KASASpace

I am QUITE sure that at least one human managed to sprint at 20+ mph. A bike only really adds longevity to that.

Honestly I never really brought it up. I'm actually saying that tanks AND, yes AND mechs would be a useful "big stick" as Theodore would put it. (Get it, Roosevelt?) I'm also trying to explain that mechs and tanks are actually pretty equivalent, despite speed. Really I just wanted to discuss the technology of BattleTech and now for some reason we're talking about IRL technology.

I just looked up the Abrams, and you will not guess how high and wide it is. 2.44 meters high, 3.66 meters wide, and 7.93 meters long. My mech will have a maximum height of 3 to 5 meters. A maximum width of about 2 to 2.5 meters. And a maximum length of about 1 to 1.5 meters. Those are simply because it will be modular, and will have multiple configurations. Minimum for mech: 6 m^3 Maximum for mech: 18.75 m^3 Abrams: 70.818072 m^3 So, for the same armor, my mech would have MORE protection, as it actually takes up less space than 6 m^3 because that is the surrounding box. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

1.) it doesn't have to move super quickly. It just needs to move at a good pace. 2.) No, the legs are armored as well, and the "arms" are really just extra turrets. Now, the leg support structure is built into the armor for the most part, but has enough support from the skeleton to at least keep it from getting knocked over instantly (however the extra hole might just actually add stability, as if it's not a HE round, it will either get blocked, because it's small, or it just goes through, now I know this means it is susceptible to HE rounds, but so are a lot of other vehicles) 3.) I know, I'm just saying you're comparing a geared human-powered vehicle to a human. And by better I mean use better comparisons, such as a tanks drivetrain compared to the mech's hydraulics. 4.) I said that area just as an example. And because no one has actually built the proper system for moving the mech or the mech yet, than it is reasonable to assume that it might be decent enough to do the same as the tank. BTW Abrams can only go about 40 kph to 67 kph. 67 on road. Pretty slow as well, compared to other vehicles. 40 kph is off road, very slow, and even a small legged vehicle (Boston Dynamic's "cheetah") has gone faster/ 5.) I never said a C64 is controlling the legs, I said it is akin to a C64, in that a simple computer (compared to today's standards, which goes to my point that it is not "in the far off future") can compute a trajectory to the moon easily. Now, about talking sense, let's use this example: Let's say you had a piece of paper to protect a small object. Now let's say you put the paper mesh against the object and folded it around the corners. Now let's say I did something else, I put the piece of paper around the object loosely, folded at corners, but not mesh against the object. Now a single airsoft round it fired at each of them, from a fair distance. The statistics favor the design I used, as it is more likely to survive the impact because the armor has room to shift and the round can enter an empty space and possibly not hit anything else at all. Now yours had less of a chance of getting hit, but chances are it WILL get hit because it will have everyone trying to take it out, and ditto for the mech, so the advantage the tank had, minimal as it was, is nulled.

Wow, just wow. I'm afraid you are making the most common mistake pertaining to arguments. You see, I never said it was from the far off future. I said using current technologies but it would HAVE to be in the future simply because one isn't built yet. It's simple logic. And gears, when rigged right, can actually make the pulling on the lower leg (how it will move the lower leg) more forceful, perhaps allowing for greater speed.

That's the quickest way I could represent it. "similar to isogrid, but with circles" But it wouldn't the advantage of the lack of NEED for armor for certain areas. It's not two-sided, probably more hexagonal prism legs. This adds some deflection to the armor as well. Yes, but this is designed to get in and get out, not go on a prolonged slugging match. Of course it's from the future, because we haven't built one yet. I'm talking with current technologies available to us. 1.) It crouches temporarily to hide, and wait, can't HUMANS move while crouched, some quickly? YES *nods up and down* 2.) No, you don't understand. The empty volume (excluding legs) is not armored, and the engine itself has a protective CASE around it, and so does the AMMO. 3.) Now that hasn't been proven, because you are comparing what is referred to as a geared system to a non geared system. Gearing increases speed when done right. So, please do that better next time/ 4.) The likelihood of it being hit in an URBAN environment is ACTUALLY greater, because it has more surface area exposed to above, where the buildings reside........\ Not to mention that it is the opposite for the mech, less above surface area. 5.) The remaining leg holds up the majority of the weight. Now, can we just please start talking sense and get ourselves out of this stupid slugging match?

And maybe if you have a scientist you can store double the amount of science from ONE area.

Circular hyper-carbon support structure, similar to an isogrid but instead of triangles, it's circles. This is possibly the strongest thing you can get in terms of support structure.

All I'm saying is that mechs have advantages that should be built off of as well as tanks.

Okay, now let's compare....... 1.) Mech can "crouch" and still use "torso" as a macro-turret. It is designed to imitate human motion in almost every way 2.) The armor area is equal, as "empty" areas will have no armor, and since they compose 75% of the mech...... 3.) The mech will not need a HUGE engine to run some basic hydraulic pumps..... so it might be quicker 4.) The likelihood of the tank getting hit is almost the same as the mech, and the mech has better survivability because it can survive an AP and an HV round 5.) the mech uses multiple equations and inequalities in something along the lines of a Commodore 64 (you can calculate a trajectory to the MOON with even that low power) and a gyroscopic stabilization system, not to mention that it could hang on to a building with a claw and stay up, or balance on one leg and be immobilized, as the mech can shift weight(see 1)

It has more sensors because it's designed to be able to detect more, as it HUNTS the tanks. The tank commander most likely hasn't even been in combat with one, or more likely has almost no information on it and it's capabilities, not to mention a lumbering machine that looks heavily armed is frightening. Now I know tank commanders are supposed to be hardened, like all soldiers, but this is a representation of the first battle.

In a pattern like this: OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO Made of hyper carbon you would have one of the strongest things in existence. Now, if you made this into the armor, you can get some protection AND structural support. Then you only need maintenance on the armor for the support structure, using an external support during maintenance. This being the only thing really ON the legs, it would be more valuable as an asset, because if the legs get pierced by AP or HV shells, it would go straight through. To keep maintenance costs down, no Depleted Uranium armor would be used. Probaby Rolled homogeneous armor.

Wait wait wait wait wait........ The point here is the use of mechs, right? Well we haven't yet discussed that teamwork is the best option (I mean playing on advantages while supporting weaknesses) And as such, a mech will never be alone, it will have other vehicles, perhaps tanks, with it as well. Tanks have the heavy hitters, and the mechs move in while the enemies are distracted by the tanks. The mechs take out enemy positions defended with light to medium armor, while waiting for the tanks to catch up to take out the heavy armor. Effectively what one would call "cavalry" if I'm not mistaken.

You don't get it. Here is how it works: 1.) the mech isn't going to be crammed full of equipment, so you can actually have the same level of protection (hear me out here) 2.) say a tank is hit by an HV through the rear. This would have a 9.9 out of 10 chance of hitting the engine and even the ammo. Critical systems, there. But the mech has a wider back area, so with less armor you actually get BETTER redundancy, because of the fact that if the HV round goes through an area with very little systems, most not critical, than you have a much much better chance of surviving. The mech would have hollow spaces because nothing would be needed in that area, and as such guess what happens, it is actually safer. 3.) The tank with more volume wouldn't help at all, that is why you need mechs for the job. The mech would have more sensors, as the tank first has to know about the mech and it's presence in the area. If the mech spots it first, tank is doomed. A tank would only win if it got lucky. In this case the sensor-pilot team would be more effective, as the commander in a tank would be more surprised by the mech's presence, or might hesitate, and that is a BIG disadvantage. You do need to add armor to the leg, at least enough to withstand 12.7 mm bullets at high velocities. Now on to construction techniques, perhaps something akin to isogrids, but with circular patterns. (circles and spheres can handle the most pressure based purely on geometry)

Urban/jungle/mountain combat zone, optimal for mechs.

Huh. Reminds me of battleships, and cruisers. Tanks, landcruisers. Interesting.

You do realize that with that kind of weaponry you wouldn't need tanks, right? Or artillery, or air strikes. And it would be more effective against a tank company, because if you fire it at a mech, one of four to eight mechs, you will need time to reload. A LOT of time. So you end up getting utterly destroyed by the lance of mechs, which would be how they hunt. Not individually, but as a pack. A "wolf" pack. And I already knew of the Kuratas, which sounds just a little bit too much like Kurita......

Actually, the hollow spaces are spread around the mech. The armor is better suited because of ONE thing: if a HV round goes through a tank, it is SCREWED off the bat, but if it goes through a hollow space in a non critical area of the MECH, it does minimal damage to the overall buildup, especially if the support structure is mostly in the shell of armor. The mech has the first two shots because it has a quicker reaction time as no confirmation from a commander has to be given, another disadvantage of a tank.

A gyro will resist moving in other directions. So you have two gyros for preventing falling from the side, or forward/backward. BTW it has as much armor as a tank, and is more maneuverable, see: That was mine...

Actually the ride would be fairly smooth, as the force is mostly absorbed with shock absorbers. Maybe a little bit bumpy....

I have been thinking for a while...... 1.) The armor is more spread out, and doesn't have to be perfectly even. Chances are the most armor is going to be on the lower leg. 2.) The lower leg would be almost 90% hollow with deflection plating, and hollow cross beams crossing the legs 3.) The more hollow spaces, the less likely an enemy will rapidly decommission your vehicle or whatever you have. In a tank, if you get hit by a shell that might get through, it has a huge probability that it will hit a vital system, or a person, some important wiring, the sighting system, the engine.... 4.) Here is how it will go down: Mech sights tank ahead. Shoots autocannon at tank treads. Tank immobilized. Mech gets stinger missile lock and fires off some rounds from a multi-barrel missile launcher. Tank gets crippled. Tank gets off a shot at the mech. Mech gets hit in left torso, a mostly hollow area, minimal damage. Mech closing distance on tank. Mech begins legendary circle of death, tank cannon can't keep up. Mech fires LAW rockets or RPGs at the rear of the tank. Mech wins. And all that within 60 seconds.

Square cubed law is based around the volume increase compared to the mass increase, right? Probably not....... But the problem is not the weight (except anything above 40 tons is absolutely useless), the problem is the materials. We don't have strong enough materials. Although, hyper-carbon is stronger than titanium and lighter, but more expensive........

The bunch of inequalities (I meant inequalities) are simple inequalities that a loop will constantly employ every one hundredth of a second. I don't know them off the top of my head, I would have to work them out. But if the relative angle of the lower leg is above or below a specific value, it would immediately be corrected by the program. Same for the upper leg and "torso" angles relative to the legs. The exact inequality depends on the mech itself.

I said the PROGRAM was easy, not the robotics involved. It's a bunch of equations and a correction loop to constantly check the vehicle for inconsistencies. Add a Gyro and then all you have to do is keep the legs straight and level with the "torso"

I said it was easy, but it is tedious. Although I would like to build a "box with legs". Congrats if you get the reference.