Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

 

2006-11-25 13:41:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

SoC./Omega wrote:

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
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.
QFT.

Walkers are a bad idea. They would make easy targets, be very unstable and would be massively inefficient and slow compared to a more traditional tank. Wheels or tracks are a good idea, not only for stability and speed but also for efficiency. Imagine a shopping trolley, now imagine it without the wheels - that's oversimplified but gives a simple picture of why vehicles that roll are more efficient. Legs make a great target which would lead to any such mechs being extremely vulnerable, not good.

I really can't see how any advantage could be gained by building a mech walker. Other than being able to traverse more difficult terrain than a tank a walker has no benefits. People have suggested that mechs would be bigger, but why should that be the case? It would be far easier to build a conventional tank much bigger than any sort of walking mech and to easier to mount more weaponry on it.

A possible exception to this would be a tank/walker similar to something from Ghost in the Shell (the particular one I'm thinking of has 6 legs with wheels on them and looks a lot like a scorpion). I quite like the idea of legs with wheels on, although it would still be more vulnerable at leg joints.
2006-11-25 13:42:34
Longbow
Member
+163|7075|Odessa, Ukraine
too high , too vulnerable , too expencive , complete useless ( APC's , Tanks , Jets , Chopers are better ) >>> no mechs ever .
2006-11-25 13:45:51
Smaug
This space for rent
+117|7005|Arlen, Texas
What about ED-209? Sure killed the shit out of Kenny, life in the big city. But then, that's about all they ever did.
2006-11-25 13:49:20
mikeyb118
Evil Overlord
+76|7026|S.C.
They have the elevation and the guns to spot and kill infantry easily, when you see a tank - run.
2006-11-25 14:55:12
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7049|London, England
However, the jet/chopper combo they got in 2142 does seem more feasable and practical. As it is now the attack helicopter is the king of the battlefield. Creating a hybrid of the jet and attack helicopter seems very interesting.
2006-11-25 15:00:09
daffytag
cheese-it!
+104|7003
2142 walkers are like little turkeys (or big turkeys). If they were even more advanced and could jump, hover had arms and more flexibility.
2006-11-25 15:15:03
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS
It's just not practical. To make it stand up it would be so heavy that movement would be very slow, at the best.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-11-25 15:16:15
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6947|Adelaide, South Australia

Spark wrote:

It's just not practical. To make it stand up it would be so heavy that movement would be very slow, at the best.
Don't question his logic.
2006-11-25 15:17:20
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6921|N. Ireland
matrix revolutions

/end
2006-11-25 15:18:53
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|7082|USA
If it were a practicality in the future i would envision them as being a a sort of an APC/walking helo hybrid. I think there would still be heavy tanks to do what...heavy tanks do. The walkers would be (relatively)light and mobile[APC], able to give blistering fire support to advancing infantry[chopper] (and advance with them), but no, never would walkers completely replace main battle tanks.
2006-11-25 16:41:43
BVC
Member
+325|7123
What about a "spider" style mech, with 8 legs instead of 2?  Might not be practical for high-intensity combat, but maybe as something like a mobile AA platform or radar?
2006-11-25 16:45:54
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7194|UK

Pubic wrote:

What about a "spider" style mech, with 8 legs instead of 2?  Might not be practical for high-intensity combat, but maybe as something like a mobile AA platform or radar?
Well it works in Supreme Commander, decimates the battlefield.
2006-11-25 16:59:58
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7083|United States of America
Transformers are the future of armored warfare.  Autobots would kick-ass on the battle field, ever watch saturday morning cartoons.
2006-11-25 18:43:46
jonsimon
Member
+224|6923
Legged machines are too complicated. Keep it simple. Treads > Walkers
2006-11-25 18:59:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

Flecco wrote:

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?
However, from my knowledge of basic physics it just is not a practical option.

It's like trying to blow up a city using fireworks - it can be done, but it's just too hard.

However, I see a hover tank as being a very useful tool on the battlefield - the extra axis of movement (left-right as opposed to foward/back) could be very useful in tank battles.

Last edited by Spark (2006-11-25 19:01:17)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-11-25 19:07:20
FesterTheMolester
BF2s US Server Admin, IRC>Forums
+157|7068|The Mind Of A Cereal Killer

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
I'm not reading 3 pages worth of banter to see if anyone's said this yet....




Walking is really quite hard to understand whenever you think about it.  It is literally just a repetitive motion of well placed falls.  whenever you pick up your leg, you fall forward, but it stop whenever you place your leg back down.... that is really the main problem of making any biped robot/ machine.
2006-11-25 19:23:29
=JoD=Corithus
Member
+30|6986
Assuming, of course, we perfect gyro stabilization technology to an extent where a two legged combat vehicle could even be created, in order to have any significant speed, armor protection would have to be kept to a minimum.  Then you run into the issue of powering this legged beastie.  Conventional combustion engines simply wouldn't put out enough power to move it.  So we'd have to look into a modified turbine engine, or perhaps even some sort of nuclear power system, which is amazingly cumbersome and dangerous.  The only use I can imagine for this type of equipment would be fast raids, against convoys and such, as a logistical deterent, or as a mobile reserve for a defense line.  With our current technology, the are simply impractical for anything else.  Treads would be capable of carrying more weight, steadier, and wheels would be faster.  There is no niche for this sort of equipment to fill.  No need for what would be an insanely expensive undertaking.
2006-11-25 19:27:11
l41e
Member
+677|7076

jimmanycricket wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

One advantage is that he can shoot downwards, unlike a tank.
Unfortunaly an advantage that not many people utilaze in game.
why would a tank want to shoot downwards, plus the can to an extent...
The South Korean Type 88/K1 tank can already do this. I don't know the details, but apparently it can use the suspension to go into some kind of "crouch" mode and shoot downhill.

Spark wrote:

However, from my knowledge of basic physics it just is not a practical option.

It's like trying to blow up a city using fireworks - it can be done, but it's just too hard.

However, I see a hover tank as being a very useful tool on the battlefield - the extra axis of movement (left-right as opposed to foward/back) could be very useful in tank battles.
In fact, "hover tanks" would be much more useful than the BF2142 Type 32/Nekomata. Have a look at the crews for the Type 32 and real-life T-90:

Type 32 Nekomata: Crew: 2.

-Driver/cannon gunner
-Dual-purpose machine gunner

T-90: Crew: 3.

-Driver
-Gunner
-Commander/anti-aircraft .50 gunner.

Note that the T-90 has a separate driver and gunner. Assuming the gunner controls the turret, you could have a tank with both hover capabilities and a moving turret. Thus, you could go around a corner without ever exposing your weaker side/rear armor, and at the same time, you could take a shot at something without having to rotate the entire tank, possibly exposing your rear armor to some hidden infantry with a recoilless anti-tank gun, not to mention the gunner could use a coax MG. Also - with a remote .50-cal station (already in existence, used on the M1A2 TUSK and Stryker) - such as that of the Nekomata, the commander wouldn't have to be exposed. With an autolader, it could have a small crew of 3, or without one, the loader could also fire a second remote top gun.
2006-11-25 20:02:20
MrPredictable
Member
+14|7114
a 2 legged one would be a bit too tipsy to be realistically viable, a four or six legged one could still operate with the loss of 1 or 2 legs and would still have the mobility and speed of a 'regular' mech. What would be best is if they could articulate the mechs like a human then use it basically as a large exoskeleton.

Last edited by MrPredictable (2006-11-25 20:05:32)

2006-11-25 21:55:18
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

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.)

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Bigger = Carry more weapons. Laser beams ftw.
Go play Red Alert 2. they have teh L@z0r T@nK5!
The zero hour laser tanks rule. Avengers FTW. Die Tomahawk.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-11-25 23:15:10
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7093|NT, like Mick Dundee

Spark wrote:

Flecco wrote:

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?
However, from my knowledge of basic physics it just is not a practical option.

It's like trying to blow up a city using fireworks - it can be done, but it's just too hard.

However, I see a hover tank as being a very useful tool on the battlefield - the extra axis of movement (left-right as opposed to foward/back) could be very useful in tank battles.
That's my point. How do you know what will be difficult to achieve in the future? Prisim tanks were the best tanks of any C&C game.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2006-11-25 23:21:26
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6976|San Diego, CA, USA
Walkers?  Mechs?  Why? 

Everything is going to be drones in the future...look at the Predator drones we have now.  4 man teams connected by satillite 1,000 miles away will control dozens of pilotless drones.

The mobility advantage of a mech is not worth it.  A high profile in combat sucks (why do you think we are crawling on the ground all the time or future tanks have a lower and lower profile).

With the advent of over the horizon weaponry, having a low profile is advantagous.  So as an offensive weapon I doubt they will be in the front-lines, as has been noted several times already.

Granted, a walking mech can walk over a barrier like those highway diviers that will stop a normal tank that doesn't come at it ortogonally, but its not that big a deal.

A walking mech can walk though water much deeper, but tanks now can go submerged using a snorkel (see the Russian tank).  Assuming tanks in future use nuclear power then they don't even need to surface - they don't need air to move and thus could go completely underwater for hours or days.

Now if mechs could move like Gunnum mechs, where they skid along the ground, then yeah they might be useful.

Anti-personnel rockets will still be a problem, but perhaps armor will be good enough where the weapon necessary to take one out is too big to carry?  (Anyone of a Thermonuclear hand grenade?)

Mechs have smaller footprints, therefore less prone to anti-tank mines I guess, but I'm sure future anti-tank mines will have proximity detectors so this is a mute point.


All-in-all I think Mech would be good for a supressive weapon where the enemy is at a huge technicallical lost.  Other than that I don't see them being very useful overall.
2006-11-25 23:22:52
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6947|Adelaide, South Australia

Flecco wrote:

Spark wrote:

Flecco wrote:

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?
However, from my knowledge of basic physics it just is not a practical option.

It's like trying to blow up a city using fireworks - it can be done, but it's just too hard.

However, I see a hover tank as being a very useful tool on the battlefield - the extra axis of movement (left-right as opposed to foward/back) could be very useful in tank battles.
That's my point. How do you know what will be difficult to achieve in the future? Prisim tanks were the best tanks of any C&C game.
Laser tanks are way more practical than any Walker we could create. not to mention, L@z0r5!
2006-11-25 23:24:33
=MI5=CHRISTIAN
Me Gusta Karma Mucho
+49|6974|Leftern America
No. they aren't, but they sure look cool.
2006-11-25 23:25:43
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6947|Adelaide, South Australia

Harmor wrote:

Walkers?  Mechs?  Why? 

Everything is going to be drones in the future...look at the Predator drones we have now.  4 man teams connected by satellite 1,000 miles away will control dozens of pilotless drones.

The mobility advantage of a mech is not worth it.  A high profile in combat sucks (why do you think we are crawling on the ground all the time or future tanks have a lower and lower profile).

With the advent of over the horizon weaponry, having a low profile is advantageous.  So as an offensive weapon I doubt they will be in the front-lines, as has been noted several times already.

Granted, a walking mech can walk over a barrier like those highway diviers that will stop a normal tank that doesn't come at it orthogonally, but its not that big a deal.

A walking mech can walk though water much deeper, but tanks now can go submerged using a snorkel (see the Russian tank).  Assuming tanks in future use nuclear power then they don't even need to surface - they don't need air to move and thus could go completely underwater for hours or days.

Now if mechs could move like Gundam mechs, where they skid along the ground, then yeah they might be useful.

Anti-personnel rockets will still be a problem, but perhaps armor will be good enough where the weapon necessary to take one out is too big to carry?  (Anyone of a Thermonuclear hand grenade?)

Mechs have smaller footprints, therefore less prone to anti-tank mines I guess, but I'm sure future anti-tank mines will have proximity detectors so this is a mute point.


All-in-all I think Mech would be good for a suppressive weapon where the enemy is at a huge technical lost.  Other than that I don't see them being very useful overall.
Fixed all the spelling errors. nice post otherwise.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard