Random nerd thread unrelated to orig. topic. Current: Tanks vs Mechs!

[Ratman_tf]

Mechs are just silly on a conceptual level. Making an armored vehicle that resembles a human being is no more inherently logical than making one that resembles a giraffe.

Heh. Can't resist.



It's not a giraffe, but they do have snails and apes. 

[gryeyes]

and I think you'd have to go back to the 19th century to find anyone the guys from the Starship Troopers movie could beat.

Im sure you are kidding but i will respond anyway since it ties into the whole viability of "mech" debate. In the movie the Mobile infantry had the ability to deploy armies from space that were capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. I think that kind of trumps anything in the 19th century. Ignoring the air support that was shown in the movie. And the natural assumption heavier armor existed.

Now in the books the Mobile Infantry used power armor. Im not sure if we are making a distinction between power armor and mechs in this conversation. But power armor in Starship troopers is basically a mechanized infantry unit that can be deployed from space. Its superior in every conceivable fashion and is most certainly where "mechs" are going to be developed and used in reality. Its basically a man sized light armored vehicle that can fly, has an integral command center all the while being more agile,more heavily armed and mobile than an infantryman or m2/m3.

Now say a mech 10 feet or so tall that had near the agility of an infantryman with the mobility of a M2/M3. That has the ability to alter its armament on the fly without the requirement of additional support crew or time to equip, transverse obstructed urban environments and be operated with a single pilot? You obviously aren't very aware of the existing weapon systems deployed in large scale and their faults when pointing out the pros/cons of a mech.

Research the Bradley fighting vehicle for some comparison of the cluster fuck that is military development of weapons.

Yes, a flying mech would be vulnerable to a high tech air superiority fighter plane. Just like 99% of all other military vehicles that can fly. But it would also be more mobile than any land based counterpart. Yes, it would be vulnerable to artillery and tanks. Just as MBT's are vulnerable to the very same things. Given the probable outlook for near future military engagements emphasis is going to be placed on the ability to operate in an urban environment. Smaller mechs would excel at this.

A mech doesn't have to be "superior" in every domain to be a viable weapon. The ability to maneuver and function in an urban environment alone would make it viable. And you cant really compare the giant sized titan mechs to the existing military since we don't deploy ANY weapons that size. There is no reason to do so and the technology doesn't exist to even make the option viable.

Some general reasons on why a humanoid shaped vehicle could conceivably be used in a fictional universe are many. Defensive technology (shields,armor etc) far exceed the capabilities of ranged weapons. Making close range physical combat the only viable means to damage large military vehicles/structures. A humanoid shape is used due to the fact that a single pilot is all thats required to utilize a system that mimics the pre-exsting neurological mechanisms to operate a humanoid vehicle. And regardless of the training for non humanoid vehicles a control system based on the evolved functions of a human brain will always be superior.

In the far future with the advent of common place world destroying armaments combat has become highly ritualized and based on personal skill rather than sheer destructive capability. Which isnt outside the realm of possiblity given the current situation with similar treaties that exist. Things like "weight" and aerodynamics are supplanted by futuristic lightweight materials and projected energy fields. where the aerodynamics of a vehicle isnt based on its physical shape but the field it projects.

If the technology existed smaller mech's would already be in use. The mechanization on the scale of an infantryman is the wet dream of the military. And existing vehicles like the Bradley fighting vehicle are so flawed from conception to make the ones you bring up about the viability of a mech to seem laughable.

[Fordel]

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just read the last page or so and realized that yes, yes we are making the distinction between Power Armor and Mechs.  Seriously, you just argued a point no one contested.



I have to whole heartily agree with WUA about the Starship Troopers movie soldiers and their incompetence. They were essentially the Sci-Fi version of RedCoats crossed in with what your average 10 year old does when he plays "army".

[WindupAtheist]

Clan Elemental's would be one of the most terrifying things you could ever see on a battle field, their nigh invincibility compared to normal infantry, coupled with their superior firepower and obscene mobility. Imagine a Star of those bastards hopping onto your tank, ripping the hatches open to fill the cockpit with fire and bombs.

Well by then your tank is likely to have replaced the traditional machine gun with an auxillary weapon that can kill guys in powered armor, assuming you're a member of a first-class military. And you'll have power armored guys of your own protecting your flanks, if your commander isn't an utter moron. There's a reason the typical armored division consists of two armored regiments and one infantry regiment.  Namely the fact that even plain old modern-day infantry is a nightmare for unescoreted tanks, under anything but the most favorable circumstances.

Of course anyone a generation behind, lacking powered armor or the means to efficiently kill guys wearing it, would be assfucked in a hypothetical future where it's become viable. Which, I should point out, would be a very long ways off from today. The Pentagon spends money researching the topic, but only in that kooky DARPA "we're also researching how to mind-control sharks" sort of way.

I have to whole heartily agree with WUA about the Starship Troopers movie soldiers and their incompetence. They were essentially the Sci-Fi version of RedCoats crossed in with what your average 10 year old does when he plays "army".

Seriously. They might eek out a victory over a 19th century army just based on having automatic weapons, if they manage not to get cannoned to death, but that's about it. (Remember I said they'd have to go back that far to find someone to beat.) But just imagine those dipshits and their 'run about like morons' tactics transplanted into WW1 where they're facing entrenched guys armed with machine guns and mustard gas.

They had to sustain millions of casualties and a crushing defeat to a bunch of melee-fighting bugs before breaking out the air support, and we never saw any armor at all. People THAT stupid will almost always find a way to lose.

[Fordel]

Of course anyone a generation behind, lacking powered armor or the means to efficiently kill guys wearing it, would be assfucked in a hypothetical future where it's become viable. Which, I should point out, would be a very long ways off from today. The Pentagon spends money researching the topic, but only in that kooky DARPA "we're also researching how to mind-control sharks" sort of way.

Which is a running theme for the first 10-15 years of Clan vs. InnerSphere conflicts. The InnerSphere infantry was little different from our current modern soldier, sure he had a laser rifle instead of a machine gun, but he was essentially the same kind of soldier. Then the Clans show up with their Elementals and the Sphere just doesn't have a damn answer for it.



I'm lead to believe the largest obstacle between Power Armor and reality, is the power supply and mass production issues. They have working exoskeletons that already flow with natural human movement to a fairly impressive degree, and it isn't very hard to imagine them refining that technology out and building it around a enclosed suit/system, but all these things require ridiculous power supply units. Usually they have to be tethered to some external source, or try to walk around with a Refrigerator sized engine on their 'backs'. If the power cuts, the user is basically stuck in a giant metal rock. The other issue is any kind of wearable armor would have to be custom built to the user. That always makes shit way more expensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFXEFPco8l8 Sure, that isn't hitting a warzone anytime soon (probably not even hitting a warehouse anytime soon  ) , but it isn't that hard to imagine something like it in another 20-40 years covered in armor and carrying around a really big gun.

-edit- This guy just cracks me up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqa08UGZGtk 

[Venkman]

Video was awesome. But yea, external power is a problem. Reminds me of how Batman suited up for his fight with superman in The Dark Knight Returns.

[WindupAtheist]

Yeah, I've seen that video before. It's cool shit. But what you see there is more or less the easy part of the research. The hard part is mostly the power supply, yes, but also making it inexpensive, relatively easy to maintain, and dependable after lying in the bottom of a ditch caked with mud for a week.

[Fordel]

Of course the Military's wet dream for power armor would be something like the Mjolnir armor from Halo or simply the Ironman suit.


We just need to develop pocket sized fusion reactors! 

[Lantyssa]

Edit: Meh.  Hotlinked in a hurry.  Already killed it.

[gryeyes]

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just read the last page or so and realized that yes, yes we are making the distinction between Power Armor and Mechs.  Seriously, you just argued a point no one contested.

10 foot tall piloted mech with the same mass of a LAV i think qualifies in the "mech" department. And the distinction between a mech and power armor is fairly irrelevent as long as the mech has the mobility and agility to maneuver with infantry through an urban environment. Agility and mobility are going to be the only things a bi-pedal machine is going to have over wheels/treads.

I have to whole heartily agree with WUA about the Starship Troopers movie soldiers and their incompetence. They were essentially the Sci-Fi version of RedCoats crossed in with what your average 10 year old does when he plays "army".

Pretty sure the argument is based on the technology displayed and not the demeanor and tactics of the soldiers in the 2 hour movie.  I think you also drastically over estimate the fighting efficiency of soldiers and actual real world tactics as well. Until very recently only around 20% of combat personnel would actually fire their weapons with intent to kill in combat (Hard military data only exists for about the last century). Its a pretty interesting subject if one is inclined to read about it. The "Red coats" were also one of the best trained and disciplined armies in the world.

The fictional Mobile Infantry fighting the bugs to real world conflicts like US involvement in Vietnam and Korea paints a pretty similar picture of military idiocy.

The whole "Americans hid behind trees while them dumb redcoats just stood and died" is 50% myth 50% lack of understanding of military tactics.

[WindupAtheist]

10 foot tall piloted mech with the same mass of a LAV i think qualifies in the "mech" department. And the distinction between a mech and power armor is fairly irrelevent as long as the mech has the mobility and agility to maneuver with infantry through an urban environment. Agility and mobility are going to be the only things a bi-pedal machine is going to have over wheels/treads.

A light armored vehicle can dismount and recover troops while providing fire support without all the negatives in terms of armor, recoil, target profile, cost, efficiency, maintenance, and so forth associated with a mech. The nebulous "agility" argument is thrown out there as a last resort, without bothering to ask which can come to an immediate full stop without risk of falling over, a mech or a standard vehicle? Which is best suited to making a sharp turn at speed? Which can simply plow through light debris, and which will have to carefully pick its way across to avoid tripping?

Powered armor is a piece of infantry equipment, a mech is a vehicle. Powered armor is human-shaped because it needs to be worn by a human, a mech is human-shaped because Japan has a robot fixation. Their roles are completely different, and claiming otherwise is like thinking a tank and a self-propelled howitzer are the same thing just because they share a superficial resemblance.

Pretty sure the argument is based on the technology displayed and not the demeanor and tactics of the soldiers in the 2 hour movie.  I think you also drastically over estimate the fighting efficiency of soldiers and actual real world tactics as well. Until very recently only around 20% of combat personnel would actually fire their weapons with intent to kill in combat (Hard military data only exists for about the last century). Its a pretty interesting subject if one is inclined to read about it. The "Red coats" were also one of the best trained and disciplined armies in the world.

Their tactics were unspeakably horrible, and their decision to engage hordes of giant bugs with unsupported foot infantry and small arms was mind-bogglingly stupid. Stormtroopers are widely regarded as morons, but even they will bring heavy weapons and armored vehicles to a major battle. Granted they use mechs, but that's better than absolutely nothing.

[Goreschach]

Mechs, in a sense, are practical, and it's only a matter of time before you start seeing them used in combat. The real caveat is that they won't be bipedal, and won't be made for 'agility'. Rather, they'll probably be hexapods or octopods, used as a kind of mobile all-terrain light weapons platform. Think a tank that looks like a spider or insect, and can travel over uneven terrain, wreckage, urban debris, deep mud, and shallow water.

[Fordel]

Tanks already plow through almost all of that crap already and most stuff that will stop a tank, will also stop a mech.


While a spider mech would be far more practical then a bipedal one, it would still be a complete niche piece of equipment.

[Goreschach]

They definitely wouldn't replace tanks, but you're overestimating the scope of a tanks ability to cross various terrain. And tanks getting stuck is a big pain the ass, not to mention a copious source of image macros.

[Fordel]

I would argue you are overestimating the usefulness of legs in crossing that same terrain. Thing's like Elephants and Rhino's are hardly agile or majestic. A lot of a insects mobility is due to it's size, or lack of.

To say nothing of when the system fails. What are the consequences of 80 tons of war machine careening down the rocky hillside?   

[WindupAtheist]

A spider-mech eliminates some problems in exchange for others. While it's still expensive as hell and difficult to maintain, it's even more likely to be crippled by leg damage than a standard mech. With a couple joints per leg, we're talking about a dozen or more prominently exposed failure points that can't be armored particularly well without the whole thing going grossly overweight.

Honestly it's much simpler, safer, and more efficient to take a given weapons platform and make it fly, rather than put it on legs. At least a helicopter has some real agility, and you can quit worrying about terrain entirely.

[Ard]

Honestly it's much simpler, safer, and more efficient to take a given weapons platform and make it fly, rather than put it on legs. At least a helicopter has some real agility, and you can quit worrying about terrain entirely.

Who needs agility when you can build a heavily armored flying bathtub around an extremely high calibur minigun.  Go Warthog!

Edit: oh, and so as not to derail the derail, the Warthog is also a fine display of military stupidity.  One of the most popular and successful planes ever to come out of R+D, and the air force spent years trying to mothball the whole concept.

[Fordel]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

[schild]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

Refers to the firing mechanism.

[Ard]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

And why is another gatling derivative called the Vulcan, I sure don't see any pointy ears on that thing.

[TheCastle]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

I believe that the name became common because they were sized down from the truly larger Vulcan cannons for use on helicopters in Vietnam.

In order to develop a weapon with a more reliable, higher rate of fire, General Electric designers scaled down the rotating-barrel 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon for 7.62 x 51 mm NATO ammunition. The resulting weapon, designated XM134 and known popularly as the Minigun, could fire up to 4,000 rounds per minute without overheating. (Originally, the gun was specced at 6,000 rpm, but this was later lowered to 4,000.) The Minigun was mounted on OH-6 Cayuse and OH-58 Kiowa side pods, in the turret and wing pods on AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, on door, pylon and pod mounts on UH-1 "Huey" Iroquois transport helicopters, and on many other helicopters and aircraft.

So a minigun is the smallest of the largest Gatling guns for awhile but I suppose the name stuck and is still being used when talking about the fiercest Vulcan canons on A10s and shit. *shrugs*

edit: Its the same thing that happened with calling a m60 a light machine gun. Nobody can actually carry a heavy machine gun.

[tazelbain]

And why is another gatling derivative called the Vulcan, I sure don't see any pointy ears on that thing.

And what's the deal with Ovaltine?  It's not oval!

[Ard]

So a minigun is the smallest of the largest machine guns for awhile but I suppose the name stuck and is still being used when talking about the fiercest vulcan canons on A10s and shit. *shrugs*

It's become a catch all lately, but it's not actually what's in the A10.  If the internet isn't lying to me, the minigun name mostly applies to gatling guns with an external power source, which isn't true of the gatling in the A10, since the whole plane is built around the gun to begin with.

Edit:

And what's the deal with Ovaltine?  It's not oval!

Why haven't we weaponized this shit yet?  Who's in charge here, get on that.  Fuck powered armor and mecha, this is the real WMD.

[gryeyes]

while providing fire support without all the negatives in terms of armor, recoil, target profile, cost, efficiency, maintenance, and so forth associated with a mech.

Ummm lets start with armor. The US army IFV has an aluminum based hull that can be penetrated by even older generation RPG's. It also tends to burn filling the troop space full of toxic fumes. Also the most vulnerable aspect of any tracked vehicle is the tracks themselves. So check "armor" off the list of disadvantages. And in fact its means of locomotion is its weakest structural area. The main armament is a 25mm cannon whose recoil is absolutely negligible for an object with the mass of a 10 foot mech. Naturally this weapon doesn't need to be mounted or held in a mech's arms. In fact an actuated limb would allow for far higher caliber weaponry to be mounted due to the recoil it would absorb.

Lets move on to target profile. A mech has the ability to alter its target profile an IFV does not. More to the point it can take cover and provide its own cover through the use of shields attached to its limbs. In fact a mech could be used as a mobile fortified firing position for infantry easily.

I will discount "cost,efficiency,maintenance" since none of those seem to be a qualifier for the development of current military vehicles/aircraft why should we apply it to potential mechs.

So far every objective arguement brought fourth in fact exemplifies what a piece of shit the armies IFV is compared to a theoretical mech!

The nebulous "agility" argument is thrown out there as a last resort, without bothering to ask which can come to an immediate full stop without risk of falling over, a mech or a standard vehicle? Which is best suited to making a sharp turn at speed? Which can simply plow through light debris, and which will have to carefully pick its way across to avoid tripping?

I dont think the ability to navigate refuse strewn urban environment is very "nebulous" seems pretty easy to understand concept. I suppose you could reference the Nato Reference Mobility Model for an objective deffinition. But since walking and running robotics is in its infancy it might not apply very well.

Lets see what the US military and various other experts in the field have concluded about the various pros/cons of bi-pedal locomotion to tracked vehicles?

“According to a U.S. Army  Report, only 50% of the Earth’s land surface, is accessible to wheeled or tracked vehicles whereas humans and other animals can access  almost all of it using legged locomotion.  This explains part of the intense research efforts in area" -Logistical Vehicle Off-Road Mobility.” U.S. Army Transportation Combat Developments Agency

"In general, the advantages of walking machines can be classified as follows: better fuel economy, higher speed, greater mobility, better  ride quality, less environmental damage, and greater range of possible terrain"-Bekker, M.G. Off-the-Road Locomotion.  University of Michigan Press

A mech is a vehicle that mimics a humans bio-mechanical movement. And without exception a machine that can mimic human movement is superior in ability to navigate difficult terrain compared to a tracked or wheeled vehicle. Its not a matter of opinion.

Powered armor is a piece of infantry equipment, a mech is a vehicle. Powered armor is human-shaped because it needs to be worn by a human, a mech is human-shaped because Japan has a robot fixation. Their roles are completely different

Their "roles" isnt the topic its their potential viability as a vehicle. Its the advantages of a vehicle that moves like a human does. Those advantages are obviously present in power armor and a mech. So the distinction is irrelevent when discussing a mechs potential usage and advantages. Since its an argument based on the advantages human locomotion has over tracked vehicles.

Their tactics were unspeakably horrible, and their decision to engage hordes of giant bugs with unsupported foot infantry and small arms was mind-bogglingly stupid.

Yes, they engaged an enemy based on false information and entered the battle ill prepared for the war they found. Surely no real world circumstances exist that mirrors this.

You just don't seem to understand the advantages that fucking man portable nuclear weapons,space ships,ability to rapidly deploy infantry units to any area on the surface of a planet,body armor,automatic modern firearms,instant communication between units has versus WW2 era technology. Let alone anything earlier. It wouldn't even be fight.

Yes, they are idiots in how they fought. In the meat world humans tend to be idiots also.

[Simond]

Powered armor is a piece of infantry equipment, a mech is a vehicle. Powered armor is human-shaped because it needs to be worn by a human, a mech is human-shaped because Japan has a robot fixation. Their roles are completely different, and claiming otherwise is like thinking a tank and a self-propelled howitzer are the same thing just because they share a superficial resemblance.

Hell, even anime/manga tends to split mechs into Super Robots and Real Robots...and the Real Robots generally need some sort of absurd handwavium for them to be favoured over more traditional military units e.g. "The mecha are powered by small fusion reactors that give off a special type of radiation that makes any targeting system more advanced than the Mk I Eyeball inaccurate"/"The mechs are actually giant protohumans possessed by the ghosts of their first pilots, and the 'armour' is actually control shackles"/"The mecha were created to go toe-to-toe in melee combat with giant humans from outer space". (Name those series!  )

Super Robots, of course, go beyond the impossible and kick reason to the curb anyway, so logic and reason get to sulk in the back seats while the Rule of Cool drives. 

And back to the Star Wars vs Star Trek thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ijDlbvAxw

[WindupAtheist]

I am going to help my friend finish banging out a level in WoW, then I am going to come facerape this fucking moron.

[Merusk]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

And why is another gatling derivative called the Vulcan, I sure don't see any pointy ears on that thing.

I laugh only because I thought the same thing for a while in my teens.  Then I was educated on that whole tongue of fire/ greek god thing.

[Ard]

I've never understood why they call it a 'mini' gun.


Nothing mini about the damn thing at all.

And why is another gatling derivative called the Vulcan, I sure don't see any pointy ears on that thing.

I laugh only because I thought the same thing for a while in my teens.  Then I was educated on that whole tongue of fire/ greek god thing.

Oh shit.  I hadn't even thought about that angle.  Consider my ass handed to me.  I only wish I could use age as my excuse here.

[WindupAtheist]

Time for super serious internet business. Apologies to the board in general if this comes off a little (or a lot) SirBrucey, because it's going to be really fucking long, but there's just so much bullshit here to dissect.

Ummm lets start with armor. The US army IFV has an aluminum based hull that can be penetrated by even older generation RPG's. It also tends to burn filling the troop space full of toxic fumes.

The fact that one IFV out of however many hundreds have existed is badly designed has exactly what to do with anything, dipshit? How the fuck is any of this improved by putting it up on legs so every asshole in a three-mile radius can see where it is? What fucking parallel universe do you live in where someone would be persuaded by shit like this?

Also the most vulnerable aspect of any tracked vehicle is the tracks themselves. So check "armor" off the list of disadvantages. And in fact its means of locomotion is its weakest structural area.

Of course when a track is damaged, the vehicle doesn't fucking topple over onto it's face, does it moron?

The main armament is a 25mm cannon whose recoil is absolutely negligible for an object with the mass of a 10 foot mech. Naturally this weapon doesn't need to be mounted or held in a mech's arms. In fact an actuated limb would allow for far higher caliber weaponry to be mounted due to the recoil it would absorb.

Far higher caliber than what? That 25 milimeter? Chuckles, it gets away with being that lightly armed because it's able to tote around half a dozen troops. Unless six guys are disgorging themselves from your ten foot mech, it's going to be expected to carry something a lot heavier. And no matter what they tell you on whatever Gundam fanboard sewer you crawled out from, using complex moving parts to dissipate recoil is nowhere near as effective as having a much wider base and lower center of gravity to begin with. That's on top of the fact that since it's side mounted, your shitty turret (I mean arm) is going to be thrown off to the side with each shot and have to completely reacquire its target every single time.

Lets move on to target profile. A mech has the ability to alter its target profile an IFV does not.

Great, it can duck. Too bad it can't really move while it's doing this.

More to the point it can take cover and provide its own cover through the use of shields attached to its limbs. In fact a mech could be used as a mobile fortified firing position for infantry easily.

AND THEN IT CUD KILL EVERYONE WITH A LAZER SWORD AM I RITE? LOLOL! This shit is the most retarded thing I've heard all day, and I've been playing WoW with the chat left on. So now your manuverable agile mech is carrying giant sheets of fucking armor attached to its forearms, wide enough for the entire rest of the mech to take cover behind. What the fuck would that even look like?

Not only are you grossly exacerbating all the weight and balance issues I've mentioned before, you're loading your mech up with armor that provides no meaningful protection all during normal operation. Great. And hey dipshit, a vehicle can take cover too behind something too, and it won't even need to duck in order to do so.

I will discount "cost,efficiency,maintenance" since none of those seem to be a qualifier for the development of current military vehicles/aircraft why should we apply it to potential mechs.

You're clearly an idiot teenager who doesn't know shit.

So far every objective arguement brought fourth in fact exemplifies what a piece of shit the armies IFV is compared to a theoretical mech!

Meanwhile back in the real universe, you've been comparing a poorly-designed IFV to some kind of anime faggot fever-dream while talking out your asshole.

I dont think the ability to navigate refuse strewn urban environment is very "nebulous" seems pretty easy to understand concept. I suppose you could reference the Nato Reference Mobility Model for an objective deffinition. But since walking and running robotics is in its infancy it might not apply very well.

Oh fuck you, you generic little fanboy cumwad. I sat around for years watching them ritually crucify little dickhole kiddies like you on stardestroyer. Ooh, the Nato Reference Mobility Model! Man, you must totally know what you're talking about! Whoops, wait, actually you sound exactly like every other little mech fanboy cumwad does when he's trying to sound smarter than he is.

Lets see what the US military and various other experts in the field have concluded about the various pros/cons of bi-pedal locomotion to tracked vehicles?

Let's see what other tired arguments you managed to cull off some musty Robotech forum!

“According to a U.S. Army  Report, only 50% of the Earth’s land surface, is accessible to wheeled or tracked vehicles whereas humans and other animals can access  almost all of it using legged locomotion.  This explains part of the intense research efforts in area" -Logistical Vehicle Off-Road Mobility.” U.S. Army Transportation Combat Developments Agency

Of course humans and other animals aren't made of fifty tons of metal, but that aside, what research? You might want to supply a date with that quote too, since most of this "Seriously, walking vehicles!" crap was proposed back in the fifties and sixties and then proceeded to go absolutely nowhere.

It's interesting to note that googling "U.S. Army Transportation Combat Developments Agency" nets a grand total of seven results.

"In general, the advantages of walking machines can be classified as follows: better fuel economy, higher speed, greater mobility, better  ride quality, less environmental damage, and greater range of possible terrain"-Bekker, M.G. Off-the-Road Locomotion.  University of Michigan Press

Oh Jesus, fucking Bekker. I could practically write a script to have this argument for me. Bekker was speaking of four-legged machines, the book was concerned primarily with agricultural and construction applications, he had no actual walking vehicle to base any sort of comparison off of, and he was writing somewhere on the order of half a century ago. I mean grats, some guy in the fifties wrote that walking vehicles would be totally rad on the farm.

Blah blah blah, I'm tired of reading your thoroughly routine "anime wanker trying to sound smart" drivel. All I'll say on the Starship Troopers thing is that it doesn't matter what they're equipped with. They routinely ran up to giant bugs so they could shoot them from ten feet away and be impaled by their claws. Fucking claws. If those bugs could hold muskets it would have been an even worse assraping than it was.

[gryeyes]

The fact that one IFV out of however many hundreds have existed is badly designed has exactly what to do with anything, dipshit?

That your arguement of "superior" armor on an IFV is ill informed? Maybe read slower?

How the fuck is any of this improved by putting it up on legs so every asshole in a three-mile radius can see where it is?

Hmmm let me think of how to dumb this down so you can understand this. See footsies and legs can go places wheels and treads cannot. Its not an extremely difficult concept to grasp really.

Of course when a track is damaged, the vehicle doesn't fucking topple over onto it's face, does it moron?

No when its track is damaged its essentially worthless and requires extensive repairs that can take days. Also due to the very nature of a tread it cant be as well armored as for example a fucking leg. Kind of exemplifying another great weakness in tread based locomotion. Especially as it pertains to military usage.

Unless six guys are disgorging themselves from your ten foot mech,

Entirely possible

using complex moving parts to dissipate recoil is nowhere near as effective as having a much wider base and lower center of gravity to begin with.That's on top of the fact that since it's side mounted, your shitty turret (I mean arm) is going to be thrown off to the side with each shot and have to completely reacquire its target every single time.

Lets see, the thing about an articulated mech is that it can alter its base and center of gravity on the fly. You also seem to be somewhat limited in your understanding of where a weapons hard point could be located on a mech. hint hint not just the arms. Of course a a 25mm cannon is going to be throwing a mechs of that sizes arm out of alignment regardless. I guess you haven't ever seen an articulated cannon on an apache before?

Great, it can duck. Too bad it can't really move while it's doing this.

Duck,crawl and climb! Its an amazing machine! And a very astute observation! When someone ducks they cant move! Yet for some strange reason infantrymen find the need to duck and go prone...i wonder why 

So now your manuverable agile mech is carrying giant sheets of fucking armor attached to its forearms, wide enough for the entire rest of the mech to take cover behind. What the fuck would that even look like?

I keep confusing you without meaning to. Ill try to dim it down some more. Ok we are discussing all possible applications of a mech type vehicle and the benefits of articulated limbs. Now all these possibilities naturally aren't going to be applied constantly in all situations. Ever see a human carry a riot shield before? Do you understand its function and purpose? Now apply that concept to a 10 foot tall mech for the purpose of providing cover for infantry. What it looks like is a big amazing metal man! Think optimus prime if you get confused.

Not only are you grossly exacerbating all the weight and balance issues I've mentioned before, you're loading your mech up with armor that provides no meaningful protection all during normal operation.

The concept of specialization and being able to alter armament on the fly seems beyond you so ill stop trying to explain. Weight and balance issues are irrelevant to your assertions that any form of mech type vehicle just isnt viable. (more on this later i even have charts!)

Great. And hey dipshit, a vehicle can take cover too behind something too, and it won't even need to duck in order to do so.

Your knowledge of the maneuverability of MBT/IFV is truly astounding.

You're clearly an idiot teenager who doesn't know shit.

Clearly 

Meanwhile back in the real universe, you've been comparing a poorly-designed IFV to some kind of anime faggot fever-dream while talking out your asshole.

Please dont cry its unbecoming.

Oh fuck you, you generic little fanboy cumwad. I sat around for years watching them ritually crucify little dickhole kiddies like you on stardestroyer

.

Those sound like some wild times!

Ooh, the Nato Reference Mobility Model! Man, you must totally know what you're talking about!

Its the standard applied for their development of new robots for various purposes. I know this because i took the time to read about the subject before entering an arguement on the topic. Im sorry if knowledge threatens your star wars induced psychosis.

Let's see what other tired arguments you managed to cull off some musty Robotech forum!

I sourced the claims thankfully! And i didnt even have to reference the vaunted stardestroyer forums

Of course humans and other animals aren't made of fifty tons of metal

Irrelevant to your assertion that by its very nature a mech type vehicle isnt viable.

since most of this "Seriously, walking vehicles!" crap was proposed back in the fifties and sixties and then proceeded to go absolutely nowhere.

The bio-mechanics of bi-pedal and quadrapedal locomotion isnt something that becomes dated. Current technology isnt near the level required to make it work. Ive provided the source of the information im sure you can research it yourself.

It's interesting to note that googling "U.S. Army Transportation Combat Developments Agency" nets a grand total of seven results.

Not everyone can be stardestroyer.com good sir.

"In general, the advantages of walking machines can be classified as follows: better fuel economy, higher speed, greater mobility, better  ride quality, less environmental damage, and greater range of possible terrain"-Bekker, M.G. Off-the-Road Locomotion.  University of Michigan Press

Bekker was speaking of four-legged machines,

Incorrect  in that passage specifically he is talking about bi-pedal walking and running robots. I didn't include the various sources on other forms of legged locomotion since i was focusing on bi-pedal.

the book was concerned primarily with agricultural and construction applications, he had no actual walking vehicle to base any sort of comparison off of, and he was writing somewhere on the order of half a century ago. I mean grats, some guy in the fifties wrote that walking vehicles would be totally rad on the farm.

Ummm  He is pioneer in the field and his work is used extensively today. Jesus fuck for awhile i thought you were just pretending to be some kind of full blown retard but now its all but confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieczys%C5%82aw_G._Bekker Ya guy sounds like a total jackoff good call.

My primary source of the information was from a presentation by Dr. Gorsich to the US Army about the findings and research of Bekker and Mobility as it applied to current technology.

"Dr. David Gorsich was elected to the prestigious
status of “SAE fellow” by the Society of Automotive Engineers Oct. 9, 2008. Gorsich is the
Associate Director for Computational Simulation and Motion Base Technology at the U.S.
Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in
Warren MI. 

Fellowship status is the highest membership grade bestowed by SAE and recognizes an
individual’s outstanding engineering and scientific accomplishments resulting in
meaningful advances in automotive, aerospace and commercial vehicle technology.

He has authored more than 150 articles in publications and journals and has supported and mentored
numerous major research efforts in ground vehicle standards and technology.

According to his nomination package, Gorsich has been active in the ground vehicle community for more than 18 years."

The sources i listed where sources he listed in a presentation to the US military. Now im not an expert but for some reason im thinking the Associate Director for Computational Simulation and Motion Base Technology at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center just might be someone who knows what the fuck he is talking about....

http://tardec.army.mil/default.asp

Blah blah blah, I'm tired of reading your thoroughly routine "anime wanker trying to sound smart

So true, my thoroughly routine supported by fact and the opinion of military design experts is all an elaborate ruse to fool a veteran stardestroyer like yourself. 

I dont even like mech anime...

[bhodi]

WUA doesn't really need any help here, but I thought I'd bring up a few points that haven't been mentioned yet. Because I fucking love futuristic weapons. I guess it's a fetish or something.

One of the major reasons armor is tracked, other than traction and mobility, is because the vehicles are too fucking heavy to use anything else. Without tracks, it would sink right into the ground and be mired. Let's scale up a bit and imagine for just a second what that would mean for these glorious walking mechs. Even assuming structural construction material that's sufficient to keep the thing together under the rigors of actual ambulation, back of the napkin math says that with the forces involved, anything you try and walk on would be destroyed. Concrete? Gone. Stone? Gone. Not on hard ground? It would be like fighting in ankle-high mud. So, basically, your mobility is complete shit. Needless to say, you would leave huge holes wherever you went as well. Not so good for cities. So no, in the size we're talking about, "footsies and legs" can't even go places that wheels and treads CAN.

As WUA mentioned, one of the most important advances in artillery in the past 100 years has been consistency, not accuracy. The ability to be able to fire a shell, and then put a second as close as possible to the first is of supreme importance. Any gun mounted on anything but a stationary platform fails this test and would be all but completely useless for anything except line of sight or self guided munitions. Having it as an 'arm' of sorts would be even worse.

On armor: A simple surface area required to be armored versus volume of the object shows that mechs are hugely inefficient in this regard and would be quite outmatched by almost any other design. Not to mention being a larger target, obviously.

Smaller is almost always better. The larger a thing is, the less you have of it, and the bigger a target it is, both due to it's size and cost. It's why dreadnoughts died out, it's why battleships died out (well, that and carriers), and it's why no sane army would ever field a multi-ton walking mech - not when you can field power armor for 100 troops or weapons for 1,000,000 for the same price. Hugely expensive materiel is nothing more than a gigantic flashing sign that says "Shoot me for 10,000 points!".

[schild]

Holy crap.

I wish I hadn't come back into this thread.

[TheCastle]

omg shit just went down in here.

Alright guys here im going to drop a bomb so get ready!
Floating orbs with machine guns!!
Beat that! no wheels nothing just a floating fucking orb!
Fuck legs this shits FLOATING IN THE AIR!!!!
They will use Vulcan cannons because word has it vulcan cannons feel no emotions!
pffftt.. haha 
Sorry had to do it..

I think I might need to ignore my own existence for a short while after this.

[gryeyes]

Didnt bother to read but replied with a block of text for fun

My example was a 10 foot mech of comparable weight to an m2. Kind of invalidates everything you just said. But in reality the discussion is :

Mechs/walkers/whatever just always burn my ass just because there's no logical reason to build them, at any technological level

I supported my opinion with fact from experts in the field of developing military weaponry.  Really nothing else to say its no longer the domain of internet tard opinion. A mech would be able to go places a tracked or wheeled vehicle cannot. And its for that very reason various mech like methods of locomotion are being developed. Aslo tracks are not used for mobility they are far less efficient compared to wheels they are less mobile than tires.

Debate over thanks for playing. 

[gryeyes]

Didnt bother to read but replied with a block of text for fun

My example was a 10 foot mech of comparable weight to an m2. Kind of invalidates everything you just said. But in reality the discussion is :

Mechs/walkers/whatever just always burn my ass just because there's no logical reason to build them, at any technological level

I supported my opinion with fact from experts in the field of developing military weaponry.  Really nothing else to say its no longer the domain of internet tard opinion. A mech would be able to go places a tracked or wheeled vehicle cannot. And its for that very reason various mech like methods of locomotion are being developed. Aslo tracks are not used for mobility they are far less efficient compared to wheels they are less mobile than tires.

Debate over thanks for playing. 

Floating orb would NEVER work its just not feasible in any fashion. Psssst floating orbs what are ya a fucking retard?