[Flipside]

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

[Shrike]

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.

[Turnsky]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

If they'll clean my room for me, I'm all for it.

[Bobboau]

they'd be useful for construction other industrial uses

[Ford Prefect]

Or scaring the living **** out of people.

[Japong]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Turnsky]

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.

urban pacification, i can see where the police could benefit from using a bipedal, human-like mech.

[aldo_14]

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'.

[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.

[Turnsky]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Turnsky]

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..

[aldo_14]

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.

[Turnsky]

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

[aldo_14]

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

Well... there's not a massive deal of use in an 8-foot tall mechanical suit of armour that can only walk outdoors IMO.

[Unknown Target]

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.