Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
User avatar
Kuruni
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
Contact:

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

[quote="MythSearcher]
Well, unless you are in the CE universe, which by some magical handwave, they never cared about propellant as long as they have energy.[/quote]

Although never brought-up, Raider Full Spec has optional propellant tank. So it's issue, albeit nobody ever mention it.
My girlfriend was a loli.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

Kuruni wrote: Although never brought-up, Raider Full Spec has optional propellant tank. So it's issue, albeit nobody ever mention it.
Well, here's the problem.
Freedom flew from Plant to Earth in like 2 days, even if it is just using Hohmann transfer orbit, Kira still refused to have the AA crew resupply Freedom.
At least in the anime, all of the nuclear powered MSs have no issue on propellant, have no need to resupply(not even head vulcans), and its a straight "I have infinite power so I don't need to resupply" philosophy, but the battery powered MSs, on the other hand, stop functioning when its completely out of power, and does not even try to propel back(like in Stargazer, and Stargazer is even the most realistic depiction in CEverse) thus I an simply stating it seems like they don't take it as an issue as long as they have power. Raider is a battery operating unit, so I guess that still works.
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
Highly unlikely that you get enough fuel space, thus you get really limited combat time.
Unless you are talking about some yet magical(to us primitive beings) methods to propel.
Why not batteries used for golf carts? In fact, for my Infinite Stratos fanfic Senjou no Kodoku na Shounen [Lone Boy of the Battlefield (see here, here, and here)], which is a love letter to Ryosuke Takahashi works, primarily VOTOMS, the Armored Trooper expies, named Kinzoku Hoheis (Metal Infantry), batteries primarily used by golf carts are their sources of power.

You still need to propel mass to move, and a smaller unit means you can carry less, while you maybe able to maintain a similar mass ratio and a better thrust-mass efficiency with a smaller and lighter unit, your defences will be horrible against anything you can use with the super capacitors to power.
Also, the smaller you are, the higher percentage the error in motion will get.(smaller bipedal robots are actually harder to balance in real life than bigger ones since the absolute error remains pretty much the same in our production process but the tolerance ratio goes up as you build smaller stuff)
Not to mention the mass of your human pilot or at least the main computer unit will still be the same mass, so if you get the unit too small, its obviously going to have a worse mass ratio. The cube law dictates the thrust ratio of a smaller thruster usually having a better if not the same rate though.(unless, of course, you get too small and you can't really build it within your margin of error)

And if you are too small, your weapon might not be useful against larger and harder units like a warship, and carrying the minimum size weapon that can do damage will be hard for a small unit.
The fun thing about laser weapons is that if you want it to disperse less, you need a larger calibre(less diffraction) and for super long range combat, you'll want to have large guns with something like 1~5m calibre, which will be really hard for MMSs.
That's why I proposed 3-4 meters. I mean, the average human is either 0.5-1 meter, depending on ethnicity, so wouldn't mini mecha be more fitting, and easier to manufacture, as well as hide, if used in urban combat?
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:
Why not batteries used for golf carts? In fact, for my Infinite Stratos fanfic Senjou no Kodoku na Shounen [Lone Boy of the Battlefield (see here, here, and here)], which is a love letter to Ryosuke Takahashi works, primarily VOTOMS, the Armored Trooper expies, named Kinzoku Hoheis (Metal Infantry), batteries primarily used by golf carts are their sources of power.
Its not the problem of having not enough power, in fact, if you use anything from matter-antimatter annihilation generator or nano-carbon type capacitors or super conductor type capacitors, you have enough power to power up a human use light sabre(not that it will be practical).

The problem lies in the very heart of Newton's Laws of motion, which states that if you do not have external forces, the only way you can move forward is by means of propulsion.(getting a reaction force from your own mass by propelling them backwards)

That's why I proposed 3-4 meters. I mean, the average human is either 0.5-1 meter, depending on ethnicity, so wouldn't mini mecha be more fitting, and easier to manufacture, as well as hide, if used in urban combat?
If you are just battling on Earth, fine, but what was being discussed up there is space combat, thus I am only addressing space combat situations.

The average human is 1.5~1.8m, 0.5 will be shorter than quite a lot of kids, even from birth...

BTW, any humanoid machines taller than 4m is likely useless within the atmosphere, things taller than 3m is already pushing the limit.
The human body is not evolved for ranged combat, human evolves to stand up straight because in nature you don't have ranged weapons from any human's nemesis, thus standing upright can see further and thus locate danger earlier.
In human warfare though, standing up straight is just a simple way to get shot and killed, since your enemy can see you from further and the cross-sectional area of the front side is the largest, unlike all military vehicles, which have the smallest cross-sectional area in the front.(about 80% of military encounters are from the front, thus tanks have a much thicker armour there)

Almost all land combat vehicles point one of their largest cross-section down, thus eliminating a large area from the enemies sight and line of fire.

Stating they are better for urban settings will be a rather limited usefulness.
Although I also think it'd be cool to have larger versions of powersuits/exoskeletons around, in my 12 years of forum discussion experience about this very topic, I became quite skeptical.(I originally seriously thought the height might be able to push all the way up to around 8m, but quickly drops to 6m and for the last 10 years, I'm not quite sure if 3m can work anything close to fair anymore.)
The human form has a LOT of drawbacks and problems, a few major ones discussed up there, another being the legs are a very VERY inefficient system of movement, for a vehicle running on wheels or tracks of the same weight, it only uses a fraction(somewhere like 1/5~1/10) of a humanoid vehicle's power.(by not having major mass needing to continuously forward and backward and a much shorter moment arm) For a vehicle that's about 5~10 tons, the least power you need to power those legs under ideal cases to speeds up to similar weight AFVs might be able to power up a hover system for the same weight if its built decently, with a lot less moving parts and much less need for maintenance.
Its surface area is also much larger and thus needing more mass for armour or simply much less defence. Less efficient also means moving slower and less mobile than other movement methods, or you need a very expensive and a few times more powerful engine/motor, so you might be building 1 humanoid for every 5~10 conventional/better designed vehicles the enemies spend with same resources, building time and budget. This usually doesn't end well in battle(check WWII King Tigers versus T-34 by spec and by the actual 1:5 rate in the battlefields, and humanoids I am talking about here will not be superior in spec than its conventional equivalents)
If its a powersuit, granted it can't really get rid of its legs(little little is any soldier will be willing to get their legs cut off just so they can use a more efficient powersuit with hovers/wheels/tracks), and with its thin layer(unless your powersuit looks like Asuka's plug suit for magma diving type-D equipments), its unlikely to have a lot of buffer built in, so moving too fast is not a good idea(bumping into walls and vehicles will be deadly)
But if you get it to 3~4m, you don't really need to keep its legs since its pilots will be highly likely to have enough space to keep their own legs in it and still not a major burdent to the machine.
Also, a 2m powersuit will have no problem entering most human buildings, and move quite freely inside, but a 3m one will have a lot of trouble getting around one, and have to bent really low to enter one with a lower ceiling.(I do imagined a short term hover system on those so they can move faster in these situations, but that's kinda making the legs moot, again)
The hands are not much use as well, its a machine, you can equip it with guns or missiles on its hard points without really needing to change those by themselves, all they need is a supply truck or a base that got manipulators to change their weapons for them. If they are bring a spare or 2 guns out there to change, those are dead-weight when not in use(guess why most vehicles don't have a lot of big guns on they at the same time), and if you really need to carry many weapons around, you can always just make them all able to fire without holding by hands(manipulators).

So, there's really no point in making a powersuit much bigger than a human, since its inefficient, inconvenient, with much better designs to be replaced with, and very limited use on the battle field. Honestly, a well placed shot with an RPG or an anti-tank sniper rifle is very likely enough to take down the person inside, I'm not too positive that it can take a direct hit from a grenade launcher even without the grenade exploding.(likely knocking out the pilot)
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
Its not the problem of having not enough power, in fact, if you use anything from matter-antimatter annihilation generator or nano-carbon type capacitors or super conductor type capacitors, you have enough power to power up a human use light sabre(not that it will be practical).
Why the need for beam sabers? Why not settle for melee weapons like the Arm Punch from VOTOMS, or the Knuckle Shot from Layzner, which may have inspired the Knuckle type of melee weapons from Front Mission?

If you are just battling on Earth, fine, but what was being discussed up there is space combat, thus I am only addressing space combat situations.
Why think about space warfare? We haven't gotten that far yet into space exploration, so why the need for mecha in space?

The average human is 1.5~1.8m, 0.5 will be shorter than quite a lot of kids, even from birth...
Did not know that. Thank you.

BTW, any humanoid machines taller than 4m is likely useless within the atmosphere, things taller than 3m is already pushing the limit.
The human body is not evolved for ranged combat, human evolves to stand up straight because in nature you don't have ranged weapons from any human's nemesis, thus standing upright can see further and thus locate danger earlier.
In human warfare though, standing up straight is just a simple way to get shot and killed, since your enemy can see you from further and the cross-sectional area of the front side is the largest, unlike all military vehicles, which have the smallest cross-sectional area in the front.(about 80% of military encounters are from the front, thus tanks have a much thicker armour there)

Almost all land combat vehicles point one of their largest cross-section down, thus eliminating a large area from the enemies sight and line of fire.
My point exactly. Why do we want our mecha to fly? Just keep them on the ground, and if you do want them to fly, make adjustments for them to do so. Which leads me to this...

Stating they are better for urban settings will be a rather limited usefulness.
Although I also think it'd be cool to have larger versions of powersuits/exoskeletons around, in my 12 years of forum discussion experience about this very topic, I became quite skeptical.(I originally seriously thought the height might be able to push all the way up to around 8m, but quickly drops to 6m and for the last 10 years, I'm not quite sure if 3m can work anything close to fair anymore.)
The human form has a LOT of drawbacks and problems, a few major ones discussed up there, another being the legs are a very VERY inefficient system of movement, for a vehicle running on wheels or tracks of the same weight, it only uses a fraction(somewhere like 1/5~1/10) of a humanoid vehicle's power.(by not having major mass needing to continuously forward and backward and a much shorter moment arm) For a vehicle that's about 5~10 tons, the least power you need to power those legs under ideal cases to speeds up to similar weight AFVs might be able to power up a hover system for the same weight if its built decently, with a lot less moving parts and much less need for maintenance.
Its surface area is also much larger and thus needing more mass for armour or simply much less defence. Less efficient also means moving slower and less mobile than other movement methods, or you need a very expensive and a few times more powerful engine/motor, so you might be building 1 humanoid for every 5~10 conventional/better designed vehicles the enemies spend with same resources, building time and budget. This usually doesn't end well in battle(check WWII King Tigers versus T-34 by spec and by the actual 1:5 rate in the battlefields, and humanoids I am talking about here will not be superior in spec than its conventional equivalents)
If its a powersuit, granted it can't really get rid of its legs(little little is any soldier will be willing to get their legs cut off just so they can use a more efficient powersuit with hovers/wheels/tracks), and with its thin layer(unless your powersuit looks like Asuka's plug suit for magma diving type-D equipments), its unlikely to have a lot of buffer built in, so moving too fast is not a good idea(bumping into walls and vehicles will be deadly)
But if you get it to 3~4m, you don't really need to keep its legs since its pilots will be highly likely to have enough space to keep their own legs in it and still not a major burdent to the machine.
Also, a 2m powersuit will have no problem entering most human buildings, and move quite freely inside, but a 3m one will have a lot of trouble getting around one, and have to bent really low to enter one with a lower ceiling.(I do imagined a short term hover system on those so they can move faster in these situations, but that's kinda making the legs moot, again)
The hands are not much use as well, its a machine, you can equip it with guns or missiles on its hard points without really needing to change those by themselves, all they need is a supply truck or a base that got manipulators to change their weapons for them. If they are bring a spare or 2 guns out there to change, those are dead-weight when not in use(guess why most vehicles don't have a lot of big guns on they at the same time), and if you really need to carry many weapons around, you can always just make them all able to fire without holding by hands(manipulators).
The Mini Mecha in question have to be able to be customized to suit a need. Desert warfare, give it something to travel across deserts and a beige paintjob. Space warfare, attach rockets of sorts. Urban warfare, equip it with grappling hooks that will make it glide on buildings, like in Gasaraki.

In regards to legs, make them short, like, if you go for 4m, the legs should be 2m, while half, head included, are for the pilot. Also, equip them with wheels, like Armored Troopers, some of the titular mecha of Aoi Ryuusei (Blue Comet) SPT Layzner, the Tactical Armors [from Gasaraki (in the earlier episodes)], and the Wanzers of Front Mission.

As for usage in comparison to tanks and aircraft, if we have tanks and aircraft, why do we still have infantry. In fact, during World War II, there was a contingent of American troops in the Philippines that drove off Japanese troops with cavalry charges, which is passe by then, and the fact they ate the horses afterwards. Also, for a fictional example, in Taiyou no Kiba (Fang of the Sun) Dougram, despite the presence of the Combat Armors, like the 10.02 meter-tall Soltic H8 Roundfacer, combined arms tactics are the norm (i.e, deploy nearly everything you have in combat).

As for weapons, why not attach backpacks. The examples I've mentioned already do backpacks, so why not give them a try?

As for longevity, aren't there RPG rounds that can give M1s problems, and if that were the case, why do we still use tanks anyways?

All of this is making me realize something, we shouldn't look to Mobile Suits as our guide to making real-life mecha, but rather, [Insert Mini Mecha name].
User avatar
AmuroNT1
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:41 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

Real-life mecha are a flight of fancy regardless of WHAT you use as your basis - Gundam, Votoms, whatever; they just aren't reasonable without some kind of abnormal justification like Minovski interference.
Sakuya: "Whatever. Stop lying and give up your schemes, now."
Yukari: (Which lies and schemes are she talking about? It's hard to keep track of them all...)

-Touhou 07.5 ~ Immaterial and Missing Power
User avatar
Dark Duel
Posts: 4833
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: A blue City in a red State

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

On the subject of units of measurement: one meter is approximately 40 inches, or roughly 3.3 feet.
Just for a rough frame of reference.
MythSearcher wrote:Well, here's the problem.
Freedom flew from Plant to Earth in like 2 days, even if it is just using Hohmann transfer orbit, Kira still refused to have the AA crew resupply Freedom.
72 hours, according to the timeline IIRC. So more like 3 days. Not a big difference, but just thought I'd mention that.
// ART THREAD // NOT ACCEPTING REQUESTS

"You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turn of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down. Tells you she's hurting before she keens. Makes her a home."
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:
Why the need for beam sabers? Why not settle for melee weapons like the Arm Punch from VOTOMS, or the Knuckle Shot from Layzner, which may have inspired the Knuckle type of melee weapons from Front Mission?
Not saying it will be of any use, just saying there will be enough sheer power to power them means you have tiny nuclear bombs in your hands.

Why think about space warfare? We haven't gotten that far yet into space exploration, so why the need for mecha in space?
Because mecha is very likely to be only viable in space, where it still stands some plausibility with its AMBAC system.


My point exactly. Why do we want our mecha to fly? Just keep them on the ground, and if you do want them to fly, make adjustments for them to do so. Which leads me to this...
Keeping them on the ground is still not enough, best keep them crawling on the ground, with hovers installed.
The problem is then the legs being pretty much rendered useless.

Like I said up there, we need to minimize the frontal projection area(front cross-section) to decrease the chance of being spotted and being hit, also minimize the armour needed.

The Mini Mecha in question have to be able to be customized to suit a need. Desert warfare, give it something to travel across deserts and a beige paintjob. Space warfare, attach rockets of sorts. Urban warfare, equip it with grappling hooks that will make it glide on buildings, like in Gasaraki.

In regards to legs, make them short, like, if you go for 4m, the legs should be 2m, while half, head included, are for the pilot. Also, equip them with wheels, like Armored Troopers, some of the titular mecha of Aoi Ryuusei (Blue Comet) SPT Layzner, the Tactical Armors [from Gasaraki (in the earlier episodes)], and the Wanzers of Front Mission.

As for usage in comparison to tanks and aircraft, if we have tanks and aircraft, why do we still have infantry. In fact, during World War II, there was a contingent of American troops in the Philippines that drove off Japanese troops with cavalry charges, which is passe by then, and the fact they ate the horses afterwards. Also, for a fictional example, in Taiyou no Kiba (Fang of the Sun) Dougram, despite the presence of the Combat Armors, like the 10.02 meter-tall Soltic H8 Roundfacer, combined arms tactics are the norm (i.e, deploy nearly everything you have in combat).

As for weapons, why not attach backpacks. The examples I've mentioned already do backpacks, so why not give them a try?

As for longevity, aren't there RPG rounds that can give M1s problems, and if that were the case, why do we still use tanks anyways?

All of this is making me realize something, we shouldn't look to Mobile Suits as our guide to making real-life mecha, but rather, [Insert Mini Mecha name].
All pretty much the same.
real-life mecha has the same problems in almost any size.(sans 2m powersuits)
Notice how even human beings try to change the way the human body works normally on a modern battlefield? They crawl, or at lease have to frequently duck down to minimize they frontal projection. If cheap enough, likely most infantries will have wheels, hovers attached to increase speed when laying on the ground.

A 3m mecha is not the same as infantry, like I said above, a 3m mecha will have serious trouble getting into most buildings. Infantry, on the other hand, is the same size as human beings(duh), thus have no trouble entering all human buildings.
There's really no reason to keep the legs for a machine, you can have wheels/hovers/tracks with legs, but why keep the legs as dead weight? You can just have the wheels/hovers/tracks which makes the mecha lighter, thus either faster, with thicker armour on average AND less parts to get hit.

The RPG rounds do give M1 problems, that's pretty much why most people who know a bit of modern warfare will tell you tanks are a bad idea in cities, where troopers with RPGs can hide in any building. However, tanks at least still got the armour to take a shot or two, if the round did not land in the weaker spots. The 3m mecha does not have this kind of armour, thus RPGs pose a much greater threat.

Backpacks will be pretty much like hard points, and real-life AFVs can be designed to use similar attachments as well.(Try look up Stryker) So its not an exclusive advantage of humanoid machines.

The reason of the lack of mecha in real-life is simple, the method of designing war machines is because of necessity, you design things to suit its environment, not find an environment that suits a certain shape(the humanoid).
This is partly true in evolution as well, living things changed its shape to suit the environment, not evolve to strange shapes, then find an environment that suits the shape.
Like I said above, the human shape is not evolved to suit modern battlefields, but as we cannot freely change our form to suit the battlefield, all we can do is adapt. War machines, on the other hand, can freely change their shapes to fit the battlefields, thus basically impossible that a humanoid shape will be a reasonably practical choice since most systems that are more efficient simply exist.
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
Not saying it will be of any use, just saying there will be enough sheer power to power them means you have tiny nuclear bombs in your hands.
But what I'm saying is be a little more simpler when it comes to melee weapons, heck, melee weapons should be for desperation, not overpowering firearm users.

Because mecha is very likely to be only viable in space, where it still stands some plausibility with its AMBAC system.
Why not go for something like the Roundmover backpacks in VOTOMS, which are just bigger versions of those jetpacks of sorts used by astronauts?

Keeping them on the ground is still not enough, best keep them crawling on the ground, with hovers installed.
The problem is then the legs being pretty much rendered useless.

Like I said up there, we need to minimize the frontal projection area (front cross-section) to decrease the chance of being spotted and being hit, also minimize the armour needed.
If you want mecha to fly, why not make the mecha stand on something like Dodais to fly? From what I know, if the Dodai-esque flying object is like at least a couple of meters taller than the mini mecha, it won't fall off, right?

All pretty much the same.

Real-life mecha has the same problems in almost any size (sans 2m powersuits).

Notice how even human beings try to change the way the human body works normally on a modern battlefield? They crawl, or at lease have to frequently duck down to minimize they frontal projection.
If cheap enough, likely most infantries will have wheels, hovers attached to increase speed when laying on the ground.

A 3m mecha is not the same as infantry, like I said above, a 3m mecha will have serious trouble getting into most buildings. Infantry, on the other hand, is the same size as human beings(duh), thus have no trouble entering all human buildings.

There's really no reason to keep the legs for a machine, you can have wheels/hovers/tracks with legs, but why keep the legs as dead weight? You can just have the wheels/hovers/tracks which makes the mecha lighter, thus either faster, with thicker armour on average AND less parts to get hit.

The RPG rounds do give M1 problems, that's pretty much why most people who know a bit of modern warfare will tell you tanks are a bad idea in cities, where troopers with RPGs can hide in any building. However, tanks at least still got the armour to take a shot or two, if the round did not land in the weaker spots. The 3m mecha does not have this kind of armour, thus RPGs pose a much greater threat.

Backpacks will be pretty much like hard points, and real-life AFVs can be designed to use similar attachments as well (Try look up Stryker). So its not an exclusive advantage of humanoid machines.

The reason of the lack of mecha in real-life is simple, the method of designing war machines is because of necessity, you design things to suit its environment, not find an environment that suits a certain shape(the humanoid).

This is partly true in evolution as well, living things changed its shape to suit the environment, not evolve to strange shapes, then find an environment that suits the shape.

Like I said above, the human shape is not evolved to suit modern battlefields, but as we cannot freely change our form to suit the battlefield, all we can do is adapt. War machines, on the other hand, can freely change their shapes to fit the battlefields, thus basically impossible that a humanoid shape will be a reasonably practical choice since most systems that are more efficient simply exist.
For mecha to do something like crawl, at least fit inside something like buildings, why not arm it with something like muscle cylinder systems, which give ATs this. If I remember correctly, within the final episodes of the Uoodo Arc in VOTOMS TV, Rochina had a Scopedog on Standby mode guard him to go inside the Uoodo Police headquarters to arrest Iskui for being in cahoots with the Secret Society. There, at least the Scopedog still moved because the wheels were on the ground, so why not do that?

As for longevity, why do you want mecha to be indestructible? I mean, we may have tanks, but we still have infantry. Do we really want mecha to replace tanks that badly?
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:
But what I'm saying is be a little more simpler when it comes to melee weapons, heck, melee weapons should be for desperation, not overpowering firearm users.
You seem to be seriously misinterpreting what I am saying. Its a metaphor, I am saying the power source of your mecha can be like tiny nuclear bombs, not that you need to use any melee weapons or light sabres.
I don't know what cause that, I have repeatedly stated the light sabre will not be of any usefulness, and it purely talking about a power source.

Why not go for something like the Roundmover backpacks in VOTOMS, which are just bigger versions of those jetpacks of sorts used by astronauts?
Becaue you will be using a lot of propellant and thus shorten your operation time.
From the current science theories we know of, we have a LOT more advancement ins power sources, but quite little in propulsion technology.
The current technology stands at a point where the power source is pretty much as massive as the propellant, and it won't get much lighter even after a period of usage(whereas the propellant will be jettisoned out and thus gets you lighter and lighter) but we are at a very basic stage of power consumption, and our power sources are all very primitive nowadays compare to the wonders in theories that we can make once we have the technological advancement, yet our propulsion systems are quite advance compared to the theories, and its hardly going to get much better in propulsion usage wise for short term high thrust engines.(The ones we still need to develop are the higher efficient propulsion methods have less thrust but a much more prolonged usage thus making their final speed higher)

If you want mecha to fly, why not make the mecha stand on something like Dodais to fly? From what I know, if the Dodai-esque flying object is like at least a couple of meters taller than the mini mecha, it won't fall off, right?
No, I do not want mecha to fly, and I never said I want them to fly, I said anything within the atmosphere that is humanoid all suffers the same problem, as stated above. Flying increases your problem of exposing even more area for the enemy to shoot at.
And even if you are on Dodais, the aerodynamics will be so poor that they will be really easy targets compared to much better shaped designs suiting aerodynamics.

For mecha to do something like crawl, at least fit inside something like buildings, why not arm it with something like muscle cylinder systems, which give ATs this. If I remember correctly, within the final episodes of the Uoodo Arc in VOTOMS TV, Rochina had a Scopedog on Standby mode guard him to go inside the Uoodo Police headquarters to arrest Iskui for being in cahoots with the Secret Society. There, at least the Scopedog still moved because the wheels were on the ground, so why not do that?
Again misinterpreted.
mecha need to lower their profile to increase survivability, which renders legs useless, they don't need to literally crawl, but stay in a pose like humans crawling. Usually a much better but simple design is to get rid of the legs and have hovers/wheels on it instead(and keep the low profile)

The legs will be almost completely useless once you have wheels/tracks/hovers onboard, they will only be a hinder and not helpful in combat situations.

As for longevity, why do you want mecha to be indestructible? I mean, we may have tanks, but we still have infantry. Do we really want mecha to replace tanks that badly?
I never wanted them indestructible, but they cannot be simple push overs for the sake of survivability and expensive equipment.
They can never replace tanks, but they will be targets of anti-tank weapons, at least before they have specialized weapons to get rid of these things, assuming anyti-personel weapons don't have enough punch to get through the armour quickly.(but like I said, grenade launchers are likely to be enough)
They will not have much more armour than power-suits, thus anti-power-suit weapons should be effective enough, so why make the extra metre or so? A team with an extra or two 2m power-suit will perform much better than a team with less 3m ones, and the 2m ones will surely have enough fire power to take down the 3m ones with no problem at all, its not even a power difference of medium and light tanks, it will likely be a power difference of something like RGM-79 and RGM-79L, or at most MS-06F and MS-06FZ(faster but a little less armoured), to top that, the 3m one will have much more trouble fighting indoors making it much less useful, but it will be something like 225% more expensive.
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
You seem to be seriously misinterpreting what I am saying. Its a metaphor, I am saying the power source of your mecha can be like tiny nuclear bombs, not that you need to use any melee weapons or light sabres.

I don't know what cause that, I have repeatedly stated the light sabre will not be of any usefulness, and it purely talking about a power source.
Okay I get what you meant, but why the need for nuclear power? Yes, it's better, but isn't there the problem of a meltdown. In Pacific Rim, in where the mecha there are nuclear-powered, there were characters getting cancer due to exposure. What could be needed is an power source that is easy to find and environmental-friendly.
MythSearcher wrote:
Becaue you will be using a lot of propellant and thus shorten your operation time.

From the current science theories we know of, we have a LOT more advancement ins power sources, but quite little in propulsion technology.

The current technology stands at a point where the power source is pretty much as massive as the propellant, and it won't get much lighter even after a period of usage(whereas the propellant will be jettisoned out and thus gets you lighter and lighter) but we are at a very basic stage of power consumption, and our power sources are all very primitive nowadays compare to the wonders in theories that we can make once we have the technological advancement, yet our propulsion systems are quite advance compared to the theories, and its hardly going to get much better in propulsion usage wise for short term high thrust engines.(The ones we still need to develop are the higher efficient propulsion methods have less thrust but a much more prolonged usage thus making their final speed higher)
I see then.
MythSearcher wrote:
No, I do not want mecha to fly, and I never said I want them to fly, I said anything within the atmosphere that is humanoid all suffers the same problem, as stated above. Flying increases your problem of exposing even more area for the enemy to shoot at.

And even if you are on Dodais, the aerodynamics will be so poor that they will be really easy targets compared to much better shaped designs suiting aerodynamics.
Sorry about that.
MythSearcher wrote:
Again misinterpreted.

mecha need to lower their profile to increase survivability, which renders legs useless, they don't need to literally crawl, but stay in a pose like humans crawling. Usually a much better but simple design is to get rid of the legs and have hovers/wheels on it instead(and keep the low profile)

The legs will be almost completely useless once you have wheels/tracks/hovers onboard, they will only be a hinder and not helpful in combat situations.
Then wouldn't they not be mecha if there be no legs?
MythSearcher wrote:
I never wanted them indestructible, but they cannot be simple push overs for the sake of survivability and expensive equipment.

They can never replace tanks, but they will be targets of anti-tank weapons, at least before they have specialized weapons to get rid of these things, assuming anyti-personel weapons don't have enough punch to get through the armour quickly.(but like I said, grenade launchers are likely to be enough)

They will not have much more armour than power-suits, thus anti-power-suit weapons should be effective enough, so why make the extra metre or so? A team with an extra or two 2m power-suit will perform much better than a team with less 3m ones, and the 2m ones will surely have enough fire power to take down the 3m ones with no problem at all, its not even a power difference of medium and light tanks, it will likely be a power difference of something like RGM-79 and RGM-79L, or at most MS-06F and MS-06FZ(faster but a little less armoured), to top that, the 3m one will have much more trouble fighting indoors making it much less useful, but it will be something like 225% more expensive.
But the problem with humongous mecha is that the metal has to be heavier, and heavier metals aren't easy to come by. Also, in regards to longevity, if the Americans' methods of defeating German Tiger battalions by overrunning them with Shermans during World War II, then wouldn't half a regiment of mini-mecha do the same?
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:
Okay I get what you meant, but why the need for nuclear power? Yes, it's better, but isn't there the problem of a meltdown. In Pacific Rim, in where the mecha there are nuclear-powered, there were characters getting cancer due to exposure. What could be needed is an power source that is easy to find and environmental-friendly.
Not actual nuclear power, but carbon nanotube capacitors/super conductor capacitors.
Its a safe, efficient and light weight method to carry extreme amounts of power.

Then wouldn't they not be mecha if there be no legs?
My point exactly.
The main thing that is hindering the efficiency is what makes them mechas,
meaning mechas are inefficient and not suited for battle.

But the problem with humongous mecha is that the metal has to be heavier, and heavier metals aren't easy to come by. Also, in regards to longevity, if the Americans' methods of defeating German Tiger battalions by overrunning them with Shermans during World War II, then wouldn't half a regiment of mini-mecha do the same?
So the problem is how small.
I am saying a 2m tall power suit(which by my definition is never a mecha because you are not piloting it, you are simply powered up) will be the most efficient thing you will be using here. A 3m mecha already has most of the disadvantages a taller one has, sans the possible armour thickness.
A 3m mecha will not be much more powerful than a 2m power suit, actually they may be the same in spec given really high power sources(meaning the weapons they can use will be overwhelmingly destructive against the possible armour they can put on, 2m or 3m, no difference)
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
Not actual nuclear power, but carbon nanotube capacitors/super conductor capacitors.
Its a safe, efficient and light weight method to carry extreme amounts of power.
But aren't they expensive?
MythSearcher wrote:
My point exactly.

The main thing that is hindering the efficiency is what makes them mechas,
meaning mechas are inefficient and not suited for battle.
In regards to that, why not have the legs for short-distance travel, and wheels for long-distance?
MyhtSearcher wrote:
So the problem is how small.

I am saying a 2m tall power suit (which by my definition is never a mecha because you are not piloting it, you are simply powered up) will be the most efficient thing you will be using here. A 3m mecha already has most of the disadvantages a taller one has, sans the possible armour thickness.
A 3m mecha will not be much more powerful than a 2m power suit, actually they may be the same in spec given really high power sources(meaning the weapons they can use will be overwhelmingly destructive against the possible armour they can put on, 2m or 3m, no difference)
But my point is that, the 3m mecha shouldn't be powerful. It shouldn't be like a Gundam. Teamwork is a must, and if the mecha is weak, it can be mass-produced easily, which I said earlier with the Shermans.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:

But aren't they expensive?
They are expensive, but likely to be cheap in a few decades from now.
It is expensive now because of they are only produced in labs, and scientists are still finding the most efficient way to produce them. The material cost will be pretty low.(mainly just carbon)
Once you start industrial production, the price will go down dramatically.


In regards to that, why not have the legs for short-distance travel, and wheels for long-distance?
Then you will be carrying dead weight(useless mass) into the battlefield.
As opposed to any system that carry just one of these into the battlefield, and is in a similar price range, your machine will either be more expensive(since you need to increase the power to carry extra weight) and you can only send in less of them(due to higher cost), or your machine will be weaker(since you have the same power source).

And think of a more realistic battle situation, your enemy, if they only have wheels or tracks, will not go into places where only legs can go into, and these places are those with a greater height deviation, meaning even if you have legs, you will still be moving at a pretty slow speed, and thus good target practice for the enemies.

You might try to hide behind obstacles, but given the technological needs of the legs, drones that can fly high up(where a 3m mecha would be impossible to reach or attack) to look at you and relay the message back to the enemies artillery units will be available and pretty cheap, and very soon the area where your mechas are hidding will be exposed to indirect fire which is pretty much impoosible to dodge.

But my point is that, the 3m mecha shouldn't be powerful. It shouldn't be like a Gundam. Teamwork is a must, and if the mecha is weak, it can be mass-produced easily, which I said earlier with the Shermans.
Again, you need to think of this in both ends.
Your team tactics is valid for the enemy and 2m power suit as well.
Your 3m mecha is not powerful if compared to a Gundam, but it is relatively more powerful than the 2m powersuit.
Since the enemy, under normal logical thinking, will not use a 4m+ mecha, and likely will be littering powersuits around the battlefield, thus in this sense, they will be more of the Tiger compared to T-34/Shermans, and not the Sherman/T-34 itself.
The problem here is that it will not really be that much more powerful, and it will see limited usage, especially in urban cities, for reasons I mentioned up there about unable to enter buildings.

The reason they are not going to be much more powerful then the 2m powersuits, is mainly because the size being so small and still need to accomodate a pilot. It won't have much more structural volume and the 2m powersuit, and likely not much more armour as well. Given human point(the limit of the human using it), the speed and turn rate will be rather limited.(you don't want to go so fast that when you accidentally hit a wall, the impact can kill your pilot, even if you managed to break down the wall.)
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

MythSearcher wrote:
doghunter1 wrote:

But aren't they expensive?
They are expensive, but likely to be cheap in a few decades from now.
It is expensive now because of they are only produced in labs, and scientists are still finding the most efficient way to produce them. The material cost will be pretty low.(mainly just carbon)
Once you start industrial production, the price will go down dramatically.


In regards to that, why not have the legs for short-distance travel, and wheels for long-distance?
Then you will be carrying dead weight(useless mass) into the battlefield.
As opposed to any system that carry just one of these into the battlefield, and is in a similar price range, your machine will either be more expensive(since you need to increase the power to carry extra weight) and you can only send in less of them(due to higher cost), or your machine will be weaker(since you have the same power source).

And think of a more realistic battle situation, your enemy, if they only have wheels or tracks, will not go into places where only legs can go into, and these places are those with a greater height deviation, meaning even if you have legs, you will still be moving at a pretty slow speed, and thus good target practice for the enemies.

You might try to hide behind obstacles, but given the technological needs of the legs, drones that can fly high up(where a 3m mecha would be impossible to reach or attack) to look at you and relay the message back to the enemies artillery units will be available and pretty cheap, and very soon the area where your mechas are hidding will be exposed to indirect fire which is pretty much impoosible to dodge.

But my point is that, the 3m mecha shouldn't be powerful. It shouldn't be like a Gundam. Teamwork is a must, and if the mecha is weak, it can be mass-produced easily, which I said earlier with the Shermans.
Again, you need to think of this in both ends.
Your team tactics is valid for the enemy and 2m power suit as well.
Your 3m mecha is not powerful if compared to a Gundam, but it is relatively more powerful than the 2m powersuit.
Since the enemy, under normal logical thinking, will not use a 4m+ mecha, and likely will be littering powersuits around the battlefield, thus in this sense, they will be more of the Tiger compared to T-34/Shermans, and not the Sherman/T-34 itself.
The problem here is that it will not really be that much more powerful, and it will see limited usage, especially in urban cities, for reasons I mentioned up there about unable to enter buildings.

The reason they are not going to be much more powerful then the 2m powersuits, is mainly because the size being so small and still need to accomodate a pilot. It won't have much more structural volume and the 2m powersuit, and likely not much more armour as well. Given human point(the limit of the human using it), the speed and turn rate will be rather limited.(you don't want to go so fast that when you accidentally hit a wall, the impact can kill your pilot, even if you managed to break down the wall.)
Okay, but do you think this,this, and this are possible?
User avatar
Raikoh
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:42 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

How about using Argevollen as a basis, where at 14 out of 24 episodes it's shooting for downright VOTOMS level of realism, just from a different standpoint.

The mecha are relatively small. Trail Kriegers are usually around 7-8 meters tall. They are used in specific tactical situations, at that. It's debatable that Argevollen spends more time in the hangar getting maintenance than it does on the field, like a fighter jet. One episode does have a unit get torn apart by artillery because they shot their flares at the wrong time. They pretty much are just big infantry, or more mobile tanks.

The main strengths of the Kriegers over tanks, from what I can tell, are that they can be used in tight environments with no problem. Namely, two three scenes were in a forest, a city, and a tunnel, places where I couldn't see tanks doing well. I think the intent was for them to be used in these close-quarters environments, since the standard weaponry given to Kriegers are things like SMGs, Assault Rifles, and the Nife (not a typo). Yes, you can use infantry in those environments, but Kriegers have a higher survivability factor, way higher. Infantry is infamous for being the most dangerous place you can be in a war, but if you get some armor you could make it possible to reduce those casualties. Reduced casualties means public opinion will be swayed in your favor. In the setting of Argevollen, morale on the home front is a relevant topic since both sides are just in a battle of attrition at the point we're at.

The latest episode showed the Sturm being really useful as a blitz weapon, as well. Its nickname of "Ghost" is used because it was well known for appearing out of nowhere, destroying an entire unit, and then disappearing. When we see a full fight scene with it, it ends up being really fearsome - it tags tanks and Kriegers alike and takes them out. When it gets to the home base, it wrecks a lot of important locations in a really short time, probably faster and more precisely than an artillery barrage, tank corps, or airstrike could. Once things get hot, it get out of there.

In fact, everything before the introduction of Argevollen is pretty much just a tank with a nife, but the higher-ups saw potential and supported Trail Kriegers. A line of dialogue says something to the effect of, "By the time a unit is fielded, it's already obsolete." Episode 13 is a flashback about developing a new OS that could be revolutionary but ultimately goes nowhere. I'd say that means until we start developing something, we don't know what the advantages will be. People didn't expect carriers to render battleships useless, an idea that the Japanese know all too well.

Granted, Argevollen is lacking in aircraft. Ah, ask one of the people who's a bigger fan of Argevollen than me. They could probably explain this better.
THE WORLD IS NOT SQUARE
doghunter1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

Raikoh wrote:How about using Argevollen as a basis, where at 14 out of 24 episodes it's shooting for downright VOTOMS level of realism, just from a different standpoint.

The mecha are relatively small. Trail Kriegers are usually around 7-8 meters tall. They are used in specific tactical situations, at that. It's debatable that Argevollen spends more time in the hangar getting maintenance than it does on the field, like a fighter jet. One episode does have a unit get torn apart by artillery because they shot their flares at the wrong time. They pretty much are just big infantry, or more mobile tanks.

The main strengths of the Kriegers over tanks, from what I can tell, are that they can be used in tight environments with no problem. Namely, two three scenes were in a forest, a city, and a tunnel, places where I couldn't see tanks doing well. I think the intent was for them to be used in these close-quarters environments, since the standard weaponry given to Kriegers are things like SMGs, Assault Rifles, and the Nife (not a typo). Yes, you can use infantry in those environments, but Kriegers have a higher survivability factor, way higher. Infantry is infamous for being the most dangerous place you can be in a war, but if you get some armor you could make it possible to reduce those casualties. Reduced casualties means public opinion will be swayed in your favor. In the setting of Argevollen, morale on the home front is a relevant topic since both sides are just in a battle of attrition at the point we're at.

The latest episode showed the Sturm being really useful as a blitz weapon, as well. Its nickname of "Ghost" is used because it was well known for appearing out of nowhere, destroying an entire unit, and then disappearing. When we see a full fight scene with it, it ends up being really fearsome - it tags tanks and Kriegers alike and takes them out. When it gets to the home base, it wrecks a lot of important locations in a really short time, probably faster and more precisely than an artillery barrage, tank corps, or airstrike could. Once things get hot, it get out of there.

In fact, everything before the introduction of Argevollen is pretty much just a tank with a nife, but the higher-ups saw potential and supported Trail Kriegers. A line of dialogue says something to the effect of, "By the time a unit is fielded, it's already obsolete." Episode 13 is a flashback about developing a new OS that could be revolutionary but ultimately goes nowhere. I'd say that means until we start developing something, we don't know what the advantages will be. People didn't expect carriers to render battleships useless, an idea that the Japanese know all too well.

Granted, Argevollen is lacking in aircraft. Ah, ask one of the people who's a bigger fan of Argevollen than me. They could probably explain this better.
But isn't 7-8m also humongous?
User avatar
Dark Duel
Posts: 4833
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: A blue City in a red State

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

See what I said above about unit conversions - 1 meter is approximately 40 inches, or 3.3 feet. So 7 meters would be about 23 feet, and 8 yards would be roughly in the ballpark of 26 feet.
Humongous? No, not really. Humongous is what you see in series like Gundam, where mech tend to float in the 15-20 meter (49-66 feet) range.
Too large to be practical? Yeah. Because while you're stumping around in your twenty-six-foot hunamoid robot, the other guy's bringing in tanks, which have a much lower profile and more than enough firepower to ruin your day.

Honestly, humanoid mecha are, to me, completely impractical in any kind of artillery role, because there are so many other more practical options.
You want to know what I think would be a more practical option for a mech design for ground combat? A quadruped or hexapod design. Think a smaller version of the AT-TE, from Star Wars Episode II.
// ART THREAD // NOT ACCEPTING REQUESTS

"You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turn of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down. Tells you she's hurting before she keens. Makes her a home."
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Real-Life Advantages of Mechs in Military Use

doghunter1 wrote:
Okay, but do you think this,this, and this are possible?
No, no and no.

Anything that has external legs attached to it in any height for ground combat and does not utilize the legs of the human pilot is impractical.

Legs are much more inefficient than wheels, tracks and hovers, a child on a bicycle can simply outrun an adult with much more power. With ranged weapons wheeled/tracked vehicles do not really need to get into hard to manuevre places that only legged vehicles can get in, they can simply shoot and kill the legged vehicles from afar.

Granted, even with powersuits, you will need to have a design feature where you can detach the machine legs from the user legs to do high jumps and quick movements(if still attached, it is very likely to strain the muscles in vigorous motions). But most of the time its just there to support the human.

At the same height(around 2m), a piloted machine is going to have a larger profile for it needing to accomodate the whole human in a cockpit, as opposed to just surrounding the whole human as in the powersuit concept. This either means lower average armour thickness, or an overall heavier machine.
You won't really have much more space to put the main power source, since the shape of the machine is not really fixed and even the powersuit can just carry a big backpack to house a large generator.
Even with technology about 10 years ago, we already have powersuits for civilians use that can have the user take completely rest, or even sleep in the suit and the suit continue walking to a certain given location, it cannot get through traffic safely, but can at least get up and down stairs.
Post Reply