[headdie]

http://www.geekosystem.com/japan-wants-a-real-gundam/

Yep, Japanese politicians are discussing building a "Full-Sized, Working Gundam"

[Thaeris]

New News Headline:

"Globally, elected officials are becoming more outgoing about their general incompetance..."

[headdie]

New News Headline:

"Globally, elected officials are becoming more outgoing about their general incompetance..."

millennium dome

[NGTM-1R]

http://www.geekosystem.com/japan-wants-a-real-gundam/

Yep, Japanese politicians are discussing building a "Full-Sized, Working Gundam"

Bread and Circuses.

Besides, didn't they already build a Scopedog?

[Spoon]

This pops up ever so often.
They already determined the cost of building one a while back (it would be powered by 6 of these or something)
It would be an awesome attraction really, one step above the 1:1 scale model. But as an actual practical machine something more the size of a patlabor would be more... well, practical.

The guy that wrote the article is a dumbass though, having hands to actually manipulate things (change loadouts on the fly, help with rescue operations etc etc) is one of the few actual practical reasons why you would want a bipedal mech. Going for a "stripped back mechwarrior" is less sensical because it would offer nothing over a regular MBT.

All in all, nothing will actually materialize from this, cause its just an other crazy japanese political party shouting things. Japan has plenty of those.

[Dragon]

While a walker could have it's advantages over a tracked MBT, this is a ridiculous approach to this concept. Unless, of course, they go for a design that actually makes sense, making the Gundam comparison rather pointless (it'd end up looking more like Titans from C&C, if anything).
Of course, this whole project is pointless by not being suited to modern warfare requirements (well, a tall platform with lots of side-mounted miniguns could come in handy in urban warfare, but how many people thought about that when talking mechs?). They'd be better off developing powered armor.

[Spoon]

Any mobility advantage a walker would have over a tracked MBT is completely offset by well, everything. A single RPG would be the end of this super expensive fragile walker.

They'd be better off developing powered armor.

This sentence pretty much ends every discussion about the viability of making a bipedal warmachine.

[Scotty]

*technological strides in relatively unexplored field*

"They'd be better off doing <almost completely unrelated field>."

Right.  I mean, cuz it's impossible that these strides could find a way to negate the massive shortcomings inherent in not knowing everything about what you're doing.

[Ravenholme]

*technological strides in relatively unexplored field*

"They'd be better off doing <almost completely unrelated field>."

Right.  I mean, cuz it's impossible that these strides could find a way to negate the massive shortcomings inherent in not knowing everything about what you're doing.

Pffft, people who think we should fly are crazy. It'll never work and it'll just be too risky and cost-ineffective compared to taking a boat. I mean, look what happened to the Hindenburg.

[Scotty]

I know, right?  They'll never be able to adequately protect those pockets of gas enough to be competetive.  A single bullet would be the end of this super expensive fragile aircraft.

[Polpolion]

I know, right?  They'll never be able to adequately protect those pockets of gas enough to be competetive.  A single bullet would be the end of this super expensive fragile aircraft.

  I'll show you. I'll show you all! Just wait!

[IronBeer]

I remember having a very in-depth and good discussion on IRC with a few other 'mech-heads about the reasonability and (dis)advantages of a walking war machine. Specifically, we were talking Battletech, and an interesting observation emerged: in that universe, 'mechs rule the battlefields due to the higher-end equipment fitted to the machines. Apparently nobody ever thought to put a fusion reactor and top-notch guns and armor on a tank, and yet there are some tanks that can readily give many 'mechs a cold sweat with their "inferior" equipment. (Don't ask me for specifics this was a while ago and I'm not super-familiar with the universe)

While the size of the machines was actually quite reasonable (an M-1 Abrams is approximately as long as a laying-down Atlas, f.ex.) the inherent flaw we kept coming back to was locomotion. Tracked and wheeled vehicles will simply need to devote less tonnage to locomotion than just about any practical walking design. I mean, if somebody was hell-bent on making walking tanks, then yeah, it could work. But it would simply be less design-efficient. It would take some bizarre confluence of circumstance and technology for any 'mechs appreciably larger than powered armor to be practical.

To be fair, I would personally like to see 'mechs and power armor in the not-too future. Powered armor we're already pretty close to, but walkers need a lot more work. You know, because of the whole "walking" thing. I'll give the issue some more thought and keep an open mind, but I doubt I'll run across any real insights.

Pffft, people who think we should fly are crazy. It'll never work and it'll just be too risky and cost-ineffective compared to taking a boat. I mean, look what happened to the Hindenburg.

While I understand the sentiment of this statement, I feel that it is not an accurate comparison. Our understanding of physics and mechanical engineering is vastly more developed today than in 1937. There is a possibility that we missed something that would easily allow 'mechs and eventually Gundam analogs, but I suspect it to be unlikely.

[Scotty]

In BattleTech, vehicles can use any kind of engine that 'Mechs can use, barring compact fusion engines, which is only useful for saving critical space that vehicles don't spend on reactors anyway.  Tanks can mount effectively more armor than 'Mechs due to fewer hit locations, and the same kinds.  Tanks can mount all of the same guns that a 'Mech can use, and ballistic and missile weapons are actually more effective on vehicles than on 'Mechs.  What tanks cannot do is mount double heatsinks, which makes using energy weapons more painful than it's worth.  They also suffer significantly more immobilizing hits, reducing most armored vehicles to de-facto pillboxes in a few turns of heavy combat.

The only real distinction in components between vehicles and 'Mechs are the heat sinks I mentioned and the fact that 'Mechs are less easily immobilized.  Everything else is either the same, or actively slanted in the tanks' favor.

[NGTM-1R]

The only real distinction in components between vehicles and 'Mechs are the heat sinks I mentioned and the fact that 'Mechs are less easily immobilized.  Everything else is either the same, or actively slanted in the tanks' favor.

'Mechs actually have substantially better durability over all, due to their compartmentalized multiple hit locations and better ability to withstand critical hits. From most angles a vehicle has only two hit locations (turret and body) and just a few critical possibilities, all of which will immediately and seriously damage the ability of the vehicle to continue the fight.

A 'Mech can meanwhile waltz through five or six critical hits and suffer no damage that seriously impedes it's ability to keep fighting, while its many hit locations work to spread out the damage any single one takes.

(Consider the game mechanics more closely, etc.)

[Scotty]

While it's true that losing a single section from a vehicle results in the destruction of the vehicle, while a 'Mech can keep going after losing an arm, a vehicle can also mount significantly more armor per section, and with less area to cover, you can cram more of it on a facing than you can on a 'Mech.

I'd take a 30 ton tank with 4 tons of armor over a 30 ton 'Mech with 4 tons of armor in most cases, because unless you've got a turret, you can cram enough armor on it to take a gauss rifle to any section without even breaching with standard armor.  Upgrading to Heavy Ferro-Fibrous only makes it better, since vehicles pay significantly less space for the upgrade as well, and lets you armor almost all sides to 20 full points each.  A comparably armored 'Mech will only be able to take ten or twelve damage to any one location, perhaps more, perhaps less, before significant degradations in fighting ability become apparent.

That doesn't make vehicles consistently more mobile in the long term.  One of the larger downsides for vehicles is motive hits, which will leave you unable to maneuver in short order.

[Spoon]

Thread about mechwarrior
it gets hijacked by gundam talk

Thread about gundam
it gets hijacked by mechwarrior talk

 

[BloodEagle]

Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around.  Mech wins.

[NGTM-1R]

A comparably armored 'Mech will only be able to take ten or twelve damage to any one location,

But given the range of damage locations available on the 'Mech a bunch of light weapons are unlikely to fatally damage to any one, due to inability to intentionally concentrate fire on a single section. A tank has only two and could easily succumb to an overly lucky barrage of light fire. (Their problems with crits are also related; you can lose a few arm actuators, an engine hit, and a life support, and still be okay enough to deal with that Arctic Wolf who just spewed SRMs everywhere; a vehicle probably just blew up.)

tl;dr 'Mechs fight better when outnumbered or confronted by large numbers of small weapons.

[Thaeris]

Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around.  Mech wins.

If you can even design me a combat-capable machine able to pick up a tank, I'll give you the chance to win.

Otherwise, get out.

[BlueFlames]

Tank vs. Mech: Mech picks up tank, turns it around.  Mech wins.

If you can even design me a combat-capable machine able to pick up a tank, I'll give you the chance to win.

Nick a heavy crane from a seaport.  (You know the ones.  They lift cargo containers full of cars.)  Give the operator a rocket launcher.  It's not quite a battlemech, but I think it's something we should test as a proof-of-concept.