New Age Weapons and Warfare

[Sithdarth]

Hmm, Sithdarth has a point about mechs in zero G. Extensible grappling appendages would be of great value in such an environment Perhaps they could fire mechanical/magnetic grappling hooks and pull themselves around?

Good ideal in Zero G but if you want to work on the moon or a large astroid your going to need legs. Building a ship in a zero or mircogravity would be much easier with legs and hands. That way you could work as if on Earth but build on a much larger scale. Magnetic grapling would be useful on the soles of such a mech to keep them attached to the ship as they worked. Similar mechs could land on an opposing ship and cut through the hull or disable exterior defenses. The advantage of feet here is that they provide more stablity with less contact. You would need at least three flexible "tentacles" to keep the mech steady where two legs and a good gyro system can do the same thing. Then add the ease of changing equipment where you can just open your hand and pick something else up. The mechs could have a tourch for cutting and a sidearm for defense. The advantage of being on the ship means you can target one spot and opposing craft would have a hard time hitting you without risking damage to their own ship. They can't get between you and the ship because your on it and the can't get really close because the of risk crashing.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Good ideal in Zero G but if you want to work on the moon or a large astroid your going to need legs. Building a ship in a zero or mircogravity would be much easier with legs and hands. That way you could work as if on Earth but build on a much larger scale. Magnetic grapling would be useful on the soles of such a mech to keep them attached to the ship as they worked. Similar mechs could land on an opposing ship and cut through the hull or disable exterior defenses. The advantage of feet here is that they provide more stablity with less contact. You would need at least three flexible "tentacles" to keep the mech steady where two legs and a good gyro system can do the same thing. Then add the ease of changing equipment where you can just open your hand and pick something else up. The mechs could have a tourch for cutting and a sidearm for defense. The advantage of being on the ship means you can target one spot and opposing craft would have a hard time hitting you without risking damage to their own ship. They can't get between you and the ship because your on it and the can't get really close because the of risk crashing.

Finally someone gets it

[adamark]

Oh, OK. So now we're not talking about technologies 30 years in the future, we're talking about technologies 130 years in the future. I gotcha

If you're building something huge why wouldn't future construction crews just use space cranes? Why gigantic hands? What is the advantage? They'd just be connecting pre-fabricated parts anyway, eh?

Similar mechs could land on an opposing ship and cut through the hull or disable exterior defenses. The advantage of feet here is that they provide more stablity with less contact. You would need at least three flexible "tentacles" to keep the mech steady where two legs and a good gyro system can do the same thing.

I'll take a spider-mech over a biped any day, if I were a "space Marine" attacking another ship. There's never too much stability when it comes to potentially slipping off into outerspace or falling into the atmosphere.

[Dante]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

the reason is like I have been saying, versitality. If need be it can land and walk. Also you have hand to hand capabilities if ammo is gone (try that with a tank)

Hand to hand would require so much armoring and reinforcement of your striking appendages and connecting limbs that it would be vastly impractical.

Also on land a large enough ditch can stop a tank or anyother ground transport. A bi/quadrapedial mech can jump, climb, and possibley hover.

Jump? Power to weight ratios make this impractical.
Climb? Possibly, especially if they have grappling hooks. You'd still be slow, and a very big target,
Hover? If mechs can hover, then why not build high speed hovertanks?

Anti-tank barriers are useless, they can also work on sand, mud, ect.

Mud? Right... People get STUCK in mud. So do mechs. Tanks can traverse mud and sand too, and they can do to faster than a mech. Landmines would impede a mech a lot more than they would a tank.

The arguement on cover is illrelevent because in an urban, jungle, or forest war zone anything bigger then a jeep is about useless.

I beg to differ. Tanks are excellent for urban street warfare. The ability to instantly destroy a sniper nest with a 120mm round cannot be overestimated. Your pedal mech would be easily attacked from below, much more so than conventional tanks.

Any ambient conditions which impede tanks would impede mechs to a greater degree. Forest? What, the mech isn't tall? Wouldn't that make it constantly bump into tree branches and force it to clear its way manually, rendering it blind and slow, while the soldiers gleefully strap blocks of C4 to its ankles and destroy it?

Summary - mechs are worthless in normal grav situations, as a weapon of war. In low or zero grav, however, they are more stable and can ignore the effects of power-to weight ratios more, so they are more practical.

I would also suggest spidermechs over bipeds - balance isn't so much of a problem that way.

[Sithdarth]

The problem with a spider bot is the keeping all the limbs working together. A bipedal mech could by almost direct drive where a spider bot would require much more complex system and thus much more training. If the mechs where built right you could throw just about anyone in them for a repair job or anyone with combat training for a combat role. In a spider bot you either give up a lot of control to the computer and your pilot has to be very well trained. That and we must remember the kiss principle here. The simplest solution is the best and it would be much easier for a human pilot to control a bipedial mech. Keeping the thing up right with the help of a human pilot would be much simpler than building the control system to interface a human with a multi limb mech.

[adamark]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

The problem with a spider bot is the keeping all the limbs working together. A bipedal mech could by almost direct drive where a spider bot would require much more complex system and thus much more training. If the mechs where built right you could throw just about anyone in them for a repair job or anyone with combat training for a combat role. In a spider bot you either give up a lot of control to the computer and your pilot has to be very well trained. That and we must remember the kiss principle here. The simplest solution is the best and it would be much easier for a human pilot to control a bipedial mech. Keeping the thing up right with the help of a human pilot would be much simpler than building the control system to interface a human with a multi limb mech.

No, you just make the leg movements automatic, aka computer controlled. So you have two pedals, accellerate and reverse. And a steering wheel for direction. The great thing is a spider mech would be so stable and with so many legs it would be a much smoother ride. Plus it could use the front two legs as arms (I can't imagine what FOR but someone more imaginitive than me can think of something).

Plus if the computer were advanced enough it could determine which were the best planes to make contact with the edge of the spider leg. So in effect a spide mech could, perhaps, climb up a mountain or up the side of a building like a real spider. Stealthily, too (as stealthy as metal machines can be).

Not to mention if one of the spider legs is blown off by a mine it can stagger on. Whereas if just one of your biped's legs is blown off, it's completely demobilized.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Dante

Hand to hand would require so much armoring and reinforcement of your striking appendages and connecting limbs that it would be vastly impractical.

this is true but when you have no ammo its better then nothing. When a tank is out of ammo it is of little use.

Originally Posted by Dante

Jump? Power to weight ratios make this impractical.
Climb? Possibly, especially if they have grappling hooks. You'd still be slow, and a very big target,
Hover? If mechs can hover, then why not build high speed hovertanks?

they have them, its called the Harrier. It just needs to hover for short periods to be effective.

Originally Posted by Dante

Mud? Right... People get STUCK in mud. So do mechs. Tanks can traverse mud and sand too, and they can do to faster than a mech. Landmines would impede a mech a lot more than they would a tank.

Mud is, as a rule, only a few inches. Its displacement is so high it will hit bed rock or dry dirty easily

Originally Posted by Dante

I beg to differ. Tanks are excellent for urban street warfare. The ability to instantly destroy a sniper nest with a 120mm round cannot be overestimated. Your pedal mech would be easily attacked from below, much more so than conventional tanks.

Any ambient conditions which impede tanks would impede mechs to a greater degree. Forest? What, the mech isn't tall? Wouldn't that make it constantly bump into tree branches and force it to clear its way manually, rendering it blind and slow, while the soldiers gleefully strap blocks of C4 to its ankles and destroy it?

yes they can take a sniper nest and the building the sniper is in. Except as mobile artillery or shock value it is pointless. As for the c4, strap a small furtilizer bomb on tank treads and its down.

Originally Posted by Dante

Summary - mechs are worthless in normal grav situations, as a weapon of war. In low or zero grav, however, they are more stable and can ignore the effects of power-to weight ratios more, so they are more practical.

I would also suggest spidermechs over bipeds - balance isn't so much of a problem that way.

The point is your not limited. You can use it in gravity even with the arguement that it isn't as effective. You can use a tank in space but you can use a mech in space or on the ground, perhapps even air and water.

Mechs also have the advantage of being single maned, while a tank requires a team of 5-7. It also has low visibility and a highly vulnerable ammunition section

Oh and your commet on support, tanks require troop support or they are picked off. If it right a rifle shell can take it out.

[popularnerd]

In urban areas, use of the smoothbore 120mm cannon is impeded by the fact that the rounds are designed to penetrate armor. If you use that in an urban environment, you run the risk of heavy civilian casualties.

[adamark]

Mechs also have the advantage of being single maned, while a tank requires a team of 5-7. It also has low visibility and a highly vulnerable ammunition section

OK. Which mech model are you basing that on? None, because none has ever been built. If a mech were manned by only one pilot it would probably be very slow. A tank is great because it has (I thought) 4 people. A driver to drive, a loader to load, a gunner to shoot, and a commander to command. Now you want a pilot of a theoretical mech to do all 4 of those jobs at once? Impractical, unrealistic -- but so is a mech in the first place...

Oh and your commet on support, tanks require troop support or they are picked off. If it right a rifle shell can take it out.

I don't understand that last sentence but as I understand (someone ACTUALLY in the military can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the relationship between infantry and armor is a symbiotic (sp?) one. The infantry protect the tanks, the tanks protect the infantry. You present a mech as a vehicle so fast that it seems to me that it would out run the infantry. It would have no support besides other mechs. That just sounds really risky to me.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by adamark

OK. Which mech model are you basing that on? None, because none has ever been built. If a mech were manned by only one pilot it would probably be very slow. A tank is great because it has (I thought) 4 people. A driver to drive, a loader to load, a gunner to shoot, and a commander to command. Now you want a pilot of a theoretical mech to do all 4 of those jobs at once? Impractical, unrealistic -- but so is a mech in the first place...

the same way a jet pilot does. You can automate the loading and gunner, and with just a pilot the cammander isn't needed.

Originally Posted by adamark

I don't understand that last sentence but as I understand (someone ACTUALLY in the military can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the relationship between infantry and armor is a symbiotic (sp?) one. The infantry protect the tanks, the tanks protect the infantry. You present a mech as a vehicle so fast that it seems to me that it would out run the infantry. It would have no support besides other mechs. That just sounds really risky to me.

One sniper bullet inbetween the armor plates can take out a tank. You are right it can out run a soldier, then again so can a tank