Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[Seret]

Yep, let's back the truck up and address sine points where the discussion has diverged from reality.

Red Iron Crown is bang on. Minimising volume under armour is a key principle of AFV design. You aren't going to add armour weight to protect fresh air.

You also aren't going to armour the legs to any degree. Every kilo you add to a leg reduces your mobility and takes armour away from the higher priority systems (crew if any, magazines, weapons and sights, power plant). Best bet for legs would be to forgo armour and go for redundancy. Combat experience shows his low down on a vehicle are very rare anyway.

As for single crew mechs, again this shows a lack of appreciation of how AFV crews work. There's a reason that everything designed to fight has three or more crew. The gunner and commander work as a team, the commander searches for and identifies targets for the gunner, so the gunner can concentrate on engaging them as rapidly as possible. Modern tanks call this hunter-killer mode. Some early tanks had the commander do duty as gunner too, but combat experience put an end to that pretty swiftly. To claim that a single crewed vehicle would be quicker at engaging targets in stressful combat conditions is just balls.

I believe someone earlier also talked about mechs climbing over linear obstacles. If the enemy knew they'd be facing that they'd just stack their hescos or concrete barriers double height. Mechs still wouldn't be able to cross road blocks like an abatis any better than wheels or tracks either.

As for mechs being less likely to step on mines, that's pretty marginal. Many AT mines aren't pressure triggered anyway. Buried mines can be magnetic, and IEDs or off route mines are either command our use other sensors.

[KASASpace]

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.

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

[KASASpace]

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.

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.

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.

Yep, let's back the truck up and address sine points where the discussion has diverged from reality.

Red Iron Crown is bang on. Minimising volume under armour is a key principle of AFV design. You aren't going to add armour weight to protect fresh air.

You also aren't going to armour the legs to any degree. Every kilo you add to a leg reduces your mobility and takes armour away from the higher priority systems (crew if any, magazines, weapons and sights, power plant). Best bet for legs would be to forgo armour and go for redundancy. Combat experience shows his low down on a vehicle are very rare anyway.

As for single crew mechs, again this shows a lack of appreciation of how AFV crews work. There's a reason that everything designed to fight has three or more crew. The gunner and commander work as a team, the commander searches for and identifies targets for the gunner, so the gunner can concentrate on engaging them as rapidly as possible. Modern tanks call this hunter-killer mode. Some early tanks had the commander do duty as gunner too, but combat experience put an end to that pretty swiftly. To claim that a single crewed vehicle would be quicker at engaging targets in stressful combat conditions is just balls.

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)

Edited March 21, 2014 by KASASpace

[KASASpace]

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.

[Red Iron Crown]

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.

Oh I get what you're saying, I just think your reasoning is fallacious:

Let us assume a tank and a mech of equal mass and technology base.

1. The tank will be more compact and lower to the ground, better able to take advantage of cover.

2. Because its armor area is much smaller, the armor will be much thicker.

3. The tank will be much faster for the same engine power.

4. Because of the the above, the tank will be much less likely to be hit, and if it is hit will be more likely to survive the hit due to thicker armor.

5. Also, the tank cannot be knocked over or lose balance, so it maintains much of its combat effectiveness even if immobilized. Take out a leg of the mech and it's down, likely with its sensors and weapons facing the wrong way, certainly not in the same orientation as before it was immobilized.

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.

Why would the mech would have more sensors? Why would the tank commander be more surprised than the mech operator? If you're giving the mech better sensors and better trained crews, it's hardly a fair comparison. We need to make a comparison between vehicles where all is equal except for means of locomotion to get an idea of the advantages and disadvantages.

[KASASpace]

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.

Edited March 21, 2014 by KASASpace

[KASASpace]

Why would the mech would have more sensors? Why would the tank commander be more surprised than the mech operator? If you're giving the mech better sensors and better trained crews, it's hardly a fair comparison. We need to make a comparison between vehicles where all is equal except for means of locomotion to get an idea of the advantages and disadvantages.

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.

[KASASpace]

Oh I get what you're saying, I just think your reasoning is fallacious:

Let us assume a tank and a mech of equal mass and technology base.

1. The tank will be more compact and lower to the ground, better able to take advantage of cover.

2. Because its armor area is much smaller, the armor will be much thicker.

3. The tank will be much faster for the same engine power.

4. Because of the the above, the tank will be much less likely to be hit, and if it is hit will be more likely to survive the hit due to thicker armor.

5. Also, the tank cannot be knocked over or lose balance, so it maintains much of its combat effectiveness even if immobilized. Take out a leg of the mech and it's down, likely with its sensors and weapons facing the wrong way, certainly not in the same orientation as before it was immobilized.

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)

[Seret]

Oh I get what you're saying, I just think your reasoning is fallacious.

Tbh you'd probably be best off leaving it at that. You're not going to get through.

[KASASpace]

Tbh you'd probably be best off leaving it at that. You're not going to get through.

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

[KASASpace]

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

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.

[Red Iron Crown]

In a pattern like this:

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

Rows of Os, got it.

Made of hyper carbon you would have one of the strongest things in existence.

One of the stronger ones would be an equal mass tank with thicker, stronger hyper carbon.

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.

The armor of the legs is structural, I get that. I don't get how damaging that structural armor by punching holes in it will not affect the structural integrity it provides. Punch holes in the structure of a leg and that leg will crumple.

It has more sensors because it's designed to be able to detect more, as it HUNTS the tanks.

Tanks are designed to hunt tanks, too, so they have the best sensors available for that task. Those sensors are also the best for hunting mechs, as the tasks of hunting mechs and tanks are more similar than different.

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.

Oh ok, you're pitting a mech from the future against a present day tank. I concede that a mech with super armor, super weapons, advanced sensors and a fusion powerplant will most likely win in a battle with an Abrams, especially if the tank crew has never seen a mech or even knew they existed. It is unlikely to win against a tank with the same weapons, armor, sensors, powerplant, and crew training/experience.

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)

1. So, to become anything close to as small a target as the tank, the mech has to compromise its ability to move quickly. Got it.

2. If the tank and mech have the same internal equipment but the mech is 75% empty volume, the armor area to enclose it is necessarily larger. And that doesn't even take into account the better volume to surface area ratio of the tank. This means the same mass of armor will be thinner for the mech.

3. The mech will be slower for any given engine power. Legs are less efficient at going fast than wheels, anyone who's ridden a bicycle knows that. Those "basic" hydraulic pumps would have to be at least as powerful as a commercial excavator for each leg.

4. The likelihood of being hit is much smaller for the tank as it is so much smaller and faster; it's not three quarters full of empty space, is a more space efficient, lower profile shape, and has a more efficient locomotive method. And you're defining "surviving" as "having holes punched in structural parts that allow it to stay upright and move". Knock out a tank's track and you immobilize it, turning it into a heavily armed and armored bunker that is still dangerous to approach. Knock out a mech's legs and it falls, leaving the bottom aspect of the mech vulnerable to attack. You don't even need to destroy the legs, just trip it up or roll a bunch of logs at it Ewok-style.

5. There are very, very few buildings around that can take a 10+ ton mass suddenly hanging off them without crumbling. Because your mech can move like a human and is made of super materials is not going to reinforce the buildings around you.

[KASASpace]

Rows of Os, got it.

That's the quickest way I could represent it. "similar to isogrid, but with circles"

One of the stronger ones would be an equal mass tank with thicker, stronger hyper carbon.

But it wouldn't the advantage of the lack of NEED for armor for certain areas.

The armor of the legs is structural, I get that. I don't get how damaging that structural armor by punching holes in it will not affect the structural integrity it provides. Punch holes in the structure of a leg and that leg will crumple.

It's not two-sided, probably more hexagonal prism legs. This adds some deflection to the armor as well.

Tanks are designed to hunt tanks, too, so they have the best sensors available for that task. Those sensors are also the best for hunting mechs, as the tasks of hunting mechs and tanks are more similar than different.

Yes, but this is designed to get in and get out, not go on a prolonged slugging match.

Oh ok, you're pitting a mech from the future against a present day tank. I concede that a mech with super armor, super weapons, advanced sensors and a fusion powerplant will most likely win in a battle with an Abrams, especially if the tank crew has never seen a mech or even knew they existed. It is unlikely to win against a tank with the same weapons, armor, sensors, powerplant, and crew training/experience.

Of course it's from the future, because we haven't built one yet. I'm talking with current technologies available to us.

1. So, to become anything close to as small a target as the tank, the mech has to compromise its ability to move quickly. Got it.

2. If the tank and mech have the same internal equipment but the mech is 75% empty volume, the armor area to enclose it is necessarily larger. And that doesn't even take into account the better volume to surface area ratio of the tank. This means the same mass of armor will be thinner for the mech.

3. The mech will be slower for any given engine power. Legs are less efficient at going fast than wheels, anyone who's ridden a bicycle knows that. Those "basic" hydraulic pumps would have to be at least as powerful as a commercial excavator for each leg.

4. The likelihood of being hit is much smaller for the tank as it is so much smaller and faster; it's not three quarters full of empty space, is a more space efficient, lower profile shape, and has a more efficient locomotive method. And you're defining "surviving" as "having holes punched in structural parts that allow it to stay upright and move". Knock out a tank's track and you immobilize it, turning it into a heavily armed and armored bunker that is still dangerous to approach. Knock out a mech's legs and it falls, leaving the bottom aspect of the mech vulnerable to attack. You don't even need to destroy the legs, just trip it up or roll a bunch of logs at it Ewok-style.

5. There are very, very few buildings around that can take a 10+ ton mass suddenly hanging off them without crumbling. Because your mech can move like a human and is made of super materials is not going to reinforce the buildings around you.

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?

[andrewas]

You're committing the single most common mistake in mech vs reality arguments - you give the mech hypothetical future-tech but the opposition aren't allowed it. Guess what, if mechs are ever built and tried in warfare, they are going to go up against technologically equivalent enemies. For the first few battles the enemy won't be equipped or trained to fight mechs, but that will rapidly change. Its important to consider what conventional forces will do to combat the mechs, rather than simply declaring that your mechs are from the future and thus win by default.

Also, regarding point 3 - gears let you trade force for speed, they don't get you any more power. If takes X amount of power to move a limb at a given speed, you can't cheat and gear up a smaller engine to do the job, the engine will simply stall. Walking is less efficient than rolling, your mech needs more engine power than a tank does, relative to its mass.

[Red Iron Crown]

KASASpace, I don't know how to address your line of reasoning with the legs. Somehow, they are not armored and only contain lightweight structure, yet that structure suffers no ill effects from having holes punched in it by powerful weapons.

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.

1. Crouching people don't move quickly when compared to standing people, who in turn are slow compared to human powered wheeled vehicles. Bipedal locomotion is slower than wheels or tracks all other things being equal, it is as simple as that.

2. So only the engine and ammo are armored? Then the limbs are easily disabled. Or do you mean CASE in Battletech where when they get hit they focus the explosion safely away? No reason a tank couldn't use this technology too, while retaining its other advantages. The unarmored hollow legs are somehow still resistant to damage? You'll have to explain a bit better how that works to me.

3. Tank drivetrains are geared, so the comparison is apt. As for "So, please do that better next time", may I remind you that I've only spoken to you with respect and ask you for the same courtesy.

4. First, you're limiting the engagement to places with 2+ story buildings. OK. As one approaches a hostile building, the mech exposes a larger target from its frontal aspect, including its unarmored legs, while the tank shows its much smaller and heavily armored front. When adjacent to the building, it is true that the tank is at its most vulnerable, but so is the mech. The head and other critical systems are at eye level, point blank range for any ambusher. Plus the tank, with its greater speed, will pass through this vulnerable zone in less time than the mech, minimizing the vulnerable period.

5. OK, I'll assume that the C64 controlling the legs has a backup program for operating on one leg. And I'll even concede that the impact of the hit to the top heavy bipedal mech's leg might not bowl it over immediately, though it seems unlikely. But I have to ask: How will the one legged mech keep its other unarmored leg from being knocked out?

Now, can we just please start talking sense and get ourselves out of this stupid slugging match?

I think I am talking sense and the discussion is only stupid if we make it so.

[KASASpace]

You're committing the single most common mistake in mech vs reality arguments - you give the mech hypothetical future-tech but the opposition aren't allowed it. Guess what, if mechs are ever built and tried in warfare, they are going to go up against technologically equivalent enemies. For the first few battles the enemy won't be equipped or trained to fight mechs, but that will rapidly change. Its important to consider what conventional forces will do to combat the mechs, rather than simply declaring that your mechs are from the future and thus win by default.

Also, regarding point 3 - gears let you trade force for speed, they don't get you any more power. If takes X amount of power to move a limb at a given speed, you can't cheat and gear up a smaller engine to do the job, the engine will simply stall. Walking is less efficient than rolling, your mech needs more engine power than a tank does, relative to its mass.

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.

[KASASpace]

KASASpace, I don't know how to address your line of reasoning with the legs. Somehow, they are not armored and only contain lightweight structure, yet that structure suffers no ill effects from having holes punched in it by powerful weapons.

1. Crouching people don't move quickly when compared to standing people, who in turn are slow compared to human powered wheeled vehicles. Bipedal locomotion is slower than wheels or tracks all other things being equal, it is as simple as that.

2. So only the engine and ammo are armored? Then the limbs are easily disabled. Or do you mean CASE in Battletech where when they get hit they focus the explosion safely away? No reason a tank couldn't use this technology too, while retaining its other advantages. The unarmored hollow legs are somehow still resistant to damage? You'll have to explain a bit better how that works to me.

3. Tank drivetrains are geared, so the comparison is apt. As for "So, please do that better next time", may I remind you that I've only spoken to you with respect and ask you for the same courtesy.

4. First, you're limiting the engagement to places with 2+ story buildings. OK. As one approaches a hostile building, the mech exposes a larger target from its frontal aspect, including its unarmored legs, while the tank shows its much smaller and heavily armored front. When adjacent to the building, it is true that the tank is at its most vulnerable, but so is the mech. The head and other critical systems are at eye level, point blank range for any ambusher. Plus the tank, with its greater speed, will pass through this vulnerable zone in less time than the mech, minimizing the vulnerable period.

5. OK, I'll assume that the C64 controlling the legs has a backup program for operating on one leg. And I'll even concede that the impact of the hit to the top heavy bipedal mech's leg might not bowl it over immediately, though it seems unlikely. But I have to ask: How will the one legged mech keep its other unarmored leg from being knocked out?

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.

[KASASpace]

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

[Camacha]

Why do you guys so desperately want to compare tanks to possible mechs? I think a lot more obvious and natural role is that of heavy infantry. You get all the benefits, flexibility and maneuverability of a soldier, plus added endurance, firepower and armour. As I said before, I am not sure about longterm deployment in the field - there are quite a lot of uncertain factors there - but as heavy shock troops I can see them being quite fearsome and effective. I would not want to fight a squad of guys that will only go down when hit with something that can take out armoured vehicles.

Obviously, those guys will wear suits that are only a little bigger than a man.

Maybe that even bigger, more heavily armed suits have a role on the battlefield, but only time will tell. I would imagine those being a bit like ground based Apache helictopers, but without the benefit of mobility.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Camacha

[KASASpace]

Why do you guys so desperately want to compare tanks to possible mechs? I think a lot more obvious and natural role is that of heavy infantry. You get all the benefits, flexibility and maneuverability of a soldier, plus added endurance, firepower and armour. As I said before, I am not sure about longterm deployment in the field - there are quite a lot of uncertain factors there - but as heavy shock troops I can see them being quite fearsome and effective. I would not want to fight a squad of guys that will only go down when hit with something that can take out armoured vehicles.

Obviously, those guys will wear suits that are only a little bigger than a man.

Maybe that bigger, more heavily armed suits have a role on the battlefield, but only time will tell. I would imagine those being a bit like ground based Apache helictopers, but without the benefit of mobility.

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.

[Camacha]

I'm also trying to explain that mechs and tanks are actually pretty equivalent, despite speed

To be honest, I think they are two quite different types of platform, and would generally be used in different ways as a result. If they actually were to be equivalent, there is no reason to develop mechs, as tanks fill that role quite succesfully already.

[Red Iron Crown]

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.

1. It will be slower than the equivalent tank, so easier to hit and more vulnerable.

2. So we're back to armored legs and the mech having less armor to protect its vitals, and the heavier armored legs are harder to move so the mech is even slower. OK.

3. I'm open to what you think a better comparison would be, especially as you feel my comparison of biologically powered legs to biologically powered wheels is somehow not analagous to mechanically powered legs and wheels.

4. I don't think the cheetah can do 40kph offroad, and an equivalent, unarmored wheeled vehicle like an ATV will be significantly faster over all but the most difficult terrain. Bipedal motion is just inefficient, there's no way to handwave that away.

5. You didn't answer the one question I asked you.

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.

Follow that example further:

1. The hits in the "empty" space are analogous to hits to the limbs of the mech, which even if mostly empty will suffer damage to the structure (monocoques like you describe rely on the skin continuity for strength) as well as the control mechanisms for those limbs. This will seriously impede the mechs ability to continue battle.

2. Hits to the non-critical areas of the mech are complete misses against the tank, which can only be an advantage for the tank.

3. I could fold my paper over itself to a greater thickness since I'm covering less area, so the paper has a better chance of stopping any hit to the critical area.

4. Even if 3 above wasn't true, the critical areas of both objects is equal, but the mech has all that other area where, deny it as you might, hits will affect it. Thus the mech is more vulnerable.

5. Your example doesn't take into account that the critical area on the tank is low to the ground and more easily hidden behind cover (cover that protects a mech's legs leaving its torso exposed will protect the everything but the turret of a tank, with no compromise to the tanks ability to maneuver as needed.

[KASASpace]

3. The mech will be slower for any given engine power. Legs are less efficient at going fast than wheels, anyone who's ridden a bicycle knows that. Those "basic" hydraulic pumps would have to be at least as powerful as a commercial excavator for each leg.

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

[Red Iron Crown]

Why do you guys so desperately want to compare tanks to possible mechs? I think a lot more obvious and natural role is that of heavy infantry. You get all the benefits, flexibility and maneuverability of a soldier, plus added endurance, firepower and armour. As I said before, I am not sure about longterm deployment in the field - there are quite a lot of uncertain factors there - but as heavy shock troops I can see them being quite fearsome and effective. I would not want to fight a squad of guys that will only go down when hit with something that can take out armoured vehicles.

Obviously, those guys will wear suits that are only a little bigger than a man.

Maybe that even bigger, more heavily armed suits have a role on the battlefield, but only time will tell. I would imagine those being a bit like ground based Apache helictopers, but without the benefit of mobility.

Man sized power suits are a whole different animal, definitely viable. Especially in urban combat, where fitting into man-sized spaces for clearing buildings is critical.

[Red Iron Crown]

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

And how fast is the fastest bicycle sprint? Over 40 mph.