BF2S Forums Are Mech Walkers a practical military vehicle?

all i know is i wouldnt want it to step on me

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

yes because they would still hover after copping a grenade underneath

Why would anyone design a hovertank that couldn't take a grenade underneath?

what else is it going to be the fastest way around town?

For it to be an effective war machine it would have to:
1.  Have a reliable way to maintain its balance.
2.  Have a acceptable fuel source (getting a ## ton machine to walk is going to eat up alot of energy).
3.  Have a way to be able to fire accurately and maintain it's balance while firing.
If those three goals are met, then there's no reason a walker couldn't be practical.

Edit:  Typos

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-11-24 21:31:57)

They look cool and everything, but its just not practical.

I still think that Tanks and things with wheels are the way to go.

Faster, more reliable, Easier to mantain, Easier to build, they don't need all the stabilizers and computing power to stay upright compared to Tanks..

You also have to consider the fact that Walkers rumble the ground alot when walking.

That could be used against them in warfare..

ATG wrote:

Its all about air power.

NO ATG..IT is all about Air Jordans..........I am tellin' ya, I have seen the commercials, put those things on the mechs and tactical superiority is ASSURED!!! Rendering airpower obsolete.

Miller wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

Its all about air power.

NO ATG..IT is all about Air Jordans..........I am tellin' ya, I have seen the commercials, put those things on the mechs and tactical superiority is ASSURED!!! Rendering airpower obsolete.

I wanna get a pair o' those!!!

Ask the Santa Bunny

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

Miller wrote:

lowing wrote:

NO ATG..IT is all about Air Jordans..........I am tellin' ya, I have seen the commercials, put those things on the mechs and tactical superiority is ASSURED!!! Rendering airpower obsolete.

I wanna get a pair o' those!!!

Ask the Santa Bunny
http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/omfg-thumb.jpg

Damn! i already Karma'd you.....

No. Takes too much energy to operate one. There's a book about why these things are not practical and gundams are not possible.

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.

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.

APortillo wrote:

They would probably be more effective at urban warfare than a tank.

Reasons?

Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-11-24 22:31:17)

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

APortillo wrote:

They would probably be more effective at urban warfare than a tank.

Reasons?

Oh, sorry.

Well if they are built like the 2142 ones, they would be completely enclosed and no snipers could get the guy manning the 50 cal. They pretty much have the same turning radius as a tank but have weapons against both air and ground units. Also as stated before the legs allow it to go on terrain that a tank could not access as easily.

Edit: And they look kinda menacing and could scare the enemy lowering there morale.

Last edited by APortillo (2006-11-24 22:41:04)