparison, you could just stick tractor beams on them.

The basic gist of things is that I've long been sold on the idea that once you get the technology to make a "Mech" that could work like something in a movie or Anime, the design itself becomes obselete due to it not being an efficient concept despite the "kewl" factor.

-

When it comes to POWERED ARMOR that might be something else entirely, we already see similar systems used for high pressure sea diving and such ("For Your Eyes Only".. I think that's the right one... had James Bond fight a suit like that underwater and it was made a good 20-30 years ago). If combat was to become mandatory in truely hostile enviroments, you might very well see armed suits of that sort produced.

On the other hand the idea of powered armor being using on a massive scale for infantry is unlikely, due to it putting too much value on the individual soldier. In an overall logistical and stategic sense it makes no sense, and would become massively cost prohibitive.

The only situation where the common image of the "Space Marine" might be viable is if your dealing with a war conducted with very limited space flight, and massive armies can't be sent so you need to put as much into as little a space as possible due to the space travel logistics. However even in such cases it would still probably go back to the whole "pods" arguements above. After all putting a guy in a control chair surrounded by an armored shell with weapons is probably going to be FAR more efficient than making a fully articulated suit conforming roughly to the body which would have to maintain that articulation while carrying it's own weight under gravity in order to walk and such. A pod zipping along using whatever passes for flight technology that they use for getting from planet to planet is liable to be more efficient in every conceivable way from a design perspective.

So basically I think a hypothetical future battlefield will mostly revolve around guys basically sitting in the equivilent of an enclosed version Professor X's chair with a much faster speed and higher altitude, and a variety of built in weapons. With of course larger "pods" with multiple pilots and such filling the role of tanks and other heavy units.

 

[Taipan]

No, you're not going to see full-sized mechs, for the reasons others have listed (damn you all for stealing my thunder ). I'd also add the following breakdown to modern warfare;

- Holding ground: Infantry beat everything at this. Infantry can hide where a tank or aircraft can't, they can blow up virtually every other vehicle/option due the advancements we've made in anti-material rifles and portable missile launchers, and they're cheaper and much more self-reliant (ie they can scavenge food/ammo, tanks need diesel, aircraft need kerosene etc). Infantry are also the most numerous resource in an army, even 'elite' First World armies.
- Clearing infantry with no anti-tank: Tanks are awesome at this. You may have the world's best assault rifle, but that means precisely dick against tank armour. You need explosives attached onto it, or a missile launcher to blow up a tank/APC.
- Tanks are getting blown up, need to shift perspecitve: Hey I know, lets drop bombs on them from 20,000 feet up! Aircraft totally revolutionsed warfare, and unmanned drones mean these days the scope of air support and deployment is vastly increased. That Predator can stay up hunting targets for days (the only variables being fuel/getting shot down/running out of missiles), unlike a human operator that needs to sleep etc to remain 100% efficient.
- Crap, they have Stingers: No problem, we use aircraft that go even higher. More expensive, but they drop bigger bombs and probably have stealth.
- They have too much of everything: Tactical nuke.

Power armour is on the other hand a practical idea, because there is one constant in every war; boots on the ground. It doesn't matter who has what in terms of technology, if they hold that ground with infantry (and the right weaponry), you need infantry to hold the same patch of soil after you're done killing those enemy infantry. With power armour, your guys make conventional bullets pretty much useless (which instantly makes all those infantry weapons pointless), and the expensive and rarity of weapons that can punch through power armour (it's a huge waste to use anti-tank rockets, anti-material rifles might not breach future armour technologies etc) means you can leverage your advantage over less-well equipped forces.

You'll see power armour given to special forces mainly though, I doubt they'd roll it out for general infantry (logistics/expense is huge for such technologies). So, your special forces go in, take out enemy supply lines and artillery (ie do strategic damage), and survive because of superior weapons/power armour/training. Meanwhile, your drones reduce enemy tanks to scrap and demoralise enemy infantry (air support nearly always has this effect on infantry, even when they pack anti-aircraft missiles), then you send in your infantry to hold ground.


Of course, this is all in theory. In practise, war is always a last resort, and after the fighting is done, rebuilding (not just physicially but as a society) is the hard part for the attacker. Thats the thing the Americans should've learned from Vietnam; you can bomb the enemy until the ground is glass, but if they don't wanna co-operate with you in establishing peace, you've already lost. 'Hearts and minds' really does matter more than any advancement in military technology. In the past, wars were fought over territory, these days we have the unusual situation of a lone superpower fighting wars to promote peace and stability (and of course, to protect the foundation of the economies that sustain the First World). As I've already suggested, it's not perfect, but its never mattered more than now to get the people on-side. In previous wars, generals didn't really care, because their morals and aims weren't governed by the same standards we hold our current generals to.

 

[Revolution Evolution]

I think since it's been shown in Star Wars as inferior to 3ft tall Ewoks and their ropes -it's clear a bipedal military weapon has some big weaknesses.

If you can find some of those videos about Japanese bipedal robots you'll see even the stat of the art robots have issues mastering walking. It comes down to your muscles, center of balance and all these other aspects only living creatures, not mechanical ones have.

I think we'll see smaller, shorter vehicles in the future. To keep their profiles low.

 

[LogicNProportion]

The littler ones are already in use, and doing damn good.

However, don't espect to see any Gundam or anything. Things are gigantic targets, and in today's warfare, most conspicable(sp) equates to most holes in it when first gazed upon.

 

[Firia]

You've gotta think about how and where a Mech would and could be utilized. First of all, a Mech, as we know them, has very few real world advantages over tanks, helicopters, jets, etc (cause all to often, mechs have to fly in anime/cartoons).

Metal Gear Solid (REX) was actually a pretty decent idea; bipedal nuke launching platform. Nuke launching platforms were a hot topic during the Cold War, and the idea of a platform THAT mobile launching a nuke from any terrain would have aged Kennedy 10 years older in a heartbeat. That's a perk for mechs.

The negative is tactical placement. Lets assume the whole top heavy challenge is a non-issue. Where would you place this mech? To stop anti-tank shells, it'd need to be armored. It's supports (legs) would need to be powerful enough to maneuver with all that armor too. So we're talking several TONS! Not tons of weight spread out over 4 wheels, or two treads. Several tons Coming down on two points. Lets explore that weight issue;
- Most urban enviroments are hollow. The streets have things running under them. At best, treading on cement would be like a person walking on packed snow. The risk of tripping would be great. I doubt the dexterity to catch ones fall in a mech is as good as a persons. Worst case scenario, the mech just collapses into the sewer/subway/underground network in whatever urban environment.

- It'd sink itself in soft dirt, mire itself in mud, trip itself on trees it knocked over itself, slip on rocks (boulders), or cease functioning in water. A building couldn't take them. Not on one floor. It'd crash through the roof (helo drop/plant/careful placement), tearing through floor after floor.

Terrain is an issue. But flight solves all terrain issues... right? WRONG! We've established that this is a heavy monster. A mech would be. So to make it fly, we'd need to tie in several powerful motors. Excellent! Now your Mech can fly. So how is this bad? Lets explore that;

- A flying mech is a flying target! Bigger than a helicopter, less manuverable than a jet, it's the perfect target. To survive an onslaught of any aircraft flak, it'd need to be more armored than anything, putting cost to fly unreasonably off the charts (weight to power-out put ratio). Even then, the flight system would probably break first, and the fall would kill the pilot. So aerial manuvers is an issue.

Well, we could put a mech in SPACE! No terrain to worry about, jets and choppers can't compete. What's to stop a mech from dominating in SPACE! Lets explore.

- A mechs function as a mech is a weapons platform and armor, much like a tank. It's so called advantage is its two legs. But once you put a mech in space, those legs become useless dangly bits. Excess mass to get in the way of propelling its already impressive mass through the final frontier. Why have legs on something that won't ever stand on a surface?

- Unless... the MOON! Or similar low gravity no atmosphere environment! A walking walk (mech) could be quite the military advantage there. +1 benifiet.

I believe the tally so far is +2 good, -4 bad, for a total of -2. IS there any more? OH hell yes there is. But the biggest one I can think of so far; COST.

To make that marvel of technology would be the most costliest endeavor of military vehical/personnel equipment since the last war. In a world were military equipment is crafted by the lowest bidder, a mech would seen to costly to field. If it ever broke, the military would go bankrupt maintaining. (I'm exaggerating with that last sentence. I imagine America would just sacrafice our educational system fund to see repairs exacted.)

So, in the end, a mech could be useful in low G off world military exploration of the cosmos. But here on earth? Notta chance.

 

[Jekken6]

I think we'll probably have BoS-type power armour before we have mechs like in District 9, GUNDAM or that mech in Fear 2.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

As awesome as they are, Tanks are faster and better suited. Mechs would be faster at turning though.....however Cannon Fodder to AT guns.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think since it's been shown in Star Wars as inferior to 3ft tall Ewoks and their ropes -it's clear a bipedal military weapon has some big weaknesses.

While Star Wars did show that the bipedal mechs are indeed quite horrible, they also showed that mechs in general are useful. In ROTJ, the AT-ST's provide heavy fire-power for the Storm Troopers in a pretty inaccessible terrain. You won't see tanks rolling around in that forest, that's where mechs come in handy to provide some support. Of course, making them bipedal would just be stupid. A spider-like, or at least quadruped mech would provide a lot more stability.

Sure we won't see gargantuan AT-AT's, or Gundam style mechs, but the platform itself has potential. As a matter of fact, the military is already experimenting with mechs, meet BigDog:

He's designed to support soldiers in terrain inaccessible for regular vehicles, just like the AT-ST did, although the AT-ST did it with guns, BigDog is just for carrying lots of crap. It's a prototype, but it shows the mech platform is a useful one.

on two legs, absolutely horrible idea

Now a spider robot might not be so crazy on difficult terrain.

The rednecks are on it already!

Now that is plain frakking awesome. Give that man a military grant and lets get this show on the road!

 

[Kollega]

I'll be short, because everything has been said already. Exoskeletons? Yes. Spider tanks? Yes. Humongous mecha? Fuck no, too much of drawbacks and complications.

 

[DarthDonut]

NO. Never. There is no situation in which something walking on two legs in a sluggish, poorly controlled fashion would be any good. However, if it was just like Iron Man's armor, it would be fine because it would be controlled mostly by user input.

Completely unrelated:
Longcat is loooong. (be thankful I didn't put in the whole length)

/\___/\
/ \
| # # |
\ @ |
\ _|_ /
/ \______
/ _______ ___ \
|_____ \ \__/
| \__/
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| THE |
| GAME |
| |
| |
| |
| |
/ \
/ ____ \
| / \ |
| | | |
/ | | \
\__/ \__/

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

As it stands now... no, sadly not.

In the future, maybe.

 

[geldonyetich]

The main reason a mech isn't really militarily feasible is that our weapons are so powerful that no armor really can stand up to it. Heck, even an improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of a homemade grenade launcher held together with a duct tape has been known to take down several million dollar tanks.

Consequently, the real winners are the sneakiest, the ones that spot the enemy and attack them first. Because a mech is out there standing in the open, they're big giant "shoot me" signs that wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real battle.

On the other hand, if you've got some kind of deadly, hard-to-spot, remote controlled device victory is all but assured: you're risking nothing in return for enemy casualties. Which is why things seem to be progressing in the direction of predator drones [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk-47OxqHqI] and smaller robots [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXO_1OmaSpc].

So maybe there will be mechs as militarily feasible after all... but they'll be like in Custom Robo: remote control and toy-sized.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Giant mechs are not feasible, mainly because the legs are an obvious weak point that can easily be exploited, as to that it would be an amazingly large target considering it's height. A tank is much cheaper, can be armored more, and is infinitely more stable.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Were a mech to be designed, with Bipedal movement, human legs are the wrong ones to use. Tri jointed legs, don't know the proper term, would be much more effective. You know, the legs that Halo's Elites have.

Most quadrupedal predators have a pair of these legs, they give the creature stability while moving at high speeds. Since it is unfeasable to make a climbing mech, this wouldn't be much of a drawback for this mech.

In open battles, being able to move at high speeds with a stable gun platform would be incredibly effective. A mech rushing forward at 70mph is going to be a tough target for any tank.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

As portable artillary / anti air then I'd say yes they could be viable, in a close support roll then no.