Are Mech Walkers a practical military vehicle?

2006-11-24 20:32:13

#1

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6645

Much of today's media, such as Star Wars, BF2142, or Anime, depict Mech Walkers as the military vehicle of the future. From a practical standpoint, they seem to be rather slow and cumbersome and would probably do a better job of instilling fear into the enemy rather than destroying it. Not to mention they walk, which make them seemingly easier to counter or knock over. What do you think the future holds for Mech Walkers in the military? Would they be more or less effective than a conventional tank? What would be their main strengths and weaknesses?

Discuss.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/deathbym0nkeyz/a201.jpg

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-24 20:37:08)

2006-11-24 20:34:15

#2

TheCanadianTerrorist: Member; +111|6554

Battle Mechs would simply replace tanks. They would be larger, harder to take down, and pack more fire-power, for the cost, of coarse. Who do you think would win, 200,000 infantry with 30,000 tanks, or 30,000 Metal Gears?

EDIT:

Typos.

Last edited by TheCanadianTerrorist (2006-11-24 20:35:23)

2006-11-24 20:34:40

#3

genius_man16: Platinum Star whore; +365|6677|Middle of nowhere

I think they would be more of a defensive weapon than offensive if they actually made some kind of Mech. They would probably be too big to move very well, but i imagine that they could pack a shitload of punch. So yeah, i think that they would be a defensive weapon. Maybe a mop up tool or something, but definately not the spearhead of any assaults.

2006-11-24 20:39:37

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6404|North Carolina

I'll have to agree with the defensive answer. They are pretty slow, and man, they're a pain in the ass to move, but they would be good at just unloading on approaching enemies.

2006-11-24 20:40:13

#5

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6645

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
Battle Mechs would simply replace tanks. They would be larger, harder to take down, and pack more fire-power, for the cost, of coarse. Who do you think would win, 200,000 infantry with 30,000 tanks, or 30,000 Metal Gears?

EDIT:

Typos.

More firepower isn't a given. One could simply take the top half of a Mech and put it on wheels or tank treads. The main issue is if the fact that it walks is an advantage or a hindrance.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-24 20:42:24)

2006-11-24 20:40:42

#6

TheCanadianTerrorist: Member; +111|6554

Turquoise wrote:
I'll have to agree with the defensive answer. They are pretty slow, and man, they're a pain in the ass to move, but they would be good at just unloading on approaching enemies.

Who said they have to be slow?

Metal Gear Rex anyone?

Last edited by TheCanadianTerrorist (2006-11-24 20:40:58)

2006-11-24 20:41:08

#7

Miller: IT'S MILLER TIME!; +271|6754|United States of America

genius_man16 wrote:
I think they would be more of a defensive weapon than offensive if they actually made some kind of Mech. They would probably be too big to move very well, but i imagine that they could pack a shitload of punch. So yeah, i think that they would be a defensive weapon. Maybe a mop up tool or something, but definately not the spearhead of any assaults.

Almost like the walker in Matrix Revolutions?

2006-11-24 20:42:40

#8

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +794|6683|United States of America

I think they'd be damn heavy and weak. Take out a leg and they're crooked/out of the fight.

2006-11-24 20:45:10

#9

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6645

DesertFox423 wrote:
I think they'd be damn heavy and weak. Take out a leg and they're crooked/out of the fight.

True, but one also must consider its ability to handle certain terrain. A tank is confined to relatively flat land, whereas a Mech Walker could travel through small bodies of water and over certain obstacles on land.

2006-11-24 20:47:10

#10

-TL-: Srs lurker; +25|6491|Oklahoma City

DesertFox423 wrote:
I think they'd be damn heavy and weak. Take out a leg and they're crooked/out of the fight.

True, but the same thing is true of tracks.
I think a walker does have an advantage in being able to stand<->crouch, and two feet might be less vulnerable to at mines than treads.

Last edited by -TL- (2006-11-24 20:48:51)

2006-11-24 20:47:32

#11

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

walkers are a bigger target.

-TL- wrote:
I think a walker does have an advantage in being able to stand<->crouch, and two feet might be less vulnerable to at mines than treads.

What possible advantage is the ability to crouch?

Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-11-24 20:49:05)

2006-11-24 20:48:35

#12

TheCanadianTerrorist: Member; +111|6554

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target:

They can also rain hell on you from above.

I think they would be a GREAT addition to defense lines. On the frontline, I think they would be used more for flanking certain areas that would be harder to reach by normal means.

Keep in mind, if you shot a tank in a set of it's treads, you could paralyze it from working too.

Last edited by TheCanadianTerrorist (2006-11-24 20:49:45)

2006-11-24 20:49:01

#13

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6773|Noizyland

Te problem with two legs is the instability. I BF2142 this isn't an issue, but there would be an idea 'time' to hit a Mech - when one leg was up.
However, a 'tank on legs' has some advantages:
- Being able to step over obstacles used to stop tanks.
- Harder to disable. A tank's treads can be taken out fairly easily, (see 'Saving Private Ryan",) and then the tank is immobile. A leg is harder to take out by infantry than a tank's tread.
- Intimidating.

There is not enough benefits though that would make a Mech worth being put into production. The cost to balance it and make it pilot-able would be to extreme for the few benefits it has.

They are still cool though.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2006-11-24 20:49:30

#14

-TL-: Srs lurker; +25|6491|Oklahoma City

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target:
They can also rain hell on you from above.

And crouch to be a smaller target.

2006-11-24 20:50:54

#15

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target:
They can also rain hell on you from above.

Thats what planes are for, and i dont consider a walkers height to make much of a difference in a battlefield, except as a target.

Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-11-24 20:51:05)

2006-11-24 20:51:50

#16

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6664|NT, like Mick Dundee

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
DesertFox423 wrote:
I think they'd be damn heavy and weak. Take out a leg and they're crooked/out of the fight.
True, but one also must consider its ability to handle certain terrain. A tank is confined to relatively flat land, whereas a Mech Walker could travel through small bodies of water and over certain obstacles on land.

Apcs anybody? I've also seen a tank with amphibious abilities before... Pretty sure it was a modified M1A1.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2006-11-24 20:51:56

#17

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

-TL- wrote:
TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target:
They can also rain hell on you from above.
And crouch to be a smaller target.

A smaller target that then cant move.

2006-11-24 20:51:56

#18

TheCanadianTerrorist: Member; +111|6554

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target.

-TL- wrote:
I think a walker does have an advantage in being able to stand<->crouch, and two feet might be less vulnerable to at mines than treads.
What possible advantage is the ability to crouch?

Pull a MGS and shoot a laser from where it's dick would be? I guess it wouldn't have much use except for becoming a smaller target. It would also be more stable, since it's on a "knee" with it's "shin" parallel to the ground as opposed to just two feet.

Keep in mind how much of a height advantage a mech would have as opposed to other forms of land transportation. You could stick a rail gun on this thing and rape the opposing forces supply trucks, artillery, defense posts, etc.

Last edited by TheCanadianTerrorist (2006-11-24 20:53:42)

2006-11-24 20:52:57

#19

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
walkers are a bigger target.

-TL- wrote:
I think a walker does have an advantage in being able to stand<->crouch, and two feet might be less vulnerable to at mines than treads.
What possible advantage is the ability to crouch?
Pull a MGS and shoot a laser from where it's dick would be? I guess it wouldn't have much use except for becoming a smaller target. It would also be more stable, since it's on a "knee" with it's "shin" parallel to the ground as opposed to just two feet.

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
-TL- wrote:
TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
They can also rain hell on you from above.
And crouch to be a smaller target.
A smaller target that then cant move.

2006-11-24 20:53:41

#20

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6642

high profile vehicles make wonderful targets. terribly impractical

2006-11-24 20:55:36

#21

-TL-: Srs lurker; +25|6491|Oklahoma City

1.
[_]-
/\ |o>-<

2.
[_]-
||
/ \ |o>-<

Which mech would you rather be hiding from?

Last edited by -TL- (2006-11-24 20:57:29)

2006-11-24 20:56:05

#22

TheCanadianTerrorist: Member; +111|6554

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
high profile vehicles make wonderful targets. terribly impractical

Wonderful targets to what?

When I think of Mechs, I don't think of 2142. I'm thinking more along the lines of MGS, etc.

2006-11-24 21:00:37

#23

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
high profile vehicles make wonderful targets. terribly impractical
Wonderful targets to what?

Anything with a rocket launcher/cannon/anything Anti-Armour related.

2006-11-24 21:01:59

#24

BVC: Member; +325|6694

Hovertanks.

END

2006-11-24 21:03:35

#25

Fenris_GreyClaw: Real Хорошо; +826|6518|Adelaide, South Australia

Pubic wrote:
Hovertanks.

END

yes because they would still hover after copping a grenade underneath

BF2S Forums Are Mech Walkers a practical military vehicle?

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

genius_man16 wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

-TL- wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

-TL- wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

-TL- wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

-TL- wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

-TL- wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Board footer