coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
EEK, she wasn't saying they're the same thing. She was offering those as examples of one-man, "next-generation" machines currently actually in development by the military and private companies. They are similar in idea, but more practical than a mech would be.
Illuminex: where did you find this thing in the first place? I went looking for it and found <a href='http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/mw_article.asp?cid=36984&frame=news' target='_blank'>this one</a>... Pretty fun, too, though less mech and more conversation piece. Here's a pic: <img src='http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/images/build2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I'm curious to read about the one that started the thread, though.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Sep 23 2004, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Sep 23 2004, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pretty fun, too, though less mech and more conversation piece. Here's a pic: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember that one. The father built it as a treehouse/playset for his children.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Sep 23 2004, 05:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Sep 23 2004, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Coil, I hardly consider an oversized pogostick the same as a mech <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
"Legged vehicles can tackle more terrain than any other heavy unit."
What? Stop getting your 'information' from playing Mechwarrior games and your lame animes. Legs would be terrible on terrain. They'd do good on snow and sand, maybe, assuming you sealed the joints tightly enough so sand didn't get in them. Ice? They'd slip. A lot. Rocks? Hopefully your legs can lift high enough to clear them, and hopefully it doesn't step wrong and the whole thing falls down the mountain.
A legged unit would be incredibly and REDICULOUSLY vulnerable to enemy fire. Destroy the legs and it won't be going anywhere. Considering that armor on the legs would be light at best, it'd be only a trivial matter to disable them. Lots of vulnerable joints that can jam (and once they do, it's boned).
I also doubt it'd be able to carry anything larger then light weapons that a wheeled/treaded vehicle couldn't, since you'd have to have a controls system, engine, and weapons system in the 'body' part, you're looking at a lot of weight on the legs/pelvis. This would be the absolute weakest part of the design. Crack the hip, everything goes out of alignment, legs don't work right, it falls down, game over.
As for the armor, it was simply a massive battery hooked up to a charged armor plating underneath regular armor. Rocket Propelled Grenades are just that - greandes. They have a fragmentation system. When they hit, they blast superhot shreds of metal into the object. This system vaporizes the shrapnel when they hit it. However, you can still hit this overpriced toy with a regular anti-tank weapon and pop huge holes in it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Glad someone on these boards has some common sense
"Legged vehicles can tackle more terrain than any other heavy unit."
What? Stop getting your 'information' from playing Mechwarrior games and your lame animes. Legs would be terrible on terrain. They'd do good on snow and sand, maybe, assuming you sealed the joints tightly enough so sand didn't get in them. Ice? They'd slip. A lot. Rocks? Hopefully your legs can lift high enough to clear them, and hopefully it doesn't step wrong and the whole thing falls down the mountain.
A legged unit would be incredibly and REDICULOUSLY vulnerable to enemy fire. Destroy the legs and it won't be going anywhere. Considering that armor on the legs would be light at best, it'd be only a trivial matter to disable them. Lots of vulnerable joints that can jam (and once they do, it's boned).
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Glad someone on these boards has some common sense <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I am going to have to disagree on the arguement that legged vehicles are less adaptable to hostile terrain. They are very useful on rugged and steep terrain.
The problem is they are very slow. Good on terrain, bad on speed and agility
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NASA-UNIVERSITY TEAM SET TO EXPLORE VOLCANO WITH ROBOT
During the third week of July, an eight-legged, tethered robot will descend into the active crater of Mt. Spurr, an Alaskan volcano 90 miles west of Anchorage. The robot, Dante II, will be controlled, via satellite and Internet connections, by a team with representatives from NASA, Carnegie Mellon University, the Alaska Volcano Observatory, and other government, university and private organizations. ...
The objectives which were pursued in the Antarctic two years ago included proving the usefulness of legged and tethered robots in steep and challenging physical environments, and the ability of virtual reality and telepresence communications links and computer software programs to enable a human located remotely from the robot to both "sense" the environment (the telepresence element) and to effectively direct the actions of the remote robot (computer assisted and enhanced remote control elements). ... Volcanoes remain hazardous duty to human geologists Both NASA and AVO are interested in proving the concept of remote, robotic, volcano explorations since many of the volcanoes of interest are also extremely hazardous to human exploration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would make a very big difference between Mechs, Exoskeletons and Legged vehicles.
The thing the original poster has is a Mech. I doubt that they are useful because: They are two legged and large. If one leg misteps, it's going down. Its profile is too high. IMO, its far too exposed for the armor/weapons you can put on it. I don't see mechs being useful in any urban or wooded enviroment for the above mentioned reasons, meaning that its only useful where tanks already dominate.
Powered Armor, landmates, and any other human enhancement device is an Exoskeleton. They have several advantages: Manuverable as the person inside them (generally) Stronger, can lift more wieght and thereby more weapons and armor But disadvantaged in that if they break you have a serious problem. I think exoskeletons would be useful anywhere convential infantry would be useful.
Legged vehicles are like the Timberjack sheena posted. Any vehicle with legs that is not a mech is a legged vehicle, meaning any vehicle with 4 or more legs. They have the advantages of: Being legged, but far more stable than a mech Generally having a lower profile than a mech, making them more tank like. I'm not sure how fast they would go, but based on the designs I've seen they look relatively slow. However, their advantages over rought terrain would make them the tanks of the forest.
Some things may not fit into these catagories. For example, I'm not sure if the Starwars AT-AT is a mech or legged vehicle. It's size suggests its a mech, but it has 4 legs.
Wizard, I watched a documentary on that thing, and it got stuck on rocks every 10 minutes, and took about 30 minutes to get UNstuck <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Sep 23 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Sep 23 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wizard, I watched a documentary on that thing, and it got stuck on rocks every 10 minutes, and took about 30 minutes to get UNstuck <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That may be true, but now imagine how well a wheeled/tracked vehicle would do in that environment.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Th AT-AT is a perfect example of a useless vehicle <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
- To big for its own good, big anti tank weaponry can hit it with ease even if it has godlike armor on its hull it bound to crack sometime, and the smart military tactic would be to shoot the joints... - You can see/hear it comming from miles away and set up a trap for it - Its very very slow - Look at the way they took it down <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
k it might look very cool, but its such a stupid idea to waste all the resources on such a large and slow vehicle. It would have been better if it was tracked.
<img src='http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Fuji/3598/images/shirow/tank.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> The tank from ghost in the shell would be a good tank I guess, but it has 6 legs which are only used in rugged terrain. For fast movement it has deployable wheels in each leg. Still this isnt a mech its a legged vehicle and due to the complicity of the parts in each leg compared to normal tracks I'm not convinced...
<!--QuoteBegin-Kouji San+Sep 23 2004, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kouji San @ Sep 23 2004, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The tank from ghost in the shell would be a good tank I guess, but it has 6 legs which are only used in rugged terrain. For fast movement it has deployable wheels in each leg. Still this isnt a mech its a legged vehicle and due to the complicity of the parts in each leg compared to normal tracks I'm not convinced... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can also see how the Ghost in the Shell tank would be useful in an urban-combat situation, as it would be able to easily manuver into alleys, and debris from damage to structures would do little to impede it... As you said, a well placed rpg or antitank round would do quite a number on the machine, especially if aimed at the legs; however, the same can be said of a tracked vehicle and the treads, or a wheeled vehicle and the wheels. The only difference is the time and expertise required to fix them.
walker tanks will never be us in combat to unstabal.....BUT if the army can make one that reacts like a humein then thay will be used{that wonte ever happen} ps that pic that mec slids acros the grownd it dus not walk...if u did not know
I got so excited, only to find a lack of jetpack hover boots and light swords <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't believe that big, armoured walkers will be used in combat a lot. Movable parts are inherently less armoured than fixed parts, and a walker has more movable parts than a normal tank. Combine this with the fact that tanks are far too vulnerable and expensive themselves (and I think it's a safe bet that walkers would be more expensive than comparable tanks) and you have a unit that won't really be very useful or cost-effective. A small, inexpensive, shoulder-fired panzerfaust can punch a neat hole into the side of a tank, disabling the tank (though not doing much structural damage unless it hits something explosive) and killing the occupants. The exoskeletons look far more useful, as they serve to enhance an infantrists abilities even more. But maybe big walkers have a future in the civilian sector as cargo lifters, assuming they become relatively cheap to produce at some point.
Feh. The silly thing about this argument is, anyone who's played the Mechwarrior series (and is any good) will tell you that the fastest way to cripple a mech is to blow a leg off it.
Other than that, let's not get mixed up between mechs and mechanised body armour. Mechs would be a variant on armour (as in, tanks), whereas body armour is an infantry upgrade. I can see a lot of use for powered, armoured, computerised suits, but very little for full mechs.
Oh, and if anime had any say in it, they'd be trying to get the damn things to fly (and be claiming that they'd be more effective than conventional aircraft!)
I wasnt even referring to Mechwarrior when I said mechs can tackle rough terrain easier than Wheel/treaded vehicles. With today's technology it isn't possible (Duh). We need a lot of computer processing power to assist the gyro systems that keep the mech on its feet.
Huge mechs that are something like 20 meters high probably wont see combat, but 5-10 meter ones probably will, and again, they probably will not be used for anti-tank support, more likely to be anti-infantry support. Like a mech sporting two miniguns would spell disaster for infantry, since its armor most probably can stop some of the higher caliber bullets.
Once we get the technology to calculate, and compensate for rough terrain, and higher speeds of maybe 30-40mp/h then mechs would probably be very real, and very useable.
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Sep 24 2004, 11:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Sep 24 2004, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Feh. The silly thing about this argument is, anyone who's played the Mechwarrior series (and is any good) will tell you that the fastest way to cripple a mech is to blow a leg off it.
Other than that, let's not get mixed up between mechs and mechanised body armour. Mechs would be a variant on armour (as in, tanks), whereas body armour is an infantry upgrade. I can see a lot of use for powered, armoured, computerised suits, but very little for full mechs.
Oh, and if anime had any say in it, they'd be trying to get the damn things to fly (and be claiming that they'd be more effective than conventional aircraft!) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I once while playing Mechwarrior 3 online, I got a headshot on a guy from over 1000 meters away with an ER PPC (actually it was two of them in link fire), a feat thats next to impossible.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
lol.. i had to giggle when someone said that a legged armor platform would be "more stable" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Sep 24 2004, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Sep 24 2004, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He was probably AFK. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope. It was a 3v3 iirc, and my two teammates were off in the distance, and for some reason they decided to completely ignore me. It probably helped in hitting that I had that aiming dot thingamabob that tells how far ahead to lead.
people, True that right now mech technology is a not quite up to conception, but you have to remember Tank evolution, "to know one's past is to better understand one's future"
WWI
Trench warfare, the military started off with thier old standby: the horse, cheap, fast, agile in multiple terrain and if struck down, a bunker. after a few years, Brittan developed the first "tanks" basically armored cars. Once the military saw how effective the tank was, they adapted the design until they had a faster, better armed and armored beast.
<img src='http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/wwi_tank.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> WW I era tank
WW II
After a few years of research and development, Tanks transformed from the slow, cumbersome behemoths of the trenches to fast and deadly Deathmachines, upgrading over the war to faster and more deadly. Originally, the tank was only an Anti-infantry weapon. Tank on Tank battles normally resulted in the allies losing, the Germans had better armor. Tank Destroyers with heavier guns and higher speed and mobility were designed for tankbusting, until the technology progressed that Tankbusters were rendered obsolete
<img src='https://www.expeditionexchange.com/wedco/panzer.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> Panzer tank
Current
Right now, the Tasnks have become 40 MPH, Turbine powered, Depleted uranium armored beasts. But, the large size, high weight, and limited manuveribility have miulitaries in a bind, Wide, flat, terrain is generally hard to come by, Obstructions can block your path, refueling can be a serious problem, and the lack of agility in close quarters.
<img src='http://www.webwombat.com.au/spotlight/images/abrams.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> Abrams Tank
It's true that, right now, Technology is a hinderance on getting bipedal war machines up and running, but in the last decade we went from computers the size of a buick to ones that fit on your desk that can do things unimaginable a century ago. Technology WILL catch up to our aspirations, But, just like a century ago in WWI, We will have to wait until the the old ideas are debunked before we can get viable mecha.
And, before you nitpick, i KNOW WWI wasnt exactly a century ago, it was for dramatic effect.
"Any" advantages that a mech could offer over a tank and I use that term loosely are blown out the water by the cost of developing something crap like a mech.
I fail to see any practical applications of a mech on a battlefield or in an urban area tbh that cannot be done equaly or better by something that already exists.
A mech on a battlefield would be tank/aircraft fodder all day long and in a built up area it would get owned by rpgs or worse.
/me wonders how long it will take the anime fanboys to start going on about mechs being equiped with magic armour that resists rpgs.
<!--QuoteBegin-V-MAN+Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (V-MAN @ Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> /me wonders how long it will take the anime fanboys to start going on about mechs being equiped with magic armour that resists rpgs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
i can spell it out..
tank abilities: the necessary capabilities for ground-based armor are:
-low profile to provide a difficult target - mech fails -speed - wheels/treads = much faster than legs, and can carry much more -heavily armored and stable base platform - mech fails. what do you think is better armored against a slingshot: a turtle or an upright-walking lizard that can barely walk three steps before collapsing if it has the same armor, spread over its body?
as for difficult-to-nagivate terrain... that's why we have the airforce, to drop bombs into the mountains and sh*.
if you load up a mech with enough ammo, enough structural strength to mount tons (literally) of armor, a 120mm cannon, and communications/crew compartments etc..
you still have an innefective machine that can be defeated at weak points.. your product is a VERY expensive machine that is so heavy it can barely move, and that has a very poor target profile (legs plz). notice that tanks are short, and have a lot of broad angles and slopes? that's protection. that is the ideal structure for mobile armor. an upright, structurally flat target will be wrecked MUCH easier, and MUCH faster.
<!--QuoteBegin-Red Wizard+Sep 24 2004, 11:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Red Wizard @ Sep 24 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-V-MAN+Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (V-MAN @ Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> /me wonders how long it will take the anime fanboys to start going on about mechs being equiped with magic armour that resists rpgs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be even more ownage if you could post a link to it so I can read more about it. Sounds really interesting.
Sure, a Mechwarrior style machine would not work too well today. But could you imagine if we managed to pull off a full on Mechwarrior MadCat or something? I recall being able to raze cities and vaporize most everything that wasn't another mech with little trouble at all. Hell, most land vehicles you could just <i>walk</i> over.
<a href='http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/feb04/explosive.htm' target='_blank'>A general overview of explosive-reactive armor</a> <a href='http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html' target='_blank'>A more scientific explanation of explosive-reactive armor</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Red Wizard+Sep 25 2004, 04:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Red Wizard @ Sep 25 2004, 04:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-V-MAN+Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (V-MAN @ Sep 25 2004, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> /me wonders how long it will take the anime fanboys to start going on about mechs being equiped with magic armour that resists rpgs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is neither magic nor able to resist multiple rpgs....once it explodes it's used up, it's not even armour really it's just a carpet of blocks that contain explosives that go off when a projectile hits them.
Besides advances in anti tank rockets have made explosive reactive armour useless.
Last I heard the Russians were developing a better system where by the tank detects an in coming missile and fires a bomb filled with ball bearings up directly above the tank, this then explodes sending ball bearings down over and around the tank suposedly ripping appart the incoming missile.
Comments
Illuminex: where did you find this thing in the first place? I went looking for it and found <a href='http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/mw_article.asp?cid=36984&frame=news' target='_blank'>this one</a>... Pretty fun, too, though less mech and more conversation piece. Here's a pic:
<img src='http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mwdarkage/images/build2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I'm curious to read about the one that started the thread, though.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember that one. The father built it as a treehouse/playset for his children.
He rocks.
"Legged vehicles can tackle more terrain than any other heavy unit."
What? Stop getting your 'information' from playing Mechwarrior games and your lame animes. Legs would be terrible on terrain. They'd do good on snow and sand, maybe, assuming you sealed the joints tightly enough so sand didn't get in them. Ice? They'd slip. A lot. Rocks? Hopefully your legs can lift high enough to clear them, and hopefully it doesn't step wrong and the whole thing falls down the mountain.
A legged unit would be incredibly and REDICULOUSLY vulnerable to enemy fire. Destroy the legs and it won't be going anywhere. Considering that armor on the legs would be light at best, it'd be only a trivial matter to disable them. Lots of vulnerable joints that can jam (and once they do, it's boned).
I also doubt it'd be able to carry anything larger then light weapons that a wheeled/treaded vehicle couldn't, since you'd have to have a controls system, engine, and weapons system in the 'body' part, you're looking at a lot of weight on the legs/pelvis. This would be the absolute weakest part of the design. Crack the hip, everything goes out of alignment, legs don't work right, it falls down, game over.
As for the armor, it was simply a massive battery hooked up to a charged armor plating underneath regular armor. Rocket Propelled Grenades are just that - greandes. They have a fragmentation system. When they hit, they blast superhot shreds of metal into the object. This system vaporizes the shrapnel when they hit it. However, you can still hit this overpriced toy with a regular anti-tank weapon and pop huge holes in it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glad someone on these boards has some common sense
That is all.
"Legged vehicles can tackle more terrain than any other heavy unit."
What? Stop getting your 'information' from playing Mechwarrior games and your lame animes. Legs would be terrible on terrain. They'd do good on snow and sand, maybe, assuming you sealed the joints tightly enough so sand didn't get in them. Ice? They'd slip. A lot. Rocks? Hopefully your legs can lift high enough to clear them, and hopefully it doesn't step wrong and the whole thing falls down the mountain.
A legged unit would be incredibly and REDICULOUSLY vulnerable to enemy fire. Destroy the legs and it won't be going anywhere. Considering that armor on the legs would be light at best, it'd be only a trivial matter to disable them. Lots of vulnerable joints that can jam (and once they do, it's boned).
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glad someone on these boards has some common sense <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I am going to have to disagree on the arguement that legged vehicles are less adaptable to hostile terrain. They are very useful on rugged and steep terrain.
The problem is they are very slow. Good on terrain, bad on speed and agility
<img src='http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/sg/quinte/harm/mike_Dante.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NASA-UNIVERSITY TEAM SET TO EXPLORE VOLCANO WITH ROBOT
During the third week of July, an eight-legged, tethered robot will descend
into the active crater of Mt. Spurr, an Alaskan volcano 90 miles west of
Anchorage. The robot, Dante II, will be controlled, via satellite and Internet
connections, by a team with representatives from NASA, Carnegie Mellon
University, the Alaska Volcano Observatory, and other government, university
and private organizations.
...
The objectives which were pursued in the Antarctic two years ago included
proving the usefulness of legged and tethered robots in steep and challenging
physical environments, and the ability of virtual reality and telepresence
communications links and computer software programs to enable a human located
remotely from the robot to both "sense" the environment (the telepresence
element) and to effectively direct the actions of the remote robot (computer
assisted and enhanced remote control elements).
...
Volcanoes remain hazardous duty to human geologists Both NASA and AVO are
interested in proving the concept of remote, robotic, volcano explorations
since many of the volcanoes of interest are also extremely hazardous to human
exploration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing the original poster has is a Mech. I doubt that they are useful because:
They are two legged and large. If one leg misteps, it's going down.
Its profile is too high. IMO, its far too exposed for the armor/weapons you can put on it.
I don't see mechs being useful in any urban or wooded enviroment for the above mentioned reasons, meaning that its only useful where tanks already dominate.
Powered Armor, landmates, and any other human enhancement device is an Exoskeleton. They have several advantages:
Manuverable as the person inside them (generally)
Stronger, can lift more wieght and thereby more weapons and armor
But disadvantaged in that if they break you have a serious problem.
I think exoskeletons would be useful anywhere convential infantry would be useful.
Legged vehicles are like the Timberjack sheena posted. Any vehicle with legs that is not a mech is a legged vehicle, meaning any vehicle with 4 or more legs. They have the advantages of:
Being legged, but far more stable than a mech
Generally having a lower profile than a mech, making them more tank like.
I'm not sure how fast they would go, but based on the designs I've seen they look relatively slow. However, their advantages over rought terrain would make them the tanks of the forest.
Some things may not fit into these catagories. For example, I'm not sure if the Starwars AT-AT is a mech or legged vehicle. It's size suggests its a mech, but it has 4 legs.
That may be true, but now imagine how well a wheeled/tracked vehicle would do in that environment.
- To big for its own good, big anti tank weaponry can hit it with ease even if it has godlike armor on its hull it bound to crack sometime, and the smart military tactic would be to shoot the joints...
- You can see/hear it comming from miles away and set up a trap for it
- Its very very slow
- Look at the way they took it down <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
k it might look very cool, but its such a stupid idea to waste all the resources on such a large and slow vehicle. It would have been better if it was tracked.
<img src='http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Fuji/3598/images/shirow/tank.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The tank from ghost in the shell would be a good tank I guess, but it has 6 legs which are only used in rugged terrain. For fast movement it has deployable wheels in each leg. Still this isnt a mech its a legged vehicle and due to the complicity of the parts in each leg compared to normal tracks I'm not convinced...
I can also see how the Ghost in the Shell tank would be useful in an urban-combat situation, as it would be able to easily manuver into alleys, and debris from damage to structures would do little to impede it...
As you said, a well placed rpg or antitank round would do quite a number on the machine, especially if aimed at the legs; however, the same can be said of a tracked vehicle and the treads, or a wheeled vehicle and the wheels. The only difference is the time and expertise required to fix them.
ps that pic that mec slids acros the grownd it dus not walk...if u did not know
The exoskeletons look far more useful, as they serve to enhance an infantrists abilities even more. But maybe big walkers have a future in the civilian sector as cargo lifters, assuming they become relatively cheap to produce at some point.
Other than that, let's not get mixed up between mechs and mechanised body armour. Mechs would be a variant on armour (as in, tanks), whereas body armour is an infantry upgrade. I can see a lot of use for powered, armoured, computerised suits, but very little for full mechs.
Oh, and if anime had any say in it, they'd be trying to get the damn things to fly (and be claiming that they'd be more effective than conventional aircraft!)
Sorry
Huge mechs that are something like 20 meters high probably wont see combat, but 5-10 meter ones probably will, and again, they probably will not be used for anti-tank support, more likely to be anti-infantry support. Like a mech sporting two miniguns would spell disaster for infantry, since its armor most probably can stop some of the higher caliber bullets.
Once we get the technology to calculate, and compensate for rough terrain, and higher speeds of maybe 30-40mp/h then mechs would probably be very real, and very useable.
Other than that, let's not get mixed up between mechs and mechanised body armour. Mechs would be a variant on armour (as in, tanks), whereas body armour is an infantry upgrade. I can see a lot of use for powered, armoured, computerised suits, but very little for full mechs.
Oh, and if anime had any say in it, they'd be trying to get the damn things to fly (and be claiming that they'd be more effective than conventional aircraft!) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I once while playing Mechwarrior 3 online, I got a headshot on a guy from over 1000 meters away with an ER PPC (actually it was two of them in link fire), a feat thats next to impossible.
Nope. It was a 3v3 iirc, and my two teammates were off in the distance, and for some reason they decided to completely ignore me. It probably helped in hitting that I had that aiming dot thingamabob that tells how far ahead to lead.
WWI
Trench warfare, the military started off with thier old standby: the horse, cheap, fast, agile in multiple terrain and if struck down, a bunker. after a few years, Brittan developed the first "tanks" basically armored cars. Once the military saw how effective the tank was, they adapted the design until they had a faster, better armed and armored beast.
<img src='http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/wwi_tank.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
WW I era tank
WW II
After a few years of research and development, Tanks transformed from the slow, cumbersome behemoths of the trenches to fast and deadly Deathmachines, upgrading over the war to faster and more deadly. Originally, the tank was only an Anti-infantry weapon. Tank on Tank battles normally resulted in the allies losing, the Germans had better armor. Tank Destroyers with heavier guns and higher speed and mobility were designed for tankbusting, until the technology progressed that Tankbusters were rendered obsolete
<img src='https://www.expeditionexchange.com/wedco/panzer.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Panzer tank
Current
Right now, the Tasnks have become 40 MPH, Turbine powered, Depleted uranium armored beasts. But, the large size, high weight, and limited manuveribility have miulitaries in a bind, Wide, flat, terrain is generally hard to come by, Obstructions can block your path, refueling can be a serious problem, and the lack of agility in close quarters.
<img src='http://www.webwombat.com.au/spotlight/images/abrams.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Abrams Tank
It's true that, right now, Technology is a hinderance on getting bipedal war machines up and running, but in the last decade we went from computers the size of a buick to ones that fit on your desk that can do things unimaginable a century ago. Technology WILL catch up to our aspirations, But, just like a century ago in WWI, We will have to wait until the the old ideas are debunked before we can get viable mecha.
And, before you nitpick, i KNOW WWI wasnt exactly a century ago, it was for dramatic effect.
/me scurries back to his vent
I fail to see any practical applications of a mech on a battlefield or in an urban area tbh that cannot be done equaly or better by something that already exists.
A mech on a battlefield would be tank/aircraft fodder all day long and in a built up area it would get owned by rpgs or worse.
/me wonders how long it will take the anime fanboys to start going on about mechs being equiped with magic armour that resists rpgs.
You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
tank abilities: the necessary capabilities for ground-based armor are:
-low profile to provide a difficult target - mech fails
-speed - wheels/treads = much faster than legs, and can carry much more
-heavily armored and stable base platform - mech fails. what do you think is better armored against a slingshot: a turtle or an upright-walking lizard that can barely walk three steps before collapsing if it has the same armor, spread over its body?
as for difficult-to-nagivate terrain... that's why we have the airforce, to drop bombs into the mountains and sh*.
if you load up a mech with enough ammo, enough structural strength to mount tons (literally) of armor, a 120mm cannon, and communications/crew compartments etc..
you still have an innefective machine that can be defeated at weak points.. your product is a VERY expensive machine that is so heavy it can barely move, and that has a very poor target profile (legs plz). notice that tanks are short, and have a lot of broad angles and slopes? that's protection. that is the ideal structure for mobile armor. an upright, structurally flat target will be wrecked MUCH easier, and MUCH faster.
You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be even more ownage if you could post a link to it so I can read more about it. Sounds really interesting.
<a href='http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html' target='_blank'>A more scientific explanation of explosive-reactive armor</a>
You mean like explosive-reactive armor the Russians use on their tanks? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is neither magic nor able to resist multiple rpgs....once it explodes it's used up, it's not even armour really it's just a carpet of blocks that contain explosives that go off when a projectile hits them.
Besides advances in anti tank rockets have made explosive reactive armour useless.
Last I heard the Russians were developing a better system where by the tank detects an in coming missile and fires a bomb filled with ball bearings up directly above the tank, this then explodes sending ball bearings down over and around the tank suposedly ripping appart the incoming missile.