Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flaser on November 23, 2004, 01:55:41 pm
-
Have you heard of any attempt at creating a walking machine?
Beside robots of Beckerly and the Mechanised Prolusion System.
The later is a private endevour to create the first true mech of the world - however I am somewhat sceptic about their centralised control approach.
Their website BTW is here: http://mechaps.com/
We already had a what is your favorite mech tread, nice mech designs, but seriously speaking what is your idea about the feasability of the idea.
I'm interedted in both wheter it can be done, and the worth of it.
Finally since we are all millitant buggers, who like to blow things up, what role could a mech fill in a war?
--------------------------------------------------
My opinion right now is quite influenced by Gasaraki - or rather a concept it used: adaptive actuators.
Simply put the TA-s depicted in the show has a vegetative artificial nervous system integral to the muscles and transmission of the mecha.
When you stand or walk, your brain doesn't handle each and every movement of the muscle, neither does it handle all the data to cross the terrain. Instead your feet automatically adapt to the ground bending in the right angle to provide maximum grip and balance. Right now I hadn't managed to find any project that experimented with such an approach, and beside to overcomputed centralised system and a motion capturing mimicing style I haven't seen anything similar.
The very fact, that nature uses this system makes me think it as the most effective method.
-
I'm doubtful of the practical military purposes of a 'walker' vehicle, if for nothing more than it's likely highly questionable stability.
-
Are you 100% sure this isn't an elaborate spoof (note; can't see any actual pictures) - because it looks like one to me. I can't imagine any sane venture capitalist would fun a company "dedicated to designing, creating, and piloting the first bipedal humanoid anime style mecha in the next 25 years".
Oh, and I don't think Mechas will have a massive purpose in future war. Yeah, they look cool, but I can't see any way in which a bipedal craft is less vulnerable to attack compared to a tank with shielded tracks or a high speed VTOL aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
Finally since we are all millitant buggers, who like to blow things up, what role could a mech fill in a war?
Target.
They could be handy for police work however - riot control, like a new-age horse.
-
Are you 100% sure this isn't an elaborate spoof (note; can't see any actual pictures) - because it looks like one to me. I can't imagine any sane venture capitalist would fun a company "dedicated to designing, creating, and piloting the first bipedal humanoid anime style mecha in the next 25 years".
Oh, and I don't think Mechas will have a massive purpose in future war. Yeah, they look cool, but I can't see any way in which a bipedal craft is less vulnerable to attack compared to a tank with shielded tracks or a high speed VTOL aircraft.
They ARE more valnurable.
They ARE more expensive.
However a mech is also:
MORE Versatile
MORE Mobile
...and it isn't intended to be the weapon platform to rule it all.
As far as I see it, mechs are relegated to be the multitasking support force of modern amies replacing some of the over-tasked mules in the current army.
Their true validity however lies in non-conventional, in-direct engagents in places with impossible terrain or urban environment. (like Stalingrad, or what goes on in Iraq)
Pure armor or target profile is less of an issue between buildings and situation averness, free mobility - the ability to go in any direction, as well as the capacity to mount a variety of weaponry could make the mech the king of the urban engagents.
Infantry may still down a mech - however it would have a lot better chance to support infantry or advance on its own in an urban environment than a tank could ever do.
-
Legs, if properly armoured would be stronger than tank treads would they not? A mech would be a lot taller than a tank and have a better view of the battlefield and it would be easier to mount different assortments of weapons, just swap and arm for example. They could be used for heavy infantry support or protect the flanks of an army. They would have an assortment of weaponry at one time, from missiles to any rang of ballistic weapons.
I think a Mad Cat or Daishi would be a possible design, or perhaps a Loki or Thor...
-
Except on the battlefield, height = death. Why do you think effort is put into reducing the silhouette of vehicles? A 25 foot tall mech is three times as tall as a tank, has much thinner armor over its frontal arc and has an inconveniently complex drive system, all for the same cost as a tank. As for modular weaponry, it's already entirely possible to do that. Look at the LAV/Stryker series - you've got multiple turret variants carrying weapons from 12.7mm HMGs to 105mm cannons. If you really wanted you could add rocket pods or whatever to tanks - some eastern bloc tanks had light autocannon pods in addition to their cannon/MG outfit.
-
The trick is not to replace your infantry with mechs, but to make a mech supplement to your troopers. Simple adaption will give your average grunt armour, the power to carry heavy loads, endurance, and firepower. The descision making, and battle skills are still human, but the power is machine based. That way, if you get a system failure, your grunt just sheds the machine, and carries on fighting albiet in a reduced capacity....
-
Apparently they want to build prototypes 14 inch high with a chevy block as propulsion. But anything bigger_won't_work. Hwo the hell do they want to power a multi ton version, Not to metion the balancing issiues.
Smells like bull****.
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
Legs, if properly armoured would be stronger than tank treads would they not? A mech would be a lot taller than a tank and have a better view of the battlefield and it would be easier to mount different assortments of weapons, just swap and arm for example. They could be used for heavy infantry support or protect the flanks of an army. They would have an assortment of weaponry at one time, from missiles to any rang of ballistic weapons.
I think a Mad Cat or Daishi would be a possible design, or perhaps a Loki or Thor...
The problem with Battletech, especially clanner desings is the overuse of neurohelmets - ergo the battlemechs are thought driven.
We have very little understanding of the actual workings of the mind, and beside some rudementary experiments little was achieved in the field of neural control.
Why I mentioned clanner mechs as even more problematic is their distinct non-humanoid build.
Right now the only failsafe concept for a mech is to be as similar to the human anthropology as possible, since motion captured (on the fly capture of the pilot) control would be more likely to work.
The other two concepts I've seen so far beside direct control is a completly artifial control system similar to the fly-by-wire systems employed by the aerodynamically unstable (ego also more manueverable) aircrafts recently developed, and the built-in nervous system depicted in Gasaraki.
As I already wrote I have my bets on a system that uses the latest concept - direct neural link up isn't feasable so far, and animals seem to need such a system in order to properly walk.
The reason why I strongly differ that approach and the centralized computer method is 'cause its quite like the difference between the vegatative and sympahtic nervesystem of a living being.
The sympathic is your brain and it is counscios, the vegetative your spinal cord and all the nerves planted into your limbs. You have little conscious control over your vegetative system, but it also frees you from a wide range of stuff - ergo it isn't a mindjob to get up and shovel crap.
IMO a pure mimic system won't be able to handle a mech of sufficient size - the proportions are simply way too off, though some people may be able to hanlde something like that.
It isn't the best approach, since you want mongoose to mimic the movements of squirel - you can't do it with 100% accuracy or effectiveness. Beside creating an interface you also need a clever interpreter/compiler that makes the squirel stuff into mongoose nerve signals.
So the true system that could brake through would either use a mimicing system, that takes actual signals from your body - even through electrodes - or has a CPU (take it literally this time, Central Processing Unit) that takes oreders from the pilot.
In both cases the signals should be transmitted through a nerve system similar to the vegetative nerve system of an animal. I haven't read of anything like that anywhere that's why I view current attempts with some scepticism.
A pure CPU driven mech, won't be able to properly adapt to its environment, or will be a monstrous oddity that does an extreme ammount of calculations - it would be a lot easier to break that up into stuff that's always applicable to the anatomy, hence why I support the vegetative built in system.
A pure mimicing system won't be able to take different proportions than a human, though IMHO it is possible to make a poweramor on this principle.
-
whoever said Mechs would have less armour? If I had a mech, I'd pile armour on.
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
whoever said Mechs would have less armour? If I had a mech, I'd pile armour on.
It is not so much the quantity of the armor that differs, but is distribution. Slanted armor will be always more effective, and lower target profile will effectivly multiply the capacity of your power.
You're right Shrike: Mech are screwed in an open full scale battle, or in any open terrain. Tanks are the kings of the plain.
Mech are the kings of the nordic twillight - they rule over hills, urban environment and impossible, impassable terrain where they are the only armored vehicle capable of supporting infantry.
...and BTW: both tanks and mechs are screwed if airpower comes down on them.
Battlemechs will probably be hunched over little buggers, hugging the ground with heavy armor, while urban mechs could be lanky bastards.
The ability of the mech to better witstand urban combat doesn't come from its armor, but the fact that it can pass over almost any obstacle and change direction at ease even in tight spaces.
Also in such an environment, where range is point blank compared to convetional battle, and cover is abudant height becomes a positive quality. You can survey the area better, the weapons and the pilot are at a safe distance from the mob or the dirty weapons employed in urban warfare, you have an easier time clearing snipers entracnhed on the higher levels - not mentioning the fact that a tall metal monster looks more imposing than a big slab of metal.
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
whoever said Mechs would have less armour? If I had a mech, I'd pile armour on.
Thickness is what's important. And a mech would have a much bigger frontal silhouette than a tank - Most tanks have around 8-10 m^2 frontal area, or 80-100 square feet if you're imperial. A battlefield mech would easily have that much, and probably significantly more. Thus if you assume equal weight you're spreading a tank's frontal armor over a much broader surface, reducing the thickness and thus effectiveness.
Originally posted by Flaser
You're right Shrike: Mech are screwed in an open full scale battle, or in any open terrain. Tanks are the kings of the plain.
Mech are the kings of the nordic twillight - they rule over hills, urban environment and impossible, impassable terrain where they are the only armored vehicle capable of supporting infantry.
I think you'd be surprised how mobile military vehicles can be. And more importantly, armored vehicles are useless if you can't supply them... if you can't get trucks with gas and ammo to them then they're just big, expensive hunks of metal.
The ability of the mech to better witstand urban combat doesn't come from its armor, but the fact that it can pass over almost any obstacle and change direction at ease even in tight spaces.
Also in such an environment, where range is point blank compared to convetional battle, and cover is abudant height becomes a positive quality. You can survey the area better, the weapons and the pilot are at a safe distance from the mob or the dirty weapons employed in urban warfare, you have an easier time clearing snipers entracnhed on the higher levels - not mentioning the fact that a tall metal monster looks more imposing than a big slab of metal. [/B]
Well, urban is a big question mark, but really, any vehicle in an urban setting is just supporting troops. As for the height, it's still a disadvantage. I'd rather have a tank and a couple little flying UAVs than a mech - the tank is still much easier to hide and the UAVs are cheap and thus expendible.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Thickness is what's important. And a mech would have a much bigger frontal silhouette than a tank - Most tanks have around 8-10 m^2 frontal area, or 80-100 square feet if you're imperial. A battlefield mech would easily have that much, and probably significantly more. Thus if you assume equal weight you're spreading a tank's frontal armor over a much broader surface, reducing the thickness and thus effectiveness.
I think you'd be surprised how mobile military vehicles can be. And more importantly, armored vehicles are useless if you can't supply them... if you can't get trucks with gas and ammo to them then they're just big, expensive hunks of metal.
Well, urban is a big question mark, but really, any vehicle in an urban setting is just supporting troops. As for the height, it's still a disadvantage. I'd rather have a tank and a couple little flying UAVs than a mech - the tank is still much easier to hide and the UAVs are cheap and thus expendible.
The only thing modern armor can't handle is slopes over 45 degrees, ruble of sufficient quantity and a street so narrow the tank can barelly get in - the mech will be better in all of thos situtaions.
I am also tempted to say that a purely limb based craft could hoard more amor, but that is pure speculation and therefore isn't a valid point.
If a mech could be built - and there are some circumstances when it is the ideal heavy unit - how would you go about building one, or what are the technical limitations you believe that make the project impossible?
-
In an urban enviornment, I could see a mech design working...somewhat. However, on the battlefield, where you have the bigger, badder weaponry, all it would take is one solid impact to topple the thing.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
In an urban enviornment, I could see a mech design working...somewhat. However, on the battlefield, where you have the bigger, badder weaponry, all it would take is one solid impact to topple the thing.
I already stated it several times, that mechs are not ment to be fielded onto a battlefield - unless they prove to have a substantially better armor hoarding capacity than tanks.
'Til than only those situations should be considered where their definite superiority over rough terrain can be exploited.
-
I know, I know, just sayin' is all :p
-
Originally posted by Flaser
The only thing modern armor can't handle is slopes over 45 degrees, ruble of sufficient quantity and a street so narrow the tank can barelly get in - the mech will be better in all of thos situtaions.
And how often do you think you'll be running into those situations? And more importantly why would you need a mech there, specifically? Modern forces don't fight in a vaccum. Why would you buy an expensive mech for overly specific situations?
I am also tempted to say that a purely limb based craft could hoard more amor, but that is pure speculation and therefore isn't a valid point.[/B]
I'd like to see how you figure that. A tank already has something like 50% of its weight in the armor, and about half of that on the frontal slope alone. So how could a mech realistically carry more for the same given weight?
If a mech could be built - and there are some circumstances when it is the ideal heavy unit - how would you go about building one, or what are the technical limitations you believe that make the project impossible? [/B]
I don't think there's any technical blocks - hurdles, yes, but I'm sure we could make a combat mech in a decade or two. I'm also pretty sure it'd be a giant waste of money.
-
What I base the armor hoarding assumption on is the fact that the mech will use bipedal movement - so normal or roll friction wouldn't effectivly hinder its movement, therefore packing a lot more weight may be possible.
However all of this is pure speculation, therefore until I do some calculations - highly unliklely thanks to the undefined nature of a bipedal movement - as well as my counter idea that such a design will place inherently more pressure on the terrain thereby constantly slowing down the mech, I don't want to press the issue, I merly accept the possibility, though with sceptic denial.
Such conditions aren't that rare - all our cities are such battlefields, as are swamps, and particularly hilly areas.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
They ARE more valnurable.
They ARE more expensive.
However a mech is also:
MORE Versatile
MORE Mobile
...and it isn't intended to be the weapon platform to rule it all.
As far as I see it, mechs are relegated to be the multitasking support force of modern amies replacing some of the over-tasked mules in the current army.
Their true validity however lies in non-conventional, in-direct engagents in places with impossible terrain or urban environment. (like Stalingrad, or what goes on in Iraq)
Pure armor or target profile is less of an issue between buildings and situation averness, free mobility - the ability to go in any direction, as well as the capacity to mount a variety of weaponry could make the mech the king of the urban engagents.
Infantry may still down a mech - however it would have a lot better chance to support infantry or advance on its own in an urban environment than a tank could ever do.
I can't see how a mech would be in any way superior to an aerial equivalent or tank vehicle, given that by the time mechs were technologically feasible there would be sufficient advancements in both to IMO override any 'advantage' a mech could have.
I mean... firstly, a mech has the technical problems of simply moving; already have helicopters/VTOL, hovercraft, tanks capable of passing over increasingly hostile terrain.
Mechs also have a higher centre of gravity - I'd imagine they'd be more vulnerable to being 'knocked over' than any other type of military technology. And also how to maintain balance whilst clearing tall obstacles, without losing visibility as a result.
There would possibly also be a loss of lower torso visibility, and vulnerability to low-level RPG attacks.
There's also an additional weight issue if you want mobility - you have to balance the width of 'feet' versus the difficulty of lifting said feet.
I mean, in what way would a mech actually be more mobile or versatile? Bear in mind you have to factor in xx years advances in 'conventional' tech before a mech becomes a feasible option.
-
As Stryke says, the drive mechanism is overly complex and vulnerable. The Wheel/Gear system is the most efficient method for moving deadweight such as armoured vehicles etc. The mech would have to have a complete 'muscle and tendon' set-up in it's legs to return momentum with each step. Such a system would be very vulnerable to RPG's etc. Armouring the legs up would both inhibit motion and increase weight.
However, that said, Mechs do look cool :)
-
Originally posted by Flaser
What I base the armor hoarding assumption on is the fact that the mech will use bipedal movement - so normal or roll friction wouldn't effectivly hinder its movement, therefore packing a lot more weight may be possible.
Well, if you're going for more weight for a given amount of protection you've got your own set of problems. Why do you think a tank needs 1500 horsepower and a LAV like 200? All that armor.
By its very nature a mech cannot be as well-armored as a tank of equal weight. A tank's largest faces (assuming it's a box) are top and bottom whereas a mech is front and back. On the battlefield in an assault role you are most likely to get hit along the frontal arc. What this means in effect is that to get an equal thickness of armor, a mech would need drastically more armor with everything that entails - bigger drivetrain for one.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
They ARE more valnurable.
They ARE more expensive.
However a mech is also:
MORE Versatile
MORE Mobile
...and it isn't intended to be the weapon platform to rule it all.
As far as I see it, mechs are relegated to be the multitasking support force of modern amies replacing some of the over-tasked mules in the current army.
Their true validity however lies in non-conventional, in-direct engagents in places with impossible terrain or urban environment. (like Stalingrad, or what goes on in Iraq)
Pure armor or target profile is less of an issue between buildings and situation averness, free mobility - the ability to go in any direction, as well as the capacity to mount a variety of weaponry could make the mech the king of the urban engagents.
Infantry may still down a mech - however it would have a lot better chance to support infantry or advance on its own in an urban environment than a tank could ever do.
i had this discussion many a time with somebody online, the fact is, mechs can be one helluva big target, moreso than tanks... and tanks aren't as easy to tip over, either, but for civilian/law enforcement, the uses for it are quite obvious.
-
If they'll clean my room for me, I'm all for it.
-
they'd be useful for construction other industrial uses
-
Or scaring the living **** out of people.
-
A bipedal robot wouldn't be indrecibly mobile, at least not with today's tech. The lack of tactile feedback when designing a robotic leg that's emulating a biological leg is a huge setback. The Honda "walking robot" is supposed to be one of the most advanced cybernetic bipeds out there right now, and it moves *slow*, trips easily and has difficulty blancing on even slightly uneven terrain. A large scale version of that, if you want to think in Mechwarrior terms, would be a bit more stable... but if it happened to fall over... well I'd not want to be an infantry man supporting that is all I'll say.
Now, with all of that in mind, a man-sized spider-like quadroped or octoped design is far more stable, and flexible than a biped robot, in fact it's more mobile than most humans.With multiple legs for support and a more distributed centre of gravity, it can skitter up rubble in urban environments (think destroyed buildings in Iraq), climb walls, flip itself over if it falls, and even survive the loss of a leg. There are still problems with articulated joints, but I believe there are proof-of-concept models of pneumatic tube legs being nearly ready for use.
-
Gigantic mechs aren;t really feasible, for all the reasons outlined here. Mini, single man powersuits might, might have a role to play inm the future,,b ut I suspect the additional armour would be far to expensive when compared with stuff like that future soldier thing that was posted here not long ago.
-
The real benefit of an anthro(human shaped) mech wouldn't really be in it's awe inspiring firepower or it's mountains of armor, but from the simplification of weapon design and mobility at speed.
It becomes very easy to design weapons for an anthromech because all you have to do is design something human sized and then scale it up for the mech to use.
The mobility comes from it's ability to shift it's vector on the fly by sidestepping. A tank is fast, but it can't manuver at speed.
Another consideration is the Awe factor. They would be useful in crowd control due more to the Awe they would instill in the crowd than the weapons it would carry.
-
A relatively small mech like a gear from the PC Game/RPG heavy gear (the cheetah, a recon gear, is 4.3 meters tall) might be useful in urban warfare.
Gears also have the advantage of being fitted with wheels/treads to move faster on flat ground.
(http://www.dp9.com/images/dcheetah.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
A relatively small mech like a gear from the PC Game/RPG heavy gear (the cheetah, a recon gear, is 4.3 meters tall) might be useful in urban warfare.
Gears also have the advantage of being fitted with wheels/treads to move faster on flat ground.
(http://www.dp9.com/images/dcheetah.gif)
urban pacification, i can see where the police could benefit from using a bipedal, human-like mech.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The real benefit of an anthro(human shaped) mech wouldn't really be in it's awe inspiring firepower or it's mountains of armor, but from the simplification of weapon design and mobility at speed.
It becomes very easy to design weapons for an anthromech because all you have to do is design something human sized and then scale it up for the mech to use.
The mobility comes from it's ability to shift it's vector on the fly by sidestepping. A tank is fast, but it can't manuver at speed.
Another consideration is the Awe factor. They would be useful in crowd control due more to the Awe they would instill in the crowd than the weapons it would carry.
Well, the main advantage I can see in a mech is psychological warfare use, but by the same token you can do that with any heavy weaponry.... I'm also not sure you want to design weapons human sized & simply scale up, though - I think you'd be far more effective desiging a specific weapon to take advantage of unique features of the mech; as far as I can tell the key difference between weapons mounting on 'conventional' hardware, and that of a (human shaped) mech, is that conventional weapons aren't mounted on an 'arm' structure which is vulnerable and also presents an ammo bottleneck.
Insofar as I can tell, the most useful concepts for a mech tend to veer into the 'powersuit' type category rather than a piloted vehicle, anyways.... I think Japong is right about insectoid / multipedal mechs / combat robots being far more effective for military purposes. I guess the ideal robot could be a spider-like one with the ability to scuttle up walls, and a 360 degree rotatable weapon.
NB: by the time we can feasibly make mechs, we'll probably have the tech to make fast moving / manuevering tanks, i.e. 'hovertanks'.
-
All bipedal creatures are inherently unstable and we only stay upright because of the real-time compensation that our brains naturally perform. Mechanically it's impossible to walk (and on flat, unsloped ground at that) without a computer and an array of sensors giving constant feedback to offset the stability problem. When you imagine putting this sort of thing into a device designed for combat, which would have to take into account all sorts of unforeseeable events, you're bringing naivete to a whole new level. It's perhaps possible to do mechanically, but you'd have better luck installing VTOL engines on tanks to deal with rubble and high inclines than making such an impractical thing work.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
All bipedal creatures are inherently unstable and we only stay upright because of the real-time compensation that our brains naturally perform. Mechanically it's impossible to walk (and on flat, unsloped ground at that) without a computer and an array of sensors giving constant feedback to offset the stability problem. When you imagine putting this sort of thing into a device designed for combat, which would have to take into account all sorts of unforeseeable events, you're bringing naivete to a whole new level. It's perhaps possible to do mechanically, but you'd have better luck installing VTOL engines on tanks to deal with rubble and high inclines than making such an impractical thing work.
http://asimo.honda.com/
hard to do, but not impossible.
and you're right -all- bipeds are inherently unstable.. only our center of gravity, brain, and our inner ears keep us from falling over everytime we stand. :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
http://asimo.honda.com/
hard to do, but not impossible.
Well, yeah, but look at the amount of technology, money and research that was required to get to a robot that walks as fast as a geriatric.
and then compare that with the advances in other modes of mechanized transport in the same time. That's the point, really - it'd probably take decades to iron out the fundamentals of proper, speedy biped movement, and even longer to 'weaponize' it. Whereas we already have the fundamentals of VTOL & tanks (etc) worked out, and it's simply a question of further enhancing and refining it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, yeah, but look at the amount of technology, money and research that was required to get to a robot that walks as fast as a geriatric.
and then compare that with the advances in other modes of mechanized transport in the same time. That's the point, really - it'd probably take decades to iron out the fundamentals of proper, speedy biped movement, and even longer to 'weaponize' it. Whereas we already have the fundamentals of VTOL & tanks (etc) worked out, and it's simply a question of further enhancing and refining it.
yeah, and a tank, is a versatile weapons platform, why replace something like that with a clumsy biped?
but, an armored suit for the man on the ground. would be a better alternative, something 8 feet or above, anything larger than 10-12 feet would just be useless..
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
yeah, and a tank, is a versatile weapons platform, why replace something like that with a clumsy biped?
but, an armored suit for the man on the ground. would be a better alternative, something 8 feet or above, anything larger than 10-12 feet would just be useless..
8 feet, and the guy wouldn't be able to enter any normal sized doors without dunting his head, though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
8 feet, and the guy wouldn't be able to enter any normal sized doors without dunting his head, though.
yeah, but in a building, a large suit of mechanical armor would be rather clunky in a small building.
think robocop :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
yeah, but in a building, a large suit of mechanical armor would be rather clunky in a small building.
think robocop :p
Well... there's not a massive deal of use in an 8-foot tall mechanical suit of armour that can only walk outdoors IMO.
-
A lot of argument has been put forth to the advantage of using mechs in the "urban pacification" role.
Ok, look at it this way:
The job of a police force is to pacify hence the term urban pacification. What on this Earth would they need an 8 foot tall armored robot for? Honestly, most (most) urban pacifications are riots, where the enemy is unarmed with anything more than beer bottles and the like. Bringing a mech into the fray would just be like bringing a tank: Slow, ungainly, unnecessary, and the roiters could easily get past them. What do you need 3 inch think ablative armor for, if all you're doing is keeping beer bottles from hitting you?
Granted, for those violent riots, where actual weaponry is used, then you might need something heavier, but in the US and other developed countries, we have tear gas, riot shields, bullet proof armor, etc. The only place where you could actually use a mech in urban pacification would be in a hotspot country, say, in Africa, where rioters are routinely armed with AK-47s and the like. Only problem is, you'd need a lot of money to make a mech, indeed, only to develop the tech necessary would cost millions, and the countries that could make the best of mechs barely make hundreds a year. Granted, you could have an international mechanized peacekeeping force, yea, but who's going to want a bunch of giant robots with the flags of foreign countries emblazoned on their arms paratrooping in and blowing your relatives to hell?
The only way mechs would be feasable is if the entire world order was reaaranged so that one country actually trulygave a **** about another one. Then you could have the developed countries making all the mechs you need, and then having them all dropped into the zone.
-
The situation in Fallujah and other Iraqi cities, however, is pretty much what you can expect from any wars for the next few decades though - small groups of armed hostiles taking on larger military groups in an urban environment. The days of large scale infantry and mechanized warfare are going to be gone, for a few decades at least. Predicting beyond that is difficult.
That said, I still don' think we need mechs.
-
IMHO, there is nothing a mech can/could ever do, with current technology, that a well trained group of soldiers with light armor support can't do today.
I would, however, support the development of armored power suits (such as in Heavy Gear)
-
Take into account that the abilities of what we can achieve with current technology would be the bare minimum a mech will be capable of.
After all the Wright brothers flight's hadn't been as awsome - still a walking weapons platform may proove to hold its own values.
The only way to find out is to build or try to build one - and then draw the conclusions. I know this is a nerdy idea, but if not for the nerds we would be still sharpening our spears since who the **** would deal with a bow that can't even pierce a mamuts hide.
-
(nitpick alert) That would depend on how you define 'nerd', because it's not all-nclusive of human ingenuity; a lot of technology and advancements comes from people with direct experience - in this example it would be soldiers, or the very first hunter-gatherers.
IMO, no military organisation would seriously consider a 'mech' as a viable military weapon with respect to the alternatives. IMO (again), I don;t think a feasible mech would have any military benefits not reproducable in a more cost-efficient and milatrily viable way using current 'platforms' such as tanks or VTOL.
What you have to remember, of course, is that a lot of things which are build will turn out to be a vast waste of money & time. We just don;t hear of it in the most part, simply because they are inconsequential.
-
"After Death Twenty thousand fifty. Battle weapons now consist of Mechanized warriors known as, Megadeuses."
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(nitpick alert) That would depend on how you define 'nerd', because it's not all-nclusive of human ingenuity; a lot of technology and advancements comes from people with direct experience - in this example it would be soldiers, or the very first hunter-gatherers.
IMO, no military organisation would seriously consider a 'mech' as a viable military weapon with respect to the alternatives. IMO (again), I don;t think a feasible mech would have any military benefits not reproducable in a more cost-efficient and milatrily viable way using current 'platforms' such as tanks or VTOL.
What you have to remember, of course, is that a lot of things which are build will turn out to be a vast waste of money & time. We just don;t hear of it in the most part, simply because they are inconsequential.
yea well maybe not in a tactical way, not anytime soon atleast, but in a practical way, you have the concepts where these large mech like machines can be used to lift heavy materials, like loaders and such.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
yea well maybe not in a tactical way, not anytime soon atleast, but in a practical way, you have the concepts where these large mech like machines can be used to lift heavy materials, like loaders and such.
Compared to a JCB or tracked vehicle, though? I think mechs are too much of a compromise idea.... the whole bipedal thing seems unecessary for heavy lifting, all you need is one or two large arm devices. Or simply a design intended to overcome the structural stresses of heavy lifting, which a mech probably wouldn't be (how to control balance and counter back stress as humans have to?)
i personally just can't envisagate a point where a large bipedal vehicle would be 'better' than something specifically designed for that - or conceive a situation where the only solution is a bipedal vehicle.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
"After Death Twenty thousand fifty. Battle weapons now consist of Mechanized warriors known as, Megadeuses."
"Big O! Big ooooOOOOOoooooO! Big O! Go Big O!"
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Compared to a JCB or tracked vehicle, though? I think mechs are too much of a compromise idea.... the whole bipedal thing seems unecessary for heavy lifting, all you need is one or two large arm devices. Or simply a design intended to overcome the structural stresses of heavy lifting, which a mech probably wouldn't be (how to control balance and counter back stress as humans have to?)
i personally just can't envisagate a point where a large bipedal vehicle would be 'better' than something specifically designed for that - or conceive a situation where the only solution is a bipedal vehicle.
I already have one: send an autonomous probe to Mars.
A bipedal probe could cross the impossible terrain - a tracked one will inevitably get stuck.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
I already have one: send an autonomous probe to Mars.
A bipedal probe could cross the impossible terrain - a tracked one will inevitably get stuck.
In that case, you'd be using a multipedal 'centipede' like probe, or a tracked one with multiple flexible parts (i.e. so it can bend along its 'spine').
Remember - at the time when a bipedal 'walker' is a realistic technology for consideration for this, you'll also have a great deal of other technological advancements affecting the alternative.
I'm also not 100% sure how well the various mechanical parts and computing equipment of a bipedal probe would work in the martian climate, especially with respect to sandstorms. Or, indeed, if the weight requirements would be exceeded by the technology or simply the power sources required.
-
Hmmm.....
I do think the best control is direct control - (like in Vision of Escaflowne). You move your arm left, the mach moves it. Not to mention that a humanoid mech wihth arms and fists would have a easy time exchanging weapons AND could use things around him as a weapon (rip out that lamp post and use it as a club).
The effctivnes of Mecha would be dependent on their agility and speed. If it can come close to human movement, then it would own a tank since it could (in theory) jump, duck, roll and shoot while doing it. It could avoid hits more easily than a tank.
However, there are many IF's...
-
what about a Shivan-oid mech? It may sound like a stupid idea, but It would have the satbility of multiple legs and with only one rear leg, the forward 2 legs would have a greater area in which to move without hitting the rear leg. It would have a low centre-of gravity and small frontal arc. And the two 'arms' could mount an assortment of weapons.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Hmmm.....
I do think the best control is direct control - (like in Vision of Escaflowne). You move your arm left, the mach moves it. Not to mention that a humanoid mech wihth arms and fists would have a easy time exchanging weapons AND could use things around him as a weapon (rip out that lamp post and use it as a club).
The effctivnes of Mecha would be dependent on their agility and speed. If it can come close to human movement, then it would own a tank since it could (in theory) jump, duck, roll and shoot while doing it. It could avoid hits more easily than a tank.
However, there are many IF's...
The problem with the mimicing method of control is that the mecha will probably have very different inertia than what you are used to and different weight distribution. The question is if it is actually possible to pilot something with a mimic interface.
-
The problem with direct control is then you have to figure out how to fire weapons that are integrated into the body. Using only handheld weapons limits it to only two weapons at any one time, at most, and I imagine a backup integrated weapon, LMG or something similar, would be practically demanded by the people making up the specs it has to match.
But I'd expect the concept to start much smaller then you'd think. More like powered armor then mecha as you know and love them.
The mimic interface isn't as problematic as it sounds. Prothestic arms and legs are already manufactured that tap into the body's nervous system and take their commands from it.
-
I think mimic interface is too far off. While there are prothestic limbs out there, they follow a very simple movement - tehre can be no talk of complexity here..
As far as direct control goes - the mecha might have a different weight distribution or inertia, but the pilot is the one who is charged of balancing it. Thus it would be in theory no different than fighting in a middle-aged armor. takes a while to get used to fighting in it, but after a while, it's like it isn't there.
Secondly, weapons integrated into the body could be fired by a special voice command or movement (like for instance, they way spiderman puts his hands when he fires his web). And come to think of it, who would need integrated weapons anyway? We're talking about a giant mecha. His normal machinegun would be at least like the A-10 Vulcan 30mm cannon, and than one can rip tanks in peaces.
-
A fully functional hand isn't complex momement?
-
'Mimic' interfaces would probably need to be developed using a direct connection to the CNS, I think; use the brains natural power to perform the balancing act. Far fetched as this may be, it's worth noting that any realistic mech capable of fighting is probably technologically decades away.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
A fully functional hand isn't complex momement?
that's just the point- it's not fuly functonal. Open hand, close hand. You call that complex? Fast and precise control over each finger is what I call complex.
-
I wonder how a Mech would handle the recoil from large weapons like cannons or missile launchers ?
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
what about a Shivan-oid mech? It may sound like a stupid idea, but It would have the satbility of multiple legs and with only one rear leg, the forward 2 legs would have a greater area in which to move without hitting the rear leg. It would have a low centre-of gravity and small frontal arc. And the two 'arms' could mount an assortment of weapons.
That's actually a good idea. A mech doesn't have to follow a humanoid design. The human model isn't the more appropriate for agility and speed.
-
It's worth noting that there are prosthetic limbs suitably advanced enough to allow an armless man to fly a plane.
anyway, any discussion of mechs has to take into account the other advances in technology that would have taken place by implementation time.