Cat Of Many Faces wrote:
and a final note on maneuverability: i wonder why urban combat is almost hand waved away in this thread, in modern war, urban combat is the norm, and everything else is the exception. heck, look at iraq and afganistan. the tanks role is fading.
Giant robots will have at least as much trouble in urban environments as tanks, and probably much more. A giant robot is much more likely to cause building failure and collapse when it tries to go through, and that's going to cause at least some MD.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:3. control system. why doesn't anyone see the best way to control a humanoid mecha? i'll use the name from dream pod nine. a linear frame. this is a system in which the pilots movements are mimicked by the mech. with this setup, you don't need a complex balance system (other than the pilot's inner ear). and training simply becomes getting used to moving again, not that long a time. a humanoid mecha is instant familiarity.
How do I say it? Not possible. The human ear’s balancing system works because it is hardwired into the body.
Pilots of aircraft report a now well-known phenomenon. It is possible, literally, without visual external cues (such as from sensors getting shot off while in battloid mode, or wandering into a fog or smoke cloud) to become disoriented in such a way that you have
no idea whatsoever of your orientation. Aircraft pilots have reported normal conditions while they were flying
upside down. This has led to some spectacular (and tragic) crashes.
Now, you may think, “Oh, this will never happen to me.” Believe it, aircraft pilot instructors will tell you, it
will happen, and if your mecha’s balance is controlled only by your reactions through your pilot’s seat as related to you by your inner ear’s senses, well, I wouldn’t want to rely on it. In fact, I personally do not believe it would work without continuous computer support (requiring a distributed balancing correction system).
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:
4. anatomy. having a human body shape allows all the maneuvers that a human can do. it's important to consider a mech in combat not just standing around. have a weapon with significant recoil? just brace when you fire.
The scales involved are completely different. No 50ft tall mecha carrying a 120mm 20th Century tank canon, and firing it, is going to remain standing in a normal firing position. At worst, it’ll be knocked disastrously on its tuckus. At best, the gun will go flying out of the mecha’s hands as the mecha spins about and stumbles.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: som,eone using your height against you? LAY DOWN!
Eliminating the mecha’s mobility.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: in urban areas a mech can even take advantage of cover!
And when it leans up against a building, it will likely push in the wall, and perhaps bring part of the building down on it.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: use that corner you fool! (sorry this has started turning into a rant. his aspect is almost never used in anime and it cheeses me off. i'll stop) also, with sensors being able to be put just about anywhere, i would expect a mech to be able to sidle up to a wall and put it's gun out and around the corner
I hope it’s a low-recoil weapon . . .
As soon as I see the mecha’s arm reaching around the corner, I’ll order my gunner to lock on a few yards to one side, and I’ll fire through the building at the mecha. The building will not slow down the AP round in any meaningful way.
Thunk! Scratch one mecha.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:, risking only the arm and weapon. with a sensor on the gun, there would be almost no problem. also, a mech can move it's gun to aim at things much faster than a tank because of the way arms work.
Modern tank turrets can traverse and elevate quite quickly, and with great precision, that’s how they can maintain locks on moving targets while the tank itself is moving over uneven terrain. I’d expect the super-tech tanks of the future to do much better.
But, in any event, a couple of Boomguns sitting on the turret can be swiveled into position pretty quickly, as well.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:5. armament. i see no reason for a mech not to have the same level of armament as a tank. the tank has a howitzer. good. the mech just carries one.
I can see a big reason. The recoil of a
real tank gun will cuase the mecha to knock itself on its tuckus every time it fires it.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: this is a two handed weapon, yes, but it would still be able to use it. it simply would have to brace before it fired. the mech would have less ammo though.
Bracing would not help at all. That force has to go somewhere, and the torque transmitted through the wrists isn’t going to successfully transmit back through the arms, down through the chest, past the waist, into the legs, and then the feet, and then the earth. Nope.
The mecha will fall over backwards or have the gun ripped from its hands, the mecha would get spun around, and possibly suffer damage of varying severity to the hands or arms.
We’re talking dozens of tons of force, here, applied in a fraction of a second.
A mecha could no more catch a modern day diesel locomotive going 60 mph by plucking it off the tracks.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:6. cost. okay, here is one that i am not going to completely refute, but i will show it is negligable. yes a mech has more moving parts. that does not really equal a huge step up in cost.
Yes it does.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: a hand would be the most expensive part because of complexity, but it is still just hinges.
There are thousands of engineers around the world who would give their right eyes and left lower wisdom teeth to know about this super simple design that replicates the human hand . . .
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: as for the electronics, i can't imagine they would be more complex than what is currently in a car to monitor the engine and steering (kinda like what is in a new spiffy tank these days yeh?)
There’s got to be something running the mecha’s actuator or musculature systems. And it isn’t going to be an electrical bread-board.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:take an arm. what do you need in electronics? we'll start on the shoulder:
umm... some cables to go past to the elbow, and some cables to activate the motors that drive the shoulder. woot. elbow? same. less motors too. hand? okay, now we have some actual complexity. cabling for all motors is a given, but one also needs some tactile feedback so it can pick up without crushing what it grabbed. so, it needs some plesioelectric rubber on the fingertips. 50-100$ tops.
Obviously, you have never been a part of a military contracting effort. That cabling will costs thousands, at a minimum. Especially if you don’t want cabling that’ll wear out quicker than normal from all that extra bending around at the joints.
Cat Of Many Faces wrote: i can buy it myself. okay, there we go. the motors aren't that expensive, assume the motors for an arm to lift the appropriate weights isn't exactly off the shelf, and you get a motor that probably costs about 5000-10000.
A motor? Just a motor? What? Go out and buy a V8 from Uncle Joey-Bob’s? That’s not going to work. The components will have to be custom designed and manufactured, or they won’t have a hope of working. And fitting the actuators that provide the movement will be part science, part artistic endeavor. Artificial muscles running off electric current seem far more likely, and they’ll be neither cheap or simple (even they’re easy and cheap to build, development costs will be attached).
Cat Of Many Faces wrote:[...] heck the central computer that translates a pilots movements could be done by a computer using a thousandth the processing power of a frick'n playstation 2. so no biggie.
Uh, no again. The Japanese have just cooked up the world’s first robot that can walk around and balance itself pretty much like a human. The one thing that isn’t onboard? The computer. It’s too big to fit on the robot. And while the computer is not that expensive, relatively speaking, I can assure you, the accumulated developmental cost of the software is staggering, not to mention totally proprietary.
Some PS/2 Game-Engine does not equal an actual working RW system.
Oh, and lest we forget, giant robots face ground pressure problems, which effectively eliminates most mobility outside airport-type heavy concrete fields. They'll sink into most soil, and break up most improved surfaces.