Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[Camacha]

I said it was easy, but it is tedious.

Anything else than saying that it is one of the hardest robotics (or most other technological) challenges is simply misunderstanding the subject and problems involved

Discworld.

[KASASpace]

Anything else than saying that it is one of the hardest robotics (or most other technological) challenges is simply misunderstanding the subject and problems involved

Discworld.

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"

[Accelerando]

"A bunch of equations." Please, inform us what this "bunch of equations" is and instruct us on how to "so easily" employ them in "easy" program. The mathematics behind KSP are pretty "easy" too, by comparison to actual orbital mechanics...

[Starwaster]

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 remember playing MW and I was doing some mission killing a buncha enemy 'mechs and for some reason I was in a Locust even though the mission called for medium-heavy. I think I just got a kick running around in my Locust. Anyway I'd hit on this scheme where I'd hide behind the larger mechs and wait until we got near to point blank range then I'd run out and laser their legs out from under them. Got lots of great salvage that way. So, I'm in my Locust hiding behind a .... Shadowhawk I think it was? Did MW2 have them? And it fires off a salvo from medium range at a Battlemaster before I was ready to engage. And then he hits his jump jets and all I see is this ****ed off Battlemaster turn and look in my direction for the source of the irritation. And it swatted me down from a distance like I was NOTHING.

Such fun...

[DJEN]

10 tonnes is the limit. If heavier, the giant robot will be a fragile piece of hardware that will succumb to the effects of the square/cube law.

So, no battlemechs for you.

...Although unmanned walker units would be possible...

[Red Iron Crown]

Unless some new material is developed that is stronger and lighter, a graphene derivative maybe?

[SargeRho]

I don't think we'll ever see anything heavier or bigger than the AMP Suit in Avatar, or SHIELD units in Act of War. Large mechs would have too many disadvantages compared to Tanks and other AFVs. First, they are giant targets, and secondly they are maintenance nightmares.

Edited March 20, 2014 by SargeRho

[KASASpace]

"A bunch of equations." Please, inform us what this "bunch of equations" is and instruct us on how to "so easily" employ them in "easy" program. The mathematics behind KSP are pretty "easy" too, by comparison to actual orbital mechanics...

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.

[KASASpace]

10 tonnes is the limit. If heavier, the giant robot will be a fragile piece of hardware that will succumb to the effects of the square/cube law.

So, no battlemechs for you.

...Although unmanned walker units would be possible...

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........

[Guest]

*snip*

OK, in order:

1. A "vehicle" might not be a good word at this point. I'd imagine it to be halfway between vehicle and a powered armor.

2. Yeah, with a machine gun. Tank cannons can't reliably hit a fast-moving target the size of a horse with an APFSDS round, while HE rounds' blast would probably be too weak to leg the mech.

3. Then you know nothing about battlefield mobility. If we can make an agile, fast, legged movement system, then it's gonna be much, much more mobile and definitely less prone to get stuck.

4. Have you seen what a fortified city looks like? Cities are designed with cars in mind, but put up some barricades, scatter around rubble and that's it for a tank. A walker could climb barricades and piles of rubble, a tank is stopped by a bunch of iron "tank traps". Also, since a walker's surface contact area is smaller than a tank's, stepping on a mine is less likely. And ambushes and close-range fire are a problem for everything, including squads of infantry.

Sure, a walker would struggle to get through denser overgrowth. However, the tank wouldn't even come within a mile of it, just because it'd sink into the bog long before.

5. Say what? Well, nope. You can't. Where did you get that idea? You'll go a few meters, then get trees stuck in your threads. A tank can and will get bogged down in a thick forest, trust me on that. Getting a tank through a forest is a pain even in the latest ArmA, IRL it's near-impossible.

6. Imagine a HMMWV with a missile launcher, that can crouch and camouflage itself. Yes, it would probably outperform an ATGM team when high mobility is needed. It wouldn't be so great for ambushes, but for urban tank hunting, by all means.

[Stargate525]

5. Say what? Well, nope. You can't. Where did you get that idea? You'll go a few meters, then get trees stuck in your threads. A tank can and will get bogged down in a thick forest, trust me on that. Getting a tank through a forest is a pain even in the latest ArmA, IRL it's near-impossible.

You also forgot to mention that trees annihilate a tank's turret traverse capabilities. I would assume an arm-mounted gun would be able to elevate enough to maneuver around them.

[mego-pie]

they would not be able to have nearly as big weapons due to the fact that the recoil would nock them over. they would be very easy to nock over due to and thus disable and would not be able to move as fast. most infantry would be able to blow them apart with a light rocket launcher or recoilless rifle. their high profiles would make them easy targets that could easily be hit with tank fire.

any technology that could be used to over come these deficiencies could be used to make tanks that are even more effective then the mechs.

there is literally no upside to them other than being cool looking.

[KASASpace]

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.

[KASASpace]

they would not be able to have nearly as big weapons due to the fact that the recoil would nock them over. they would be very easy to nock over due to and thus disable and would not be able to move as fast. most infantry would be able to blow them apart with a light rocket launcher or recoilless rifle. their high profiles would make them easy targets that could easily be hit with tank fire.

any technology that could be used to over come these deficiencies could be used to make tanks that are even more effective then the mechs.

there is literally no upside to them other than being cool looking.

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:

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.

That was mine...

[Red Iron Crown]

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.

That's a negative against the mech. The same mass of armor will give less protection because it has to be spread over a larger area.

2.) The lower leg would be almost 90% hollow with deflection plating, and hollow cross beams crossing the legs

Now the center of mass has moved even higher, making the mech even harder to keep upright.

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....

That is offset by being a much, much smaller target for a given mass. Those big hollow spaces you describe make the mech a bigger, softer target, and the hollow structures are still structural, so damage to them is still important.

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.

You've given the mech the first two shots and made the first a critical hit. Hardly a fair comparison.

The reverse would be: Tank sights mech. Shoots autocannon at legs. Mech immobilized with additional damage from falling. Tank get stinger lock and fires some rounds from a multi-barrel missile launcher. Mech gets crippled. Etc.

Remember, too, that we're not comparing the mech to today's tanks, but ones built with the same technology as goes into the mech.

[KASASpace]

That's a negative against the mech. The same mass of armor will give less protection because it has to be spread over a larger area.

Now the center of mass has moved even higher, making the mech even harder to keep upright.

That is offset by being a much, much smaller target for a given mass. Those big hollow spaces you describe make the mech a bigger, softer target, and the hollow structures are still structural, so damage to them is still important.

You've given the mech the first two shots and made the first a critical hit. Hardly a fair comparison.

The reverse would be: Tank sights mech. Shoots autocannon at legs. Mech immobilized with additional damage from falling. Tank get stinger lock and fires some rounds from a multi-barrel missile launcher. Mech gets crippled. Etc.

Remember, too, that we're not comparing the mech to today's tanks, but ones built with the same technology as goes into the mech.

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.

[*Aqua*]

I would just shoot a projectile with a huge amount of kinetic force. If the impact happens in the upper torso or higher up, the mech will simply fall over. It then will take time for it to stand up again. In this time at least 3 tanks or rocket infantries deploy their guns to finally destroy the mech.

Just the size of a mech is a handicap.

Meanwhile the Japanese...

Look at the weaponary! And don't smile or you'll rip apart your surroundings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuPDQ8H3qM

This thing does exist! Really! Costs about a small 1.3 million US$.

[KASASpace]

I would just shoot a projectile with a huge amount of kinetic force. If the impact happens in the upper torso or higher up, the mech will simply fall over. It then will take time for it to stand up again. In this time at least 3 tanks or rocket infantries deploy their guns to finally destroy the mech.

Just the size of a mech is a handicap.

Meanwhile the Japanese...

Look at the weaponary! And don't smile or you'll rip apart your surroundings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuPDQ8H3qM

This thing does exist! Really! Costs about a small 1.3 million US$.

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......

[Brethern]

they would not be able to have nearly as big weapons due to the fact that the recoil would nock them over. they would be very easy to nock over due to and thus disable and would not be able to move as fast. most infantry would be able to blow them apart with a light rocket launcher or recoilless rifle. their high profiles would make them easy targets that could easily be hit with tank fire.

any technology that could be used to over come these deficiencies could be used to make tanks that are even more effective then the mechs.

there is literally no upside to them other than being cool looking.

Tanks normally have weak armor on the top. Clearly anything that towers over them and would be able to hit that area isn't worth investigating.

As for the recoil maybe you should learn a bit about weapons. There's plenty of ways to negate the recoil if you're building a mech they aren't crazy ideas.

[KASASpace]

Tanks normally have weak armor on the top. Clearly anything that towers over them and would be able to hit that area isn't worth investigating.

As for the recoil maybe you should learn a bit about weapons. There's plenty of ways to negate the recoil if you're building a mech they aren't crazy ideas.

Huh.

Reminds me of battleships, and cruisers.

Tanks, landcruisers. Interesting.

[*Aqua*]

four to eight mechs

Disguise is a major point in military tech. Those lances will be easily spotted. And because they are easily spotted and are a great threat they'll be the first targets of everyone.

Imagine you'll spot a troop of 10 soldiers and a mech. You have a heavy maschine gun, effective against infantry, and a 'big bang' bazooka, effective against mechs. You can only strike one target. Which one will you choose? Most people will choose the mech. It's easy to spot, moves slowly* and are therefore easy to hit.

* Don't expect mechs to run at 100 mph. That will never happen. Ever.

If the mechs of the future are only 2-3 meters tall, then I'll reconsider how useful they are. 10 meter tall mechs are just cannon fodder.

Edited March 21, 2014 by *Aqua*

[DJEN]

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........

Ah, you hit me hard on this one, indeed.

I shall think more before posting from now on.

[DJEN]

It seems that this thread has degenerated into a bunch of moronic critics using logical fallacies against each other.

And to my shame, I've become one of them.

[landeTLS]

Mechs are better than tanks for the simple reason that they are much cooler:D

Nvm the inverse square law, power requirements, stability and other considerations.

Iets concider all these things could somehow be solved and something like an inner sphere catapult could be built and used as a mobile missile boat. Well it would be much more mobile than anything ground based currently in existence and carry much bigger and more missiles. Wouldnt that be a big advantage?

Edited March 21, 2014 by landeTLS

[Red Iron Crown]

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.

So make the tank the equivalent volume as the mech with a bunch of hollow spaces, if you think that's an advantage.

It's not, though. It's better to have the armor shrinkwrapped around the parts that need protection as that minimizes target size and delivers maximum protection per unit mass.

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.

Why can't the tank have the same control systems as the mech? Assuming we have systems sophisticated enough for a mech to be operated solo, a tank should be no trouble to do the same. Though I think a two person crew is better for both tank and mech, one pilot and one weapons operator.