Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[KASASpace]

If so, what are your thoughts on battlemechs?

Usefulness, possibility, technology used.

If you don't know what Battletech is, look it up on Google or something. It's a tabletop boardgame that evolved into its own fictional universe with books, video games, and even a (crappy) TV series.

[Awaras]

Mecha in general are extremely unrealistic because of the Square-cube law.

Basically, you would need materials much stronger that what we have just to prevent them from collapsing under their own weight.

I guess the best we can hope for are Elemental-like power suits or maybe a bit bigger than that.

But even then, would they really be more effective than present day tank-equivalents?

[LawnDartLeo]

Thanks... now I gotta go fire up DOSBox and play some Mechwarrior 2. Every time I think I have that pixelated polygon mash up out of my head, somebody has to bring it up and i have to go play thru a campaign.

Gaming in the early 90's didn't look very good but I swear it was more fun back then.

[Awaras]

Thanks... now I gotta go fire up DOSBox and play some Mechwarrior 2. Every time I think I have that pixelated polygon mash up out of my head, somebody has to bring it up and i have to go play thru a campaign.

Gaming in the early 90's didn't look very good but I swear it was more fun back then.

Reactor: Online

Sensors: Online

Weapons: Online

All systems nominal.

[Spenzor]

Yup! though not as a player. I've tried it a couple times, but the rules are just to byzantine to hold my interest. I've played a number of mechwarrior games over the years, though.

As cool as giant robots are, I'm not convinced they're practical, outside of possible mountain warfare applications (and even then, why not use a helicopter?). With that being said, you could probably build a large robot, though probably as a quadruped to spread weight more effectively - a even a relatively small mech would exert an impractical amount of force on the ground under its feet, causing it to obliterate anything it walked on.

[Streetwind]

I actually have several boxed sets of the board game stacked against the opposing wall.

But yes, "hard sci-fi" is something else. These 'mechs walk by the power of the Rule Of Cool alone

[Nuke]

you will sometimes see me playing mwll. i tried mwo but the gameplay is too short and too basic for my tastes. mwll is much more epic.

Thanks... now I gotta go fire up DOSBox and play some Mechwarrior 2. Every time I think I have that pixelated polygon mash up out of my head, somebody has to bring it up and i have to go play thru a campaign.

http://ppc.warhawkenterprises.com/mw2battleshots/mw2jftimb.gif

Gaming in the early 90's didn't look very good but I swear it was more fun back then.

i somehow managed to get mech 2 to work under win 7 64 bit with glide, joystick, and trackir support. just dont ask how i did it i dont remember. i knew it took a glide wrapper an unoffitial patch and a lot of hacking.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Nuke

[Scotius]

Mecha in general are extremely unrealistic because of the Square-cube law.

Basically, you would need materials much stronger that what we have just to prevent them from collapsing under their own weight.

I guess the best we can hope for are Elemental-like power suits or maybe a bit bigger than that.

But even then, would they really be more effective than present day tank-equivalents?

One man crew. Weights about as much as typical car. Similiar size and mobility. Carries enough firepower to actually be able to compete on a battlefield with a real tank. Four or six of them can be packed into a container, and delivered anywhere by a plane, heavy-lift chopper or even a truck, train, whatever.

No, i don't see any advantages of having such things in armory

[Spenzor]

you will sometimes see me playing mwll. i tried mwo but the gameplay is too short and too basic for my tastes. mwll is much more epic.

I actually had the opposite reactions to those games. MWO was fun and playable, but LL was tooth-gnashingly frustrating. Of course, I don't actively play either, so that might tell you something.

One man crew. Weights about as much as typical car. Similiar size and mobility. Carries enough firepower to actually be able to compete on a battlefield with a real tank. Four or six of them can be packed into a container, and delivered anywhere by a plane, heavy-lift chopper or even a truck, train, whatever.

No, i don't see any advantages of having such things in armory

If it's the size and weight of a car, and has the firepower of a tank, it must have exceedingly light armor.

[KASASpace]

Well, I was thinking of using construction techniques that make things real stiff, like isogrids in the legs as well as light construction.

I think mechs could at least be used for urban combat, as in that setting with all the rubble you would need a legged vehicle.

However, you would need a gyro for stability probably running directly off of the motor. As well as some sort of hydraulic system, or once we get polymers that act like tendons or something, we can use those.

But the problem is really weight, but if you have a light hollow skeleton with a bunch of hollow spaces (launching missiles will produce heat due to the exhaust) for heat sinks. Isogrids, hexagonal construction that is very aircraft like, it could support itself with jets......

[Tommygun]

I think the closest thing you will ever see to a "Mech" is a slightly larger version of the powered exoskeleton the Army is working on.

The taller something is, the easier it is to see and hit on a battle field. Ground pressure is also a problem on a bi-peddle walker if you want it to have any real armor protection and also walk on soft ground.

Flying and jump jets will never be small enough to be practical in our life time on an armored exoskeleton let alone a Mech.

They are fun SciFi, but they will pretty much stay that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton

[Seret]

A vehicle with tracks or wheels is going to have a lower profile, be faster, more stable, have lower ground pressure and have a lower surface area to volume ration (and thus require less weight of armour to protect the same volume). It'll be more mobile, better protected and harder to spot. So no, you won't be getting mechs instead of tanks.

[Roastduck]

The main battle tank as it exists today is probably the closest we'll ever get to Mechs. they're basically short, fat mechs that roll on tracks rather than walk on legs.

[Nibb31]

Talking about sci-fi, one of the things that bugged me about Star Wars was the use of AT-AT walkers in a universe where there anti-gravity/repulsor-lift technology is massively available (i.e. Luke's speeder or Jabba's barge). If the Empire had sent a fleet of heavy-armoured-speeders or repulsor-lift tanks instead of clumsy old walkers, they would have been running in circles around the ruins of the rebel base before they even knew they were coming.

Legged robots seem to be the clumsiest and most tactically unsuitable weapon you could imagine.

[Seret]

Legged robots seem to be the clumsiest and most tactically unsuitable weapon you could imagine.

Yes, but the meet the only criteria the Star Wars universe requires: they're cool. The Battle of Hoth is the highlight of the whole Star Wars saga IMO.

[KASASpace]

Are we thinking that they are going to be fielded as giant 100 ton 40 feet tall death machines?

No, they would be more like 10 to 20 tons, with an array of machine guns and a 20mm cannon.

Ground pressure is important, but that's why you have wider feet, and plus in urban combat it can hide behind buildings, but will be spotted from the air, like almost anything else. Not to mention that to prevent falling, a gyro and a powerful motor of sorts will be used.

With a low center of mass, too.

[Nuke]

i think bt canon has mechs running off of a fusion reactor (running on water) and uses some kind of synthetic musculature. the gyro is some kind of 3 axis cmg. all weapon systems with the possible exception of the ppc* work pretty much the same way as the modern equivalent.

* turns out we actually tried to build one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

if we use any mechs irl, they will have 4 or more legs.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Nuke

[Tommygun]

I think an unmanned version of a German Wiesel AWC would be better suited for urban combat.

Give it better applique armor and air bursting 40mm grenade launcher with 50 cal gun combo.

Maybe an up sized but cheap LAW rocket for any big targets.

The Wiesel weights less than three metric tons and would probably be able to go to 80 percent of the places the walker would go and have better armor protection.

The Wiesel would also probably be over 30 times cheaper to build and maintain than a high tech walker.

Again, I think some guy in a powered armor exoskeleton standing two and a quarter meters well be the closest you will see to mechs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC

[Stratoroc]

Most a mech can be is a box on feet like the Wolverine from Tiberium Sun. Armor just heavy enough to take small arms and machine guns to stand up against said small arms. Problems with bipedals is that whatever can give them good mobility (long legs, low weight, powerful fast servos) makes them worthless in combat (large profile, light armor, easy to cripple, too tall).

Only circumstances where tracks and helis suffer is in tough terrain like mountains or jungles. There power armor will prevail.

[Seret]

Are we thinking that they are going to be fielded as giant 100 ton 40 feet tall death machines?

No, they would be more like 10 to 20 tons, with an array of machine guns and a 20mm cannon.

You've got the cart before the horse a bit there. The spec arises out of the role a piece of equipment would play, so what possible job could a walking vehicle fill? Let's ignore for a minute the issue of whether legs are actually any better or worse than wheels or tracks, and assume that you've got a requirement for a specialist walking vehicle for urban combat. If you're not carrying troops then what role are you fulfilling? Walking is too slow for things like convoy escort, but weapons carrier acting in support of infantry would work. You'd need machineguns, and a standoff weapon good at ranges from point blank to a max of about 1km. Ability to breach buildings and fortifications would be useful. I'd go for something like an RCL or unguided rocket launcher firing thermobaric or HESH warheads. You could also go for an AGL or autocannon, preferably with smart airburst and/or breacher munitions. An AGL or RCL would be useful for non-lethal warheads too. Autocannons would be more useful for counter-sniping, as they're a bit more surgical. Flame throwers are very nasty in urban warfare, but people are a bit squeemish about those these days. A walking mech breathing fire would certainly have shock effect though...

For crew, you're probably looking at 2-3. You could get away with 2, but that would limit your ability to fire more than one weapon at a time. Combat experience has taught that having at least two independently operable machineguns is a good thing in an ambush, hence the amount of guns you see stacked onto vehicles designed to fight at short ranges like the M113 ACAV and the Achzarit.

The height of a walking vehicle would be a liability most of the time, but could be turned to an advantage. If it was tall enough to access upper floors and could breach a building it could be used to assault buildings. Build the thing with ladders running up the back. Infantry quite rightly hate assaulting buildings from the ground floor, they'll always go in through an upper floor if they can. A vehicle that could make a hole, advance on the building laying down suppressive fire and provide assault access to even the first floor (second floor for you Americans) could actually be quite useful, if somewhat niche.

Protection wise, you're probably looking at aluminium armour plus slats or ERA to about the standard or an IFV. You'd need to at least have a reasonable chance of taking an RPG-type shot from any angle, or it'd just be a liability down town. Having legs might actually be quite good for mine protection, if you don't mine the thing falling over in a heap afterwards.

The problem is weight and mobility. It would be too slow to accompany wheeled and tracked vehicles. It would be ok with dismounted infantry, but it would need transport to keep up with them once they mounted. A big flatbed truck would be easy, but would suck off road. If you could get the weight down towards the 10t end of the range you could marry it up to a Sky Crane/CH-53/CH-47/Mi-26 type helicopter and give it to air assault units. You'd probably be sacrificing a fair bit of armour for that though, especially if you wanted to operate hot and high. You'd end up with something about as well protected as the Wiesel mentioned above, but heavier and more bulky so it would have to be an underslung load instead of being carried internally like the Wiesel can. If your mech ended up towards the 20t end of the scale I think it would start getting pretty dubious, as you'd be back to moving it around by truck on roads. Even in urban combat being able to operate off-road is useful for a weapons carrier, as you'll want to be able to maneuver on the outskirts.

[Red Iron Crown]

Mechs are cool, but not a realistic combat vehicle. They're just too big of a target, and weapons usually outpace armor. How long would a mech last on the battlefield if every infantryman can carry a weapon powerful enough to do serious damage to it?

Power armor is a different story, though. I think that could actually work.

[Seret]

How long would a mech last on the battlefield if every infantryman can carry a weapon powerful enough to do serious damage to it?

Most vehicles on the battlefield are pretty vulnerable to infantry antitank weapons already. That's why the infantry carry them.

[Red Iron Crown]

Most vehicles on the battlefield are pretty vulnerable to infantry antitank weapons already. That's why the infantry carry them.

With the difference being that vehicles can go hull down behind terrain and other cover, reducing their vulnerability. The mech is a much bigger, harder to hide target.

There are some that consider tanks obsolete because of ATGMs, though I'm not sure I agree.

[Seret]

With the difference being that vehicles can go hull down behind terrain and other cover, reducing their vulnerability. The mech is a much bigger, harder to hide target.

Yup. I did hear a statistic from analysis of AFV kills in WW2: hits below 1m were extremely rare, as terrain is generally masking you to some degree.

There are some that consider tanks obsolete because of ATGMs, though I'm not sure I agree.

ATGMs have certainly had an effect, they've changed the way armour is used. Tanks have to be accompanied by infantry, which is where the IFV came from. Ironically you're now getting APCs that are trying to be as well protected as tanks, so in a way ATGMs have lead to even more heavy armour on the battlefield.

If anything is going to make tanks obsolete it's aircraft IMO. Smart weapons like Brimstone are getting pretty scary for armour in the open. A single strike aircraft could rip the guts out of a tank company in one attack.

[guto8797]

On the short term, we are not likelly to see any mech, for the reasons stated here.

On the long run, I'm not so sure, technology evolves in unpredictable ways. In 100 years there was no way we'd be getting to the moon, who knows? New hyper-resistant material, combined with fusion reactor and a massivelly overpowered gyroscope would solve it. Easy to hit? Who cares when that hit won't do any damage at all? Tanks are pretty easy to hit with a pistol. Never say that "We will never invent this", because that's pretty much the sentence we repeat more often, and see wrong more often, humans have huge invention potential (specially when the goal is to blow eachother to bits)