why would a tank want to shoot downwards, plus the can to an extent...zeidmaan wrote:
One advantage is that he can shoot downwards, unlike a tank.
Unfortunaly an advantage that not many people utilaze in game.
Much assumption has taken place in this thread. With the way science has advanced over the last two centuries...
Who the hell really knows what we will be capable of in another 200 years, let alone 1000?
Who the hell really knows what we will be capable of in another 200 years, let alone 1000?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I don't think mech walkers will ever be used in the military as an offensive tool, but rather as a defense. Given that an average walker towers above all other units in a convoy for example, it can walk along in the back but still provide cover for the front lines.
Ofcourse, mech walkers need to be build first and I dunno if that will ever happen. Tanks still do a pretty good job and there is no need to replace them yet - the military doesn't replace stuff because they want to stay in fashion, if the current tanks do well for another 50 years then that is what will be used for another 50 years.
Tiger
Ofcourse, mech walkers need to be build first and I dunno if that will ever happen. Tanks still do a pretty good job and there is no need to replace them yet - the military doesn't replace stuff because they want to stay in fashion, if the current tanks do well for another 50 years then that is what will be used for another 50 years.
Tiger
I didn't bother to read ALL the posts, but the fact that a mech walks is the same as saying that it's taller than tanks, and thereby easier to hit. We need a chopper.
Zed's chopper!
- Whose motorcycle is this?
- It's a chopper, baby.
- Whose chopper is this?
- Zed's.
- Who's Zed?
- Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Yay for random posting!
Zed's chopper!
- Whose motorcycle is this?
- It's a chopper, baby.
- Whose chopper is this?
- Zed's.
- Who's Zed?
- Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Yay for random posting!
Janysc wrote:
I didn't bother to read ALL the posts, but the fact that a mech walks is the same as saying that it's taller than tanks, and thereby easier to hit. We need a chopper.
Zed's chopper!
- Whose motorcycle is this?
- It's a chopper, baby.
- Whose chopper is this?
- Zed's.
- Who's Zed?
- Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Yay for random posting!
Honestly, If you look back in history, in the 1700, hell even the 1800s a self powered vehicle(IE the car) would have been thought impossible. Look at the early computers, people said they were to expensive and would be to expensive for the consumer market. Thats the thing about us humans, we think something is impossible/impractical until we advance our technology to a state where costs are able to come down, materials become stronger, cheaper and easier to produce. The idea of walker can be a reality! All those who say its to expensive, look at the first cell phones, they were really expensive, since it was a new technology in the course of a few decades we got the plan worked out and created an affordable, effcient, now everyday item. Dont say somethings impossible and base it off current technology, you dont know what the future will hold. Yes their are many pros and cons, however in the furture fixs for said pros and cons may be found.
Last edited by r2zoo (2006-11-25 05:09:31)
it IS a reality. and the reality of it is, they SUCK.r2zoo wrote:
Honestly, If you look back in history, in the 1700, hell even the 1800s a self powered vehicle9IE the car) would have been thought impossible. Look at the early computers, people said they were to expensive and would be to expensive for the consumer market. Thats the thing about us humans, we think something is impossible/impractical until we advance our technology to a state where costs are able to come down, materials become stronger, cheaper and easier to produce. The idea of walker can be a reality!
$600 is affordable now?r2zoo wrote:
All those who say its to expensive, look at the first cell phones, they were really expensive, since it was a new technology in the course of a few decades we got the plan worked out and created an affordable, effcient, now everyday item.
its already happening, and it's still sucking.r2zoo wrote:
Dont say somethings impossible and base it off current technology, you dont know what the future will hold. Yes their are many pros and cons, however in the future fixes for said pros and cons may be found.
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i could take that thing down with a brick...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Lol that's slow as hell. Might as well make that an Armoured buggy with mini guns.
A walker would provide for a sort of advantage over harsh terrain, allowing it to simply step over obstacles rather than trying to 4x it. However, a large 'mech' would provide an immense profile to shoot at. However, by the time walker technology would become feasible militarily, the sophistication of targeting systems may have advanced to the point where size is really irrelevant. On the matter of 'when they become feasible,' wouldn't it be more prudent to simply never touch the ground? Recoil may not be a problem with sufficiently-advanced levitation technology, so it may not be necessary for large weapon systems to be rooted to the earth.
Finally, I believe a 'Starship Troopers'-style (book version, not the cheap film stuff) personal battlesuit would be a more realistic advance than a large, lumbering target like a battlemech. Personally, while I hope the human race matures beyond having to consider means of self-destruction that far into the future, I believe that weaponry and defense research should continue, just in case. It doesn't even have to be for use against living entities.
Finally, I believe a 'Starship Troopers'-style (book version, not the cheap film stuff) personal battlesuit would be a more realistic advance than a large, lumbering target like a battlemech. Personally, while I hope the human race matures beyond having to consider means of self-destruction that far into the future, I believe that weaponry and defense research should continue, just in case. It doesn't even have to be for use against living entities.
Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
i still think walkers suck IRL. and whaddaya mean, Cheap Movie stuff? those things rocked the house! (i watched the 3-D cartoon version too.)
Go play Red Alert 2. they have teh L@z0r T@nK5!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-11-25 05:25:04)
Hey, Zero Hour has laser tanks too! Unfortunately, roadside bombs still take them out.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i still think walkers suck IRL. and whaddaya mean, Cheap Movie stuff? those things rocked the house! (i watched the 3-D cartoon version too.)Go play Red Alert 2. they have teh L@z0r T@nK5!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
Anyway:
Yup. What cooler way to terrorize a populace?
You, sir, have a new fanclub member.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hey, Zero Hour has laser tanks too! Unfortunately, roadside bombs still take them out.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i still think walkers suck IRL. and whaddaya mean, Cheap Movie stuff? those things rocked the house! (i watched the 3-D cartoon version too.)Go play Red Alert 2. they have teh L@z0r T@nK5!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
Anyway:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/un … 060903.jpg
Yup. What cooler way to terrorize a populace?
Yay for pirates with fish sticks!Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j34/N … yStick.jpgJanysc wrote:
I didn't bother to read ALL the posts, but the fact that a mech walks is the same as saying that it's taller than tanks, and thereby easier to hit. We need a chopper.
Zed's chopper!
- Whose motorcycle is this?
- It's a chopper, baby.
- Whose chopper is this?
- Zed's.
- Who's Zed?
- Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Yay for random posting!
Janysc wrote:
Yay for pirates with fish sticks!Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j34/N … yStick.jpgJanysc wrote:
I didn't bother to read ALL the posts, but the fact that a mech walks is the same as saying that it's taller than tanks, and thereby easier to hit. We need a chopper.
Zed's chopper!
- Whose motorcycle is this?
- It's a chopper, baby.
- Whose chopper is this?
- Zed's.
- Who's Zed?
- Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Yay for random posting!
They would made a kickass spearhead! V-shaped devision of Battle Mech approaching on your position! Carrying missles, bullets, lazeerszzzzz and all that kind of shit..They would smash right through your pityful defenses!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.
All in all, mechs would be a valuable addition to a fighting force, but you would have to be careful to how you employ them and what roles you gave them in battle. They make for a larger target, one which is also easier to immobilize because of their lack of balance on the move, and unless they could self right, than you would have wasted your unit. Speed is also a massive factor, because they would be much slower, and more susceptible to long range weaponry if they couldn't hit back. They might not be able to fire some of their weapons on the move, In case they knocked themselves over, they may even have to dig in, again, leaving them open to attack. As for power priorities, they would most likely have their own on-board generators, as the mechs in 2142 seem to, the EU walker having the radioactive sign planted squarely on its back. Having their own power source would make them a very adaptable unit too, and let them be able to house a large variety of weaponry. However, having their own reactors would make them a dangerous unit to field if they failed and went critical.
Bi-pedal walkers would be more of a liability than a useful unit, because of their danger of falling. However, using a quadruped like walker, like the Mammoth Mk. II from C&C Tiberian Sun would make it more stable, but at the cost of a great amount of speed. However, another factor here is that such units would be able to mount very heavy weapons.
All in all, such vehicles would be a high priority targets because of the danger they posed, and would have to have both air and ground protection. But if you could iron out the problems, they would be a very useful unit for any group to field.
Bi-pedal walkers would be more of a liability than a useful unit, because of their danger of falling. However, using a quadruped like walker, like the Mammoth Mk. II from C&C Tiberian Sun would make it more stable, but at the cost of a great amount of speed. However, another factor here is that such units would be able to mount very heavy weapons.
All in all, such vehicles would be a high priority targets because of the danger they posed, and would have to have both air and ground protection. But if you could iron out the problems, they would be a very useful unit for any group to field.
Search Destroy gundam in google. NOW THAT WILL PWNZORIZE CITIEZFenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i still think walkers suck IRL. and whaddaya mean, Cheap Movie stuff? those things rocked the house! (i watched the 3-D cartoon version too.)Go play Red Alert 2. they have teh L@z0r T@nK5!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
Apologies if I'm repeating someone's idea (5 pages=boring)
I'd picture them as a small and agile armor thingy for infantry. One person in it, being able to pack serious firepower, guard himself against most stuff (like snipers etc) and still be able to go wherever tanks can't - like narrow city streets... or maybe even climb walls etc.
I'd picture them as a small and agile armor thingy for infantry. One person in it, being able to pack serious firepower, guard himself against most stuff (like snipers etc) and still be able to go wherever tanks can't - like narrow city streets... or maybe even climb walls etc.
ƒ³
There's no advantage in using a walking tank.... imho they will probably never be used.
As I stated, that was the thinking going in to WW2. By '43 the standard infantry squad was up to 12 men as you said, 13 or 14 by the end of the war.Vilham wrote:
Good post although, in WWII armies Airborne and Infantry divisions had squads made of usually nine to twelve men. But the principle is still the same, you can afford to lose some and still be combat effective.Blizzard36 wrote:
Actually the military has done studies on ths, as have most of the more hardcore mecha heads (like me). The conventional anime mecha that actually pretend to follow the rules of physics (sorry, no metal gears or gundams, think the ones from Gaziraki) and therefore the ones that might be acheivable in the near future are expected to be much better for defence on rough terrain than any current unit. As in Gaziraki they would generally use infantry tactics, writ large. They would dominate urban, dense forrest, and mountainous terrain.
The main question once they are a practical thing to produce is wheather they would be cost effective. Sure they can carry a crap load of armor and weapons, but as many have pointed out they would still have the same glaring weak spots we humans have. Our joints, in particular ankles and knees for the prototypical mecha. The combat arm they would be intended to replace, the infantry, would still be thier greatest threat.
That's why the military has mostly given up on mecha research and is focusing on power armor. Sure you'd need more units to match the power of one mecha, but that also means that if you loose one unit, you still have some left instead of none. It's the same thought that was behind the standard US infantry squad organization going into WW2. It was felt that the optimal infantry fighting team was two 2 man fireteams (4 people) so they made a squad three 2 man fireteams and a squad leader (7 people). That way, the squad could take 3 casualties and still have the optimal composition.
There won´t be 30ft+ high armored, heavily armed Battlemechs ever, period.
The whole system is just too vulnerable, for the same cost you can build land vehicles that are better protected and have a much smaller signature. Those get accompanied by low cost UAVs and UCAVs, delivering firepower and sensor information much stealthier and less vulnerable than a Mech.
And have you ever thought about the ground pressure the feet of such a large armored walking machine would have?
The whole system is just too vulnerable, for the same cost you can build land vehicles that are better protected and have a much smaller signature. Those get accompanied by low cost UAVs and UCAVs, delivering firepower and sensor information much stealthier and less vulnerable than a Mech.
And have you ever thought about the ground pressure the feet of such a large armored walking machine would have?
he;s right you know the concrete roads wouldnt be able to hold it it would wrecxk the roads.oSKo wrote:
There won´t be 30ft+ high armored, heavily armed Battlemechs ever, period.
The whole system is just too vulnerable, for the same cost you can build land vehicles that are better protected and have a much smaller signature. Those get accompanied by low cost UAVs and UCAVs, delivering firepower and sensor information much stealthier and less vulnerable than a Mech.
And have you ever thought about the ground pressure the feet of such a large armored walking machine would have?
No sir, from what I know they ( military ) don't want something so tall so it can get picked off easily. They want low profile tanks/ vehicles so the heat signature is less and also the visibility of the vehicle is low.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
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.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … z/a201.jpg
