What combat role could a mech play on a real battlefield?

[PFunk1606688187]

Infantry can go anywhere, tanks cannot. Seems pretty self explanatory.

[OutOnTheOP]

When airplanes in WW I where introduced they were reconnaissance! ...too fragile, not enough space to arm them, can't load additional weight... leave alone fuel efficiency, even today's jets are not very fuel efficient.

I'm not saying we will see huge sci-fi Battlemechs in a war zone, but something smaller, using "legs" for moving and as flexible in the terrain as a soldier.

P.S. the LS3 is as slow as a Soldier running, may be faster...

 

Then you're not talking about mechs at all, you're talking about powered infantry armour and unmanned analogues; which, AGAIN, most of us think are feasible.

 

Quit moving the goalposts.

[NineLine]

Then you're not talking about mechs at all, you're talking about powered infantry armour and unmanned analogues; which, AGAIN, most of us think are feasible.

 

Quit moving the goalposts.

 

 

Isnt powered infantry armour sorta a form of mech, least in the sense we have seen in Sci-fi games and movies?

[shagrat]

But, I was clear about "not huge Battlemechs" from my first post... and no, neither powerarmor! A smaller, semi-autonomous drone Mech which is controlled remotely! Not moving targets here simply being misinterpreted... I also think we won't see bipeds like humans, as they are more unstable and in fact wasting lots of power just to keep em upright.

I do imagine a machine about the size of a Van, but about 3-4 meters tall, on 3-6 "legs" (or extendable wheels, whatever), highly mobile compared to current tanks or IFVs and carrying a standard array modular armament, like used today on armed vehicles... e.g. TOW/Stinger as Humvees and Bradleys share for anti Tank or anti Air roles. A bushmaster cannon against light armored targets, as shared by Strykers, Bradleys etc. Then 12.7 cals or M249s as anti infantry weapons or a 120mm cannon as in the Leopard 2, M1A2 or Stryker MGS. Basically all what I posted already. Such a mobile platform with easily switchable or mixed weapons could bring firepower to an Infantry unit where current systems can't. Together with a couple of updated TALON Swords it can provide a semi autonomous fighting group going into or against enemy positions to draw fire and break hardened positions before the ground forces clear and hold the ground. One or two different standard "Mech" chassis could fit a wide area of roles, maybe without need for reconfiguration.

[OutOnTheOP]

I believe the inherent advantages for mechs are as follows:

 

1) Ultra high modularity: Any weapon a soldier can use can be "biggie" sized and be used with a biomimetric mech. Furthermore, electromagnetic systems can be used effectively, yet don't have to define the parameters of it's chassis.

 

Why are "biggie sized" huge rifles an advantage? Having them interface to the chassis via rather clumsy interfaces like "hands" introduces a hell of a lot more instability than a good trunnion system. You may not know it, but tank cannon are carefully positioned to drive their recoil straight through the center of the turret ring so as to minimize recoil disruption and maximize stabilization. Hanging your weapons off of a long lever (and arm) only introduces wobble.

 

2) Ultra high agility: Within a reasonable size range for a given terrain, a walking mech can perform, theoretically, any feat of agility a human can. Peaking around a corner of a building and firing, then returning behind cover is far quicker (and more deadly) than a tank having to fully commit to engaging a target. Likewise improvised "shields" (i.e. a car) can be used if an air attack is imminent but, for whatever reason, cannot be engaged. Hell, just run around the other side of a large enough structure. Furthermore, terrain envelope increases drastically for artillery support with walking based locomotion.

 

"High agility" is still limited by the bounds of mass, inertia, and the material limitations of the ground off which the mech is pushing (IE, imagine trying to make a sprinter's start with your feet on loose sand. For a mech, ALL ground will be like that, because the strength of the soil does NOT scale with the size of the sprinter).

 

Given a powerplant of equivalent power, a tank will accelerate faster- due to higher powerplant efficiency, if nothing else. There is, equally, no reason a tank cannot pivot just as fast. Throw enough horsepower into the treads, and you could make it take off like a Ferrari.

 

How is "peeking around a corner" inherently advantageous? For one, a tank can do that, too. For two, ok, I throw on a telescoping mast-mounted sight or micro-UAV on a tank, then equip it with datalinked indirect fire missiles (like Spike, which ALREADY EXISTS). Bam. I don't even NEED to peek around the corner, I just fire from around the other side of it.

 

What, exactly, is an "artillery envelope"?

 

3) "Simple" dynamic fire control: With a haptic feedback system, at least for the upper torso, firing regimen for heavy artillery (that has been modified to be used on a mech) is no different then regular infantry training, no extremely expensive fire control has to be included.

 

Haptic controls could just as easily be tied to other bodily functions such as eye movements. Tie the weapons systems on a tank to eye movements, and you can kill a target by LOOKING at it. Doesn't get any easier than that. Not to mention, if you're talking direct neural control, that's silly- you'd want computer aiding anyhow; and at realistic combat ranges, you want a ballistic computer. Before ballistic computers and laser rangefinders, 800 meters was a "long" tank shot, and required 3-4 shots to ensure a hit. Nowadays, a modern western MBT can accomplish first-round hits (and kills) at 3500 meters plus. Are you SURE getting rid of those "super expensive" LRFs and BCs is such a brilliant idea? Particularly considering that the BC is less complex (and cheaper) than a smartphone? The expensive part of most fire control systems these days is the thermal imager... and it, too, provides a huge battlefield advantage you wouldn't want to lose. Certainly more advantage than the probably-more-expensive "walking" mechanism would add. A computer is MUCH better than the human brain at computing ballistic solutions, and the human neural system has a HUGE noise-to-signal ratio; do you really want involuntary muscle twitches translated to mech movement? If you already need computer filtering, just tie fire control to something simple like eye movement directing semi-automated fire control.

 

Also, seriously? You're advocating a system of locomotion that requires, as you yourself admit, "real time processing capability and, unless extreme piloting schemes are used, highly advanced dynamic balancing algorithms are required, with terrain identification, gyroscopes, and a whole suite of sensors to boot.", yet you think the cost of the FIRE CONTROL is prohibitive?

 

4) Not a plane/tank: Yes, air superiority is necessary, but there is a very drastic risk involved going against adversaries of equal to greater technology. I'm talking anything from advanced SAM weapons, shoulder fired tech, and MW class anti-air/tank laser systems. Even a lucky/extremely well placed RPG round can hit and down any aircraft. A vehicle that can (comparatively) drastically maneuver it's structure can defeat even MW lasers due to ToT requirements of the laser to be effective.

 

Seriously? "Tanks exist, so if you use tanks, someone else might have a better tank"? That's...well, kind of dumb. "No one uses marshmallowtanium armour, so it's to our advantage if we do!" Seriously. Ok, so you point out that tanks and aircraft are vulnerable to weapons systems SPECIFICALLY designed to take them out. Breaking news right here, indeed.

 

Now, don't you think weapons systems designed to take out mechs would ALSO be developed? For that matter, would they NEED to be? What about mechs makes them invulnerable to those same "shoulder fired tech, and MW class anti-air/tank laser systems." or "lucky/extremely well placed RPG round"? As I mentioned regarding surface area-to-volume ratio, a mech will inherently, ton-for-ton, be less well armoured than a tank. With a powerplant of equal strength, it will accelerate more poorly than a tank. The walking stance will create a higher silhouette than a tank. This means it's easier to spot (proven the most critical phase in armoured combat- or ANY combat, for that matter), easier to hit, and easier to defeat the armour. I think a mech would have a very hard time avoiding something akin to Javelin ATGM. Unless they're magical Gundam mechs that magically accellerate at 20,000 g and zip all over the place in a eplilepsy-inducing anime blur.

 

Also, I don't think you understand the volume of energy you're talking when you start getting into the megawatt class of laser- current military weaponry capable of defeating missiles is in the low kilowatt class (the set being fielded by the US Navy is 30 kW). You're talking 1,000 times more powerful. And further, you're making the assumption that it would require a long dwell time, rather than a capacitor-loaded millisecond pulse. If we're going to go all "anything's possible" here, let's at least be fair to ALL the technologies. Besides, why bother with the lasers; a simple KE or HEAT projo would do your mech in just fine.

 

 

5) Miscellaneous: A mech can go directly from a combat roll to a support role (yes this is a modularity feature, but I feel it deserves separate recognition). A pair of mechs can replace a fleet of construction vehicles, and reduce the overall capital needed to maintain the variety of weapon systems required on any given campaign.

 

What, and you can't put modular weapons or replaceable mission modules onto wheeled or tracked chassis? Oh, wait, THEY ALREADY DO. For example, the Boxer MRAV. Further, those designs have turned out to be huge failures, because the cost and logistical ass pain of carting around a ton of extra mission modules so your tanks can be bridgelayers can be excavators can be IFVs is actually greater than just having a seperate tank, bridgelayer, excavator, and IFV. After all, you'd need an extra vehicle to haul all of those extra modules on to keep them forward as the FLOT moves, anyhow!

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

1) Tech requirements: It's hardly outside the realm of reality, but bipedal locomotion does require real time processing capability and, unless extreme piloting schemes are used, highly advanced dynamic balancing algorithms are required, with terrain identification, gyroscopes, and a whole suite of sensors to boot.

And this all equals cost. Lots and lots of cost.

 

2) Support requirements: Mechs make up for it in agility, but they are SLOW, and can't realistically walk and keep up with the battle group. This will require specialized transportation capital.

 

How does "agility" make up for lack of speed? The bullet/ missile doesn't care if the mech can do the downward facing dog lotus triple lutz, it only cares if that target is capable of accelerating fast enough to escape the maneuvering capabilities of the projectile (or can get out of the impact area before the projectile gets there). If the mech is "agile" (does that mean flexible? Capable of transiting difficult terrain?) but slow, the projectile is still going to hit it, and that's a bad day for the mech.

 

3) Restructuring of armament: Face it, we're used to having specialized tech. Entire programming languages, structures, etc. have gone into setting up modern artillery pieces. You can't just take a MBT and throw a new turret onto it if something happens to it, the process takes a while, bringing the entire system off line. Though this is obviously a problem with modern tech, we have surmounted it with, again, highly specialized tech. You're talking phasing not only modern artillery out, but phasing all it's support tech out as well (not entirely by any means, but by a large fraction I'd wager). With so many industries and so much capital invested already, the benefits have to highly out weigh NOT taking this option.

 

Actually, you CAN throw a whole new turret onto a tank. It's done quite often. Look at the whole RANGE of WW2 tanks that were up-gunned or re-turreted (mostly German use of captured systems). The Brits have thrown a half dozen turrets on the Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre CVR(T) chassis alone. Usually the only "key interface" between the hull and turret is the power/communications transmission ring. Make sure the turret ring and turret basket is the right size, and that the new turret interfaces to the power/commo ring, and you're good to go. They just don't do it because a) why bother having modular turrets? and b) $$$

 

And if you're talking about battlefield salvage, I suggest you do some reading up on the recovery and redeploy rates of damaged and "destroyed" tanks. They most certainly CAN pull the turret off one to replace another. But this is usually done at depot level, because just like "mission modules", it's logistically silly to carry spares of such LARGE portions of a vehicle. Makes more sense to just have a full spare tank- and if you have an extra tank lying around, why isn't it up on the FLOT, accomplishing something?

 

Also, what makes you think that the payload of a mech would be any less specialized, or that the introduction of a mech would somehow make battlefield functions like indirect fire, anti-armour fire, dedicated recon et al somehow obsolete?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5)

[ShuRugal]

Infantry can go anywhere, tanks cannot. Seems pretty self explanatory.

 

Infantry can go anywhere because they are small and lightweight, tanks cannot because they are large and heavy. Giving the large heavy thing legs won't magically let it fit through a doorway or keep it from bringing down a building with its own weight.

 

But, I was clear about "not huge Battlemechs" from my first post... and no, neither powerarmor! A smaller, semi-autonomous drone Mech which is controlled remotely! Not moving targets here simply being misinterpreted... I also think we won't see bipeds like humans, as they are more unstable and in fact wasting lots of power just to keep em upright.

I do imagine a machine about the size of a Van, but about 3-4 meters tall, on 3-6 "legs" (or extendable wheels, whatever), highly mobile compared to current tanks or IFVs and carrying a standard array modular armament, like used today on armed vehicles... e.g. TOW/Stinger as Humvees and Bradleys share for anti Tank or anti Air roles. A bushmaster cannon against light armored targets, as shared by Strykers, Bradleys etc. Then 12.7 cals or M249s as anti infantry weapons or a 120mm cannon as in the Leopard 2, M1A2 or Stryker MGS. Basically all what I posted already. Such a mobile platform with easily switchable or mixed weapons could bring firepower to an Infantry unit where current systems can't. Together with a couple of updated TALON Swords it can provide a semi autonomous fighting group going into or against enemy positions to draw fire and break hardened positions before the ground forces clear and hold the ground. One or two different standard "Mech" chassis could fit a wide area of roles, maybe without need for reconfiguration.

 

What you are describing is called an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" and we already have them, only they're not 4 meters tall. For the most part, they fall in the same height range as tanks (under 2.5 meters), with notable exceptions like the Bradley pushing closer to 3m, but that vehicle has serious survivability issues.

 

What you are proposing is to take the IFV and make it:

Taller (bigger target)

Slower (easier to shoot)

Less Armored (easier to damage)

 

On top of this, you want to take a system which has a drivetrain with two single-point-of-failure vulnerabilities, and give it six instead.

 

What you are proposing is, in fact, an up-armored walking minivan that i wouldn't trust to survive a collision with a soccer mom, much less enemy fire.

[shagrat]

That is why you would still ride to war on horseback and not trust a vehicle... man, cool down! It is a discussion started with a lot of ifs and whens. And wether you like it or not, if the Tank can do all you suppose it can, why did nobody use them in the Afghan mountains or in Vietnam? Hey they can go anywhere... right?

 

And please, read the starting post again: What combat role could a Mech... IF the technology exists (future!) IF power is no problem and I guess it is ok to assume better and lightweight armor lighter weapons etc are also available!

We are not suggesting to use current technology to build an IFV on stalks, this is ridiculous...

Try a little bit imagination and try to figure out what COULD be an advantage of a "vehicle" that could walk or jump over ravines or little ditches designed to stop a tank. What COULD be accomplished by a mobile platform that could walk through a dense forrest or climb a steep mountainside (as in steep, not vertical or rockclimbing, of course)

If you totally dislike the idea ok, but why waste your time on this discussion, as it is only a game of make believe?

All your arguments are valid today, but the idea was to imagine what's possible, if the technology has advanced beyond these obstacles.

 

-So for six legs as points of failure... what is six wheels? Or eight, like the Stryker? Eight points of failure? Or backup or more power/traction?

-Infantry can climb steep angles because on legs you can balance the center of mass and direct the force to push it at an angle. Vehicles need traction, 4-wheel drive and low center of mass to be able to go up steep and still have serious limitations.

Infantry can step over a fallen tree, tanks or vehicles most often can't.

I've brought these arguments again and again. Simply ignoring them won't help! There is a good reason DARPA is researching this kind of technology for decades!

And believe me, DARPA developed a good deal of astonishing technologies people thought "impossible". Oh, most of it for the military, by the way ;-)

[Malleolus]

Okie day, I'm not gonna do the whole quote/post thing op, go bar with me. For starters, you assume 2 things. First is that the same materials are going to be used as in tanks for the mech. As previously stated, the sheer size precludes this option. Secondly, you assume human gait is consistently dynamically controlled, which it is not, it is dynamically balanced.

 

The majority of the materials used would be metal-matrix composites. These are new materials, but are highly predictable and have significantly greater material properties than what you are comparing them to. Furthermore, modern armor, as most know, has a few inherent flaws because of the vehicle they are mounted to. On a mech, you can use continuously sloping (curved) plates, which can defeat most penetrators due to the simple fact that they rely on nearly perpendicular impact to be effective. Furthermore, as most mmc's use refractory materials, this can aid in defeating plasma jet rounds on top of the curved armor.

 

Secondly, human gait uses a lot of passive compliance in its actuation. As we walk, our weight shifts forward (hence why we have long narrow feet), allowing momentum to do the majority of the work. We have extremely efficient locomotion because of this. Passive compliance can be easily incorporated into any walking scheme and can increase efficiency significantly. You cannot, however, do this with any vehicle that relies on tracks or wheels. You can use regenerative systems, yes, as you can on walking schemes.

 

Exchanging a turret on a mbt isn't like dropping a gun and picking up another weapon, it takes time and specialized equipment and knowledge. Yes, the turret is explicitly designed to dissipate the recoil across the structure. Highly specialized, with no modularity. Neither can you just replace the barrel at the end of its service life. It has to be shipped off, refurbished, and then can be reintroduced, theoretically. A gun "biggie" sized can incorporate several recoil mitigation schemes, and reinforcing the structure of the mech for shoulder fire is hardly rocket science.

 

Finally, using hands vs. a dedicated mounting apparatus. This goes back to modularity, but hands are hardly "clumsy". They can, with training, have extremely high degrees of fidelity, as such so can mech hands. As far as lever arm issues are concerned, I'm not going to get started with the plethora of tech that can be used to offset this issue. The air force designed a armed mech that could lift 55 tons in the 60's. It was a tracked mech, but the upper torso was a mech.

[OutOnTheOP]

That is why you would still ride to war on horseback and not trust a vehicle... man, cool down! It is a discussion started with a lot of ifs and whens. And wether you like it or not, if the Tank can do all you suppose it can, why did nobody use them in the Afghan mountains or in Vietnam? Hey they can go anywhere... right?

 

Tanks WERE used in Vietnam, and were found to be quite effective indeed- particularly (oddly enough) the M551 Sheridan, which was otherwise a flop. The huge HE round and APERS flechette rounds were apparently absolute murder in jungle fighting.

[OutOnTheOP]

...lots of techno-jargon....

 

Wow. Why would I NOT assume that the same material sciences used to build and armor the mech would also be used in a tank? I can just imagine the engineers' discussion now:

 

engineer 1: "hey, we finally developed this diamond-lattice crystaline network nanotube armor! It's the strongest, lightest armour we've ever constructed! Finally, practical mecha are possible!"

 

engineer 2: "yeah, but couldn't we just, y'know... mount that on a tank and have even MORE protection?"

 

engineer 1: "of course not... because... uh... MECHS!"

 

Your understanding of armour technology seems a little lacking. The "inherent flaws" in the armour array used on modern tanks is because they were DELIBERATELY designed that way, as a design compromise to maximize armour performance in deliberately selected directions, against threats from deliberately selected sectors. The only reason most modern western MBTs have the "blocky" look is because the current best generation of armour is composite arrays that are most easily made in, and are most effective in, flat plates. Why the #$%* would you assume tanks cannot have rounded armour? Because tanks NEVER have rounded armour, says the T54/55, T62, T64, T72, T80, M60, AMX30, IS1/2/3, M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing.... I could go on. Shall I?

 

Yes, the human gait uses an inverted-pendulum action to help increase efficiency. It is STILL an inefficient form of locomotion. And not only that, but by using the inverted-pendulum action, you induce a very jerky up-and-down gait, terrible for weapons stability. If you've ever watched USPSA/IPSC/ 3-gun competitors, they tend to develop a crouched fast walk in which they try to keep their hips (and everything above) moving forward withOUT any up-and-down motion, because it's critical to maintaining shooting accuracy on the move. It is, however, very tiring, because it's even LESS efficient than normal human walking. Pick one: shoot with any degree of accuracy, or energy efficiency anywhere within an order of magnitude of wheeled or tracked chassis.

 

Look, if we REALLY needed modular weaponry (or entire mission modules) on a wheeled or tracked chassis, they're NOT that hard to design. Put a hinged roof panel, a two-part trunnion, and a hydraulic crane, and wow, you can pick up other weapons and drop them into the trunnion. I remain VERY unconvinced that this would be necessary or advantageous.

 

Please, PLEASE name one "recoil mitigation" technology that could be applied to mechs and not tanks (and I wasn't talking recoil anyway, I was talking stabilization; IE, damping out all the jerks and bumps from moving, so you can shoot on the move effectively).

 

If you know anything at all about shooting rifles, you know that the way you increase accuracy is to decrease moving parts (both on the rifle and on the shooter). Most accurate you'll ever shoot is off a bipod and sand sock, with nothing but your cheek and trigger finger touching the rifle, because it beds the rifle solidly to the ground. Actually, more accurate yet are benchrest guns, which are bolted to a shooting bench and adjusted with traversing screws like a mini artillery piece, because then there's only ONE moving piece between ground and barrel, and that's a tight machine screw.

 

Tanks have a low stance (less room to wobble) and limit moving parts to: suspension springs/cylinders, turret ring, and trunnion.

 

The type of mechs you propose instead have wobbly ankles, wobbly knees, wobbly hips, wobbly shoulders, wobbly elbows, wobbly wrists, wobbly fingers (with significantly less consistent grip than a trunnion! Consistency breeds accuracy!), and wobbly shoulder weld. I'll assume we don't have to worry about cheek weld, since there's little reason to actually aim down rifle-type sights. That's a lot of moving parts to induce aiming error, isn't it?

[OutOnTheOP]

From the point of view of the current/recent wars in the middle east:

 

I think if you made a mech that was about 3 stories tall (basically a walking tank with current tech, nothing too sci-fi), so that it could see over the mud compound walls,buildings and plants it would have a huge advantage over anything on the battlefield today. You have very good point of view for situational awarness and elimination.

 

How does this provide any advantage beyond an extentable sensor mast? Or vehicle-organic micro UAVs? Or, referencing the exact same video I'm sure you're referring to, how can this role not be performed by, say... helicopters, just like they did in the real event? Seems to me it worked out quite well, and the helicopter has the advantage of being able to FARP and rearm quickly, as well as supreme operational and tactical mobility, unlike the proposed mecha.

 

Also it could be loaded with all sorts of gadgets, like laser designators etc if air support was needed, since the mech can carry loads of gadgets, as equipment load is not a big deal.

 

Can it carry more than a wheeled or tracked vehicle can? Can it carry "gadgets" that a wheeled or tracked vehicle cannot?

 

The fact that you have two legs, instead of tracks too would mean that you have less chance of stepping on a mine, since you make less contact with the ground.

 

Not true. To maintain equivalent ground pressure, you would need to make the feet of equal surface area to the contact patch of the tracks or wheels of an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle. That aside, how difficult do you think it would be to put a mech back into action after a mine strike, compared to repairing track or isolating damaged road wheels (ten-to-thirty minute jobs)?

 

If it has enough amour to make anything but RPGs and IEDs the only options, it could effectively make most of the insurgents weapons useless. Not to mention if you keep moving in an unpredictable pattern, whilst the torso rotates to keep on target, RPGs would be less effective(I'm assuming they are unguided in the middle east).

 

A modern IFV already makes anything smaller than heavy RPGs and medium ATGM useless. How is this any improvement, other than being a bigger target to hit with those same systems? Also, please explain the physics of how the torso rotating makes RPGs less effective. Clue: it doesn't. At best, it makes it harder to precisely aim at weak points in the armour. But given that physics dictates the mecha would have lighter armouring than an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle, not sure that matters.

 

 

...since I'm assuming each one could have enough ammo to for a sustained fight.

 

I have yet to hear complaints about tanks or IFVs carrying too little ammo to last through a fight.

 

The most important thing though would be that the mechs are air lifted into operations area by specifically designed helo, which drops each mech off, and then flys up high or lands somewhere safe, waiting to pick the mech back up in case it is damaged or needs quick extraction.

 

......

 

helicopter-lifting a THREE STORY TALL mech sufficiently armoured to survive 23mm and under? Do you have any earthly idea how much that behemoth would weigh? You're talking a vehicle EASILY four times the mass of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which itself weighs 33 tons)! 120 plus tons? Please, by all means, find me a helicopter that can do that! The current heavyweight helos lift only 16 tons (CH53E Super Stallion) to 20 tons (Mi26 Halo) or the super-heavyweight Mil V12 at 44 tons. Gonna need to triple that, at least. Yes, yes, I know "future technology". There are practical limits to the effective lift capacity of a helo (like, for example, blade flex, or that as you increase rotor span, you run into issues with the blade tips going supersonic and large portions of the blade being (highly inefficient!) transonic.

 

Tactically the mechs could choose attack paths where vehicles are unable venture, this would be a big advantage to the mech since it would force enemy combantants (which dont have mechs) to be on foot. Also this approach is important since, a vehicle friendly area could be bad for the mechs, as im assuming a car can drive faster than a mech can walk - then again large open areas for the mech would mean the mech has unimpeded area to fire in.

 

Do you know what (at least US) tankers fear the most? It ain't other tanks. They can spot other tanks and kill them easily enough. They fear the sneaky little bastard infantry with heavy ATGMs. A few dudes with Javelin, NLAW, AT4, RPG29, or any of a plethora of current shoulder-fired weapons would own the close terrain against those huge mechs. In fact, the infantry wouldn't even have to carry their own anti-mech missiles; they could just be networked into a series of non-line-of-sight high-velocity launchers that provide on-call fires, like NETFIRES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System and http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cheap-fast-deadly-the-netfires-missiles-in-a-box-program-updated-02653/). Infantry spots mech (shouldn't be hard!), infantry transmits mech coordinates to NETFIRES, NETFIRES launches semi-autonomous missile programmed to search for mech target signature (huge thermal and acoustic signature, if nothing else), NETFIRES drops several-hundred-pound warhead on mech. Infantry exchanges high-fives and charlie mike's.

 

The only way the mech could assure superiority in close terrain is the profligate application of firepower; destroy everywhere infantry COULD be hiding. If you're going to do that, you might as well use artillery or air power, and just flatten the whole city. No, the infantry will continue to own close terrain. They just might need mule-sized "mechs" to help carry their spare ammo for their mortars- and for all those ATGM systems they slaughter the big mechs with.

 

Look, I'm not set-in-ways; I understand there's a lot of ways the technology of warfare can be revolutionized. However, the most exciting and promising avenues are in communications/battle control, networked fires, networked intel and surveillance, active countermeasures (including hit-to-kill defenses like

), sensors, and stealth. NOT in hugely impressive but rather ungainly mecha.
Edited June 12, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[leafer]

Can't a mech uses someone's roof, tree, vehicle, wall etc as benchrest?

[Malleolus]

How does this provide any advantage beyond an extentable sensor mast? Or vehicle-organic micro UAVs? Or, referencing the exact same video I'm sure you're referring to, how can this role not be performed by, say... helicopters, just like they did in the real event? Seems to me it worked out quite well, and the helicopter has the advantage of being able to FARP and rearm quickly, as well as supreme operational and tactical mobility, unlike the proposed mecha.

 

 

 

Can it carry more than a wheeled or tracked vehicle can? Can it carry "gadgets" that a wheeled or tracked vehicle cannot?

 

 

 

Not true. To maintain equivalent ground pressure, you would need to make the feet of equal surface area to the contact patch of the tracks or wheels of an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle. That aside, how difficult do you think it would be to put a mech back into action after a mine strike, compared to repairing track or isolating damaged road wheels (ten-to-thirty minute jobs)?

 

 

 

A modern IFV already makes anything smaller than heavy RPGs and medium ATGM useless. How is this any improvement, other than being a bigger target to hit with those same systems? Also, please explain the physics of how the torso rotating makes RPGs less effective. Clue: it doesn't. At best, it makes it harder to precisely aim at weak points in the armour. But given that physics dictates the mecha would have lighter armouring than an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle, not sure that matters.

 

 

 

 

I have yet to hear complaints about tanks or IFVs carrying too little ammo to last through a fight.

 

 

 

......

 

helicopter-lifting a THREE STORY TALL mech sufficiently armoured to survive 23mm and under? Do you have any earthly idea how much that behemoth would weigh? You're talking a vehicle EASILY four times the mass of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which itself weighs 33 tons)! 120 plus tons? Please, by all means, find me a helicopter that can do that! The current heavyweight helos lift only 16 tons (CH53E Super Stallion) to 20 tons (Mi26 Halo) or the super-heavyweight Mil V12 at 44 tons. Gonna need to triple that, at least. Yes, yes, I know "future technology". There are practical limits to the effective lift capacity of a helo (like, for example, blade flex, or that as you increase rotor span, you run into issues with the blade tips going supersonic and large portions of the blade being (highly inefficient!) transonic.

 

 

 

Do you know what (at least US) tankers fear the most? It ain't other tanks. They can spot other tanks and kill them easily enough. They fear the sneaky little bastard infantry with heavy ATGMs. A few dudes with Javelin, NLAW, AT4, RPG29, or any of a plethora of current shoulder-fired weapons would own the close terrain against those huge mechs. In fact, the infantry wouldn't even have to carry their own anti-mech missiles; they could just be networked into a series of non-line-of-sight high-velocity launchers that provide on-call fires, like NETFIRES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System and http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cheap-fast-deadly-the-netfires-missiles-in-a-box-program-updated-02653/). Infantry spots mech (shouldn't be hard!), infantry transmits mech coordinates to NETFIRES, NETFIRES launches semi-autonomous missile programmed to search for mech target signature (huge thermal and acoustic signature, if nothing else), NETFIRES drops several-hundred-pound warhead on mech. Infantry exchanges high-fives and charlie mike's.

 

The only way the mech could assure superiority in close terrain is the profligate application of firepower; destroy everywhere infantry COULD be hiding. If you're going to do that, you might as well use artillery or air power, and just flatten the whole city. No, the infantry will continue to own close terrain. They just might need mule-sized "mechs" to help carry their spare ammo for their mortars- and for all those ATGM systems they slaughter the big mechs with.

 

Look, I'm not set-in-ways; I understand there's a lot of ways the technology of warfare can be revolutionized. However, the most exciting and promising avenues are in communications/battle control, networked fires, networked intel and surveillance, active countermeasures (including hit-to-kill defenses like

), sensors, and stealth. NOT in hugely impressive but rather ungainly mecha.

 

No, inverted pendulum is not the only mechanism I'm taking about. Compliance actuators, our muscles store the force of each footfall and use it aid in propelling the next actuation. We use VERY little energy with each step. Fat also has astounding energy density, but that's a topic for another time.

 

I never said tanks didn't have the capacity to have curved armor, but they don't typically because the chassis doesn't tolerate it well. Yes, I know what chobham armor is. I know why armor segments are designed to defeat certain types of threats. Continuously sloping (no flat spots) armor has significant advantages over other armors. It can be thinner, pound for pound of the same material, because of relative armor thickness upon impact. Most impacts will be glancing because there's no direct impact site, and even if it penetrates, it penetrates at an acute angle, travelling along the width of the armor. This is the idea behind explosively reactive armor, but rather than a timed charge throwing the plate at an angle toward the penetrator, increasing the relative thickness it has to penetrate, the slope of the armor does this.

 

Every vibration dampening system in a tank can be incorporated into a mech, and the shock loads of walking are highly predictable and can be compensated for in actuation. The actuators on a mech, which can easily be calibrated to tenths or hundredths of a degree and can either autonomously return to the firing angle or can be pilot controlled, can also lock in, given the actuation scheme.

 

I'm not talking about replacing the mbt, I'm saying a mech can give a high degree of modularity (and unpredictably) to a battle group that is highly advantageous and cannot be replicated by any existing piece of military hardware. It can switch, simply by exchanging its "gun", from close in support to any air defense, artillery support, or precision munitions weapon platform without having to move a dozen or more weapons platforms with a battle group. It's versatility, and agility, can't be understated.

 

You'd have to basically scrap and replace all current military hardware to effectively use mmc's. Rather it's better used on a weapon platform that can benefit the most from it.

 

Any area denial/active countermeasure can be mounted on a mech as well, precluding the argument you made about thermal/acoustic signatures.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Malleolus

[ShuRugal]

There is not really any point arguing on a hypothetical idea, thats not the point of the this thread. But if you wanna go take it too seriously hope you are enjoying yourself.:doh:

 

no, that's exactly the point of this thread: what combat role can a mecha play which cannot be better filled by traditional tracked vehicles? "Make it bigger" is terrible advice, considering the profligate availability of man-portable anti-armor weapon systems. Existing armored vehicles already have huge problems with AT-equipped infantry in urban environment, because a man can see a tank in the street much easier than a tank commander can see a man in a building. Making the tank visible from everywhere in the city simultaneously would not alleviate this problem. :doh:

[Malleolus]

no, that's exactly the point of this thread: what combat role can a mecha play which cannot be better filled by traditional tracked vehicles? "Make it bigger" is terrible advice, considering the profligate availability of man-portable anti-armor weapon systems. Existing armored vehicles already have huge problems with AT-equipped infantry in urban environment, because a man can see a tank in the street much easier than a tank commander can see a man in a building. Making the tank visible from everywhere in the city simultaneously would not alleviate this problem. :doh:

 

I still argue agility... but it's also fun to watch the people getting really fired up here squirm.:joystick:

 

Also, no it's not necessarily bad advise, given the implementation. A 100 ton tracked tank with its very limited agility, extremely bad advice.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Malleolus

[Malleolus]

Let me also point out that all these arguments were made, with science to back them, about steam power, steam locomotion, powered flight, the car, and tanks. They were all right, based on the information they had available to draw their conclusions from. It took people whom, even without the scientific community backing them, had the drive to see them come to reality to make them reality. Only once they had proof of concepts did people start reconsidering their position on these science fiction technologies. "If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it."

 

"It's inefficient" "to much wobble" "to great of power requirements"...

Nothing history hasn't seen, and dis-proven, time and time again.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Malleolus

[shagrat]

....and one more point on the "efficiency" of tracked/wheeled vehicles vs. Legs: after Darwin worked out how nature runs evolution, and considering you are right, why the #@!$ has no living thing on this planet tracks or wheels?

Nature decided on the most inefficient way to propel it's animals??? You really believe that?

Consider we now start to exactly mimic nature wherever it's possible because millions of years of evolution already designed solutions no engineer can do better, only it is not so easy to do.

Take planes "power efficiency" vs. Birds for example... if we could remotely build something like a bird's wing and muscles, operated by a lightweight powersource, we would do so. It is so much more efficient than jets or propellers...

Same with legs, if you assume NOT balancing a M1's Turbine, a combustion engine or batteries on top of a walker, power transferred through artificial muscles etc. all that's left is the rolesuch device could take. If we assume it can run as fast as 30-40mph in rugged terrain! Weighs under 30tons is about 3-4 m high, carries an armament of an IFV and is quite sturdy against bullets up to small RPG or 20mm, what would be the combat role / use for it on a battlefield? I might come up with one or two ideas, actually. :D

Edit: and I suggest a drone like, remote controlled Mech to safe space, weight, life support and protection.

Edited June 12, 2014 by shagrat

[shagrat]

When people started building cars one of the "scientific" arguments from Doctors was: "The human body will not withstand a speed higher than about 20mph, people will die. Another argument against cars was they are much slower than horses, etc.

So compare these arguments to nowadays reality and see what strong will and imagination can do.

Edited June 12, 2014 by shagrat

[shagrat]

By the way, flying. Leonardo da Vinci, Otto Lilienthal, the Wright brothers. All had there fair share of critics, fatalists and naysayers. Yet we do have planes and fly through the air.

[Flagrum]

....and one more point on the "efficiency" of tracked/wheeled vehicles vs. Legs: after Darwin worked out how nature runs evolution, and considering you are right, why the #@!$ has no living thing on this planet tracks or wheels?

Nature decided on the most inefficient way to propel it's animals??? You really believe that?

Consider we now start to exactly mimic nature wherever it's possible because millions of years of evolution already designed solutions no engineer can do better, only it is not so easy to do.

Take planes "power efficiency" vs. Birds for example... if we could remotely build something like a bird's wing and muscles, operated by a lightweight powersource, we would do so. It is so much more efficient than jets or propellers...

Same with legs, if you assume NOT balancing a M1's Turbine, a combustion engine or batteries on top of a walker, power transferred through artificial muscles etc. all that's left is the rolesuch device could take. If we assume it can run as fast as 30-40mph in rugged terrain! Weighs under 30tons is about 3-4 m high, carries an armament of an IFV and is quite sturdy against bullets up to small RPG or 20mm, what would be the combat role / use for it on a battlefield? I might come up with one or two ideas, actually. :D

Edit: and I suggest a drone like, remote controlled Mech to safe space, weight, life support and protection.

While I agree that the nature usually provides the best overall "designs", one must admit, that man's design usually is better in specific areas.

 

For the flying example: nature's design might be optimal for the "intended purpose" of preserving energy while still getting a creature from A to B through the air (for all the advantages that - as such - offers). But man can fly waaaaaay faster. :o)

 

Maybe we could invent aircrafts that were comparable engergy efficient. But it would probably the size of a bird ...? But we want dozends or hundreds of people to travel a bit faster than a bird from europe to africa and america and back...

[shagrat]

Please explain to me how a blood vessel/nerve connection would overcome an axle/wheel/bearing connection??

Laws of Physics Trump Evolution....

Sorry, try again...

 

Like in most insects for example. They have no central nervous system, nor bloodvessels... simple isn't it! Yet effective and unchanged for longer than humanity lives.

[Flagrum]

This is such a bad argument its not even funny. There are ADVANTAGES that even FICTIONAL flying contraptions provide compared to terrestrial locomotion.

 

Its not just about laws of physics and the ability to build or make something. Da Vinci was ridiculed because no one really understood the laws of physics at the time. But no one at the time argued that his contraptions were useless....

 

Please name ONE ADVANTAGE that Mechs have over traditional vehicles. Not one of you has named ONE yet.

Better terrain crossing capability was mentioned. But I still think, the disadvantages would outweight that by far ...

[Malleolus]

This is such a bad argument its not even funny. There are ADVANTAGES that even FICTIONAL flying contraptions provide compared to terrestrial locomotion.

 

Its not just about laws of physics and the ability to build or make something. Da Vinci was ridiculed because no one really understood the laws of physics at the time. But no one at the time argued that his contraptions were useless....

 

Please name ONE ADVANTAGE that Mechs have over traditional vehicles. Not one of you has named ONE yet.

 

Let's place this in a different era: "Name one advantage powered flight has over the steam locomotive? Even if you can get it to work, you can't get a strong enough engine on it to be useful, it'd be to heavy to lift itself."

 

Excuse me? The vast majority of his contraptions WERE useless. They were well ahead of their time technologically speaking, and didn't work for the most part.

 

Mechs have modularity, maneuverability (agility, but no one likes that term for some reason), and a wide margin of non-combat roles it can fill.

[Malleolus]

Better than an Apache Gunship? Or even one of these fancy new Stealth Drones? I think not...

 

Gotta knock you here too... One has a comparatively low range endurance (as most helo's do, they're designed to go, deliver payload, and leave... Only on really short sorties do they have "staying" power). The other has extremely limited payload. Also, weather can drastically change the performance of both these pieces, possibly even eliminating their use at all.

[shagrat]

While I agree that the nature usually provides the best overall "designs", one must admit, that man's design usually is better in specific areas.

 

For the flying example: nature's design might be optimal for the "intended purpose" of preserving energy while still getting a creature from A to B through the air (for all the advantages that - as such - offers). But man can fly waaaaaay faster. :o)

 

Maybe we could invent aircrafts that were comparable engergy efficient. But it would probably the size of a bird ...? But we want dozends or hundreds of people to travel a bit faster than a bird from europe to africa and america and back...

Talking about drones loiter time and energy efficiency is very important.

For fast transport I agree, the point was a MBT may be faster on wide open plains, but it cannot brute force it's way up a wooded hillside... it gets a big slow target (notice the irony).

And whatever laws of physics or common sense dictates, why is DARPA or others developing walking propulsions for military purpose? According to you it is utterly useless, right? So sorry, but I think DARPA renowned for its brilliant minded geniuses, aren't they? What is the next evolutionary step after a "big dog" LS3?

What was the next step after an armored wagon with simple machine guns? The tank evolved over decades... and still is.