Tanks vs Mecha - for the Real World

[Jefffar]

ok, try this one. why give arms, why make it humanoid in any way. think of a dog or cat about the size of a compact car. With robotic legs that are designed like a cats, for maneuverability and speed, with the joints covered in a heat retardant rubber, to protect them from the elements. it would have one hard point. the base weapon being a turrented 30 mm gatling firing depleted uranium round. they go out like a pack of wolves. hunting their targets just like the real thing.
this would give you a small mecka that can travel though any area weather it be wood, rocky, urban, est. hide low to the ground and waite to attack, or run full tilt showing its teeth.

What do you mean by the size of a compact car? Do you mean in terms of dimensions or in terms of weight?

If you go with weight, considering you have to put armour, weapons and legs on it you'ld end up with something probably too small for a pilot to sit in.

Anyway, yes it does have potential as a weapon system but a conventionally designed vehicle of similar size should still have more armour, more mobility and more firepower.

[glitterboy2098]

All the Mecha Projects being done by private groups cost LESS then an Abrams tank.

The Honda humanoid (ROBOT - NOT POWER ARMOR) Only costed around 4 million in development, And that was just programming/salaries!)

the Honda Humanoid was also only 4 feet tall, and can barely match a human in walking speed. and if you push it too hard it'll fall over.




and comparing civilian markets to military is not a good idea. military products include thousands of "inspectors" at every stage, who only purpose is to write reports and reveiws. (pretty much generatin paperwork no one reads), which slow down development. you also have to use the best parts and equipment (military req's), and you have to meet the military design specifications (which change monthly. just look at the F22. and every time it changes, you have to fix the design, which costs money.)

final cost is all the operating costs caused by the buerocracy, plus a small profit, divided by the number of vehicles ordered.
and since the military orders in the dozens and hundreds, costs are high (the military also likes to cut orders in half after forcing a company to pay for development out of its own pockets, often causing said companies to work just above bankruptcy)
if the united states had ordered 1 million M1A1's, i garuntee the 48 million price tag would be lots lower.

[Rimmerdal]

That multi legged idea would be better for remote ops..like the terror drones in Red Alert II. the little buggers could be dropped en mass and then they go about ripping, Cutting and snipping things like armour wires and weapon system..you name it.

It they are about to be captured, they detonate. they could even be mobile mines...that would cute..."hey, That mine just crawled under the tank..." then boom..

Infact I think I'll make one for my robotech character (she can spy on alkinds stuff on the SDF-1 with magnetic feet...

[Gomen_Nagai]

Jeffar Has never obviously competed in RObot Wars or Seen the Junk Wars series...
A private company with the same budgets the military throw away for "PROFIT!" Could make a much better product. .. Then Offshore it, then deliver 10,000 of them a month to be sold world wide.


Most "Robots" that are fast go into "Wheel" mode to go fast. period. And There are plenty of those.


A power armor doesn't need to be programmed, it just needs its puppeteered parts programmed fully.


The T1' Robots from Terminator 3 only costed $800,000 and it was functional, Sans Armor.

The T rexes' costed 4 Million, Was Giant Sized and moved on it's own fast enough, And DISNEY WORLD USES THEM FOR PARADES moving on THEIR OWN


Animatronics technology is CHEAP and been around for OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.


They ACTUALLY built 4 WORKING BATMOBILES from Batman Begins and they had all of it's normal mechanical functions WORKING ( Bat gadgets nOt included). and it costed $1.3 Million per Vehicle ( 600 HP, 6 wheel, 2 " armor plates on the front side)and the Back contains a WORKING ,Turreted, functional, 20 mmm gatling gun.

[Jefffar]

That multi legged idea would be better for remote ops..like the terror drones in Red Alert II. the little buggers could be dropped en mass and then they go about ripping, Cutting and snipping things like armour wires and weapon system..you name it.

Yeah, it would be aneat little weapon system

It they are about to be captured, they detonate. they could even be mobile mines...that would cute..."hey, That mine just crawled under the tank..." then boom..

In WW2 the soviets trained dogs to be anti-tank weapons. they trained them to run under tanks. In battle they attached an anti-tank mine to the back of the dog that detonated when the dog got under the tank.

The problem was they traiend them using soviet tanks!

[glitterboy2098]

you'd still have the issues of hight and recoil.

personally, i'd go with 12ft humanoids, and equip them with 25mm chaincannon (like the bradley's), recoilless rifles, Wire Guided Anti-armor missiles, heavy machine guns, or automatic grenade launchers.

[snip]

this would be a bit more effective use, and in urban combat this would be much more effective than a tank.

Urban combat is definitely one of the few environments that a mecha, especially a light and compact mecha like you've described, actually would excell.

it better, what i described was taken from the design of the TA-01 Raiden Tactical Armor from the Gasaraki Anime.

[Jefffar]

Actually weapon angle does not really work to the Mecha's advantage. It would be much easier to score a perpendicular hit on a mecha than a tank. Why? Because the mecha is a big vertical target.

I meant the Mecha's weapon angle on the tank.

I went into that a bit later in a second post. For a mecha to get a good angle on the roof of a tank it will basically have to be within it's own height of the tank, or have a terrain advantage.

So you're telling me, that a mecha that weighs as much as a battle tank (in the 30 to 50 tonne range) is going to be able to be able to react and accellerate fast enouugh to get out of the way of a projectile that travels in excess of three times the speed of sound?

A tankis much more massive and is much less manueverable in lateral directions.

Point 1) One of the assumptions made in the first post of this thread is we are dealing tanks and mecha of the same weight. Which means that your robot wil be just as massive as the tank. Beign that heavy makes it difficult to change directions - unles you're allready moving of coruse. Modern tanks at full speed are pretty agile (I've heard cornering of the M1 compared favourably with a Corvette by its crews).
Point 2) A sidestep is a very complicated manouvre to build into a mecha. Most of the (albiet fictional) mecha I've seen and the real world items that are probably the progenators of said mecha, don't seem to have a leg/ankle/hip design that would permit a sidestep. Even if they did, a radial sidestep manouver as would be needed to dodge an incoming supersonic projectile would also likely throw the emcha (at elast temporarily) off balance, reducing the mecha's ability to retaliate, or to evade a fast follow up shot.

Why does it have to be very close? because, until the mecha is shooting almost straight downwards, the shot will be dealing with hitting the top armour at an angle, which increases the effectiveness of the armour.

Which for the most part would have negligible effect on an energy weapon, while it would hold true for a projectile weapon. That's why I specified an energy weapon attack. And, current "anti-laser" systems are only meant to stop low-power targeting and range-finding lasers - multi-megajoule lasers or particle beams would burn through them as if they weren't there.

Uhm . . . how do you know that angled armour won't have an effect on an energy weapon? At the very least, when you hit armour on an angle it's effective thickness increases much for the same reason why the diagonal of a square is longer than any of its sides. Remember, the square of the hypoenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides. So anytime you score other than a perpendicular hit on armour, you ahve to go through more of it. The less perpendicular your hit, the more armour you have to go through.

Also, don't forget that we are dealing with equal tech here. The tank could easily carry the same weapon, or more likely a more powerful version of the weapon that can punch through the mecha's armour from beyond the range that the emcha could retaliate. Even if your mecha could dodge the projectile (which I doubt and I specify it in the very first post that dodging isn't a real alternative for a ground vehicle to evade fire), that multi-megajoule energy weapon is going to be un-dodgable.

Tank tactics to avoid plunging fire from destroids

On open ground:
Step 1) Open fire at long range
Step 2) Drive past the smouldering remains.

you forgot #3
Wake up in a hospital after the delusions of 1 & 2 working, that occurred from the trauma of the conflict, to the horror that they didn't. Hope your injuries are just bruises, burns and fractures, not amputations.

Funny, except that the tanks can kill the mecha from farther away than the mecha can kill the tanks.

Armor that is made to work against projectiles won't necessarily be as effective against energy weapons, anyway.

And what makes you think that the tank's armour won't be optimized to deal with the threats it will most likely face? You seem to assume that mecha designers would compensate for tanks, but tank designers wouldn't compensate for mecha.

I am talking an even playing field, where the technology in the tanks is jsut as advanced as the technology in the mecha. In those cases, a mecha the same mass as a tank can't out do a tank in protection, firepower or mobility.

Tanks do have the advantages - it's your misunderstanding of their limitations, and erroneous assumptions of the limitations of mecha, that are where we disagree.

My understanding of the limitations of mecha compared to tanks:

1) They have a greater surface area than a tank of a similar mass, which will require more armour to cover. More armour is heavier.

2) They have a smaller foot print than a tank of a similar mass or they will have ridiculously oversize feet, either situation limits thier mobility and one of those situations also limits their firepower.

3) Mecha body design is less stable than that of a tank, limiting both mobility and firepower.

4) Mecha will require numerous joints and actuators which are heavy and take up a lot of space that could be used for combat systems. They are also vulnerable points for enemy fire. Tanks only require 1 rotating joint and an axle. These systems are not as vulnerable as the joints on the mecha, nor do they require a large portion of the internal space.

5) In cost to produce, maintain, operate and to train the operational and maintenace personel, the mecha's more complex basic systems (like locomotion) are much more expensive than a tank's,a llowing more tanks to be fielded for less money and with less logistical support.

6) Because of the heavier portion of their mass and internal volume required for locomotor and armour systems, mecha are nto able to mount as large a weapon system as a tank can. Therefore, the mecha can not mount as powerful a weapon system as a tank can. Therefore a tank should be able to score potentially lethal hits on a mecha from a longer range than the mecha can score lethal hits on a tank. If the weapon is projectile, this situation is amplified because the mecha's design is more subject to the negative effects of recoil.

7) Because the mecha has a higher sillhoutte, it is less able to hide, making it more visable at longer ranges than the tank is. his means that tanks could likely have quality firign opportunities agaisnts mecha before the mecha has a quality firing oppourtunity against the tank. The vertical sillhoutte also increaes the odds that a shot from the tank will strike the mecha on a perpendicular to its armour, maximising the effect of the hit.

My understanding of the limitations of mecha compared to tanks

1) In terrain that allows the emcha to approach closely, or to fire from a significant height advantage over the tank the emcha is more able to hit the weaker top armour on the tank. However terrain conditions ahev to be right for the mecha to acheive this.

2) Mecha weapons have a larger vertical field of fire, this maeks hem more useful agaisnt targets at a signficant down or up angle to them. If the terrain permits, the mecha may be able to move to elevated or lowered terrain out of a tank's primary weapon's field of fire and engage the tank from relative safety. But again, terrain conditions must permit this.

3) There are certain terrains in which a mecha can go that a tank of a comperable mass can not go - but the reverse is more often true.

Of course both sets of descriptors are dealing with equal technology levels and with equal masses. If the mecha and the tank are not of equal technology and mass, well then things are a lot different.

[Gomen_Nagai]

It wasn't steel plates, and blanks have the same recoil as real ammo... it's the same stuff they use to armor Humvees with. (which means High density steel + plastic)



in any case, Tanks suck, the only reason they don't build mecha is that they don't want to, It'll cost too much money to retool Automobile/Tractor factories to make humanoid or animorphic robots.

[Jefffar]

It wasn't steel plates, and blanks have the same recoil as real ammo... it's the same stuff they use to armor Humvees with. (which means High density steel + plastic)

Really? Is that why when training with blanks the US Military installs special adaptors to ensure their automatic weapons continue to function?

It'll cost too much money to retool Automobile/Tractor factories to make humanoid or animorphic robots.

Thanks, I think that was under the general mecha cost too much to build reasoning.

[Jefffar]

Just so you guys know, I'm not really anti-mecha. I've just tried to figure out how they would work in the real world, and the concept of a Main Battle Mecha which out does a tank in the traditional measures of armoured fighting vehicle performance is something I find ludacris.

Now there are situations in which I think light mecha could be really advantageous to a military force - but straight up combat with armoured fighting vehicles is not one of them.

I think a militarily useful mecha would probably be small, fast and agile. it would be armoured about as much as a LAV and would carry similar weapon systems.

It would be used to enhance the firepower (and in some cases the mobility) of special forces and airborne troops. It would also be an exccellent urban combat weapon.

But a big mecha cruising the battlefield and taking on hostile tanks is just not going to work.

[jedi078]

A mecha that seems to be designed with modren day combat in mind is Metal Gear Ray from metal Gear Soild Two.

Gomen_Nagai did you know that there is only one factory that currently produces M1A1's? Other factories can be retooled though.

So if a country wanted to mass produce a mecha they would have to build a new factory from scratch anyhow.

On a last note I think the only Robotech mecha that are disadvantaged against tanks are the old RDF destriods. All the other mecha seem to be capable of feats of agility.

The SC battliods and power armor are perfectly suited for urban combat.

[Jefffar]

Well the SC battloids are not trying to be tanks. They aren't trying to have heavy armour, they aren't trying to have heavy firepower. because they are willing to give that up (and because they only weigh about 25% of a battle tank) they are able to have that agility.

However those feats of agility are overrated for their real world effect on combat survivability or lethality.

The humanoid mecha design just requires too many comprimises to compete with a comperable conventional fighting vehicle in all three areas (mobility, protection and firepower). On the other hand, if it chooses to specialize in one of those areas, it might be able to do that one thing better than a comperable conventional vehicle.

Unfortunately, any specialist vehicle automatically has disadvantaged itself in one of the other areas. This is more or les why the modern main battle tank evolved. Heavy tanks were too slow and medium didn't have enough firepower. Put the weaponry of a heavy tank onto the chassis of a medium tank and you end up with more mobility than a heavy tank and more firepower than a medium tank - or a main battle tank.

[rem1093]

with the four legged design, i was thinking more along the lines of a battlemover from bubblegum crisis, exp. the one original ova with an
A-10 type gun. as for the pilot all you need is the same room as a formula 1 car, or a jet.

[Comrade Corsarius]

An interesting point you make there about technology rather than hydraulics, Dairugger. Let's take a look at the first ever science fiction mecha... Well's martian Fighting Machines and Handling Machines.
These ran by using an artificial musculature of electrical plates that contracted when current was run through them (something possible today, and indeed, even in 1897). It's just rather impractical to build, and battle damage would be horrendous. A single strike from a modern AP round would knock out the mecha, in the same manner that a jacketed bullet would impact on human flesh and muscle. Still, it's an alternative to hydraulics/pnuematics.

[glitterboy2098]

That said, if the military looked at seriously making a mecha, it'd probably be relatively light-weight, no bigger than an elephant (some dinosaurs might have been bigger, but those ones were far less mobile) and used for urban combat. It'll also likely have some kind of pilot-assist AI to help handle some of the complicated tasks we take for granted as human beings otherwise it'd take a crew of people to move. It also wouldn't be using hydraulics (there are issues there, and it'd take a giant leap forward in the technology to make it work right); I've read somewhere that someone has developed a carbon fiber that is stronger than a similar sized-muscle and works just like one too (run an electric current over it and it'll contract, but at a slightly slower rate than a real muscle) that would probably be better for a mecha.

add this to my weapons and appearance and you've fully explained the Tactical Armors from Gasaraki.

[Gomen_Nagai]

the ONLY thing more expensive vs Tanks Vs robots ..
It Costs more to train someone how to build a robot.
(unless you use slave labor.. then of course you are!)
Why? Cause when was the last time you saw a mexican illegal fluent in electro-dynamics to build actuators and other complicated mathematical design considerations!


the problem isn't price, It's training. Making the things after one knows how is dirt simple.

As for Abrams, There's Still More companies that make tanks besides that one and most tanks in service today are OLD.

[Jefffar]

the ONLY thing more expensive vs Tanks Vs robots ..

Uhm . . .lets see where there would be added expense for making a mecha over a tank . . .

Well a mecha neeeds a sophsiticated computer control system to help keep it from tipping over - a tank doesn't.

A mecha needs ankle joints, knee joints, hip joints, waist joints, shoulder joints and maybe elbow and wrist joints - a tank needs an axle and a turret ring

A mecha would be cheaper to make than a tank only if it is simpler to make. Seing as it's taken us until the last few years to build a true walking robot (at less than human scale I might add) but the basic mechanics needed for a tank have been in place for 100 years, i'd say the mecha is much more complex than the tank, therefore more complicated to build, therefore more expensive to build.

[Kelorin]

Pardon me for intruding on this debate so late in the game.

Let me start by saying this. Jeffar, everything you have stated based on what I know of modern engineering principles makes perfect sense. On the other hand, Gomen_Nagai, having read through most of your counter-arguments, I found that a lot of them tended to go off topic (the Batmobile??), or simply made no sense at all. (Mechs are better than tanks, and no one wants to make them because of the effort involved in retooling factories??)

Most animes require major leaps of faith simply to make mecha feasible at all. (Minovsky particles in Gundam, alien tech in Robotech, eccentric scientist who is your uncle building mechs in his garage, with no R & D budget out of 'miraculous' industrial materials tech that large research corporations apparently can't figure out). All other things being equal, conventional arms and armor will win out everytime except in specialized circumstances.

Some have suggested the idea of smaller 'infantry UAV' mechs for use in an urban environment, and certainly, some of the concepts presented could have limited use where mechs are played to their strengths as part of a 'combined arms force' where mechs, tank, air power, artillery, infantry are ALL used to maximun effectiveness.

[Jefffar]

There is definitely potential for a mecha as a military machine - but it won't ever replace the tank, or any other conventional military vehicle - why? Because the design requirements for a mecha force too many compromises that will keep them from being the end all of military capability that they are often portrayed to be.

The best potential for combat mecha is looking at units that would be considered power armour, or light robots by Rifts standards. Then, most of the mecha's disdvantages would be minimized or negated, while its advantages could be maximised. Unfortunately, in a package like that you are still looking at very limited firepower and armour compared to a tank, but the mobility disadvantages of the mecha would mostly disappear.

[Zer0 Kay]

Hey cat why even endanger your weapon when you could have antenna sensors like the cyborg in appleseed? Lean up against a building and peek your sensor tip around the corner.

[Jefffar]

huh, usually don't wander over here much, but this thread got me going a bit.

the end all here is that a tank is the best at being a tank. nothing more nothing less. i expect that mecha in real life will be generalist grunts.

Very expensive generalist grunts

my points time

1. a tank will never be as versatile as something with hands. you can indeed change weapon allotments on a tank, but never as fast as simply picking up a gun in your arms. yay.

True, but the tank still outperforms the robot on the battlefield.

2. maneuverability. a two legged vehicle will always be more maneuverable than a tank or other non-legged vehicle. this is because of the ability to shift the center of gravity's position in relation to the rest of the unit. here, look at this example. take a tank going at 40 mph. it wants to stop. fast. thus it either slams on the breaks, or goes into reverse. here is where it's low profile hurts it. because of it's center of mass being low and over a set of treads, it will slide. (probably not that much, but hey, it's straw pickin' time) in a similar situation, a mech can lean so that the feet dig into the ground, using that small weight shadow to make it stop right now damnit.

Yes it can do a faster stop, but the higher centre of balance means its quitel likely to tip over when doing so. Additionally, doing such a stop would put an unbeleivable ammount of force on the ankle and leg joints and the actutors, leading to the possiility of the quivalent of a sprain, strain or fracture.

Incidently, a tank going 40 and slamming on the breaks will skid, but if I remember the tests I've seen, it will be at a full stop within two body lengths.

same can be applied to turning. by nature, any non-legged ground vehicle will have a turn radius. i've seen tanks going and i am very impressed by their capabilities, but physics will always favor the ability to shift mass around.

Unfortunately, as you shift mass balance again becomes a problem, more so in something that is taller. And again we also look at the stress that performing these manouvres at spedd would put on the robot's joints.

while on moving, i don't think a mech will ever go as fast as a tank, walking systems start to lose their advantage at higher speeds and i expect the shaking of the pilot wouldn't be good.

Very true

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.

Again,t he giant robot has problems in urban combat, msot notably with the sevre ground pressure issues making it unsitible for all but the sturdiest bridges and thickest paving surfaces. Lighter robots would be better than the big honkin' ones here.

While a robot may have some advantage over a tank in urban combat (and that is one of the few realms in which they do) the advantages are not necissarily all that good. yes urban combat is the most vulnerable place for a tank, however tanks have been used successfully in urban combat from Stalingrad to Baghdad through proper co-operation with the infantry. Ido not see thsi changing with the appearnce of Robots in the future. The robot will likely be better than the tank in urban combat, but the tank is steal fearsome and powerful in those situations. Meanwhile the robot has a distinct disadvantage compared to the tank in most other potential engagements.

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.

And your pilot fatigue levels go through the roof because he has to walk and run to make the emcha walk an run. Meanwhile the tank pilot sits in his nice, comfortable bucket seat arangement.

As to the balance issue - again the Robot will ahve a riddiculously high centre of balance, and while the inner ear might be the fastest regulator . . . there is still going to have to be a very large porportion of the time spent compensating, especially if you try to do gymnastic manovures. If you move down tot he smalelr robots and the power armours, which don't have the balance hurdle to overcome, then thigns aren't as bad, but again you are trading away a whole lot of armoru and firepower to do that.

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. som,eone using your height against you? LAY DOWN! in urban areas a mech can even take advantage of cover! 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, 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.

However, the tank doesn't have to lay down (a time takign manouvre which if done too quickly would result in a crash) to lwoer its sillhoutte or brace (another time taking manouvre which makes you a nice stationary target) to fire a high powered weapon.

Tanks also use corners of buildings for cover, advaning just enough that only a grazing shot at the thick armour on the glacis or the mantlet is possible. Meanwhile the building covers the more vulnerable sides and rear of the tank from attack. And it doesn't have to potentially put itself off balance to do so.

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. 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.

because there comes a point when the recoil of the weapon would be too much for the joints and actuators of the robot to absorb without suffering damage. Meanwhile the tank, which automatically uses its entiree body to absorb the recoil, doesn't have to worry. The tank wills till be able to suck up recoil that will knock the stuffing out of an even braced mecha

Further the tank can move and shoot at the same time and your robot would have to stop, prepare, fire, get out of firing position and then start to move. In a modern battle, the robot won't have that long to prepare to shoot at a target and expect to hit it. Likewise, in a modern battle, a robot that stays stationary that long is going to atttract a lot of fire.

As you point out the tank will also carry more ammunition.

in the end though, i fail to see why the same level of firepower is such a gigantic thing. with real life technology, damage dealing is extremely ahead of damage receiving. nothing needs to carry tank level weaponry to kill tanks. the armor on a tank seems to simply be there to shrug off smaller arms fire, which a mech will do just fine. also the arms can be considered as side ablative armor. it would take a lucky hit to blow off an arm and still have the kinetic energy and angle to penetrate the torso. not really a major point to be sure, but it's there.

If that was the case, then why doesn't the US Army use armoured Humvees with TOW launchers to repalce their Abrahams? They are cheaper, easier to build, easier to train the crews and avaialble in higher quantity. If heavy armour and firepower is useless was has the Main Battle Tank been the ultimate in armoured fighting vehicles for 60 years?

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. a hand would be the most expensive part because of complexity, but it is still just hinges. 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?)

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. 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. that's alot, until you see that the units (tanks and mecha) will probably cost around 10,000,000. i mean wow, the mech might cost an extra mil. the cost is not a problem. 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.

Yes, now how about you take that system triply redundant and then rugedize it for military use? There's a reason why the military pays over 30 000 dollars for a laptop computer and 15 000 dollars for a palm pilot, and it isn't greedy contractors.

[jedi078]

Cat Of Many Faces,

Funny thing you saying that a mecha can turn like a person but Tanks can't.

Armored vehicles with treads (Tanks and APC's) can turn on a dime from a dead stop or going slowly, and some of us were even able to turn on a dime while driving rather quickly too. How else would a tank or APC avoid anti-tank missle fire?

[jedi078]

I have heard that M1A1 drivers have had a tendacy to fall asleep at the wheel due to the fact that the driver is practicly laying down. I first read this in a Tom Clancy novel then confirmed it with a few Tankers while out in the feild (sp) one day. The driver actully told me that is where he sleeps at night.

[Rimmerdal]

Okay, we now know about tanks...

What would the Driver be in OCC skills and other skills? Does he get an MOS as a weapons officer or Commtech?

[Comrade Corsarius]

I have heard that M1A1 drivers have had a tendacy to fall asleep at the wheel due to the fact that the driver is practicly laying down. I first read this in a Tom Clancy novel then confirmed it with a few Tankers while out in the feild (sp) one day. The driver actully told me that is where he sleeps at night.

I don't quite see how the driver has time to sleep. One of the biggest gripes the our army has with the (largely political) decision to buy surplus US M1A1 tanks is that their radius is utterly hopeless. The engines that are so powerful and provide such excellent performance chew fuel so quickly that it makes them nearly useless for Australian conditions. For those that haven't been here, when you go inland, 'just down the road' can be anywhere between 60-100 miles, and that is considered 'close'. It's a long way between drinks for a thirsty tank.

It's not that I don't like the Abrams, I (and the majority of the army) don't think they are suitable for Australia, but because we're 'best buddies' with georgie bush... we wind up with 30-odd out-moded abrams instead of more than 100 ex-Swiss army Leopard II tanks (which we currently operate anyway).

As usual, that's 30-odd tanks to cover the entire country. *sigh* I love our defence forces... don't even start me on the Navy or the Air Farce....

[Jefffar]

My understandign is that the crew of the M1A1 all has identical training, but their tasks are assigned by their level of experience.

The new guy is the loader.
Then he becomes the driver.
Then he gets to be the gunner.
Finally he gets to be the commander.

After that promotion moves him to commanding the second tank in his platoon, the lead tank in his platoon then the company. I'm not sure if the Battalion Commander still gets to ride in a tank or not.

But yeah, aside from training in leadership and command, basically every tank creman in the entire force has the same training.

[Shawn Merrow]

I have heard that M1A1 drivers have had a tendacy to fall asleep at the wheel due to the fact that the driver is practicly laying down. I first read this in a Tom Clancy novel then confirmed it with a few Tankers while out in the feild (sp) one day. The driver actully told me that is where he sleeps at night.

I don't quite see how the driver has time to sleep. One of the biggest gripes the our army has with the (largely political) decision to buy surplus US M1A1 tanks is that their radius is utterly hopeless. The engines that are so powerful and provide such excellent performance chew fuel so quickly that it makes them nearly useless for Australian conditions. For those that haven't been here, when you go inland, 'just down the road' can be anywhere between 60-100 miles, and that is considered 'close'. It's a long way between drinks for a thirsty tank.

It's not that I don't like the Abrams, I (and the majority of the army) don't think they are suitable for Australia, but because we're 'best buddies' with georgie bush... we wind up with 30-odd out-moded abrams instead of more than 100 ex-Swiss army Leopard II tanks (which we currently operate anyway).

As usual, that's 30-odd tanks to cover the entire country. *sigh* I love our defence forces... don't even start me on the Navy or the Air Farce....

Interesting thing on the last Mail Call they went out to watch some M1A1 operate and it was the Australians training on them (their gunnery look good). They talked to the unit commander and he seemed happy with the tanks.

[jedi078]

If the Australian unit commander does not like the M1A1's saying so on a T.V. show will most likley ruin his career.

Oh and one place Mecha would be better then tanks is outer space.

[Rimmerdal]

If the Australian unit commander does not like the M1A1's saying so on a T.V. show will most likley ruin his career.

Oh and one place Mecha would be better then tanks is outer space.

See Mecha still good. Look at the VF fighters...But I like the Robotech masters Bioroids...the weapons package is limited..but I still like the hovercraft team up concept.

[Jefffar]

Oh and one place Mecha would be better then tanks is outer space.

Yup, but a dedicated spacefighter would be better than the mecha for the space superirity mission (though the mecha, at least the light ones, would be able to perform bording operations)


And please don't get me started on how ridiculously ineffective the VF should be in a realistic setting.

[RainOfSteel]

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.

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).

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.

som,eone using your height against you? LAY DOWN!

Eliminating the mecha’s mobility.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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).

[...] 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.

[RainOfSteel]

There's a reason why the military pays over 30 000 dollars for a laptop computer and 15 000 dollars for a palm pilot, and it isn't greedy contractors.

Let us say, instead, that greedy contractors are not the only reason for the expense. Total ruggedization does cost a lot, but to say contractors do not flatly steal during their contracts, well, let's just say that the behavior in question is found over and over again in new development contracts; and the bigger the new development contract, the bigger the theft. It's so common that a major contractor, just a few years ago, was caught stealing tens of millions during a competition to produce a new aircraft. They still had their design selected over a far superior design from the contractor who hadn't committed any crimes.

[Rimmerdal]

Okay we're on jets..What everyone think of the following:

FA-22 Raptor

Euro fighter Typhoon

The russian designed 'Super cruise' fighter (I forget the name at the moment..)

I think I found the russian version..
http://www.geocities.com/fishbed00.geo/russia/su37.html

[Jefffar]

Very expensive.


I like the potential in these machines, but the price is going to be extreme.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

See Mecha still good. Look at the VF fighters...But I like the Robotech masters Bioroids...the weapons package is limited.

Ok, the Bioroid would tear a VF-1 in Battloid mode to pieces. The idea that the Bioroid weapons are somehow underpowered is baloney. On top of that, the Bioroid doesn't need to carry massive amounts of weapons. Its the futuristic version of a Light Infantry/Airborne rifleman. It can use the Biover as a force multiplier if it needs more weaponry.

[Rimmerdal]

See Mecha still good. Look at the VF fighters...But I like the Robotech masters Bioroids...the weapons package is limited.

Ok, the Bioroid would tear a VF-1 in Battloid mode to pieces. The idea that the Bioroid weapons are somehow underpowered is baloney. On top of that, the Bioroid doesn't need to carry massive amounts of weapons. Its the futuristic version of a Light Infantry/Airborne rifleman. It can use the Biover as a force multiplier if it needs more weaponry.

I said limited as in 2, instead 3 or 4. I never said it wasn't tough. There MEAN little Bas..er Buggers. especially with the a pair guns (one of each)

[jedi078]

That for the website Rimmerdal!

As it is I am working on RPG stats for most of the "real" fighters featured in Ace Combat 5, (I have found stats for the JAS-39 and S-37 on the web) and that website will be a help for the Russion aircraft, as I plan on doing the bombers/helocopters too.

BTW my write ups for the jets will be for a GCW campeign type game, or will be used as auxillery aircraft for the RDF/EBSIS and get rid of some of those made up aircraft found in the RPG. The F-22, F-35, MiG 1.42 and other advanced fighter will be robotechnology enhanced from what the real ones will/may turn out to be.

[Rimmerdal]

Very expensive.


I like the potential in these machines, but the price is going to be extreme.

Yep, a huge bill, 120 million for the prototype I think it was, but it still is experimental so the price will drop.

Out curiosity, If I wanted to buy a jet say Mig-29 (e) interceptor What I be looking at in cost?

[Jefffar]

I think they are selling them for between 5 and 10 million these days.

[Rimmerdal]

I think they are selling them for between 5 and 10 million these days.

You mean I could actually buy my own MIG? as in call the russians and say "hey I'd like a 1 mig fighter to go!"

Coolness, anyone got 5-10 million I can borrow?

[Jefffar]

I think a ride in one (maybe with Mock Dogfight) is about 25 000

For 1 000 000 you can take a trip to the ISS.

[Tiree]

Maybe I am missing something - But why did the UN Spacy decide to build a Mech in the first place?

I mean everything said here makes sense: If a tank was built with newly recovered alien technology it would be one bad mo-fo.

So it really comes down to for me at least is this: They were expecting something different. You had this alien spacecraft crash land on Earth. Full of corpses of Zentraedi, Invid and Bioroids. As a commander in chief, or some military expert, I would say something like this, "I want my men able to take on these things! We need to figure out what they are, and make sure they don't come here and decide they like our little home!"

So, in defense of Mecha - they were built to combat Zentraedi. You have two roles, one is base defense (Mainly Destroids), and the other is for offensive quick strike rolls (Mainly Veritechs). As time progressed they saw how usefull the craft were, and modified them accordingly.

In the defense of normal vehicles such as tanks and what not. Southern Cross really is the king of using normal vehicles in combat. But then again, they were dealing with a different set of criteria than the RDF/REF.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Or for other projected designs:

SU-47/S-37 (and here)

The S-37 is a development aircraft only. I find it amusing that they are projecting it as 'the next big thing' while the design hasn't really done all that much in the last few years. They also mention here that it can 'turn to a new target'... and engage it with what? Old socks? Bad language? It's a development airframe designed to test the feasability of FSW design, nothing more. Give another ten years or so before they even THINK about building the technology into a fighter.

MiG-35

Poor old MiG1.42. It's an impressive looking beastie, as I have already mentioned it's in development purgatory on it's way to hell. Professionals are still divided whether it would ever deliver what is advertised. The airframe is decidedly un-stealthy (as opposed to their claims) and the space for a radar is negilgible, you wouldn't be able to put any modern targeting or attack radar in such a little space. To play devil's advocate, this aircraft has been denounced more than once by some very competent people as a fraud.

Yak-141 Freestyle

Easily the pick of the bunch, and an excellent machine. Not put into production due to financial constraints. Nearly completed in its development and derided in the West by having the 'useless' system of lift engines and drive engine, which it in turn took from the Yak-38 'forger', which probably was derived from the VAK191B.
Funny that similar technology is now being used in the 'new, "revolutionary" (lol) F-35'

Tu-160 Blackjack

A very much upscale B-1A. In service.

And for other prototype and conceptural designs:

FB-22

A paper project so far. Let's work out the bugs in the F-22 (much awaited and, what, ten years or so in development and still going?)

F-23 Black Widow II

Lost out to the F-22

And of course, the F/A-37 Talon

If I never see this stinker of a movie, it will still be too soon.

[jedi078]

Somebody already did stats for the S-37. All I plan on doing is changing the MDC values for my games.

IMO the MIG 1.42 is a russian version of the EF-2000 Typhoon.

Now that I know abou the Yak-141, I plan to do stats for it, as the Russians would badley need replacment for the Yak-38 fleet in war time and would produce the Yak-141

The F/B-22 I might do, but like the F/A-22 it would not be avlible durignthe GCW and replace the made up fighters in the RPG.

I might not do stats for the F-35 since most VF's are all about VTOL

As for the F/A-37 Talon, its a ripoff the X-02 from the ACE Combat games which ireminds me of the Dreamstar plane from "Day of the Cheetah"

What I do find intresting though is the "tele-mental" helmets of EBSIS mecha/aircraft is kind of like ANTERES from "Day of the Cheetah". Maybe the russkies did get a hold Dreamstar in the Robotech universe, and could have been one of the many factors leading to the GCW?

[Comrade Corsarius]

What I do find intresting though is the "tele-mental" helmets of EBSIS mecha/aircraft is kind of like ANTERES from "Day of the Cheetah". Maybe the russkies did get a hold Dreamstar in the Robotech universe, and could have been one of the many factors leading to the GCW?

Or you REALLY meant to say the thought-guided weapons system (linked through a helmet) as used by the Soviets for their MiG-31 'Firefox' by Craig Thomas.

[Jefffar]

Maybe I am missing something - But why did the UN Spacy decide to build a Mech in the first place?

The creaters of the various cartoons that make up Robotech thought that giant humanoid mecha looked really cool and used them.

[jedi078]

You know I totally forgot about "Fire Fox" even though I have seen and enjoyed the movie (never have read the book) many times.

Then again maybe the American stole the tech in the first place in "Firefox" and the Russians were just stealing it back in "Day of the Cheetah"?


The whole reason I mentioned "Dreamstar" is becuse I have done stats for the F-15 "cheetah".

NASA actully has a F-15B that kooks like "Cheetah", which I assume is where Dale Brown got the idea

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-076-DFRC.html

[Rimmerdal]

You want funky looking wierd aircraft GI Joe has that.

The Night Raven and the Gyro-Copter come to mind. Several Colbra aircraft we're questionable in design..But they look cool. Always like the Joes stealth plane flown by "Ghost Rider".

The X-30 (Ace's plane) was a flyable one. Though I wouldn't you lose the comp systems you'd be screwed..

Down to the question..Are any of GI Joe/Colbra Aircraft flyable?

[Jefffar]

Defintiely not the ones with pegs for people to stand on (which are usually located in front of the jet intakes no less!!)

[Comrade Corsarius]

Then again maybe the American stole the tech in the first place in "Firefox" and the Russians were just stealing it back in "Day of the Cheetah"?

Why is it that americans always think that they developed the tech, and the russians copied it from them? The radar in the B1b is surprisingly similar to the 'Flash Dance' radar in the MiG-31 (which saw service first!) for example. Espionage went both ways during the cold war, and the west wasn't so far technologically ahead as we would have liked to believe. The soviets were pioneers in some technologies that the americans had to develop with their assistance after the cold war was over (laser guided AAMs, helmet mounted sights slaved to the laser to aim the missile or blind the opposing pilot etc).

Anyway, I'm well aware you're just winding me up. The 'thought guided' technology in Firefox was originally developed so that quadrupalegics could have a thought-guided wheelchair, and then was adapted to military use.