ITT we discuss possible technological solutions for known problems in mecha development.
>square cube law
>purpose and military doctrine
>etc etc etc
Let's try to design a realistic near future mecha.
Remember, form follows function. So try to think of a mission/role that would be useful, and describe machinery that would fit that. Examples include megacity urban warfare, or mountainsides or jungle/forest where tracked vehicles could never reach.
No Gundams/40k allowed. Let's keep it civil folks.
Let's try to keep it to known or at least realistic technology. For the sake of discussion, let's not speculate past 2036 or so. I think predictions past 20 years are fanfiction tier.
>what is MLRS
Mobile arty is already pretty fucking mobile, anything more mobile and you might as well be using mortar teams zipping around in APCs or something like that.
>what about muh mountains
If helicopters cant' climb up there, you've still got infantry mortar teams.
>Hydraulics are heavy and failure prone
>better to use electric motors for locomotion. Faster response, more torque, more efficiency, lightweight
>the best electric motors are superconducting BUT you have to keep them very cold.
Battery tech isn't quite there yet. We're gonna need fossil fuels for the energy density a mech requires.
An onboard natural gas generator is the obvious solution.
Natty gas can be kept in a pressurized cryogenic fuel tank. In this form it is a densified liquid. Because it is cryogenic, you can run the fuel line past the superconducting components to keep them cold for very little complexity and cost. Just a little extra plumbing, really.
Even if that's the case things are more likely to deteriorate into napoleonic-style linear warfare than they are into Mech battles.
You are silly, it's just a speculation. A mech will be able to defend itself better than a MLRS and have far more capabilities. It is the superior unit. It may not be the most ecnomically efficient but deploying it over a MLRS or mortar team will have far better results as well as being able to clear debris and other support roles. You are silly.
Sure, it's speculation, but i speculate that any advances that could be applied to mecha are more readily applied to existing hardware.
But more importantly
> It may not be the most ecnomically efficient but deploying it over a MLRS or mortar team will have far better results as well as being able to clear debris and other support roles
>implying arty ever needs to clear past debris when it is air mobile
>implying economical efficiency is not important in sustained warfare
>implying you have any fact to support it being superior
>So try to think of a mission/role that would be useful, and describe machinery that would fit that.
Well you've got two roles:
>plot device for main characters to allow interpersonal conflict in a "modern" war setting
In which case you'd use a humanoid mech.
>rule-of-cool element to make a setting seem more futuristic
In which case you'd have any legged vehicle.
Outside of that, there's literally nothing. Any technology that would make a Mech feasible could be better be applied to conventional vehicles
hasn't this been talked to death on this? when we wanted to go faster and carry heavier loads long distances we didn't create a complicate set of giant legs to do it, we used the wheel because it was so much more efficient, when we wanted to throw projectiles at people we didn't create a big arm, we made guns. manouvreability, stability, modifiability, all these things can be done leaps and bounds more efficiently than a mech. why use legs which are unstable, complicated and delicate when you could simply use a low profile wheel or treads?
most importantly, think of the logistics of maintaining the complex limb joints and hydraulics as well as computers needed to perform the complex manoeuvres the limbs would need to perform regularly for movement in adverse conditions (that being not a flat surface). if the thing has fingers can you imagine how complicated the programming for each individual one to hold a giant weapon would be?
>A mech will be able to defend itself better than a MLRS and have far more capabilities
it would be a much bigger profile, extremely visible from the air and slower to deploy any meaningful defensive weapon that a Bradley escorting an MLRS could do in seconds, for the cost of one mech think of how many MLRS' and escorts you could buy and maintain with real world logistics.
the very idea of building a mech to do a tank's job is like trying to build a weapon platform's powerplant in the form of the human respiratory system, it takes huge arrogance in the efficiency of the human body to consider a mech feasible for effective combat.
pic sorta related
I don't think you can just write them off like that. Legged vehicles will never be as fast or reliable as wheels or tracks, but they are theoretically more agile and able to conquer much more difficult terrain.
It's a niche, yeah. But potentially a very important one in the future.
Especially if we have to fight a war in a modern megacity. Think collapsed skyscrapers, subway tunnels, narrow and constricted alleys, short sharp walls everywhere like loading docks and jersey barriers.
Mecha are not tanks, and they are not APCs or logistics vehicles. They are heavy weapons and communications platforms designed for maximum mobility. Their role is to support infantry in the most broken and difficult terrain imaginable.
It's the natural extension of powered exoskeletons. More weight, bigger guns, more ammo, yet still a small, agile, maneuverable platform that can fight in close quarters and use cover to maximum extent.
I don't think cost and complexity are sufficient arguments against legged vehicles. If it was then we would never have developed jet fighters or carriers or billion dollar intelligence programs. All of these things are difficult complex and very expensive, but they have great strengths as well if used properly.
Mecha are potentially much more agile and flexible than wheels or treads. I think they have their niche. Combined arms and all that.
>but they are theoretically more agile and able to conquer much more difficult terrain
No. This is brought up in literally every mech thread and every single time you retards get called on it. A conventional vehicle will always have far better terrain-handling characteristics thanks to lower ground pressure. You're not going to be climbing over the crumbling debris of a building in anything actually capable of fighting.
For the megacity scenario you propose, a combination of conventional IFVs, artillery, and air support will always work better. Some guys are holed up in a building? Don't storm it like a pack of howling retards, just blow it the fuck up.
What you're suggesting is something with marginally better firepower than your conventional infantryman that'd be just as vulnerable and slightly less mobile.
I'm not talking clearing debris as an obstable, well I am but not as a movement obstacle but to capture any survivors of the artillery.
How about the fact it would have limbs and oposable thumbs and can carry more and is more mobile than the average MLRS?
no they don't, do you imagine mechas jumping over fire or something? if we could do the job of complex jet fighters with cheaper and more efficient tech then we would, but the job that a mech would be able to do would be done infinitely more efficiently by a tank or light cav for a tiny fraction of the cost of development and manufacture of a mech, and like i said before, logistics is so much cheaper for modern standardised vehicles and it's logistics that win wars, not unstable unreliable and complicated weeb dreams. all you would be doing is creating a much larger infantryman.
this topic has been talked to the ground already so you must be from /m/ just trying to support your delusions.
Its not a traditional artillery unit. It would have other weapons besides arty.
Isn't a feasable combat mech the whole point of this thread?
I agree, it is not cost effective and would in a lot of cases be innefficient, but that doesn't mean it would overall not be the better unit. Also if it moved as slow as a tank the entire idea of a combat mech would pretty much go down the drain and end up being a richman's cool toy or a as a sentry which may or may not be mobile.
I'm not trying to make other units obselete, but if the military developes mechs it doesn't mean that whatever it excels at will replace that manned unit.
Arguably, you could use it as a trans-atmospheric fighting platform. Use AMBAC to give it an advantage in space and variable height to give it an edge on the ground.
Not the most effective platform but with a crew of one and the right myomer actuators you'd have a good swarm attacker.
>can carry more and is more mobile
It won't be able to. Because legs and the associated mechanisms will be heavier and less efficient than wheels or tracks, horsepower for horsepower and pound for pound, it will have less carrying capacity and will be slower.
You're implying that I'm talking about some type of anime tier magic machine.
I'm imagining something closer to a f350 in size and weight. Probably 4 or 6 legs, one pilot and one gunner/commander. One weapon on a turret - either a minigun, TOW, maybe a 20mm if the chassis can handle it.
It's designed for one purpose - to carry a bigger gun/ more ammo than powered exoskeletons can handle and to keep up with the infantry through broken terrain that no other vehicle can handle.
if it is innefficient it will be destroyed by a more efficient weapons platform, which is everything, even a dude with basic explosive knowledge, that's what I'm arguing.
Honestly the only niche that mechs fulfil is pack mules for infantry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
to answer your question, yes it is feasible, strap some remote triggered weapons on this thing and theirs your combat mech, enjoy.
>faster than wheels
Ok, well, it would need to bend at all the different joints like a human leg. It would need external hydraulics to act as the muscles and a rather sizeable momentum dampening system in the form of even more giant ass hydraulics. The force of the weight and our good friend physics working on the legs of this thing even if it were to move at a slow jog would throw Newton out of his grave.
>trans-atmospheric fighting platform
No. A trans-atmospheric fighting platform would look something like pic related.
Why? Because orbital velocity is well beyond Mach 20. You need something aerodynamic enough to reach such speeds while in the atmosphere (remember that the absolute speed record for a manned aircraft is "just" Mach 6 with the X-15) while also shaped so that it doesn't get absolutely fucked on re-entry.
A real trans-atmospheric combat platform would be something like the X-37 - an orbiter that descends into the upper atmosphere to use atmospheric drag to provide most of the delta-V necessary for orbital maneuvers
why build complicated legs for that purpose alone? just build a sturdier chassis and more powerful poweplant, the treads can already conquer more than individual legs can and it's cheaper and much easier to repair and maintain in a combat situation
You've still got the problem that something close to an F-350 in size and weight is going to have just as much trouble in a clusterfuck of a ruined city as any conventional vehicle would, especially when you've got the higher ground pressure that comes from legs.
It's still going to be too large to fit through a man-sized hole, so you're not getting any more utility out of it than you would from a conventional AFV, but it's going to be significantly more vulnerable.
Economically more efficient yes. No one said that mechs were these Japanese kaiju slaying ninjas. But already we are getting mechs which efficiently navigate and maintain balance, it is unlikely we will see them jump or run arund. However mechs would be able to carry more ammunition, because as of today that is one of the basic fundementals and implementations of mechs (see south korean workers using mechanized arms to lift heavy objects) is increased strength and meant for industrial uses.
It will not be:
Faster than a tank (at most maybe equal velocity)
As stable as a tank
Have as much armour as a tank
But it can carry more ammunition for a potentially bigger gun. I would not pay for this shit to be deployed in combat with my taxpayer dollars if that lets you know anything, but it sure as hell would be cool.
To add on to this, a natural gas/electric hybrid powertrain would have great logistics advantages.
Assuming you have access to the power grid, you can create CH4 out of air and water at your FOB.
Natural gas/methane already has a well developed world wide distribution infrastructure anyway
Running and jump is not required in combat. But being able to decrease your surface area is important when carrying supplies or being able to store them somewhere is. I'm with what this anon said >>28886580 it's going to be used a packmule for a really big gun because thats already their purpose in the industrial world.
>we are getting mechs which efficiently navigate and maintain balance
Yeah, small ones. Weight/force does not scale evenly upwards. Just because that 200lb pack mule drone can do it doesnt mean a 20 ton one built to the same specs can replicate it. There is a threshold where physics says "aww hell no"
when i say efficient i mean it takes alot less fuel to move a tank around and traverse it's turret than it does for a mech which requires computers to program every limbs behaviour.
so you want a big, unstable,lightly armoured ammo carrier? in front-line combat? why would it be able to carry more ammo anyway? are you imagining big humanoid frames with backpacks? strip naked and tell me all the places you can pack ammunition, you have no more space up your ass since your head is currently occupying it.
The real question is whether or not it'll reach the ground intact. Without good aerodynamic shaping, you're gonna start tumbling as you fall, and the G-forces will pull the machine apart. And that's not even taking into account aerodynamic heating.
Your strategic speed will be shit, and your fuel economy will be horrendous, but I suppose if you wanted a big target hauling an otherwise packable crew served gun, not any faster, and without the spare mass for any armor, you could build something like a Plustech Timberjack, with a rocket pod, auto cannon, or a medium sized howitzer, but remember that it really can't carry much, it really can't go any faster than a man can walk.
No, not jumping over fires. I imagine them climbing over the rubble of a collapsed skyscraper to flank the enemy, or navigating the stairway to access the subway station and following the tracks for a few miles, or carrying a 20mm cannon through a swamp that no truck or swamp could even think of approaching.
Think more upscaled big dog, less gurren lagann.
>on long distance foot reccy with squad and a BigDog(tm) eqipped with an M2
>order BigDog(tm) to deploy
>it lies down and braces for recoil
>instant armoured cover with deployed M2
>lightly armed ambushers are now outgunned by HMG fire
that's what i'd like to think it could be used for, even for relocating HMGs or maybe even TOWs.
How much better is a 120mm gun going to do against a cave than cas?
How much weight does it take to slip on a lose rock and send the whole mess falling to the bottom?
How big are the goat trails up there?
>Any technology that would make a Mech feasible could be better be applied to conventional vehicles
>acquire Minovsky Reactor
>win war forever
This isnt fucking hard guys, we all get it, we all like mechs here, its just a fact of life they're always only going to be useful for looking cool. Hey, maybe one day that'll be important enough to someone to justify building and deploying them. But realistically its just not going to happen for military use.
Counterpoint: ground pressure is much less of a problem in urban terrain like asphalt and concrete. It's really only a problem in the mud and soft ground innawoods, where war traditionally happened. But more than 50% of humanity lives in cities nowadays, and that number will continue to rise.
And a large truck sized vehicle can fit pretty much anywhere if you're not confined to the road. I mean, you won't fit inside an apartment doorway, but any garage door sized hole is easy. Plus, you got the guns and explosives. You can always make your own hole if need be. Limitations, sure, but better than the legless vehicles we have now.
Still much more agile than a modern tank or a regular truck.
a lot of afghan skirmish AARs seemed to say they wish they had more weapons that could engage out to to 400-500+ yards and could be easily carried by infantry units--so much so that light crew served russian grenade launchers were mentioned
Nothing wrong with that, I personally would love to see more of pic related around
>ground pressure in mountains
>one slip and mech has catastrophic crash
>money well spent
I was replying to a specific scenario about an assault manoeuvre in urban combat, not a patrol in the Afghan mountains. also, what patrol is meant to dislodge a dug in enemy? at best they'd withdraw and plaster the positions with artillery and air strikes, much less expensive and costly of life when you don't have a huge noisy target, ready to have all of it's ammo cook off and kill any friendlies around.
military was looking close at the bigdog because of >>28887065
>a lot of afghan skirmish AARs seemed to say they wish they had more weapons that could engage out to to 400-500+ yards
it is no accident that such a robot took the limelight
the goalposts have been moved so much in this thread, we started off with ATSTs then spider mechs and now just BigDog, yes you can't argue a pack mule bringing more firepower to the table is a bad thing but the root conversation of that post and the wider thread is specifically aimed at independent weapons platforms utilising mecha tech
I could see something like pic related being useful for urban combat/squad support but that's about as big as I think it should be. Maybe with some more pilot protection. Or even the suit that Ripley wears in the Alien movie.
I see three options based on the Locust from Battletech, Tachikoma from Ghost in the Shell and any of a number of LandMate vehicles in between an exoskeleton and a 20+ ton Mech.
Apache T700-GE-701D engines produce 2000kW. Add Tesla power packs and some supercapacitor banks for railgun or laser CIWS. All electric drive train or can tap the engine shafts for the walk cycle.
>>square cube law
No long arms, Mechs aren't likely to get into melee combat and even then can chicken-kick.
Big feet with active toe stabilization.
Not sure, maybe airplane/helicopter controls but it depends on how much direct limb control the pilot has and whether it has jump jets. Direct neural link sounds like a cop-out.
>>purpose and military doctrine
Infantry support especially in urban assault and control. With jump jets it'd be good for mountain warfare, too. As a dual cockpit it can serve as a command or scout vehicle.
> Basically an Apache that can run through a garage door.
> Do you guys remember Heavy Gear? We could build Gears today.
why do you need to carry so much weight? if you're going to blow up buildings tanks are a smaller target, have more armour and can carry heavier loads if needed; otherwise infantry can get it done.
dude my first post in this thread was about bigdog, an actual robot project that was given serious attention as a potentially useful bit of hardware
you see goalposts shifting because you are arguing against all mecha being useful and mixing autists who want to see stupid shit like AT-STs and anime toasters with everyone else
Let's design a real life tachikoma then.
Relatively light chassis, heavy weapons, ultra-excellent maneuverablity, optimized for urban warfare and "cyber" stuff, supporting and force-multiplying the infantry.
Poor range, probably pretty expensive, requires lots of maintenance at the motor pool.
It's the F35 for doorkickers.
I want one.
How do we build something to fulfill this role here in the real world?
I was talking in context of the whole prior conversation, we were talking about much larger mechs than bigdog being independent weapon platforms on patrol and I thought you were trying to use it to support that standpoint ,sorry
>How do we build something to fulfill this role here in the real world?
I dunno build a prototype for starters?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, the actual weight of the vehicle? In the movie that mech isn't actually all that big, you can tell by the size of the pilots seat. The benefit is the ability to have two large caliber fully automatic weapons on one platform rather than rely on a SAW gunner.
i like the idea, which says alot because i've been trying to kill this thread since it started; i'd imagine it would have to be remote, because that cockpit is way too big, if it was kept down to the size of maybe a VW beetle or something it could take advantage of alleyways, sewers and subways. it would need bigger wheels for stabilities sake. I like the idea of a quick, versatile ground drone though.
maybe have the legs capable of different pre-set configurations, like a low profile, a tall profile (to peak over walls), maybe even an extended profile to climb alley way walls and wait in ambush like Shelob in return of the king.
being buttoned up in an urban environment is always bad and i like the idea of 360 degree cameras allowing a controller something like a VR headset to freely observe surroundings without any obstruction, however such cameras would be a huge target and very vulnerable to small arms.
no idea how you'd power it enough for sharp movements and coaxial legs though.
A internal combustion engine works just fine, unless you are trying to make building sized mechs
>square cube law
don't make it building sized, problem solved.
Air plane controls are way more complex as it is
Every advantage that a humanoid form gives basically. Thrusters especially would allow a lot of mobility that tanks can't have. They should also be able to handle corners better. E.G. If a tank wants to shoot around a corner, it has to expose at least part of the turret and hull to do so, and there are a critical few seconds before the turret can get on target. A mech can just fire around the corner like a soldier can without exposing anything other than the weapon and a small portion of the arm.
Size wise i think something that is about as tall as a IFV or a tank AT MOST would be ideal. Would probably carry IFV scale weaponry.
>Every advantage that a humanoid form gives basically
humanoid mechs have already been argued throughout this thread and many threads before it, so instead of spamming try to counter argue
This is a technology thread, so... maybe try suggesting some details anon.
I'd use a CH4/O2 internal combustion engine as a dedicated electric generator. The powertrain should be all superconducting electric motors. Many advantages to this system:
Using cryogenic densified natural gas, you are storing the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient burning fuel available in a very small volume.
You can route the fuel lines around the engine and next to the motors/power lines in the legs. This manages your heat signature so your mecha is super thermal stealthy. Plumbing is pretty cheap in terms of cost and complexity.
You can also use this cryogenic fuel to keep your superconducting electric motors cold. These are much more efficient and powerful than the regular kind.
With a dedicated electric generator you avoid the need for a gigantic heavy battery pack or complicated transmission system. Thus making the rest of the design much smaller, easier, and cheaper.
All together we have a very efficient powertrain, using real world technology, that has plenty of juice to power the demands of our hypothetical mecha. Lots of side effect benefits with this design too, like thermal invisibility. Also logistics - we already have a well developed world wide infrastructure for natural gas. Not to mention if you have access to the power grid you can easily create methane out of air and water.
Springy drive-by-wire semi-autonomous carbon nanotube myomer tentacles 4m long act as arms and legs. The pilot is a disembodied brain in a shock-buffering life-support canister at the armored central hub, screened from the residual neutrons of an aneutronic microfusion reactor in paired canister with a lightweight boron screen.
This mecha is designed for urban combat in megastructures. Combined with the life-support system, it can make hundred-meter leaps, survive falls from a similar height, and navigate the internal structures of buildings at extreme accelerations. The drive-by-wire system automates CQB by surgical butchery of any armed or uniformed people in range (IFF is done by neural interface with the pilot, which is why it has a pilot), and the vehicle is immune to small arms.
It carries a couple smart-missile tubes or a light railgun for ranged combat support.
Cost: 40m+ 2016 dollars, but that's the price for infantry-vehicles capable of surviving fire and manuever on the future battlefield. Ironically, the next-generation diamonoid-nanotech model will have a price of two dollars to four dollars, depending on the efficiency of the generic desktop nanofactory it's constructed by.
Thanks. Though I find your lack of faith disturbing. Not everybody on /k/ is an autistic shitposter.
I made this thread because I really do think that walking vehicles might have some special advantages over wheels and treads. If you forget about all the magic anime robot samurai stuff and take the idea seriously, anyway.
I just want to explore the concept in a real world context. We haven't had a serious war for like 70 years, things have changed ya know? Tanks were invented in WW1, WW2 gave us jets and nukes. Who knows what WW3 will require. Probably some urban combat stuff, maybe.
Great Insight anon.
But all that techno gadgetry would mean a major change to the maintenance and logistics
>Average Grunt/tech needs a lot more training for repair and maintenance
>Parts: Not exactly hard but the complexity of mechs would require a massive supply chain for it.
Another engineering marvel that we should incorporate is: self diagnostic and repairs.
Diagnostic systems exist as is, advances in material science and electronics will put mechanical diagnostic to another degree of awareness but repair on the other hand still lacks any advances.
Automation tech is on the rise. So having automated small/medium sized droids for repair is the next phase of industrial maintenance.
Having a system of mini-hangar stocked with parts and repair droids would make maintenance easy and cost efficient.
Therefore bringing mechs to reality.
Also if you had a liquid oxygen bottle you could have a completely AIP powertrain. Like an airtight walking submarine, without needing a huge pressure vessel. This would give your mecha the ability to cross bodies of water by simply walking along the bottom, or to hide in extremely confined spaces, or even to ambush an enemy flank from total stealth by travelling underwater across a lakebed or through a large sewer or storm drain.
Walking human-like Mech are not feasible.
Nature is a good indicator of size/weight/physics.
Take a look at the largest animals alive (and dead).
Their 'knee' is basically where our ankle is.
This makes the walk very efficient, as they don't have to pick their leg up very high.
They also have 4 legs for stability.
The most realistic mech is actually the AT-AT with a similar design.
However in the real world, long legs and joint would be a massive point of failure (combat-wise)
Now...if we have advanced sensor technology, IED sensors, and powerful lasers to instantly detect and shoot down incoming TOWs, missles, RPGs..etc...we might be in business.
However, traditional Kinetic tank rounds would still Fuck it up.
A concept of a tall, mobile, light arms proof, area denial vehicle full of sensors to detect and eliminate all threats (including people) with instant reaction death lasers.
But it would only take a couple of tanks over the horizon or well placed armor piercing anti-material rounds from someone hiding undetected to make it pointless.
Would absolutely wreck the open middleast countryside though assuming it didn't sink in sand.
Current progress of mech today.
It's real physics, and very practical...fifty years from now.
Today, mechs aren't practical.
Big dogs with liquid-piston gas engines or lithium-air batteries are the closest you'll get; and compared to a 4x4 ATV or extra squaddie they're not very good.
Loitering aerial drones are more practical.
urban ground drones? I would say a possibility but I wouldn't expect them to be so common that they would be major infantry support within the next 50 years, but who knows what could happen politically and economically to change that.
Pack mules, maybe equipped with HMGs or TOWs for a person to man? I find that much more realistic in the here and now. I just don't see independent units taking the field any time soon.
I commented about the tachikoma because I saw it's versatility as perhaps adding new dimensions to an urban battlefield. can you imagine maybe 10 of these stalking up alleyway walls waiting to ambush night patrols, or a few using a sewer system to flank and undermine fortifications to completely change the dynamic of a battle by adding a whole new level to fight on.
well in this era of proxy wars and insurgencies it seems the prevailing strategy is guerilla warfare until the enemy's economy fails, so maybe any grand, tech defining wars might be a fair bit down the pipe. also, jets weren't really invented for ww2 the Gloucester meteor for example, started development in 36', I would say that ww2 defined the kinetic warfare of today with advances in tactics like the blitzkrieg, commandos and paratroopers, also nukes.
An "urban mech" would probably be at max the size of an elephant and contain 1-2 people at most....no real advantage over a tank.
A land crawler/area denial mech could only be as large as the Dreadnoughtus dinosaur.
All of them would need minimum of 4 legs.
Physics...how does it work?
A problem though is that modern warfare is not slow.
Its an age old truth that logistics make or break a campaign.
"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."
“Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible”
Including a lumber in behemoth in an army results in everything else moving at the same slow pace.
An army is only as fast as its slowest unit/logistics.
The only time mech would make sense...is if we as humans were fighting/navigating somewhere/another planet with significantly weaker gravity against animals/creatures that couldn't shoot through or penetrate armor, Atmosphere was not dense enough for flight, and the mechs were needed to traverse terrain. And mech made more sense to transport due to lack of roads.
Imagine a planet without roads/unsuitable ground for roads full of essentially dire wolves and creatures 4x bigger than moose (can flIp vehicles easily).
Atmosphere not thick enough for flight (or other flying creatures make flight impossible).
Time to transport materials/supplies to a neighboring colony.
Strap into your fuckhuge sized mech to walk that shit across an expanse with impunity.
>Strap into your fuckhuge sized mech to walk that shit across an expanse with impunity.
uhh no. Anything that could flip a vehicle like that is going to fuck up a walking machine even more. And if you've got ground conventional vehicle can't handle, then a mech sure as shit wouldn't be able to handle it either.
>have 6 legs in the form of long artictural metal plates with no joints
>'foot' timing where one leg sits ahead of the rear leg in the rotation
>minimal vibration and always 2 legs touching down on both sides
>counter forces of the high leg offset by two slower moving low legs on ground
>armor fucking plates for legs
>can carry more weight than tracks
>weight of 4 track volumes with counterbalance to allow fast rotation
>this fucker will step onto fresh terrain and will not "rut" itself easily
This, dear thread is a proper "legged" machine concept. People don't have a wheel in the entire body. Stop trying to human-deficate machinery mobility. ffs
Tracks are way more badass anyway. Fuck legs.
Urban warfare is very slow. You measure progress by the block. It's only going to become more important and relevant in the future.
You're not wrong with your general points about logistics. But a mecha is not a tank, or a fighter jet, or a Humvee, or an artillery piece. It does one thing only and one thing well: it goes places nothing else can, carrying a bigger gun than infantry can handle.
Walking vehicles have a very specific and very important niche. We just haven't seen it yet.
Stalingrad surprised everybody. Let's build the weapons we need before we need them.
You're ignoring the biggest part of logistics - getting it to the battlefield. Sure, you might be able to lug it most of the way there on a train, but then you've got an impractically slow vehicle that has to walk from the nearest railhead to the battlefield.
>it goes places nobody else can
No, it absolutely won't. At best, it'll be just as limited in its mobility as a tank or AFV of similar size.
>carrying a bigger gun than infantry can handle
So does literally every AFV ever.
>Walking vehicles have a very specific and very important niche. We just haven't seen it yet.
No, they don't. Some incredibly specific scenario that only exist in your head is not "a very important niche."
>Stalingrad surprised everybody. Let's build the weapons we need before we need them.
Stalingrad was nothing like you're proposing. There's countless reasons why the battle was such a clusterfuck, and none of those could have been solved by a mech being present.
>It does one thing only and one thing well: it goes places nothing else can
Also, it's not enough to simply get somewhere.
If it can't hold up against small arms fire or IEDs...no better than an MRAP.
>carrying a bigger gun than infantry can
No good if the multimillion dollar machine gets immobilized by a $50 IED or $1000 RPG.
>it goes places nothing else can, carrying a bigger gun than infantry can handle.
Five bucks says walking battle robots wind up pretty much starting and ending at robotic infantry, and heavy urban support is relegated to large multicopter drones.
why crawl around on the ground when you can have extremely close air support.
Actually you can put wheels on the foot like the robots in heavy gear. On roads it would work like a giant segway, you can't do this on conventional vehicles as they can't shift their balance around to move. It should be much more efficient on road than tracked vehicles.
it works in your mongolian zoetropes, but if you think about what you're fucking saying, you're essentially seriously unironically suggesting that fucking heeleys are a viable form of transportation, if only they were larger.
>Gundams with Heelys
Why are we not funding this.
Or, you know, you could just forgo the mech entirely and use a conventional vehicle that does the same exact job just as well without all the pants-on-head retarded mechanical complexity and uselessly niche role.
The wheels have to be bigger, the diameter should be a little larger than the length of the foot.
When not in use they retract up to the shin. You can actually have only one wheel but you will need to go back to walking at low speed.
There's no conventional vehicles that offers the same features.
The robot would be better on road than tracked vehicles while able to traverse terrain tracked vehicles can't while walking.
>There's no conventional vehicles that offers the same features.
A ground vehicle has exactly two conventional features that matter: doing a better job killing the enemy, and doing a better job making sure your own men do not get killed. There is very little about legs that leads me to believe they'll be particularly helpful for either of those.
What terrain is there that a tracked vehicle wouldn't handle better than legs?
>It'd be better on roads
Maybe in your fantasy world, yeah. But you're just proposing this magical super-machine without offering any real details or even a concrete role and then claiming that it's somehow better than everything else in service.
>why crawl around on the ground when you can have extremely close air support.
Unless that extremely close air support is moving fast, very far away, or very high, or is extremely robust (the last of which is bad for all of the other three), it's an easy target.
>Unless that extremely close air support is moving fast, very far away, or very high, or is extremely robust (the last of which is bad for all of the other three), it's an easy target.
Multicopters can be pretty dang zippy, and they're small targets, since most of their mass is concentrated in the body, and the rest is just some spindly booms with brushless motors on the ends. It'd take a pretty lucky shot to get one of the arms, and a well designed multicopter will still fly while missing one.
You might be able to pack all the important bits in real close and stick a ceramic plate in front, so the whole package is reasonably well protected from small arms fire on the frontal aspect.
But more importantly, they can very quickly flank enemy positions and attack from strange angle, since they don't have to crawl around in the rubble. Well, until the enemy gets them too, and then it will be a real clusterfuck, with them throwing nets at each other or some shit.
Hasn't stopped us yet
All the retards in this thread saying that legs are an advantage over wheels/treads, kek. Mechs are not feasible and there are cheaper and more effective vehicles for everything a mech can supposedly do.
>What terrain is there that a tracked vehicle wouldn't handle better than legs?
Mountains. Saudi army vs Houthis is the best example, AFVs can't handle the terrain. The Houthis get on top of hills knowing AFVs can't rush their position, infantry can't approach because they're pinned by small arms fire.
Other times the Saudis put the AFVs up on hills only for them to be unable to fire because their gun can't depress low enough to shoot infantry that sneaked up on them at close range.
You would outfit the robot like an attack helicopter, lots of rockets, missiles, sensors and an autocannon.
You realize artillery is a thing, right?
>Using the Saudis incompetence as proof
Next you're going to tell me all air defenses are useless because Syria got their shit slapped in the Bekaa Valley in 1982.
Just arab armies in general, it seems. There's so many incidents where Arab armies manage to fuck up against all odds to the point that it defies all expectations.
The best example I can think of is the Bekaa Valley engagement - the Syrians got fucked so hard that analysts are hesitant to really use it as anything but proof of the Syrians' incompetence because they somehow managed to do literally everything wrong.
Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Probably the best sci-fi show I've ever seen. It's all on youtube.
>oberstein did nothing wrong
Basically a Mi-28 with legs, the entire helicopter is only 10 tons. With well armored legs it should be no more than around 15 tons. you could probably use a smaller engine as well.
The hind isn't good because its armor is particularly thick, its good because it has a tremendous amount of firepower and is extremely fast for a helicopter (208 mph). It's built to fly low, fire on its targets, and fly out of visual range in seconds.
Make it fairly small, 5 mt at the absolute maximum.
Give it a .50 in one hand, a 40 mm grenade launcher in the other and two small rocket racks on the shoulders (2 rockets each)
Paint it red white and blue and strap matching flare launchers and smoke canisters
Develop a rocket pack kinda thing that allows it to be launched from a aircraft and land on the ground at a high horizontal speed
Drop it right between your forces and the enemy while they are engaged in battle, as it powerlide across the battlefield deploy smoke an flares and shoot up as much as you can, speaker system blasting AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! optional but recommended.
The trick is that it is not really designed to fight but to buy your forces some time as the enemy pick up their jaws from the floor
Mi-28 rotor blades are designed to survive 30mm cannon shells by simple virtue of them punching a hole in them without them shattering.
The rest of the helicopter is armored to typical helicopter standards, aside from the entire cockpit area, which withstands 14.7mm machine gun, or HE fragmentation 20mm. Even the glass.
Any autocannon firing solid shot, or god forbid any actual AP rounds will tear it to shreds. A WW2 era 85mm cannon will blast the whole thing to pieces.
> A mech will be able to defend itself better than a MLRS and have far more capabilities. It is the superior unit.
So instead of improving the MLRS, or I don't know, not fucking send them into positions where they have to defend themselves, the military should just design a inherently shit design that might arguably work slightly better in a very, very specific niche and will always perform worse compared to combined arms approach?
I know I'm responding to 10 hour old post made by an autist, but this shit triggers me.
Bipedal movement is so difficult to get right nevermind other factors like altitude difference or being shot at with enough force to knock you on your back.
Titans would be good, they got arms to get back up.
There was some sci-fi fanfic I read that described using mechs as surface to LEO AA using railgun launch assisted anti ship missiles.
The particular scene described an infantry squad tracking seismic and heat sensor reading to a swamp, only to find a pair of mechs hiding, almost powered down, at the bottom of a swamp. They would use jump jets to launch themselves airborne long enough to get a solid tone and launch a pair of missiles, then land back in the mud and muck underwater in a different location and semi-power down while waiting for satellites to feed them another lock. Was kind of a neat idea.