A Mech is a silly creation in real life no matter how cool it would seem.
However, what about powered armor? That is, roughly human sized armored casings? A guy climbs in one and has his speed augmented, carrying capacity increased and armor protection vastly increased. You’d need a fictional power source for the thing but otherwise would such a thing make sense?
When I worked at a company that sold and repaired medical sensors and related computer software, I had the opportunity to read a projects DARPA was looking for contractors on. Some were mundane(a reverse osmosis system for cleaning the ceramic water purifiers). Some were fascinating( a material that can be made clear, opaque or reflective by electricity. It would be used as part of a laser communication system). One project was a lower body exoskeleton for infantry. The description stated thatthere had been previous attempts but these had failed due to bulky and unresponsive control systems.
Frankly, I find my legs much preferable to wheels - perhaps if my brain was attuned to not falling over on wheels I’d prefer them. From anecdotal experience, legs seem to be much better in closed-in terrain (e.g. forests, small caves), when the organism in question can merely step over/around obstacles (as opposed to turning their entire frame to find a path they can fit through.
Generally though, legs are better left for organic creatures - wheels have by far the highest (lowest?) simplicity to effectiveness/efficiency ratio of mechanical transportation methods.
Yeah, I’ve read about the Army’s research into exoskeletons that enhance a soldier’s abilities. Probably not too far off in the future.
As for Mechs. I think when the technology & cost of manufacture comes down, we’ll be seeing them on television, battling for our entertainment. Heck, we’ve already got robots battling on TV.
In a controlled environment, you might be able to beam energy to the Mech via microwaves or something, right? Or maybe electrify the floor?
In the real world, I think a Mech would make a pretty intimidating prison guard. Not practical in combat tho.
Another engineer chiming in. Here’s my $0.02 in response to the original question.
1.) Several walking robots exist, and this technology could probably be scaled up a bit. If someone started an R&D program to build a walking tank, they could probably have a prototype ready in 10 years or so, although it probably wouldn’t have much of an advantage over tanks. If I were to design one, it would probably look more like a giant spider than anything humanoid - a design with six or more legs would be much better at handling battle damage. Destroy a leg on a humanoid 'mech and it’s stranded.
It would probably be slower across open ground, and legs probably would not have a significant advantage unless crossing extremely difficult terrain. Also, it would be much more expensive and complex. I think tanks would offer more military effectiveness for less money. Tracked vehicles can go almost anywhere except up cliffs. The lower profile of a tank is also a definite advantage.
It would probably carry the same weapons as a normal tank, probably a main gun, machine gun, and rockets. I’m not sure current lasers make good weapons. The CO2 lasers where I work can punch through an inch of steel in about a second, but the focusing mechanism makes for a very short range, the lasers require enormous cooling systems, and high powered lasers are really too fragile for battlefield use. That will probably change, but still, they’ve got a long time before lasers can pack the same whallop as a cannon or rocket. It’s hard to make a battery or other electricity source have as much killing power per pound as an ordinary bullet. I think laser weapons of the future will probably only be used in unusual applications which call for extraordinary precision.
I would use controls designed so that someone familiar with a regular tank would be able to drive a 'mech with minimal retraining. You can control them any way that seems logical, but I would probably have one crew member move it around and another operate the weapons.
Jumping would require immense amounts of power but be of little practical use. It’s difficult enough to get the low riders to hop, and a 'mech would be a lot heavier.
I’d power one with a diesel engine or possibly a gas turbine. These engines offer a decent power to weight ratio, can be quickly refueled, and have a proven track record in tanks.
The reason mechs are better than tanks in Battletech is because the rules say so. Things like them automatically being harder to kill and able to carry more weapons and armour. This comes up fairly often on SB.com, if you check the archives you should see a fair few people arguing that a present day army could beat Battlemechs without too much trouble.
The Darpa exoskeleton site doesn’t seem to be around anymore, but I found this. Dunno if it’d be any use for powered armour, but it does look kinda fun.
Oh, and this is the only this is the only valid argument for transforming mechs (someone’s bound to bring them up) that I’ve ever seen. Nifty, eh?
Although I would be the first one in line for RAH “Marauder” suit when they become available, I (as an old paratrooper) see no use for powered armor.
As we increase the ability of the soldier to carry stuff, we tend to increase the amount of stuff we make him carry. (An M-16 wieghs less than a musket, but a modern soldier carries a helmet, pro mask and all that.)
If we really wanted or needed to increase soldier performance, I would propose reseach into a safe and effective regime of bodybuilding steroids.
We could field Ranger Battalions of linebackers (but I suspect we would make them all carry machine guns).
Looks kind of fun, but dangerous. I remember pogo sticks and pot holes were not a good combo, seems with as small “feet” this had, it would have the same problems.
LOL. Good spot! I was into comic books as a kid and totally missed this. I loved reading about those lizards though. It struck me as crazy that these things can walk on the ceiling and no one knew how until this guy started looking at them with a microscope.
Mech are silly.
Now, another future scifi combat vehicle is the hovertank. FASA’s overshadowed Renegade Legion: Centurion (they had fighter & capital ship combat too) used this, as well as things like David Drake’s “Hammer’s Slammers” stories.
Drake uses a fusion plant to drive fans for a fixed-sidewall surface effect craft. Renegade Legion did the same thing, but overall, they make much more sense than Mechs. Mechs with jump jets were the silliest thing.
A friend of mine is a mechanical engineer studying bipedal locomotion. He had the following comments on the feasibility of Mechs:
1.) Stability: By definition, walking is an unstable process - we are actually falling while we walk, and the faster you walk the more unstable you have to become.
2.) Actuators: Current robotics technology has reached a point where we can’t find actuators that are strong enough to perform these functions. Hydraulics do provide huge amounts of strength, but the trade off is speed. If the thing was strong enough to stand, it would move too slow. This brings us back to the stability problems. Because the trunk is heavy (carrying the power source, the hydraulics, armour, amunition, and artilery, etc.), the legs need to be strong enough to support it, which means they need to be heavy, hence you’d need stronger actuators.
Consider an oversized ant. As the ant becomes larger, its exoskelton has to become stronger to support its weight, but then it would need stronger muscles to keep it standing, which would require a stronger frame… More muscles mean more energy so it either has to store energy which means weight, or eat constantly like an elephant.
Now back to control issues. To keep the thing standing, the actuators have to be fast enough to respond to issues like getting shot at, or squishy/unstable ground. So imagine yourself wearing ankle weights – if I pushed you, you’re hips wouldn’t be strong enough or fast enough to move your feet in response and you’d fall over. You’d fall over even faster if you were really top heavy wearing a huge backpack and holding a big heavy gun.
Another thing to try is the inverted pendulm; that’s when you balance a stick on your finger. You have to move your hand around to keep the stick upright, but as the stick gets heavier, you have to move faster.
While robots have been created that seem to walk, technically its not walking. Below a certain speed its considered crawling. To walk faster (there is actually a calculated speed which has to be broken), the walker has to make itself more and more unstable.
So now consider telling a computer to perform these two tasks: 1. keep me stable so I don’t fall over
2. make me unstable so i can walk faster.
The robot has to remain stable, so it takes very slow calculated steps like an old person on ice.
If you extend this concept to a giant tanklike robot, it would have to walk even slower, which makes it a pretty lousy weapon.
Besides the other pitfalls of a Mech being used in battle, I think the walking/balance problem would be easy to solve with a VR human interface control. Humans can walk, run, jump and crouch just fine. Just connect the Mech’s movement controls to a human. Any six year old computer gamer could balance a Mech just fine with enough control interfaces.
blush. Ok, I stand corrected, big time!
I still say that mechs look more feasable than their anime equivalent – they don’t usually have heads and hands!
Getting real-time feedback would be an issue. Without it the pilot could make the legs move quickly, but would fall over allmost immediately. Consider the amount of feedback we get while walking-balance, tactile input from the soles of the feet etc. Without all that feedback, a mech pilot would have to concentrate entirely on walking-is the terrain even, is it too soft, is the mech about to overbalance etc.
How about the Anime robots that need arms/legs/heads to fight…in SPACE?
What advantage, if any, would these have over a more traditional combat vehicle?
Why bother with arms when you can use ranged weapons to destroy the enemy?
IANA physicist or engineer, but it seems to me that multi-ton metal limbs moving quickly would tend to destablize an object in a zero G environment. EG-The right arm swings out to strike an enemy. The entire mech begins spinning in the direction of movement. Which brings to mind that a physical blow struck against any object would start the mech moving in the opposite direction. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Babylon 5’s earth fighters (white stars? star somethings) with 2 sets of rockets mounted on each axis of rotation are the only realistically designed SF space fighter I’ve ever seen.
One thing that hasn’t been brought up…
If a Mech has a weapon that is 30 feet higher than a tank, wouldn’t that weapon have an advantage over the tank? With artillery, you can command a greater region, if you have a higher elevation.
Personally I don’t see tanks or mechs having much value in the future battlefield. Someone brought up the A-10 Warthog, and the Apache Helios, weapon systems like these are going to be used more and more for battlefield operations. Tanks are (and Mechs would be) too heavy for general operations in all theaters, so armies are switching to fast and deadly and light protocols for their people in the future. But if mechs were used in a mobile artillery capacity, then they might be worthwile on a battlefield.
Still though, it doesn’t seem like a very effective battlefield trade-off. Existing A-10’s and Apaches, which would be considered “old” technology by the time the first mech was employed on the battlefield, have the capability to destroy several dozen mechs. Furthermore, infantry units (sporting the dragon man portable anti-tank missle) will be able to destroy mechs before they are even detected by the mechs sensors. Human beings just do not show up that well on IR or UV systems when they are dug in. Hence a mech, even one used for artillery, would be destroyed very quickly by a squad of infantry. So, I think it would be an unsustainable risk-reward scenario for any army. One multi-billion dollar mech destroyed by one 40,000 dollar infantry man, sporting a 3000 dollar missle.
Ok that is my few pennies worth
I douct 30ft makes that great a deal of difference in indirect fire range. And there’s a reason they try and make armoured vehicles as short as possible, if you can see further, you can be seen (and shot) from further.
As to tanks becoming obselete, that’s been predicted time and again. Maybe they’re gonna get a bit lighter, but I don’t see them disappearing any time soon. Sure ATGMs keep getting better, but so does armour, and active defence systems are only just starting out.
And DocCathode, the fighters are called Starfuries. Check the link in my first post for the answer to your other question.