[Flaser]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I'm doubtful of the practical military purposes of a 'walker' vehicle, if for nothing more than it's likely highly questionable stability.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Shrike]

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.

[Flaser]

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.

[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...

[Shrike]

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.

[Clave]

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....

[Lynx]

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****.

[Flaser]

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.

[MicroPsycho]

whoever said Mechs would have less armour? If I had a mech, I'd pile armour on.

[Flaser]

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.

[Shrike]

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.

[Flaser]

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?

[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.

[Flaser]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I know, I know, just sayin' is all

[Shrike]

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.

[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.

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.

[aldo_14]

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.