i see 4 legged ones as being a viable tool on a battlefield, but 2 legged ones as just lame, especially if defending your nation against ewoks
That about sums it up, no more is needed.Plisken wrote:
Lets get a pro/con list up
Mech's
Pro's: Increased mobility,
more armements (rockets/cannons/gattling guns/armour etc),
can hit the weaker top of conventional tanks,
doesnt need as big on-battlefield crew
Cons: easily disabled (taken out leg),
larger target,
gas guzzler,
hard to produce,
extremely advanced computer (hard to make)
*feel free to build on it*
Go watch gundam. Imagine those on the battlefield. Rofl nuclear rape.
On further thought, the biggest problem with the Mech's is that a simple weapon I will call "Prodder" (inspiration from the #1 game, Worms) would be enough to take care of a mech. Think a huge thumb attached to a piston, which simple topples the Mech over :-). Even a low tech army like a bunch of cavemen could simply lasso the Mech and wrangle it to the ground.
I'm all for the stomping ability though, now that'd be a good reason to join the army!
I'm all for the stomping ability though, now that'd be a good reason to join the army!
A modern mechanical walker (Mech...duh) would have many roles on zee battlefield. Many people think of a mech as being slow and very cumbersome. The truth is, that like all military vehicles, they can come in many variants. You can have a heavily armored assault mech with cannons, rockets and machine guns for attacking front lines. A mech of this type would not work alone, it would be supported by tanks an APC's. An unsupported mech is prone to quick strikes against its legs and undercarrage. Lighter mechs could be used in scouting missions, these would be based around light armarments and higher mobility legs...kinda pointless though because if you can hear a THUMPA THUMPA THUPA then you deserve to be blown up. A mech would have to have advanced computer control systems to keep it upright and strong enough legs to traverse rough terrain. If anyone has an Xbox 360 here, I reccomend trying the game "Chromehounds" it sums up mech warfare.
ya mechs i see as being pretty useless, someone could just get a tank with a boxing glove and spring to knock it over, or just blow its legs out in general,
mechs are just tanks that need alot of gas
mechs are just tanks that need alot of gas
Gundam > Mechs. Try to tangle it's legs, and it will fly.
Fullmetal Panic! FTW. Armslaves are teh pwnagecyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Go watch gundam. Imagine those on the battlefield. Rofl nuclear rape.
Several problems with mechs:
>Large flat sufaces (shells wont glance off like tanks armour is designed to do)
>Maintanance- Imagine servicing all the joints
>Infantry- if they get close enought and manage to cut a hydraulic line ( not matter how improbable) you would be screwed
>Weapons jaming- You cant unjam them
> balance- getting hit with a tank shell is going to rock you to the core and stop you from fireing or moving for at least 10 seconds in which time the tank can reload and fire again
The only situation that would make them viable is if they were like titans from the warhammer universe if anyone is familiar with these.
>Large flat sufaces (shells wont glance off like tanks armour is designed to do)
>Maintanance- Imagine servicing all the joints
>Infantry- if they get close enought and manage to cut a hydraulic line ( not matter how improbable) you would be screwed
>Weapons jaming- You cant unjam them
> balance- getting hit with a tank shell is going to rock you to the core and stop you from fireing or moving for at least 10 seconds in which time the tank can reload and fire again
The only situation that would make them viable is if they were like titans from the warhammer universe if anyone is familiar with these.
I also think the smaller ones would be more effective while keeping a certain "aaaaarrgh!!!"-factor.
Although these would scare the crap out of anyone.
Although these would scare the crap out of anyone.
For a game or a movie they are cool, but for a real battlefield they suck. They'll never replace tanks. Tanks are impossible to knock except you destroy them, tanks are faster and they are harder to detect.
Why not just have more tanks and APC's? with the money you saved from not getting Walkers, you could afford it.Pernicious544 wrote:
A modern mechanical walker (Mech...duh) would have many roles on zee battlefield. Many people think of a mech as being slow and very cumbersome. The truth is, that like all military vehicles, they can come in many variants. You can have a heavily armored assault mech with cannons, rockets and machine guns for attacking front lines. A mech of this type would not work alone, it would be supported by tanks an APC's.
i always thought that tanks/APC's were meant to support infantry. now you're changing the role of armour.
you're doggamn right it is. hence the problem.Pernicious544 wrote:
An unsupported mech is prone to quick strikes against its legs and undercarrage.
So your saying we need weaker ones now?Pernicious544 wrote:
Lighter mechs could be used in scouting missions, these would be based around light armarments and higher mobility legs...kinda pointless though because if you can hear a THUMPA THUMPA THUPA then you deserve to be blown up.
something else that isPernicious544 wrote:
A mech would have to have advanced computer control systems to keep it upright and strong enough legs to traverse rough terrain.
#1: too far in the future
#2: horribly expensive
as for stronger legs, that means more armour, which leads to more weight, which leads to slowness, which leads to TARGET.
How many motors would you need to move the legs? One for each joint, or could you use less?
It's impractical. Too many kiddies playing silly games and watching silly films. You could just time a powerful shot to when it's got one leg up and one leg down (when moving) and it would fall over or something.
For it to be able to walk on harsh terrain it would need to have a balanced layout. That would mean either the legs would have to be very heavy to counter the weight at the top (if you give it lots of firepower) or you'd have to reduce the weight at the top so that the legs are less heavy and it can scale terrain better. If it's out of balance the thing would just fall over, it's not as stable as a tank.
Right now tanks are going for a lower profile, as you can see already slightly with the T90. The amount of armour a slow/heavy walking thing would need would be impractical. If it was a light version it would be easy to knock over, just like human beings. It's disadvantages far outweigh it's advantages.
I'd like to see some army try it out, only to probably get insta-killed by.....fucking T-55's probably.
The only reason it's in 2142 is becuase DICE can't think up of original weapons (look at everything else in the game, hardly innovating) and they like to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
For it to be able to walk on harsh terrain it would need to have a balanced layout. That would mean either the legs would have to be very heavy to counter the weight at the top (if you give it lots of firepower) or you'd have to reduce the weight at the top so that the legs are less heavy and it can scale terrain better. If it's out of balance the thing would just fall over, it's not as stable as a tank.
Right now tanks are going for a lower profile, as you can see already slightly with the T90. The amount of armour a slow/heavy walking thing would need would be impractical. If it was a light version it would be easy to knock over, just like human beings. It's disadvantages far outweigh it's advantages.
I'd like to see some army try it out, only to probably get insta-killed by.....fucking T-55's probably.
The only reason it's in 2142 is becuase DICE can't think up of original weapons (look at everything else in the game, hardly innovating) and they like to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2006-11-25 04:01:11)
Not me!! Clearly this would be the perfect opportunity to try out my new Snow Speeder with my tail mounted harpoon and cable launcher. An option that I, previously, was kicking myself for buying when I saw my new speeder at the dealership.Sambuccashake wrote:
I also think the smaller ones would be more effective while keeping a certain "aaaaarrgh!!!"-factor.
Although these would scare the crap out of anyone.
http://img.anakinweb.com/saga/photos/9/atat.jpg
mate, a walker would get pwnt by bricks.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's impractical. Too many kiddies playing silly games and watching silly films. You could just time a powerful shot to when it's got one leg up and one leg down (when moving) and it would fall over or something.
For it to be able to walk on harsh terrain it would need to have a balanced layout. That would mean either the legs would have to be very heavy to counter the weight at the top (if you give it lots of firepower) or you'd have to reduce the weight at the top so that the legs are less heavy and it can scale terrain better. If it's out of balance the thing would just fall over, it's not as stable as a tank.
Right now tanks are going for a lower profile, as you can see already slightly with the T90. The amount of armour a slow/heavy walking thing would need would be impractical. If it was a light version it would be easy to knock over, just like human beings. It's disadvantages far outweigh it's advantages.
I'd like to see some army try it out, only to probably get insta-killed by.....fucking T-55's probably.
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.
Robotic arms are already being used with incredible coordination, however I dont think they would be on a mech.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I've always been thinking of the MechWarrior style mechs. if you're thinking anime-style, why dont they have jetpacks and fly around? Adding arms to something like that just won't be possible in the next 100 years, nor would we be able to properly co-ordinate them.Blizzard36 wrote:
I speak of the prototyplical mecha found in most anime and games, not neccisarily the BF2142 walkers. I myself am most fond of the Battletech universe. In any case, it's generally assumed to be of roughly humanoid shape and have hands or some sort of actuator arm to move things around with.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
They have hands now?
The BF2142 walkers would be marginal, I'd see them as the first usable generation of mecha and one of the primary goals of later generations would be the addition of arms of some type.
take a look at the walker vid that was posted. they ain't gonna get much better than that.
Wow. three pages of stuff in D&ST, and its not a flame war.
i know about robotic arms, HOWEVER, they are used as delicate retrieval instruments, and have no place on a Mech.Vilham wrote:
Robotic arms are already being used with incredible coordination, however I dont think they would be on a mech.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I've always been thinking of the MechWarrior style mechs. if you're thinking anime-style, why dont they have jetpacks and fly around? Adding arms to something like that just won't be possible in the next 100 years, nor would we be able to properly co-ordinate them.Blizzard36 wrote:
I speak of the prototyplical mecha found in most anime and games, not neccisarily the BF2142 walkers. I myself am most fond of the Battletech universe. In any case, it's generally assumed to be of roughly humanoid shape and have hands or some sort of actuator arm to move things around with.
The BF2142 walkers would be marginal, I'd see them as the first usable generation of mecha and one of the primary goals of later generations would be the addition of arms of some type.
take a look at the walker vid that was posted. they ain't gonna get much better than that.
Wow. three pages of stuff in D&ST, and its not a flame war.
plus this post is about walkers, not mechs.
Look,
One tank shell to the side will, if not destroy it topple it,
Uneven terrain will topple it
Can trip up
Very heavy
Less armour per weight
Where would the engine go
If another one is close to it when it gets destroyrd both could fall over
Centre of gravity too high
Small fault wouldnt just stop it from moving it would make it fall over
Not economical at all
Once they started walking, the momentum would mean that if they stopped the legs the thing would topple, as all the weight is in the top.
They suck...
One tank shell to the side will, if not destroy it topple it,
Uneven terrain will topple it
Can trip up
Very heavy
Less armour per weight
Where would the engine go
If another one is close to it when it gets destroyrd both could fall over
Centre of gravity too high
Small fault wouldnt just stop it from moving it would make it fall over
Not economical at all
Once they started walking, the momentum would mean that if they stopped the legs the thing would topple, as all the weight is in the top.
They suck...
Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-11-25 04:20:48)
Im going to hold tongue in cheek here and not flame you for failing to read the topic name. Dont want to start a flame war.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i know about robotic arms, HOWEVER, they are used as delicate retrieval instruments, and have no place on a Mech.Vilham wrote:
Robotic arms are already being used with incredible coordination, however I dont think they would be on a mech.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
I've always been thinking of the MechWarrior style mechs. if you're thinking anime-style, why dont they have jetpacks and fly around? Adding arms to something like that just won't be possible in the next 100 years, nor would we be able to properly co-ordinate them.
take a look at the walker vid that was posted. they ain't gonna get much better than that.
Wow. three pages of stuff in D&ST, and its not a flame war.
plus this post is about walkers, not mechs.
I also point out that they would have place on a mech as much as any other arm... A mech wouldnt need a delicate hand and therefore would be even easier to program and manufacture.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-11-25 04:15:40)
That about summaries this whole thread. +1jimmanycricket wrote:
look, one tank shell to the side will, if not destroy it topple it, uneven terrain, will topple it, can trip up, very heavy, less armour per weight, Where would the engine go,if another one is close to it when it gets destroyrd both could fall over, centre of gravity too high,small fault wouldnt just stop it from moving it would make it fall over, not economical at all. Once they started walking, the momentum would mean that if they stopped the legs the thing would topple, as all the weight is in the top.
They suck.
You could have flamed me, i dont care. i already posted stuff about mechs instead of walkers, making me a hypocrite.Vilham wrote:
Im going to hold tongue in cheek here and not flame you for failing to read the topic name. Dont want to start a flame war.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
i know about robotic arms, HOWEVER, they are used as delicate retrieval instruments, and have no place on a Mech.Vilham wrote:
Robotic arms are already being used with incredible coordination, however I dont think they would be on a mech.
plus this post is about walkers, not mechs.
plus i was simply ramming your point home. (I agreed with it.)
as for the edit, you would have to stand still, being the delicate thing it is, to use it. standing still = target.
it cant get much stronger for loss of dexterity. otherwise, it'd have no use other than adding to the silhouette.
Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-11-25 04:20:50)
You honestly think a tank cannot travel through water?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
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.
And the obstacles for Anti-Armor/Mech would just be increased in height to stop those walking things.
Right now the militaries are developing smaller tanks that deliver a smaller profile to see and hit. I doubt that the militaries will ever create a huge mech that can be seen from everywhere and has nearly no possibility to hide.
One advantage is that he can shoot downwards, unlike a tank.
Unfortunaly an advantage that not many people utilaze in game.
Unfortunaly an advantage that not many people utilaze in game.