Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[KASASpace]

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.

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.

You forgot ONE thing about legs, fine, TWO:

1.) Legs allow you to step over or climb up obstacles that would normally be impossible for wheels/tracks.

2.) legs require balance, yes, but you can do more with legs, you can pick your way through terrain, and not get a damaged and unusalbe wheel, but a partially scraped metal footpad

"torso" means the same, just not a human torso. the "arms" are like turrets, basically.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think you are describing a tank that has many legs instead of tracks, KASAspace. Which is a bit more feasible in my mind than a bipedal mech, given that there is terrain that a quadraped or hexaped mech could traverse that tanks couldn't and it wouldn't be as unstable as a biped. Still going to be slower than a tank on terrain that the tank can traverse, but the tradeoff might be worth it in certain regions. Both tracks and legs have vulnerable spots, so I don't think there's much difference there.

Can you describe what the "torso" might look like, if not a human torso? I'm visualizing a large turret with several smaller turrets mounted to it.

[Roastduck]

KASAspace, I think the flaw in your argument is that you're thinking of the tank as the main component of a fighting unit. The primary fighting unit in any army is and will always be infantry. Infantry is what takes and occupies territory.

Tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, APCs, all these are merely force multipliers.

Taking too long to reach an objective? APCs

Assaulting a fortified position? Break their lines with tanks

Tanks didn't do the trick? Air strike.

Either of those options unavailabe/blocked by terrain? Call in the choppers.

What Mechs need to be viable in today's armed forces is to fill at least one of these roles competently. If it's big enough to serve as an APC, it's a big target for anti-tank weapons. They do not have the maneuverability of helicopters when it comes to close-in support over rough terrain. The necessity of their lighter armor, plus weak points in the knees of the legs, make them less attractive as a line breaker when tanks are already in use.

And before you counter with tank tracks being as vulnerable as knees. I accept that. However, a tank with a busted track still has the ability to rain down hate and discontent onto a target. If you blow out a Mech's knee, it's going to fall over. A tank track is also relatively easy to repair once the action calms down. They keep spare links and wrenches and can fix it in a relatively short amount of time. A knee, however, will have hydraulics, fluid, moving parts, etc.

So, for Mechs to be viable, they need to meet a few criteria:

1) they need to be as good or better than current hardware in a given role

2) they need to be quickly repairable in the event of damage, or have redundancies (which will add weight, size, clunkiness, etc).

3) they need to have a reasonable balance between armor and maneuverability. This could probably be lumped in with number 1

[DJEN]

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.

Why not operate a tank that way?

By the way, do they "sync" their legs with the giant robot's legs? If that were the case, a hominid plantigrade leg would reduce training time due to its familiarity.

Edited March 16, 2014 by DJEN

[DJEN]

The reason the human race survived this long is solely because of intellect and adaptability.

Now, what would happen if the other animals, particularly insects; became intelligent as well?

The answer: we all end up dying.

Edited March 16, 2014 by DJEN

[meve12]

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.

Less Battletech, more Titanfall?

[meve12]

What Mechs need to be viable in today's armed forces is to fill at least one of these roles competently. If it's big enough to serve as an APC, it's a big target for anti-tank weapons. They do not have the maneuverability of helicopters when it comes to close-in support over rough terrain. The necessity of their lighter armor, plus weak points in the knees of the legs, make them less attractive as a line breaker when tanks are already in use.

And before you counter with tank tracks being as vulnerable as knees. I accept that. However, a tank with a busted track still has the ability to rain down hate and discontent onto a target. If you blow out a Mech's knee, it's going to fall over. A tank track is also relatively easy to repair once the action calms down. They keep spare links and wrenches and can fix it in a relatively short amount of time. A knee, however, will have hydraulics, fluid, moving parts, etc.

So, for Mechs to be viable, they need to meet a few criteria:

1) they need to be as good or better than current hardware in a given role

2) they need to be quickly repairable in the event of damage, or have redundancies (which will add weight, size, clunkiness, etc).

3) they need to have a reasonable balance between armor and maneuverability. This could probably be lumped in with number 1

You missed direct infantry support, for small mechs anyway. They could go most of the places infantry can and bring heavier armament too.

I'm thinking a 4 legged(spider style, not dog) vehicle with a weapon on top. Also wheels on the legs for increased speed, and deployable pads for traction on uneven ground.

Think a legged HUMVEE.

[Roastduck]

Think a legged HUMVEE.

How will a legged HMMWV be as good or better than the existing HMMWV? The things you listed as benefits (spider-style legs, additional wheels, additional deployable pads) are actually only liabilities, in that they are more moving parts that need maintenance, and more weak points that will become bullet magnets. The added complexity will likely require the same intensity of training that tank drivers go through, as opposed to "If you can drive a standard, then you can drive a Humvee!"

Mechs are cool, and if someone offered me one, I would definitely keep it and feed it and take it for walks and love it and so on. But they will never be a viable tool in a combat situation.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Roastduck

[Awaras]

I'm thinking a 4 legged(spider style, not dog) vehicle with a weapon on top. Also wheels on the legs for increased speed, and deployable pads for traction on uneven ground.

Think a legged HUMVEE.

So, basically a tachikoma?

[Nuke]

Less Battletech, more Titanfall?

lets turn mech games into crappy shooters! doesnt sound like fun to me. certainly not fun as ripping through your cockpit with a full lbxac salvo from my beatstick.

a realistic mech is going to be a lot smaller. i think the area of the foot pad goes up linearly with the weight of the mech, that bug mech i posted earlier looked to have the foot size slightly bigger than of an elephant. i also noticed that the robots gait kept 5 feet on the ground at all times, but that may have just been for testing. and just look at what darpa is doing with 4 legged robots. nature really does give you your size limits for a biped, something equivalent to spinosaurus could be 20 tons and still get around on 2 legs. so im going to assume 20 tons per leg pair as an upper limit.

so its going to be more like shattered steel (you are probibly too young to remember that one, it was a buglike mech game from the dos era).

[Seret]

You forgot ONE thing about legs, fine, TWO:

1.) Legs allow you to step over or climb up obstacles that would normally be impossible for wheels/tracks.

2.) legs require balance, yes, but you can do more with legs, you can pick your way through terrain, and not get a damaged and unusalbe wheel, but a partially scraped metal footpad

"torso" means the same, just not a human torso. the "arms" are like turrets, basically.

Look, if legs offered any kind of mobility advantage over tracks that was worth it, we'd be using them already.

KASAspace, I think the flaw in your argument is that you're thinking of the tank as the main component of a fighting unit. The primary fighting unit in any army is and will always be infantry. Infantry is what takes and occupies territory.

Absolutely. Assuming a mech would be used to directly fight the enemy (rather than in a transport or logistics role) one of the main problems for operating alongside infantry would be its profile. A weapon system that stuck out like the dog's proverbials wouldn't be much use, as it would just get you shelled. A mech would have to be as low profile as possible, so you'd be looking at some kind of spider planform that could get down low and be concealed. Height is absolutely the last thing you'd want.

[EvilotionCR2]

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

one tank shot and it's unusable practically,or it falls hard aaaand... it's dead.

[DJEN]

You ignored all comments relating to criticism. You should take it, you know.

[KASASpace]

KASAspace, I think the flaw in your argument is that you're thinking of the tank as the main component of a fighting unit. The primary fighting unit in any army is and will always be infantry. Infantry is what takes and occupies territory.

Tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, APCs, all these are merely force multipliers.

Taking too long to reach an objective? APCs

Assaulting a fortified position? Break their lines with tanks

Tanks didn't do the trick? Air strike.

Either of those options unavailabe/blocked by terrain? Call in the choppers.

What Mechs need to be viable in today's armed forces is to fill at least one of these roles competently. If it's big enough to serve as an APC, it's a big target for anti-tank weapons. They do not have the maneuverability of helicopters when it comes to close-in support over rough terrain. The necessity of their lighter armor, plus weak points in the knees of the legs, make them less attractive as a line breaker when tanks are already in use.

And before you counter with tank tracks being as vulnerable as knees. I accept that. However, a tank with a busted track still has the ability to rain down hate and discontent onto a target. If you blow out a Mech's knee, it's going to fall over. A tank track is also relatively easy to repair once the action calms down. They keep spare links and wrenches and can fix it in a relatively short amount of time. A knee, however, will have hydraulics, fluid, moving parts, etc.

So, for Mechs to be viable, they need to meet a few criteria:

1) they need to be as good or better than current hardware in a given role

2) they need to be quickly repairable in the event of damage, or have redundancies (which will add weight, size, clunkiness, etc).

3) they need to have a reasonable balance between armor and maneuverability. This could probably be lumped in with number 1

I never said that the tank was the main part of a land based fighting force, nor did I say they would be replaced with mechs.

The type of joint I have in mind is just a cylinder of armor, being pulled on by hydraulics, so all the hydraulics will be in the limbs, not in the joints.

I'm thinking about something small, about 4 to 5 meters tall, with more armor than a Humvee but less than a tank, as a light vehicle buster and lifting up platforms for access to upper stories. A few machine guns and a couple of LAWs, a mortar battery with individual tubes each akin to the small infantry-born mortar.

I also imagine a very heavy use of modular design, making the mechs cheaper and allowing for quick repairs. (replacing the joint and repairing the original during the battle)

Edited March 18, 2014 by KASASpace

[KASASpace]

Can you describe what the "torso" might look like, if not a human torso? I'm visualizing a large turret with several smaller turrets mounted to it.

The main body of the vehicle, where everything is "mounted."

Like on tanks the thing where the turret is mounted on would be the torso.

[Guest]

I imagine that it'd look like a cockpit with a missile launcher on top and an MG turret on the front. If your goal is mobility, you'll want a 1-man machine, with fairly automated weaponary. Larger, 2-man versions could have side turrets with heavy MGs.

one tank shot and it's unusable practically,or it falls hard aaaand... it's dead.

Except the tank would have a hard time hitting such a small thing. Or even get to where it can take the shot. Yes, a mech would not be heavily armored, but it's mobility would offset that. The main difficulty with mechs is stability, legs are very hard to move fast and accurately. If it could achieve a human-level mobility over rough terrain (perhaps by having a human brain interface), it'd be much better than a tank in any urban, jungle or mountain environment. In short, everywhere where a tracked vehicle would get stuck. In fact, jungle warfare is something mechs would exceed at. That's not ArmA, you can't drive a tank into the forest, felling trees as you go. A small walker, on the other hand, could step over really deep vegetation.

As for armament, missiles and machine guns. It'd be an infantry support vehicle, it should not be compared to tanks at all, nor does it need to have equivalent firepower. In fact, it could easily become a highly mobile urban tank hunter, due to high capacity (you can afford that with a machine), relatively fast firing AT missiles (like Javelin with a bulky, but fast reloading system).

There's no need for very large mechs like heavy or assault classes from MW, unless you'd want an urban siege vehicle with enough firepower to level a building, but capable of not being stuck in the rubble like tanks are prone to. In that case, it'd need huge, heavily armored legs and torso, only really differing from a tank by the means of locomotion, and much lower top speed. That said, it'd probably be vulnerable to AT missiles just like tanks are.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Guest

[KASASpace]

I imagine that it'd look like a cockpit with a missile launcher on top and an MG turret on the front. If your goal is mobility, you'll want a 1-man machine, with fairly automated weaponary. Larger, 2-man versions could have side turrets with heavy MGs.

Except the tank would have a hard time hitting such a small thing. Or even get to where it can take the shot. Yes, a mech would not be heavily armored, but it's mobility would offset that. The main difficulty with mechs is stability, legs are very hard to move fast and accurately. If it could achieve a human-level mobility over rough terrain (perhaps by having a human brain interface), it'd be much better than a tank in any urban, jungle or mountain environment. In short, everywhere where a tracked vehicle would get stuck. In fact, jungle warfare is something mechs would exceed at. That's not ArmA, you can't drive a tank into the forest, felling trees as you go. A small walker, on the other hand, could step over really deep vegetation.

As for armament, missiles and machine guns. It'd be an infantry support vehicle, it should not be compared to tanks at all, nor does it need to have equivalent firepower. In fact, it could easily become a highly mobile urban tank hunter, due to high capacity (you can afford that with a machine), relatively fast firing AT missiles (like Javelin with a bulky, but fast reloading system).

There's no need for very large mechs like heavy or assault classes from MW, unless you'd want an urban siege vehicle with enough firepower to level a building, but capable of not being stuck in the rubble like tanks are prone to. In that case, it'd need huge, heavily armored legs and torso, only really differing from a tank by the means of locomotion, and much lower top speed. That said, it'd probably be vulnerable to AT missiles just like tanks are.

Wait, leg stability, or vehicle stability? Because I believe that you could actually use a gyro to keep it from falling over, as long as the center isn't damaged too much....

Thank you for explaining what I think of mechs and their uses.

[KASASpace]

Look, if legs offered any kind of mobility advantage over tracks that was worth it, we'd be using them already.

Look, legs are more advantageous, but wheels are cheaper. That's the only real reason, cost. But if you heavily modularize everything of the battlemech including it's legs than you wouldn't have many problems with cost.

[Stargate525]

Look, if legs offered any kind of mobility advantage over tracks that was worth it, we'd be using them already.

We've only gotten to the point where the engineering and materials science is allowing the drawbacks of their complexity to not outweigh the benefits. A damaged tread is just easier to repair than a broken mech leg.

If we see them, I'm betting they're going to end up looking much more like power armor than anything else. 2-5 tons, used as a heavy weapons support platform, strong enough to take care of some basic clearing for heavier tanks and such, but unable to deflect anything tanks would throw.

[Camacha]

Look, if legs offered any kind of mobility advantage over tracks that was worth it, we'd be using them already.

You do realise that this is exactly what Darpa and others have been developing and wanting for years, right? Legs offer amazingly adaptable offroad capabilities that tracks simply do not. Not to mention that tracks are noisy and generally take a lot of maintenance.

And yes, this is only a prototype. The goal might be something like an artificial mule that will be able to carry heavy equipment for soldiers in the field, leaving them less exhausted in battle and more able to carry heavy weapons behind enemy lines. Wherever soldiers can go, it can go. No jeep or tank that will do that yet. Another line of development are exoskeletons, boosting soldier's power and again reducing fatigue.

That is only the first stage. You could easily imagine those evolving into armoured suits for heavy infantry support. From there it is a relatively small step towards autonomous robot soldiers.

Proper walking robots are almost infinitly useful - there is a reason a lot of animals use legs for propulsion.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Camacha

[Tommygun]

Here is the Marine Corps version of the DARPA program.

Low unit cost with fuel and maintenance available through indigenous vendors.

Damaged units can be re-purposed into MREs.

[Seret]

Not to mention a damn sight quieter and can be trained to lie down. DARPA's remit is blue-sky thinking. Their job is to throw 100 crazy ideas at the wall, and if one sticks that's great. They aren't necessarily investigating anything the various branches of the US forces have expressed a need for.

Look, legs are more advantageous, but wheels are cheaper. That's the only real reason, cost. But if you heavily modularize everything of the battlemech including it's legs than you wouldn't have many problems with cost.

Cost isn't an issue, legs wouldn't be significantly more expensive than wheels or tracks. The issue is that legs are inherently unstable, are more complicated, and don't have 100 years of automotive experience behind them to ensure reliability. On a combat vehicle they'd also be quite vulnerable, as to keep efficiency up you'd want them to have a very minimal amount of armour on them. When you weigh up the pros and cons there really aren't a lot of reasons to put legs on things.

We've only gotten to the point where the engineering and materials science is allowing the drawbacks of their complexity to not outweigh the benefits. A damaged tread is just easier to repair than a broken mech leg.

It's not a really a materials problem, it's a control one. Walking is an inherently unstable system, you need really good control systems for it to work. I'd say we're nowhere near the point where the added complexity is outweighed by any benefits. Power supply is a huge issue for current walking robots, they suck a lot of fuel to get very mediocre performance.

I imagine that it'd look like a cockpit with a missile launcher on top and an MG turret on the front. If your goal is mobility, you'll want a 1-man machine, with fairly automated weaponary. Larger, 2-man versions could have side turrets with heavy MGs.

A one-man ground combat vehicle is pretty unlikely any time soon, even the lightest have a minimum of a two-man crew. Having to drive, operate weapons, acquire targets, communicate and maintain the vehicle is too much for one man.

Except the tank would have a hard time hitting such a small thing.

Nope, fire control on modern AFVs would have no problem at all with that.

Yes, a mech would not be heavily armored, but it's mobility would offset that.

A walker is going to be slower than pretty much everything else on the battlefield. The ability to also walk across a small subset of terrain that might be inaccessible to wheeled vehicles (but probably not most tracked ones) isn't a major mobility advantage IMO.

it'd be much better than a tank in any urban, jungle or mountain environment.

I disagree about urban, our cities are designed for wheeled vehicles with far less mobility than AFVs. The reason AFVs don't like fighting in urban areas is because engagement ranges are short, there's tons of cover for infantry, and they're at risk from top attack/off route mines/various other nasties. A walking vehicle would face the exact same risks, so wouldn't really be an improvement.

As for jungles/woods, I think you'd find a tall vehicle would actually struggle a lot of the time.

That's not ArmA, you can't drive a tank into the forest, felling trees as you go.

Sure you can.

In fact, it could easily become a highly mobile urban tank hunter, due to high capacity (you can afford that with a machine), relatively fast firing AT missiles (like Javelin with a bulky, but fast reloading system).

But would this actually be able to outperform current tank hunting teams? An ATGM team in a softskin or MRAP would be faster when mounted, and much more survivable when they dismounted to go hunting. Even if you hypothetical mini-mech was agile enough to be able to lie down and get up it'd still be harder to conceal than two guys with an ATGM firing post.

[magnemoe]

We've only gotten to the point where the engineering and materials science is allowing the drawbacks of their complexity to not outweigh the benefits. A damaged tread is just easier to repair than a broken mech leg.

If we see them, I'm betting they're going to end up looking much more like power armor than anything else. 2-5 tons, used as a heavy weapons support platform, strong enough to take care of some basic clearing for heavier tanks and such, but unable to deflect anything tanks would throw.

One interesting idea would be an wheel+ legs combination. You use 4WD wheels most of the time but switch to legs in very rough terrain or to pass obstacles. This will be even more useful for robots who will get stuck easier because they are small, have lower situation awareness and no crew to help them get them out.

They could also keep an low profile as it would be 4-6 wheels + 4-6 legs.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why stop at 4-6 legs? Make it have a hundred lighter, finer legs so that having some damaged doesn't put it out of commission and make them replaceable modules to make damage repair easier. Strike terror in the hearts of your enemies with your army of mechanical centipedes!

[Seret]

I still think helicopter+legs might be a goer. A vehicle that was a bit slow and clunky under it's own power might not be so bad if it was coupled to a helicopter that could rapidly put it where it was needed. It'd limit the upper weight quite a bit, it might be worth taking the man out and making it semi-autonomous to save on volume under armour. The crew operating it could even stay in the helicopter.