Quote from: Swadius;564945Modern day logging crawlers break down simply due to mud in its parts and the operator pushing the machine too hard in such circumstances. This happens even when said machines are far more simple than a mech withe multiple legs.

Modern day logging crawlers break down in lots of places, as do bulldozers and tanks. Nothing is immune to breaking down, and neither of the devices mentioned were in thick, sealed plastic enclosures. This is known as a strawman, where you set up a different argument and then respond to it.

Quote from: Swadius;564945Well, then I'm afraid that someone else will have to defend your points for you.

That would only matter if my points were under attack.

Quote from: The Traveller;565128Modern day logging crawlers break down in lots of places, as do bulldozers and tanks. Nothing is immune to breaking down, and neither of the devices mentioned were in thick, sealed plastic enclosures. This is known as a strawman, where you set up a different argument and then respond to it.

The thick plastic encasement is a thought experiment to extenuate the properties of a netbook and camera being lugged around by infantry as opposed to a piece of machinery that needs to have joints near the ground. As far as I understand these devices used in a rough terrain, a netbook does not need to use it's book like structure to move around the ground by flapping its two halves, and a camera does not need to roll around the ground to move, nor do both have to deal with being the vanguard of pushing through the thicket.

I raised that example to point out that the usage of a netbook and a camera lugged around by a person is a bad comparison to the type of machinery that needs to crawl around in the jungle and have to deal with all the sorts of things that something encased in plastic and lugged around by an individual might not.

What I'm trying to point out is that the example you raise is a bit irrelevant when it comes to machinery breaking down in the jungle. The machinery we're talking about that operate in harsh terrains like jungles break down due to having to transverse the area and having to deal with everything a human has to deal with when moving through the thicket. A piece of machinery you can fit into your backpack, or even hung around your neck won't face these same issues. Particularly because they don't have moving parts that will need to expose themselves just so the machine can move around.

QuoteThat would only matter if my points were under attack.

Aren't they?

Quote from: Swadius;565130The thick plastic encasement is a thought experiment

Great, but cameras and laptops have lots of holes and ventilation that go directly to the interior. Other environments more damaging than jungles in that regard are deserts, where you have lots of abrasive dust particles flying around, and the ocean, with highly corrosive salt water everywhere. Neither of these have prevented the use of complex machines in such environments.

Quote from: Swadius;565130Aren't they?

Not really, no.

Quote from: Swadius;565130

QuoteThat would only matter if my points were under attack.

Aren't they?

There are no American tanks in Baghdad.


Anyway, a lovely little point that Traveller has elegantly totally failed to address is the question of where these mechas - which, let's say for argument's sake, are capable of traversing the jungles that tanks cannot - are going to fight.

I mean, okay, they're sitting there deep in the jungle and the enemy tank battalions can't get to them. Great. Now there won't be a battle because the enemy's not going to show up for it. (Well, artillery, long-range missile attacks and bombardment will chew up the mechas in time, but let's be generous and ignore that.) If they want to actually do any damage to the enemy, they have to come out of Unapproachable-land and engage the enemy on a terrain the enemy can get to. And as soon as that happens all the inherent advantages of tanks and other tracked/wheeled vehicles come back into play. Specifically, the advantages several people have already pointed out and Traveller totally ignored by his "they're gonna fight in the jungle" handwaiving. Which in turn was immediately followed up by "nobody else can actually get to the jungle".

Quote from: Premier;565180There are no American tanks in Baghdad.


Anyway, a lovely little point that Traveller has elegantly totally failed to address is the question of where these mechas - which, let's say for argument's sake, are capable of traversing the jungles that tanks cannot - are going to fight.

I mean, okay, they're sitting there deep in the jungle and the enemy tank battalions can't get to them. Great. Now there won't be a battle because the enemy's not going to show up for it. (Well, artillery, long-range missile attacks and bombardment will chew up the mechas in time, but let's be generous and ignore that.) If they want to actually do any damage to the enemy, they have to come out of Unapproachable-land and engage the enemy on a terrain the enemy can get to. And as soon as that happens all the inherent advantages of tanks and other tracked/wheeled vehicles come back into play. Specifically, the advantages several people have already pointed out and Traveller totally ignored by his "they're gonna fight in the jungle" handwaiving. Which in turn was immediately followed up by "nobody else can actually get to the jungle".

When you have access to a huge swathe of terrain and the enemy doesn't you can use that to great harmful effect. Hit and run strikes against supply convoys, squishing patrols so you can move about unhindered, allowing you to mass troops without opposition, closing roads and railways, zapping poorly defended camps, it's like saying "who cares who controls the ocean, boats can't go up on land anyway". This is why napalm was used (ineffectively) in Vietnam to strip down large areas of jungle.

Also I'm not sure why you think the use of mecha should only be confined to one side.

Quote from: The Traveller;565145Great, but cameras and laptops have lots of holes and ventilation that go directly to the interior.

Yes they do, but again, these types of instruments are not such that they have incorporated into them a means of locomotion. You're probably not holding a laptop and your camera as a shield when you enter the thicker parts of the jungle. In most cases, you're the one shielding them from the things a mech will have to deal with with its moving parts directly exposed to leaves, dirt, mud, and small branches.

Yes these things have holes, but the crux of my argument is that the magnitude that these items brush against the jungle terrain isn't going to be the same as something that needs to push past foliage and have these movable parts in direct contact with the jungle that its moving through. The parts of a mechanical leg moves as it goes through the debris the jungle throws at it, a camera or netbook doesn't.

QuoteOther environments more damaging than jungles in that regard are deserts, where you have lots of abrasive dust particles flying around, and the ocean, with highly corrosive salt water everywhere. Neither of these have prevented the use of complex machines in such environments.

Let's reiterate my argument as it's gone a bit sidways. The complexity of a mech isn't on the same type of complexity as tank. Tanks, IFVs, and small infantry fighting vehicles have many moving parts sure, but many of these moving parts like the transmission and tread parts are rather simplistic. There are indisputable facts like impassible areas in jungles and mountains yes, but there are also indisputable facts like mechanical legs are going to be supremely more complex than that of a single transmission vehicle or even the treads of a tracked vehicle, especially when you're working with a design where the legs are scaled up to a size they're no longer even as efficient as human sized legs.

The main argument is cost. Why not just send in the infantry or power armor? Legs at that size are still efficient enough to

The basic transmission of a tank is a simple thing, but even for this simplicity the cost of maintenance for them is still astronomical. The cost for putting a machine several times more complex than a tank is going to be far, far worse. Almost all of the tank tracks are not self powered. The fly wheels, the individual track feet and the connecting parts are quite simple. The power unit is in the back of the tank, and sand CAN get in here but this is mainly due to the need to allow heat to escape. A mech's source of power will be in each segment of the individual legs, especially if you're using those muscle fibres you brought up a few posts before. The level of complexity compounded by a punishing environment will still be there for a mech.

QuoteNot really, no.

I don't see how so. Could you elaborate? Also, can you describe the mechs you're envisioning? I've been asking for this for several posts now. How big is it? Are we talking about the mules or that forest logging thing?

Quote from: The Traveller;565259When you have access to a huge swathe of terrain and the enemy doesn't you can use that to great harmful effect.

Infantry can get into these parts can't they? All it takes is someone with an rpg or anti-tank rifle to disable something that costs more than a tank given how inefficient the legs are to be armored. The weapons it can mount is also questionable.

Other weapons include IEDs. The complex machinery in a leg is far more expensive to replace than a few pieces of a tank tread. You could streamline the replacement parts, but the high cost will always be there. Tanks and large vehicles are still around due to the fact that replacing their moving parts is still reasonably cheap.

On top of this, how would a mech the size of a car climb an incline? Unless it has more ground contact than a tracked vehicle, it's going to slip given a high enough incline and that it weighs around the same as a tracked vehicle of a comparable size.

QuoteHit and run strikes against supply convoys, squishing patrols so you can move about unhindered, allowing you to mass troops without opposition, closing roads and railways, zapping poorly defended camps, it's like saying "who cares who controls the ocean, boats can't go up on land anyway". This is why napalm was used (ineffectively) in Vietnam to strip down large areas of jungle.

As far as I understand, hit and run tactics in the jungle only work when you can disappear or get far enough from the point of contact after the confrontation back to your own lines. A ground of infantry can move faster than a spider mech in the jungle I would think. Not to mention that it would probably leave a path through the foliage so big that you can follow the thing in the air.

QuoteAlso I'm not sure why you think the use of mecha should only be confined to one side.

Because I imagine his side wouldn't use mechs in the jungle due to him thinking it's a waste of resources to even try. You could probably target them in the air given how much energy and heat distribution they need to move those legs, especially if sensor technology gets better.

Quote from: Swadius;565501but there are also indisputable facts like mechanical legs are going to be supremely more complex than that of a single transmission vehicle or even the treads of a tracked vehicle, especially when you're working with a design where the legs are scaled up to a size they're no longer even as efficient as human sized legs.

This means nothing - engineers have designed and constructed complex machines to function in far more machine-unfriendly terrain than jungle. Its no good saying it can't be done, of course it can be done. Which I have already said, why am I repeating myself?

Quote from: Swadius;565501The main argument is cost. Why not just send in the infantry or power armor?

Do, send them in too. Tanks never ever operate alone, why would mecha? I'm not sure what you're envisioning as mecha here by the way, but I'm seeing spiderform with perhaps WH40k dreadnought size manforms, maybe a little bigger, not multi-storey vehicles, that would defeat the purpose unless you've some pressing need for altitude.

Quote from: Swadius;565501I've been asking for this for several posts now. How big is it? Are we talking about the mules or that forest logging thing?

If you had read the thread you'd know what I was talking about long before, and saved much wear and tear on your keyboard. I think page 2 or 3 was where I said what I just repeated above.

Quote from: Swadius;565501Infantry can get into these parts can't they? All it takes is someone with an rpg or anti-tank rifle to disable something that costs more than a tank given how inefficient the legs are to be armored. The weapons it can mount is also questionable.

Doesn't matter. All that matters is the amount of firepower you can concentrate on the fight you're in. A highly mobile platform that can lay down serious damage is going to dominate a theatre where the oppostion hasn't got any.

Quote from: Swadius;565501Not to mention that it would probably leave a path through the foliage so big that you can follow the thing in the air.

Jungle: you haven't experienced it.

Quote from: Swadius;565501You could probably target them in the air given how much energy and heat distribution they need to move those legs, especially if sensor technology gets better.

This at least is the first somewhat reasonable objection. Even with complete air superiority, jungle is still anyone's guess due to its opacity. The power plant of a mech would give out significant amounts of heat. What tanks do these days is either cover up with a thermal blanket or release IR blocking smoke. The former would be the best approach for passive stealth, the latter upon detection. If we wanted to go into more unusual tech, I could imagine a refridgeration plant within the mecha.

Its worth noting that even in the best of cases the jungle is a humid, hot atmosphere with dense canopy cover, which doesn't get appreciably colder at night, you aren't going to spot anything unless you're flying low and close, and nothing until its too late on the horizontal axis. This of course opens air assault to retaliatory strikes from mecha or infantry.

This is quite interesting in that regard.


I have yet again ignored the parts where you just repeat yourself or have failed to read the thread, or at least absorb it. Its this kind of stuff that leads to accusations of some sort of bizarre dogma, which for my money are still true. Why would I bother engaging with someone who is only interested in talking past me?

And yet here we are.

Quote from: The Traveller;565566This means nothing - engineers have designed and constructed complex machines to function in far more machine-unfriendly terrain than jungle. Its no good saying it can't be done, of course it can be done. Which I have already said, why am I repeating myself?

By "it can't be done" you mean it can't be done practically right? This whole discussion is about cost effectiveness. You are also replying to a point wherein the argument is over the mechanical vulnerability of moving through the jungle, specifically the comparison between two pieces of hand held machinery that a person mostly keeps stowed away in travel that you contend are accurate analogues to machinery that needs to walk through the jungle thicket. The joints that need to flex to accommodate the thicket and uneven ground will push debris deep into their systems, especially if said joints are rubbing up against said debris as it moves.

Surely your failure to address this point and shift the conversation elsewhere is a tacit concession of this point.

Really bad argument you're putting forward. The reliability of an incredibly complex piece of heavy machinery that needs to move itself through the jungle and the debris that will get in its way will be abysmal. Investing money into such an expensive system isn't practical from the point of waging a war you need to win.

QuoteDo, send them in too. Tanks never ever operate alone, why would mecha? I'm not sure what you're envisioning as mecha here by the way, but I'm seeing spiderform with perhaps WH40k dreadnought size manforms, maybe a little bigger, not multi-storey vehicles, that would defeat the purpose unless you've some pressing need for altitude.

For one thing, the capability of tanks in their armament and ability to soak up fire power is something a group of infantry don't have. A mech that has to transverse tough terrain will need tp utilize most of its space, and thus weight, to be dedicated to powering its locomotion. Because of this weight problem, as well as putting he amount of armaments it can carry compared to infantry aren't going to be much different if most of the weight is concentrated in its transmission.

From my understanding it's like sending in a mech that carries several machine guns and cost more than two whole platoons who are all carrying machine guns and can't soak up machine gun fire, or grenades while being a big target.

QuoteIf you had read the thread you'd know what I was talking about long before, and saved much wear and tear on your keyboard. I think page 2 or 3 was where I said what I just repeated above.

You'll have to forgive me, I've read the thread several times but I still can't find it. So far as I'm concerned, you've never really posted a coherent description of what mech you have in mind. Although I could have missed it. Please feel free to prove me wrong on this.

QuoteDoesn't matter. All that matters is the amount of firepower you can concentrate on the fight you're in. A highly mobile platform that can lay down serious damage is going to dominate a theatre where the oppostion hasn't got any.

The amount of firepower you can concentrate in one area is important, but it's not the only thing. Being detected usually takes precedent, and if you can't hide your mech, there's always the hope that you can armor it enough that the enemy will have to call in reinforcements with their own big guns to take it out and be pushed back before it arrives. A mech with multiple legs is notoriously hard to armor as well as probably not being a very quiet piece of machinery. It will likely be detected first, or at least its infantry vanguard will be. And once combat is joined, it being an expensive, unarmored piece of equipment with a range that can't surpass that of the infantry its fighting is a juicy target for anyone with anti-armor weapons, heavy machine guns, or grenade launchers.

If you can make a mech fool proof to all the stuff in the jungle that will cause it mechanical problems, you could probably make similar head way with reliable and effective, yet still cheap, anti-armor weapons that infantry use.

QuoteJungle: you haven't experienced it.

I've had discussions with a lot of people, but you're one of the few people I know that would appeal to their own alleged authority without a coherent explanation about why such and such leads to X, or why such and such rebuttal fails. Relying on appeals to authority is pretty bad, but appealing to one's own authority without explaining or showing any sort of insight is on a whole new level of bad arguments. How do you know I haven't been in the jungle? How do you know that your experience is the end of of all possible experiences in jungles? How do I even know you're telling the truth?

What holds weight in an argument isn't appeals to alleged anecdotal experiences (unless of course we're discussing individual life experiences) it's the explanation part that does hold it. I have not claimed to be in the jungle in this discussion, precisely because of this reason. You shouldn't rely on my authority deciding an issue anymore than I should rely on yours.

It's quite possible that one of us made an error in judgement while in this sort of environment. It might even be the case that only one of us actually has experience in the jungle, but have made an error in judgement that the other person points out. I entered this discussion with the prospect that I might be wrong (as I often seem to be). What I don't want is to be operating under false conclusions when I don't have to be, and have laid out my reasoning for you and everyone else's examination as best as I can. And while it is great that you're replying to me, if you don't explain why exactly you think I'm wrong it seems like a wasted effort on your part.

QuoteThis at least is the first somewhat reasonable objection. Even with complete air superiority, jungle is still anyone's guess due to its opacity. The power plant of a mech would give out significant amounts of heat. What tanks do these days is either cover up with a thermal blanket or release IR blocking smoke. The former would be the best approach for passive stealth, the latter upon detection. If we wanted to go into more unusual tech, I could imagine a refridgeration plant within the mecha.

The law of thermodynamics throws a bone into this I think. The heat needs to go somewhere. A thermal blanket on a tank that's at rest will make it so that the engine will dissipate its heat gradually in other directions with the exception of going upward through the blanket. If the canopy of the jungle is thick enough it will do this with or without a blanket.

The problem with the mech is that I don't think these blankets will help much just as tanks on the move can't use these blankets. Obviously you and I agree that using them while the mech was in motion would lead to this mech overheating just as any other vehicle. As for the refrigeration unit, unless the refrigeration unit makes less heat than the mech, it's going to be a problem. If the refrigeration unit does have a higher ratio of converting heat to coldness it's questionable why you're still fighting in the jungle when you have the means to create a perpetual motion machine. Burning the entire jungle down without any consequences is an option.

QuoteIts worth noting that even in the best of cases the jungle is a humid, hot atmosphere with dense canopy cover, which doesn't get appreciably colder at night, you aren't going to spot anything unless you're flying low and close, and nothing until its too late on the horizontal axis. This of course opens air assault to retaliatory strikes from mecha or infantry.

So the desert and most parts of India during the day. Heat seeking missiles still work for them. The difference being that car engines are usually above 200 degrees F, with heavy military vehicles being even higher than this, and the mech requiring tremendous amounts of energy to motion conversion than that the tracked vehicles will be even higher. One issue for sensors might be how thick the canopy of the jungle is- the heat might dissipate through the ground and outwards horizontally than it can penetrate the canopy. If the jungle canopy is extremely thick, and the mech needs to move away from the enemy advance, or it doesn't know about the air cover, then there's still going to be a bloom around the area where the mech is. A moving heat signature the size of a tank under the jungle is incredibly hard to disguise given the huge disparity. A signature several hundred degrees higher than the surrounding area is like a beacon in the night to IR sensors from the air.

This is quite interesting in that regard.

The difference between a human being and a tank engine, much less a mech engine that needs to convert a whole lot more energy to motion, is huge. You could put a blanket over your engine, but it's still going to emit a tremendous amount of heat around the edges, if not through the blanket itself. You'll still see a significant bloom of heat from where the mech is, and this is considering that the canopy cover is perfect.

Also.

IEDs and mines. What about them? Very cheap solution to highly expensive mechs.

Quote from: Swadius;565585You'll have to forgive me, I've read the thread several times but I still can't find it. So far as I'm concerned, you've never really posted a coherent description of what mech you have in mind. Although I could have missed it. Please feel free to prove me wrong on this.

Sure.

QuoteThey'd probably max out at WH40k dreadnought size before the benefits vanish.

Keeping a low profile is indeed also important, so you'd need some sort of very solid armour or a very flexible mecha, spider configurations might be better really, skitterlicious.

As for the rest, even the fantastically obvious points are apparently up for dispute.

I mean you're talking about plywood limbs, mechs packing squad support weapons at best, nonexistent legs being "notoriously" hard to armour, and even then that armour has to be plastic in your world, fridges and coolant systems apparently defying the laws of thermodynamics, utterly ignoring the concepts in the link provided except for the ones you want to deal with, and you round it all off by trying to insinuate I haven't experienced proper jungle.

And IEDs and mines, really? Since they are so effective obviously nobody uses tanks anymore.

No, wait, people still use tanks.



Enough nonsense.

Enough nonsense, indeed. Get into your skull that the same type of mine or IED is likely to cause greater damage to the highly complex motion systems of a mech than to the comperatively simple and robust components of a tracked vehicle. And the mech will be more expensive to repair/replace.

Quote from: Premier;565639Enough nonsense, indeed. Get into your skull that the same type of mine or IED is likely to cause greater damage to the highly complex motion systems of a mech than to the comperatively simple and robust components of a tracked vehicle. And the mech will be more expensive to repair/replace.

Yeah, that tank above is going to be easy to repair. And if you think IEDs are going to reduce in effectiveness over time, you've got another think coming.

I'm loving the cost complaints for non existent mechs being wheeled out too.

Tell us, will a robot mule ever be cheaper than a real live mule? No? Then why are they being developed? Is it possible DARPA knows something you don't? I'm no expert, but my guess is yes, they do.

Quote from: The Traveller;565644Yeah, that tank above is going to be easy to repair. And if you think IEDs are going to reduce in effectiveness over time, you've got another think coming.

A, Yeah, because ALL mines and IEDs ALWAYS do that kind of damage to tanks ALL THROUGH history. Seriously, you're so intellectually dishonest, I feel bad about it by proxy.

B, You've made my point for me, anyway. Look at how badly that tank was fucked up. Now, a mecha will be WORSE.

QuoteTell us, will a robot mule ever be cheaper than a real live mule? No? Then why are they being developed? Is it possible DARPA knows something you don't? I'm no expert, but my guess is yes, they do.

Sure they do, lots of thing. Also, they know something you don't, and that's why they're making a small cargo transporter robo-mule rather than a multi-dozen ton walking fighting vehicle.

Quote from: Premier;565654A, Yeah, because ALL mines and IEDs ALWAYS do that kind of damage to tanks ALL THROUGH history. Seriously, you're so intellectually dishonest, I feel bad about it by proxy.

B, You've made my point for me, anyway. Look at how badly that tank was fucked up. Now, a mecha will be WORSE.

That whooshing sound was the point flying over your head. Beyond a certain point, its not possible to get more fucked up. Besides which IEDs are particularly effective because vehicles move along roads, nice predictable routes which exist not at all in dense jungle.

Quote from: Premier;565654Sure they do, lots of thing. Also, they know something you don't, and that's why they're making a small cargo transporter robo-mule rather than a multi-dozen ton walking fighting vehicle.

And 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Quote from: The Traveller;565633Sure.

Thank you. Though I feel a bit ashamed to have to ask you for a bit more. In that post you mentioned that they're kinda like spider tank, but aside from that most of it is about what a mech is supposed to do without any description of what sort of design would give you the benefits you say mechs will have. How tall is it for example? It's leg span? How many legs are we talking about? 6, 4, 8?

QuoteI mean you're talking about plywood limbs, mechs packing squad support weapons at best, nonexistent legs being "notoriously" hard to armour, and even then that armour has to be plastic in your world, fridges and coolant systems apparently defying the laws of thermodynamics, utterly ignoring the concepts in the link provided except for the ones you want to deal with, and you round it all off by trying to insinuate I haven't experienced proper jungle.

A mechanical limb, from our current scientific standpoint is a very fragile thing and design wise it's very hard to armor compared to a box like object. You've dismissed these objections out of hand, but you have not really given a proper reason why this isn't the case. If you can make the legs, that are also fragile due to its structural design, sturdy enough to absorb heavy infantry weapons, the same thing can be applied to power armor, or even tiny jungle tanks for much better results. Coming up with engineering principles that would allow a structurally dubious limb to be resistant to the types of shock and impact that combat dishes out can also be applied to more simple and robust designs for greater effect.

Modern day heavy machine guns have enough armor penetration to disable WWI-WWII mini one-man tanks. The simply 7.62 NATO round can go through 3/8ths of an inch through steel.

Spoiler

Source: http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?/topic/50575-308-versus-762x39-versus-556-versus-545-penetration-through-steel-plate/

Quote from: CarlosCI started this post a few years ago with a 9mm from my Beretta vs bullet proof glass (BPG) from my apartment in the Middle East. I thought it was an interesting experiment. I updated it a few months ago with 1/4" steel plate and the same BPG vs a 5.56mm fired from my Bushmaster AR and a 7.62 NATO fired from my G-3, both at 100yds. Here a quick reminder of the results...

The hole on the left side near the middle is from a 7.62NATO, the one below it is a 7.62x39. The two dents to the right were made by the 5.56 and 5.45. Neither penetrated. As a side note, the 7.62NATO went through the 1/4 steel, through the 4x4 block behind it, through a 2x4 and buried itself in the send. Dayuuuum.



Here is the backside view.

[/quote]

Granted, it's not armor grade steel, it's Brinell rating is likely in the range of construction materials, but as you can see slapping on thin pieces of metal isn't going to make something armor proof without adding in a whole lot of weight. The percentage of the weight IFVs carry that composes the amount of its armor is around 30 percent, and still high powered anti-material rifles can still penetrate their armor. Tanks and the heavier sister type IFVs tend to avoid this problem by slapping on even more armor to the point that no projectile fired from a traditional chemical reaction  rifle comes close to penetrating it. Mechs aren't shaped like boxes. Particularly in the case of their legs, it's volume to surface area ratio will be much worse than the geometric shape of a box like vehicle. If you doubt this point, I can dredge up the simple math to back this up. A mech will need to dedicate much more than 30% of its armor to stopping the rifle rounds from the heavy weapons team or soldiers in a platoon, and putting this much armor onto a walker is disastrous to its mobility in terms of traction, ground pressure, more space needing to be dedicated to house the bigger power units, and to the other stuff like weapons and sensors it can feasibly carry on top of this.

This then is followed up by armaments and their weight. I don't think you disagree about the point that mechs that need to be equipped with better hitting weapons than infantry or power armor even if armor protection is not taken into account. Otherwise what would be the point of having an incredibly expensive piece of equipment when 2 grunts can carry the same amount of firepower in a 2 man team? This problem though presents itself in the setting you have chosen. It's going to be a close-in type of affair. You really don't need autocannons that can hit things one to two kilometres away. If you're going to be fighting a side that does't think mechs are worth it in the jungle, you're really not going to need the type of armament to take out a tank. Maybe a few grenade launchers, but otherwise it's not going to need any sort of super sizing of the stuff your power armor already carries.

As for refrigeration units, it depends on what you mean here. Is it that you're spending less energy than you're converting heat to cold, then you're going to violate the laws of thermal dynamics. The expenditure of energy causes heat to be released, all forms of expending energy causes this. Heat/entropy cannot be destroyed. A refrigerator works by using energy to shift the heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside, along side its own created heat produced from the engine's own workings. All a refrigeration unit does is shift heats around. The amount of heat that it converts to cold inside the unit will never be lower than the heat the engine generates. If it does, what it is essentially doing is destroying heat, and thus is maliciously pounding the backside of the second law of thermodynamics.

You can use a refrigeration or cooling unit, the problem will then be that the heat source of the engine will be however further the refrigeration or cooling unit is. If this is not your conception of a refrigeration unit, then please do yourself a favor and elaborate. You can't reasonably expect me to read your mind in these circumstances, on the other hand my assumption of what a refrigeration unit is being the refrigeration unit in my house is not an unreasonable guess to make.

As for your claim that I have not read your link on the gillie suit, how have I ignored it? The heat from an engine is not on the same level as a human being. At most the difference would be around 20-30 degrees Celsius baring ultra-cold regions, the heat from an engine of a conventional vehicle will be several hundred degrees. The heat from a mech will be even higher. This isn't something you can cover with a blanket and hope the heat somehow goes into the ground. The amount of heat is also an issue. The amount of heat is also on another level.The total amount of heat is going to be on another level. The mass of an engine is many times that of a person, particularly when we're talking about one that moves a large piece of equipment, every centimetre cubed will contain a butt load of more energy above that of normal human body temperature. From this sort of heat, there's always going to be a bloom around the mech in terms of the heat its trying to dissipate compared to a human. A human can cover up with a blanket and no trace of heat will be evident, a vehicle that gives off several hundred degrees will have a much more noticeable effect. The ground that it is on will probably show the difference as, unless it's over a very wide area around the mech, it won't be able to absorb the amount of heat to make it invisible to IR sensors.

Also, how have I not read your article. Again you keep failing to elaborate how I've failed in reading your comments. You don't even cite information from links you posted that you seem to think contradicts my points. On top of this, it's quite like your position on the jungle.

All you ever say is "You are wrong because I have alledged experience on this issue Followed by *no explanation as to why.*"

And "No, you are wrong because you didn't read the stuff in my link or the stuff I wrote before followed by *no explanation as to why the stuff in the link or stuff said prior challenges said rebuttal*"

Surely you and others can see here that you're not really offering up an argument.

QuoteAnd IEDs and mines, really? Since they are so effective obviously nobody uses tanks anymore.
*snip*
No, wait, people still use tanks.

There's been some talk about how MBTs are falling out of favor due to the advances made in air power limiting their scope actually. Some members on military forums seem to think smaller and cheaper tanks are going to see more development.

In any case, you've brought up a very strange example of the type of fighting your mechs will encounter. Instead of the type of close quarters fighting that your mechs will supposedly have to deal with, you're pulling up a picture of a tank in a rather open arena where it's other benefits would show themselves. The long range and destructive power of the tank guns, the thick armor of the tank, as well as the ability to take all but the most powerful explosions as seen in the picture for example are reasons why tanks are still in service even though there's a (relatively) cheap way to take them out.

Another reason why we still have tanks is that there are ways to clear out mines quite fast, though this is more of your conventional fighting rather than fighting insurgents. The most effective being artillery or aerial bombardment along the path the tanks need to take. Neither the aerial bombardment nor the artillery barrage before an attack on enemy lines is compatible with the hit and run tactics that you've advocated that the mechs use. Even if you can clear out a path through a mined area through these means, if the area around the target is reachable by air or artillery, there doesn't seem to be much reason why you would want to send in mechs.

The amount of explosive power the IED shown in the pic needed would have been substantial and not the sort a military can lay en mass. The type of anti-tank mine are ones that are often laid down are ones designed to take out tracks and stop an advance rather than waste a huge amount of explosives for the mine. The explosive power of the IED seen in the pic was necessary because guerrillas usually don't have the needed time to follow up on a kill after disabling it, whereas doing so in the jungle when there's a comparable force fighting each other disabled vehicles will either be captured or taken out. Again there's a dissonance between the type of fighting and the usage of mines between the mechs you advocate and the mines used by guerrillas.

It's just not worth it when the most expensive part of your vehicle is it's most exposed and delicate part of the platform, especially when there solution seen in the pic doesn't require as much explosive power to have a similar effect on the mech's legs.

QuoteThat whooshing sound was the point flying over your head. Beyond a certain point, its not possible to get more fucked up. Besides which IEDs are particularly effective because vehicles move along roads, nice predictable routes which exist not at all in dense jungle.

Big ones on predetermine paths are common, but not exactly hard to clear out when you find a field of them in front of you as described with the previous methods, in any case, you could always just send in the designated anti-mine vehicle ahead of the column or some sacrificial scouts to the front. I've argued that you need a proportionally smaller mine to take out a mech due to the fragility of the legs compared to a tank treads or one of the many IFV's fragile but cheaply replaceable wheels and transmission. Smaller charges needed to stop a mech compared to a tank can be deployed en mass. Modern day vehicular area denial weapons are often deployed through the use of air power. The dropping of pods containing hundreds of anti-armor explosives can be spread out over a very wide area for a very cost effective compared to sending in your own infantry and setting up the mines by hand. That being said, if you want a mech to carry heavy weaponry and to be armored enough to withstand infantry carried weapons, it's probably going to be quite big, bot to compensate for the armament and armor's volume, as well as housing an efficient enough drive throughout the mech. The paths it can take are going to be limited in the jungle if this is the case. Heck, even infantry advances in the jungle are often limited when the terrain gets bad.

QuoteTell us, will a robot mule ever be cheaper than a real live mule? No? Then why are they being developed? Is it possible DARPA knows something you don't? I'm no expert, but my guess is yes, they do.

You've got to be careful here. You're appealing to authority again (you seem to like this a lot ). There are many projects that DARPA threw money at that didn't amount anything practical on the field. Relying on something or someone's reputation alone as an argument is no good.

Mecha exist today it appears...

If I only had a spare $1.3 million....