Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[Kilmeister]

I think we may see mechs used alongside infantry, but not in the MW2 sense of them, but rather as a support role. Something along the lines of what they have now and what Darpa is developing. Basically a suit that can allow a soldier to do basic tasks that require much more strength than a human can provide. They already have these for industrial applications, but I think they could be scaled up (I'm thinking along the lines of Ripley's Loader in Aliens). If one could be made mobile enough to keep up with infantry, it could provide a lot of advantages in an urban combat setting. (Clearing debris, carrying heavier objects, easier 2nd floor access, improvised building entrance, etc.) It wouldn't be armed, or if it was, would just have a small arms. By eliminating the need for it to carry large weaponry, it could be a good support tool.

[Red Iron Crown]

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)

Weapon power generally outpaces armor power, but I suppose it's possible that some miracle armor could be developed that leapfrogs weapon power. But why would we make mechs? What advantage would they give over more conventional vehicles with the same armor?

[Idobox]

As it's been said again and again, a battlemech is essentially a slow tank on weak legs. You would need a very good reason to prefer legs to wheels or caterpillar tracks.

Oh, and for attacking on the second floor, a tank with a step lader/access tower would do the same job, without all the weaknesses.

Powered armors, on the other hand, would be very useful. The closest thing we might ever get would be an over-sized powered armor, able to support most light weapon fire and carry stuff that would be too heavy for normal infantry, an put it in places trucks can't access, like buildings, jungles, marshes.

The kind of things they could transport would be missile batteries, radars, heavy weapons like auto cannons or very large bore guns.

You don't want them to directly fight armored vehicles or aircrafts in open terrain, but imagine if you could easily move AA batteries through thick jungles, or urban guerrilla if your infantry platoon can transport dozens of anti tank and AA weapons, plus a RADAR able to see though walls...

[KASASpace]

As it's been said again and again, a battlemech is essentially a slow tank on weak legs. You would need a very good reason to prefer legs to wheels or caterpillar tracks.

Okay.

Wait, why would Nature choose legs over wheels? Because they ARE MORE MANEUVERABLE. If there are things that a wheel would be forced over, a leg could just avoid it, so then it also adds safety.

And most tanks move like 80 kph, if they're light enough. And if you think about it, what kind of advancements have been made in the last century? The century before that?

The millennia before that?

The most technological progress we have had has been in the last few years, and it is getting quicker. So, who knows, eventually we might have battlemechs supporting tanks on the battlefield, as a 'mech could just "walk" or step over some things to get over a fallen tree, without needing to bring up another support vehicle for the tank.

[KASASpace]

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

Look at this>>>>>>>>>>>>

[KASASpace]

Weapon power generally outpaces armor power, but I suppose it's possible that some miracle armor could be developed that leapfrogs weapon power. But why would we make mechs? What advantage would they give over more conventional vehicles with the same armor?

Of course! But who in their right minds would nuke an entire city just to get rid of a mech?

Sure, tank guns can take out mechs, but the point of the mech is to aim it's arm and torso separately, so it can actually react faster.

Now, can we discuss the technology?

Neuro helmets for "mind" control over the mech.

[Accelerando]

Who would nuke an entire city to get rid of a tank or a helicopter, either? Isn't a helicopter just as useful if not more, for its upward mobility and maneuverability? Sure you can get into roads with a mech, but probably not any back alleys, and if you really need to clear out a building so much that you need artillery-grade guns for it... why not use a helicopter?

Human-size and smaller legged vehicles, small enough to get through doors without damaging the building, make sense for an urban environment, aye.

Truth, brain-computer control is useful if software can't calculate the mech's movement as well ^^

I would fully automate a mech with software designed specifically to control its body, with human as more of a commander than pilot, if needed... personally. What do you think?

Edited March 14, 2014 by Accelerando

[DJEN]

Neuro helmets for "mind" control over the mech.

Then, how do you activate your weapons?

If you say that you do so via MC, you just shot off your own idea, for MC tanks would be more effective.

Edited March 14, 2014 by DJEN

[DJEN]

Also, why apply good tech on making clumsy, top-heavy, and hard to repair giant robots, when you can apply it to agile, stable, easy-to-repair tanks?

Well, you could say culture forbids them from doing so...

[guto8797]

we are still thinking too much on available tech. Research just goes faster and faster, and ground-breaking discoveries are made every single day. Assuming we would develop such tech that armour, firepower, cooling etc ceased to be a problem, what would their advantages be?

Faster, agiler, faster reactions, easier handling on tight spaces (I'm thinking a 2-3 meters mech), sorta like Avatar's mech's. Although it saddens me that, if any mech technology is to be developed, its first uses will not be helping people or building, but rather new ways to kill eachother. Mankind has the gift of ingenuity, yet we always seem to think of war first. The machinegun was made before the typewriter, the nuke before the nuclear reactor, the crossbow before the press. Once we can revert this situation... perhaps we will see a new age.

[Nuke]

Look at this>>>>>>>>>>>>

or that 6 legged logging robot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgBNjdwYdvE

Also, why apply good tech on making clumsy, top-heavy, and hard to repair giant robots, when you can apply it to agile, stable, easy-to-repair tanks?

Well, you could say culture forbids them from doing so...

there are tanks and planes in the battletech universe. i hate fighting tanks in mwll.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Nuke

[KASASpace]

Then, how do you activate your weapons?

If you say that you do so via MC, you just shot off your own idea, for MC tanks would be more effective.

Seriously, I'm starting to think no one actually knows of BT technology.

You still use a joystick, and throttle, but you control things like how it moves, keeping it stable, and whatnot with your mind.

[Nuke]

to be fair ive only read 2 books, neither delved very far into the technology. most of the tech info i got was from reading the archives in mechwarrior 2.

neurohelmets are kinda cool, but i think ive read that is only for controlling the movement of the mech. your hands are free to control the weapon systems, targeting, firing, etc.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Nuke

[KASASpace]

Human-size and smaller legged vehicles, small enough to get through doors without damaging the building, make sense for an urban environment, aye.

I never said huge 12 meter high mechs, I said smaller than that, more like 3 to 5 meters tall.

Now, what would the tactical advantages be?

1.) You can move the torso, and thus torso mounted weapons, separately from the arms, so you get "double" turrets.

2.) You have greater maneuverability, as tank treads have a maximum turn radius while moving, however legged vehicles could turn faster.

3.) Can allow for troop movements to upper stories.

4.) Sure it is a bigger target, but you get better visibility over the general area.

5.) You can carry large loads through jungles, urban areas, swamps, mountains, etc with greater ease than with tracked or wheeled vehicles, acting as a support of infantry.

[Red Iron Crown]

I never said huge 12 meter high mechs, I said smaller than that, more like 3 to 5 meters tall.

Now, what would the tactical advantages be?

1.) You can move the torso, and thus torso mounted weapons, separately from the arms, so you get "double" turrets.

And a tank can have any number of turrets, it could look like an old WW2 battleship if we needed it too. Moving torso and arms is more limiting than turrets, not less.

2.) You have greater maneuverability, as tank treads have a maximum turn radius while moving, however legged vehicles could turn faster.

Tanks can turn around in their own length, I don't see how a walking machine would be better. Plus, walkers have the penalty of being slower and less stable. Bipedal locomotion requires constant correction to remain upright, and that's without taking into account recoil or kinetic energy from weapon hits. A tank has static stability, it requires no power or input to remain in a combat ready position.

3.) Can allow for troop movements to upper stories.

How? Most stairways would not accommodate a 3-5m tall multiton mech. Nor could most upper floor structures support them.

4.) Sure it is a bigger target, but you get better visibility over the general area.

A tank can have a retractable sensor mast that provides the same high POV, with the advantage of still being able to hide behind cover.

5.) You can carry large loads through jungles, urban areas, swamps, mountains, etc with greater ease than with tracked or wheeled vehicles, acting as a support of infantry.

I suppose in a logistical role in rough terrain there might be some limited use. It's definitely a corner case, though.

[Red Iron Crown]

or that 6 legged logging robot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgBNjdwYdvE

That thing is creepy. They just couldn't resist the urge to make it as insect-like as possible.

[Seret]

Okay.

Wait, why would Nature choose legs over wheels? Because they ARE MORE MANEUVERABLE.

No, nature doesn't use wheels because they're a very hard structure to create at a large scale. The only rotating machines nature ever created are on a molecular scale.

Wheels and tracks are much faster, more durable and easier to control. Legs are much harder to get any kind of performance out of, and it's really only worth it if you want to tackle extremely rough terrain. Just look at the performance of actual walking robots, for the size of engine they've got on board their speed is pretty pathetic. A walking vehicle is always going to be a lot slower than a wheeled one, as you've got to waste a lot of energy shifting the mass of the vehicle sideways and vertically.

1.) You can move the torso, and thus torso mounted weapons, separately from the arms, so you get "double" turrets.

Lol, why the hell would you have a "torso" and "arms" on a real-world combat vehicle. If you just wanted extra weapons independently targetable from under armour you'd just use a remote weapons station. You don't seem interested in any discussion of an actual real-world mech. If you just wanted to talk about the made-up technology of the Battletech universe then that's fine, but don't start a discussion about mechs in the real world and then talk only about Battletech technology.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Seret

[randomness5555]

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.

They have one big advantage: You can stick one heck of a lot more armour on something that doesn't have to worry about being to heavy to fly.

[andrewas]

Which is a good thing, because a 'mech needs a heck of a lot more armour than a tank or aircraft for the same level of protection, and even then has weak spots that are much harder to armour.

[Seret]

Oh, and for attacking on the second floor, a tank with a step lader/access tower would do the same job, without all the weaknesses.

[Nuke]

That thing is creepy. They just couldn't resist the urge to make it as insect-like as possible.

its only painted green because its a john deere

[Red Iron Crown]

its only painted green because its a john deere

I meant the engine pod that looks nightmarishly like an insect's abdomen, with a narrow thorax and a cockpit for the head.

seems to be way less horrifying.

[DaveofDefeat]

I could see legged vehicles to give it access to a greater variety of terrain, I don't think they would be bipedal and would probably be designed to stay as low to the ground as possible.

[KASASpace]

And a tank can have any number of turrets, it could look like an old WW2 battleship if we needed it too. Moving torso and arms is more limiting than turrets, not less.

Tanks can turn around in their own length, I don't see how a walking machine would be better. Plus, walkers have the penalty of being slower and less stable. Bipedal locomotion requires constant correction to remain upright, and that's without taking into account recoil or kinetic energy from weapon hits. A tank has static stability, it requires no power or input to remain in a combat ready position.

How? Most stairways would not accommodate a 3-5m tall multiton mech. Nor could most upper floor structures support them.

A tank can have a retractable sensor mast that provides the same high POV, with the advantage of still being able to hide behind cover.

I suppose in a logistical role in rough terrain there might be some limited use. It's definitely a corner case, though.

More limiting? You can turn your smaller guns and the torso (not like a human torso) at the same time and get it pointing at the infantry behind you quicker.

In there own length? Then a mech would be able to turn quicker, as it has a smaller length.

How about using ladders and picking up platforms?

Yes, but what if the retractable sensor fails to retract, or extract, or gets destroyed, or gets hit when they forgot it rose the clearance level of the tank. "woops"

You "suppose"? If you can move heavy equipment through thick terrain with greater ease than you have the advantage.

[KASASpace]

Which is a good thing, because a 'mech needs a heck of a lot more armour than a tank or aircraft for the same level of protection, and even then has weak spots that are much harder to armour.

If armor can be summarized into a few words, they would be these:

EVERYTHING HAS WEAK SPOTS.

The back of a tank, for example, where the motor is, has less armor than the glacis plate at the front.