Build Mechs? Why not???

[Rimasta]

There will never be battlemechs; ever, never with absolute certainty. Because of weight and ground pressure. A biped and even a quadruped has far too little surface area in contact with the ground to support the kind of weight densities needed for a direct fire combat vehicle. This is why there are no one and two wheeled tanks. The only four wheeled armoured cars were extremely light weight scouting vehicles and four wheels are equal to eight legs. Maybe a centipede style vehicle could be a tank but I don’t remember anything like that from watching Robotech cartoons as a kid. Tracks and wheels work and work well. If there is need for extreme step climbing that legs bring then articulation can provide the ability to cross these obstacles.

There were many who said similar things about the tank. Too expensive, too heavy, not practical, even after its first battles these arguments seemed to hold merit. The obstacles granted a huge and with the R&D costs in this economy your probably right in that we wont see one, but never say never. Also new light weight armor technology is available as well as computer controlled active defenses. I am curious about one thing though, many instances throughout warfare have seen tanks stuck in narrow valleys, loose soil or mud where the tracks sink and the tanks get bogged down, would a mech be able to scale these terrain features any better? Could a commander send mechs into the hills bypassing strong points and choke points alike and strike deep into the enemy's rear with the added mobility? I was in the Armored Cav and there are too many ways to throw a track but a mech could walk over boulders potentially or ford streams, rivers, and other obstacles. Europe has rivers all over something that could walk across them would make forced river crossing much much easier I believe. I believe there is merit to such a vehicle.

 

[the road runner]

I am curious about one thing though, many instances throughout warfare have seen tanks stuck in narrow valleys, loose soil or mud where the tracks sink and the tanks get bogged down, would a mech be able to scale these terrain features any better?

I think Abe summed it up well. A Mech would have a "Point Load" on its feet.
A Tank has a "Uniform Distributed Load," placed across the length of its track.

A "Point Load," in loose soils would sink.Think about it like this,imagine a pin being stuck into soil.It would go straight into the soil as their is less resistance/surface area of the pin.Now try and stick a pen in the same soil with the same force.You will realise the pen has more resistance as it has a bigger surface area.

 

[Volkodav]

Why not just build Iron Man suits and be done with it?

They are impervious to all military weapons including nuclear explosions, can fly at supersonic speeds, can fly through space and out fight F-22A Raptors in air to air combat and they can dive underwater for seemingly limitless timeframes.

There you go, all tactical situations sorted...

:hitwall

Got mine on order already, opted for midnight blue rather than red and gold though.

 

[Volkodav]

I think Abe summed it up well. A Mech would have a "Point Load" on its feet.
A Tank has a "Uniform Distributed Load," placed across the length of its track.

A "Point Load," in loose soils would sink.Think about it like this,imagine a pin being stuck into soil.It would go straight into the soil as their is less resistance/surface area of the pin.Now try and stick a pen in the same soil with the same force.You will realise the pen has more resistance as it has a bigger surface area.

You could fit them with snow shoes, skies or even clown shoes. the other option would be to limit them to sealed roads. Looking outside the square maybe rotor blade on the top of their heads.

 

[My2Cents]

I think you might be on to something here. Other posts pointed out vulnerability to anti-armor attacks or attacks on joints, servos, etc...However a tank itself has many vulnerable points and critics have been saying the tank was an obsolete tool of war for decades now and the tank still has a well deserved place on the battlefield. Even the U.S. Army seems to have gained a new appreciation for armor after a shift in structure would propose having only two legacy brigades of heavy tanks. After fighting especially in Iraq, the Army seemed to remember why they needed tanks. They can take hit after hit and continue to apply pressure on the enemy.

The points listed before were:

• The joints, because of their complexity cannot be effectively armored. Let’s take a leg for example:
  1. hip – 3 degrees of freedom
  2. knee - 2
  3. Ankle - 3
  That’s 8 joints, not counting the foot, about as many as in a tank’s suspension system.
• Each joint on the mech is carrying the entire weight of the mech, in a tank it is about 1/12, and the mech joint will be subject to repetitive impact loads.
• The mech’s joints will have slip rings for power and sensors, which the tank suspension does not. And unlike the tanks suspension system the rotating joints are not hidden behind the road wheels.
• Higher surface to weight ratio means that for a given weight of armor the average thickness will be less, probably less than half.
• Taller and larger silhouette than a tank means it is easier to spot and easier to hit. Consider this – “In WWII is took an average of 18 rounds to kill a tank at 800 yards, during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War the average was 2 rounds at 1200 yards, and by Desert Storm one round at 2400 yards.”
• The weight of the arms will have to come from the weight budgeted for the weapons, leaving the mech underarmed relative to a tank of the same weight.
• When people say servo, they mean an entire limb.

On the open battlefield where there is plenty of room to maneuver your forces I see mechs as being invaluable. The power plant issue would have to be addressed but assuming it is figured out I see mechs as having much greater mobility and a plethora of sensors to give it a see first shoot first capability. Active defenses now being installed on IDF vehicles and considered for U.S. military vehicles would seem a viable counter to anti-vehicle missiles. The greatest drawbacks would seem to be the high profile of a mech and the expensive R&D costs, not to mention having crews for mechs who are technically competent enough to maintain their machines in the field.

In an open battlefield a mech is several times more likely to be spotted, several times easier to hit, and thinner armor make it several times more likely to be knocked out by a hit than a tank.

Speed is proportional to leg length. The faster the mech the taller it is, and all the problems increase proportionally.

And the higher ground pressure severely restricts the places it can go to probably roads and hard packed ground, only.

 

[crest]

have to agree with all the naysayers about a military usage.

That said in a somewhat smaller version and with the power plant issue solved there would be a roll for a "mech" in say swat teams

or perhaps even specialized delta teams for quick (very quick) strikes but that would be fairly specific operation criteria to risk something with that kind of tech being left in enemy hands


anyways fun topic if a bit ridiculous