Quote from: The Traveller;563253And yet John Deere seem to have mastered it, among others. As I said, I'm not disputing that tanks have a clear advantage in open level terrain. But there are lots of terrain types where they simply don't work.

Don't you think that saying that the John Deere machine has mastered it being a bit of hyperbole? You can climb and walk faster than the thing. This isn't an issue with whether they can do it or not, I'm not contending that walkers can't exist, I'm contending that crawlers or wheeled vehicles will be far more efficient at transversing the area with the same amount of R&D.

QuoteNo amount of modifications will make tanks work in jungles, unless you attach a twenty meter deep laser sword to the front and bring an engineering crew along, and then you may as well just bring a bulldozer and build roads instead. Combat wise it just wouldn't work.

I think all of this boils down to what terrain will a vehicle with legs will be able to transverse in jungles and forests. I'm working under the assumption that any terrain a vehicle with legs can go through, a vehicle with wheels can also go through.

Obviously we have some disagreement about just what limit of terrain a walker can transverse, with me working under the assumption that they can't move much more effectively in the bush than a vehicle of the same technology level, and you working under the assumption that there are grounds so impenetrable that no matter how small you make your fighting vehicles you just won't be able to push them through.

Lets put this in the open, what type of grounds do you imagine that would stop tracked or wheeled vehicles but not a walker?

QuotePictures of tanks rolling along trails and in clearings mean very little. Here:
http://www.military-sf.com/infantry.htm

http://www.tanks.net/vietnam-war-tanks/index.html

During the Vietnam war, about half the county was completely impassable to tanks, and that was during the dry season. Getting swamped by mud was far more of an issue in the paddy fields. Tanks did see use in the Vietnam war, mainly attacking urban areas and moving along trails and roads however, which was not in the jungle.

Alright, I'll concede that tanks can't go in some places in jungles and forests, but there are tracked and wheeled vehicles that can, smaller ones that can be armored far better and armed far better than a mech due to its dimensions.  The weasel vehicles I mentioned earlier fits this role perfectly.

QuoteAgain you seem to be conflating "precision" with "delicacy". A digger operator can part someone's hair, and nobody can say a digger is fragile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWSxFWv3Fo

Be honest here. I'm talking about mech legs absorbing the shock and impact of a non trivial landing. Jumping and landing of which you contend that things with legs will do. Maybe you've forgotten this last part due to the strange quoting system on this forum, but if you drop that digger it will not land on its arm. If you do drop it arm first I think you can imagine what will happen.

The joints in arms and legs are incredibly fragile. While our own arms and legs can absorb some shock they are at the scale limit of how well they perform these tasks. Any bigger and they're going to encounter an exponential amount of problems due to the square cube law.

Making multiple legs isn't going to help, or at least expanding the number to a maximum of eight isn't going to help you. The joints you are making are making them smaller and even more fragile to shock. This is also a problem in that you need more armor to armor these legs, this means you need more armor, for less volume to work with in terms of locomotion systems.

What you want for a leg with maximum power and maximum armor protection yet still looking like a leg is something akin to a giant pogo stick.

QuoteYou aren't getting the physics here. The full weight of the machine doesn't come down all at once on small areas, but is spread out and distributed by the flexing as contact is made.

Yes, you can slow down the descent and absorb the energy slowly through the parts of the leg, but the amount of energy we're talking about is still immense. Even at 8 tons, or 5 tons, the bench mark for usefulness being a drop from 2 meters is going to generate an insane amount of energy that needs to be absorbed. Dropping a human that height, and they're going to be able to absorb it, but this machine, while at a fixed scale in terms of size, is going to weigh much much more. A mech twice the size of a human is going to weigh 8 times more. A mech three times the size of a human is going to weigh 27 times more. It's gets worse from there and even this is assuming the mech is built in the same fleshy materials a human is made out of. This isn't even taking into consideration that you need make this out of metal and have to put armor and weapon systems comparable to its conventional competing vehicles. Things that weight a lot don't need to be dropped very far to generate a huge amount of momentum you need to stop.

QuoteA better example would be recoil absorbers in guns, which work just fine without anyone get dislocated shoulders.

Okay, we're going to have to open another can of worms. First off, if this mech has a turret, then this won't apply. If it has arms for some reason, then it will. An arm is not a very good piece of machinery for aiming, or at least, it is far from the optimal machinery we can build that aims. Each degree of freedom that the arm has, and each degree of freedom on top of this, meaning each bend connected by prior bends is going to mess with your targeting systems.

You raised the subject of weaponry, this raises another issue. Recoiless guns generally don't outperform cannons when you get to scale above that a person can handle. What you would be effectively doing is arming your mech with a bazooka whereas the competing vehicles would be sporting cannons.

The fact that most of the explosives would exit out the back instead of being bungled up in an enclosed space means that it can't achieve the velocities that a standard gun can. What you would effectively be doing is arming it with mini missiles.

Recoilless guns aren't exactly light either, while it might be effective in the form of an infantry weapon and meeting their requirements better than its competitors. When you have more weight to spare as on a vehicle, you generally mount missiles which boasts around the same weight, have a much further range, and can pack a much bigger punch.

This type of weapon, or even missiles isn't ideal for a vehicle that lacks armor such as an IFV or a weasel type vehicle, much less a mech with it's odd dimensions and inefficient use of space to area ratio.

QuoteTanks have no advantages over mechs in this regard.

Offer an argument as to why they won't with the same systems. Tank destroyers focus on being low to the ground, incredibly well armored from the front, and because they don't expect to be deployed in a position where they're going to face much infantry, they shorn most of the defenses that tanks use. One of the main things they did was include complicated hydraulic systems to allow the tank to transverse tough terrain and to reach shooting and defensive areas other vehicles would have trouble reaching. Being ability to lean and raise in its four corners demonstrated in their use is that they didn't really need that much to over come obstacles that the a traditional tank can't transverse.

QuoteAnd yet again we return to the fact that it doesn't matter how fast you can go if you aren't able to move. An F-16 is a hell of a lot faster than a submarine but it's not going anywhere underwater.

Why yes.

Is this an argument against tracked or wheeled armor, or are you just pointing this out as a non sequitar? Because I'm having difficulty with figuring out how this is an argument fits with the discussion about equivalent technological levels.

QuoteI didn't think it needed defending, but if you like then evading incoming fire is a good reason.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean dodging projectiles? On the minuscule chance that you are suggesting such a thing please refer to how much energy you need to move a mech that heavy, that fast to be able to do such a thing. As merely for getting out of the firing lane of the opposition, any other vehicle can do so just as well. Most armored vehicles can move quite fast, most of them have safeties that can be over ridden on the chance they're not on the training grounds anymore.

QuoteSo given that the objection is now the cost, I take it you accept that mecha do have the upper hand over tanks in rugged mountainous terrain?

Well no. They don't pack much armor if they are to keep their meagre ability to move, I don't think they can transverse the impenetrable areas that tanks and other vehicles can't get into, they can't carry much in armaments given how much of the volume must be given for the legs to work, and they have unreasonably tall silhouettes. Not only would that give you trouble when you're looking for the enemy and they're looking for you, but being mounted on two legs does you no favors in absorbing the shock of being hit with anti-armor fire, heck, you're much more likely to be hit by artillery shrapnel (which happens quite a bit in mountainous areas) since the profile is so huge.

Are there some areas where tanks can't go that a mech can for me? I've not been convinced of this yet. Again, if you are willing to suffer the disadvantages of being taller on the battlefield. There's really no reason why you just couldn't raise the height of the treads and raise the body of the tank further off the ground. I've not seen any argument from you that contends how this won't work, in fact I'm pretty sure you've ignored it.

QuoteWhich laws of physics would those be?

Square inverse law, and in particular the ground pressure problem. Unless you're fighting in the winter in the forest, the ground tends to turn to mud pretty quick if you're moving across it with something that produces a huge amount of ground pressure. In the jungle, due to the moisture trapped under the canopy, there tends to be a lot of mud pretty much all throughout the year apart from the dry season (in which a foot with several tons on top of it would probably just sink anyway, but without it being stick with the sucking of the mud).

QuoteI'm not particularly gone on the idea of mechs myself, but when in fact mechalike machines are being developed to replace mules for difficult terrain at this moment, I find the objections entertaining.

Smaller mechanical creations are fine. Legs work quite well on our level of scale. A short autonomous legged creation might work, but at the moment I'm seeing weasel like vehicles taking on that role more readily than a walker for the simple reason that walking is very inefficient energy wise. You use more energy to walk than a car of equal weight needs to move. On issues of logistical need, the less fuel your own fuel packers need the better. In any case, why you wouldn't just use mules is beyond me if the terrain requires it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3W8dm5JxFc

QuoteNone of cost, the laws of physics, maintenance issues, or any lack of AWESOME appear to be dissuading that horrible looking thing.

How do you reason something like that not requiring as much maintenance or cost as much as a mule?

The physics is fine. Not too sure about the cost and maintenance though. A car transmission is incredibly simple at its core. Vehicles using this sort of transmission are bare bones due to the cost and the frequent need to replace them. Allegedly, a leopard tank can replace its entire transmission within 10 minutes. That being said, the leopard tank is built alone the lines of replaceability over all out combat performance.

Which isn't even considering you could just use the mules they based it off of instead :|.

Quote from: Swadius;563555You can climb and walk faster than the thing.

...

I'm working under the assumption that any terrain a vehicle with legs can go through, a vehicle with wheels can also go through.

...

Lets put this in the open, what type of grounds do you imagine that would stop tracked or wheeled vehicles but not a walker?

...

Alright, I'll concede that tanks can't go in some places in jungles and forests

...

Maybe you've forgotten this last part due to the strange quoting system on this forum, but if you drop that digger it will not land on its arm.

...

The joints in arms and legs are incredibly fragile.

...

This is also a problem in that you need more armor to armor these legs, this means you need more armor, for less volume to work with in terms of locomotion systems.

...

Yes, you can slow down the descent and absorb the energy slowly through the parts of the leg

...

Recoiless guns generally don't outperform cannons when you get to scale above that a person can handle.

...

The fact that most of the explosives would exit out the back instead of being bungled up in an enclosed space means that it can't achieve the velocities that a standard gun can. What you would effectively be doing is arming it with mini missiles.

Recoilless guns aren't exactly light either, while it might be effective in the form of an infantry weapon and meeting their requirements better than its competitors. When you have more weight to spare as on a vehicle, you generally mount missiles which boasts around the same weight, have a much further range, and can pack a much bigger punch.

...

Offer an argument as to why they won't with the same systems. Tank destroyers focus on being low to the ground

...

Is this an argument against tracked or wheeled armor, or are you just pointing this out as a non sequitar?

...

What do you mean by this? Do you mean dodging projectiles?

...

unreasonably tall silhouettes

...

Are there some areas where tanks can't go that a mech can for me? I've not been convinced of this yet. Again, if you are willing to suffer the disadvantages of being taller on the battlefield.

...

In any case, why you wouldn't just use mules is beyond me if the terrain requires it.

Every single objection you raise has either been previously answered, is self referential and also previously answered, or are obvious misrepresentations or literal repetitions of your previous objections, sometimes not even rephrased.

I mean look, you're talking about not achieving high velocities with guns as a big issue - who cares, I'm only talking about using mechs in closed terrain anyway. And if you need that much range, just use a missile, even if you aren't considering anchors or evacuated mass drivers, which will allow us to put multiple tons out at orbital speeds without buckling the infrastructure. And that's just one point.

Then we get to tanks can just bull through jungle - bulldozers, machines specifically designed to do that, can't just plough through jungle or dense forest, they need a full engineering and clearance crew along with them and they aren't going anywhere quickly.

Just raising ground clearance won't work either for the other reason I mentioned, gradient and rugged terrain. Tanks need to keep low for more than one reason, including their centre of gravity. Thats assuming you can find a nice tank-width path to wherever you are going, which is almost never going to be the case in the terrain I'm talking about.

There is no get-through-jungle-free tracked or wheeled vehicle for a very good reason.

Its obvious at this point that "mechs won't work" is an article of near religious faith in some parishes. Some people will still be shrieking "mechs don't work" right up until one walks on them. In a jungle. Its a bit puzzling to me why this should be the case, maybe its its the human condition.

Going into it unbiased and not really giving a crap, it fairly quickly became clear that the no amount of evidence and links to the contrary could convince objectors otherwise, when even actual proto mechs being developed by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency failed to make a dent (and you can bet if they're releasing videos of that the one they are really using is about five times more advanced).

I have the sneaking suspicion that someone has written an angry book on the subject.

Anyway there's no convincing the unconvincable, so interesting discussion, but I can't see it being resolved at this stage.

Quote from: The Traveller;563664Every single objection you raise has either been previously answered, is self referential and also previously answered, or are obvious misrepresentations or literal repetitions of your previous objections, sometimes not even rephrased.

Actually, they haven't been answered. Like the fragility of articulated limbs, higher target profile, recoil problems and a few others not specifically mentioned in Swadius' post. You just either shifted the goalposts or ignored them altogether while putting a tick next to the issue on your mental list of "I've dealt with these points already".

Quote from: Premier;563668Actually, they haven't been answered. Like the fragility of articulated limbs, higher target profile, recoil problems and a few others not specifically mentioned in Swadius' post. You just either shifted the goalposts or ignored them altogether while putting a tick next to the issue on your mental list of "I've dealt with these points already".

Shouldn't you be off learning about tank proof fences and laying internet smackdowns about technology you claim is impossible but which already exists, or something?

I'm sad and disillusioned. You used to be such a cool person, Traveller; then this came along.


- I'll have mechas in my game because mechas are awesome. Are they realistic?
- Mechas are truly awesome and it's great you're putting them in your game! To answer your question, no, they're not realistic, but that's cool.
- BUT I WANT THEM REALISTIC SO THEY'RE REALISTIC! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NOT ONLY PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS BUT THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE THREAD AND I'M GOING TO HURL INSULTS AT OTHERS AND TELL THEM THEY SHOULDN'T POST BECAUSE IF I DO THAT INSTEAD OF PRESENTING ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, I CANNOT BE DEFEATED!


*resigned shake of the head*

Quote from: Premier;563672I'm sad and disillusioned. You used to be such a cool person, Traveller; then this came along.

See this is why I don't have expectations, that way I can't be disappointed. Become a Buddhist, its good for things like that.

Quote from: Premier;563672- I'll have mechas in my game because mechas are awesome. Are they realistic?
- Mechas are truly awesome and it's great you're putting them in your game! To answer your question, no, they're not realistic, but that's cool.
- BUT I WANT THEM REALISTIC SO THEY'RE REALISTIC! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NOT ONLY PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS BUT THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE THREAD AND I'M GOING TO HURL INSULTS AT OTHERS AND TELL THEM THEY SHOULDN'T POST BECAUSE IF I DO THAT INSTEAD OF PRESENTING ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, I CANNOT BE DEFEATED!


*resigned shake of the head*

1. I didn't say I'd have to have mecha in my game. I run and am building a wide variety of milieus, only a few of which might be able to accommodate mecha at all. In the event that I do want mecha, it would be nice to be able to add them in without risking immersion. I am now satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to support them in certain areas, courtesy of DARPA and half of Vietnam being inaccessable to tanks even in the dry season.

2. If several pages of epic length posts and rebuttals is "ignoring arguments", I'm fearful of what you actually consider a discussion.

3. After a certain point when arguments which were already responded to resurface, its time to draw a line under it, as you aren't dealing with a rational actor any more. Or at least one with a poor memory. My time, unlike my patience, is quite limited.

4. Is there any particular reason you decided to stick your oar in except to answer for someone else and make a run for some sort of drawn handbags at dawn deal?

Quote from: The Traveller;563664Every single objection you raise has either been previously answered, is self referential and also previously answered, or are obvious misrepresentations or literal repetitions of your previous objections, sometimes not even rephrased.

I've ignored points? I've addressed everything you've written in the last few posts with walls of text explaining why this or that might not work, with you returning my efforts in sometimes single sentences using terms you've not expanded on, often without explaining how one point leads to the effect, and sometimes like you've not even read my points. The repetition you see in my posts is that you don't seem to analyse the design of a mech with the other components in mind. Trading to increase performance one thing in one area tends to decrease performance in others. Some of things stated in this paragraph are the following:

-To counter the issue of ground pressure you stated that you just need to give it more legs, while ignoring that this will impede on it's agility as well as the type of terrain it can transverse beyond anything that doesn't have waist high foliage and obstructions. Each leg will be individually weak, if you have infantry around to cut the stuff away as it advances you might as well have a much smaller tank, no higher than a human that does everything that the mech does.

-You've not right dealt with the problem of how in the world a mech is going to have efficient legs like those demonstrated in fiction without having its alternatives like power armor, small tracked vehicles, weasel vehicles, and IFVs from benefiting in the same circumstances as in jungles, forests, and mountainous areas.

-More engine power for less space, and the technological advances in energy conversion to locomotion will have to be in order for a mech to move like such, will mean that tanks can be more far more heavily armored, that their tracks can be made wider to compensate for its increase in mass, and still move at a reasonable speed.

-You've not addressed how exactly your mech is going to be agile in any way. I think I've challenged this position many times in this discussion, yet I've not seen a way how this would happen, and yet you still seem to operate under this assumption for mech practicality.

QuoteI mean look, you're talking about not achieving high velocities with guns as a big issue - who cares, I'm only talking about using mechs in closed terrain anyway. And if you need that much range, just use a missile,

When you're putting a lot of money into a weapon's platform (and in particular more money than any of the mech's alternatives), you're probably going to want it to do more things, or at least the same things as its alternatives can do. A high velocity round has much more penetrating power available to it than a round that goes much slower, even for shaped charged rounds going slower means less penetration as there is less energy pushing the molten slag into the armor. The range in recoilless guns are often much less than that of cannons due to the accuracy and trading off recoil for ease of use. The effect of this is that you would have a vehicle that can do everything infantry can do but cost much, much more than an infantry platoon.

In any case, assuming you mean closed terrain fighting being a big target isn't going to help in that you'll be seen by the enemy first and be shot. Fighting in tight close quarters is the realm of infantry and perhaps even smaller combat vehicles capable of navigating the tight paths that even infantry can't pass.

Anything as large as a mech is not going to be worth it as you'll probably not be able to armor it enough to counter anti-armor weapons available to infantry. What you will have is something that costs explosively expensive that can be taken out with an RPG or a LAW and do no better than the infantry taking it out.

What you'll have in the end is an incredibly expensive and hard to maintain lightly armored vehicle that can't pack much more ordnance than half a squad of infantry. Weapon systems aren't light, the Bushmaster 2 weights more than 150 kg without even counting how much the ammunition, targeting system, and motors are going to weigh.

Even assuming that you can get mechs to move at a reasonable speed, it's just not worth the cost when you consider how cost effective a platoon of infantry and small man sized armored vehicles can be compared to a mech in a dense jungle with these technologies. The mech, on top of being insanely expensive and hard to maintain will not be a stable firing platform, will not have any sort of exceptional range or accuracy beyond what infantry can carry, and will not be armored in any way that will protect it from anti-armor fire. The stability of a mech hasn't been touched upon, though I think it should be obvious why this is. The problems with mounting weapons I've covered. And why I think it's going to be incredibly hard to armor while preserving everything else is made clear in my previous posts I hope.

The alternatives being simple infantry, human sized tanks, or even power armor is going to be much more cost effective than a mech.

Quoteeven if you aren't considering anchors or evacuated mass drivers, which will allow us to put multiple tons out at orbital speeds without buckling the infrastructure. And that's just one point.

[/quote]

Take these things into context, you've just been arguing in your previous post that recoil is going to be an issue. The recoil from a gauss rifle (if by evacuated mass drivers you mean gauss of railguns) is more immense than any other sort of projectile propulsion system. They also have the effect, if designed big enough and mounted on a stable enough platform, to shoot for miles. You don't need this in close quarters fighting.

As for the anchors, you're not addressed how a mech could be of any use in a jungle with multiple legs that are supposed to solve the problem of ground pressure. Traction is another issue for mechs. If you've seen the Mythbusters with square or even round wheels trying to go up a hill, this problem presents itself handily.  So you reduce the ground pressure and the size of the feet by using several highly complex and hard to armor legs. But due to the small areas of the feet now, you're not going to get much traction. In the jungle with soft ground, this is going to be a major problem. A multi ton mech will have a hard time navigating obstacles without slipping and falling over with reasonablly size designed for weight distribution.

On the functinoal side of things, it means that your mech loses a great deal of the mobility that a smaller tracked vehicle will have. Every time you shoot, you're going to need to deploy those anchors. You're basically turned this into an incapable tank destroyer or mobile artillery piece that doesn't have the punching power to compensate for its lack of armor.

QuoteThen we get to tanks can just bull through jungle - bulldozers, machines specifically designed to do that, can't just plough through jungle or dense forest, they need a full engineering and clearance crew along with them and they aren't going anywhere quickly.

Granted, as I've said, tanks can't go everywhere in a jungle, but there are places where they can plow through just like bulldozers. That being said, the main competition for a mech in the jungle that you've envisioned would be power armor, small armored fighting vehicles, and infantry.

QuoteJust raising ground clearance won't work either for the other reason I mentioned, gradient and rugged terrain. Tanks need to keep low for more than one reason, including their centre of gravity. Thats assuming you can find a nice tank-width path to wherever you are going, which is almost never going to be the case in the terrain I'm talking about.

All you need in addition to raising the tank body further from the ground would be the hydraulics I mentioned in that same paragraph. Use the hydraulics to shift the rear higher, that's all you need to do. The inclusion of hydraulics along with a suspension system designed for mountainous areas would be that you don't need a tank path to be able to move. If you ever seen a tank move through irregular terrain, you'll note that the fly wheels move up and down to accommodate the shifting terrain. If you can shift the angle the treads move at vertically and horizontally, not having a tank path becomes much less of an issue.

In any case, you've said remarkably little about the terrain you're talking about. Most of the stuff I'm saying is by guessing at the term "impassable-tank" terrain you keep using with the assumption of what I understand of the terrain a mech can go through by comparison. As such, I've not included areas that I do not think a mech can feasibly move through. This is one of the contentions I would like to go on, what exactly would the ground immediately in front of the mech to stop a tank of my description by not the mech is still a mystery to me.

QuoteThere is no get-through-jungle-free tracked or wheeled vehicle for a very good reason.

And there are no get-through-jungle-free mechs for a very good reason either. You're just spouting rhetoric now. There are in fact, no vehicles designed to go through jungles like an infantryman. What we can offer are speculation backed up by explanations of how they would work in such a place. The main reason that there are no vehicles in jungles is that the unforgiving nature of the place makes most machinery break down. The complexity that the mech will have to deal with by its design alone isn't going to help it.

QuoteIts obvious at this point that "mechs won't work" is an article of near religious faith in some parishes. Some people will still be shrieking "mechs don't work" right up until one walks on them. In a jungle. Its a bit puzzling to me why this should be the case, maybe its its the human condition.

Going into it unbiased and not really giving a crap, it fairly quickly became clear that the no amount of evidence and links to the contrary could convince objectors otherwise, when even actual proto mechs being developed by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency failed to make a dent (and you can bet if they're releasing videos of that the one they are really using is about five times more advanced).

I have the sneaking suspicion that someone has written an angry book on the subject.

Anyway there's no convincing the unconvincable, so interesting discussion, but I can't see it being resolved at this stage.

Was that really necessary? I know I'm new and all, but I don't think it's reasonable to be spoken of in this when I think I've offered reasonable explanations for why I don't agree with you. I do consider your ideas, and I know I have biases but I am trying to be fair. And I had hoped that would be evident from my reflections and contributions. Evidently this was not the case.

That we can't agree might mean that there are other reasons other than the person who disagrees with you need is doing it on purpose to fulfill an emotional need. It could be that the main points of the discussion are buried in the assumptions we have that we both glossed over, like exactly what terrain you have in mind (very specifically what exactly would the ground in front of the vehicles look like).

Quote from: Swadius;563989Was that really necessary? I know I'm new and all, but I don't think it's reasonable to be spoken of in this when I think I've offered reasonable explanations for why I don't agree with you.

Newness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Unlike certain other sites there is no "clique" from within which people can take pot shots with impunity, one of the reasons I like this place.

No, what sets off alarm bells for me are comments like this:

Quote from: Swadius;563989And there are no get-through-jungle-free mechs for a very good reason either. You're just spouting rhetoric now. There are in fact, no vehicles designed to go through jungles like an infantryman.

Except for the ROBOT MULE which is still in the early stages of development. Have you seen that monstrosity jump? It jumps! Never stop killing it with fire!

Now this is not a reference to our earlier discussion on jumping breaking legs. Its an expression of my amazement at the skill of the engineers. What you seem to be doing is analysing each sentence and responding to each sentence without considering the implications, intention, or previous comments in context.

And then there are the meaningless objections. You're talking about recoil in a theatre that I have many times mentioned is closed terrain. It has no bearing on the topic and as such I see no reason to engage on it, and yet this gets added to the list of "concerns not answered" and thrown in my face.

And on and on and on, there are a several such in your comment above, not including the ones which have already been answered in the thread. This contention that mecha wouldn't stand up very well in mud for example - you know what else doesn't stand up well in mud? Trees. Having been in dense jungle I can tell you that sinking is the least of your worries.

I refer to the mule as a vehicle, you say ah but its not a vehicle, I say it could certainly carry a person, you say but that's no good in combat, I say how good are horses in combat, you say but there's no robot horse, I say check back in twenty years and there bloody will be, you say speculation, and round and round we go.

Two things only, both indisputable facts. Around half of Vietnam was impassable to tanks even at the best of times, due to it being mountainous jungled terrain, and they have built a robot bloody mule. Regardless of how functional it is at this very early stage of development, although it is a horrible sight to behold, it does indicate a recognition of the problem and a means to solve the problem which it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect to mecha in those theatres. Not neccessarily huge mecha, but definetely mecha.

So no, I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion, if you absolutely refuse to take aboard facts which are opposed to your position, except to pick apart stray sentences out of context and with what I can only assume is deliberate misreprentation. Hence my characterisation of your objections are religious in nature. Because they are.

Without meaning to get between yall at all, feel free to continue slinging..

Here's some real world mecha things.  I wouldn't normally post a link to a Cracked article, but having them together is convenient.  I'm specifically thinking about #5,3 and 1.  Imagine what taking those sort of designs to a more modern technology level could accomplish.

Overall, I think that the most utilitarian design for mecha would follow along with the GITS:SAC style of mecha, low hull spider-crab looking multi legged designs that would have inherent stability, high carrying capacity, and legged maneuverability.  Gundams look cool in mangas, but unless you can make them 100% resistant to man-portable weapons, they're just walking targets.  You'd want something that could easily go into defolade to take advantage of natural cover, and 40' people just have a hard time finding foxholes.  For reasonable function, I think we'd be looking at 5-6m tall walking tanks with armor equivalent to IFV's and redundant legs to prevent mobility kills, supported by power-armor infantry with upgraded armor (and air conditioners, since noone's bothered to fight a war in nice weather since WWII) and slightly heavier weapons (thinking something in the nature of a low-vel MK19 or ASP 30mm, possibly some sort of 12.7x99mm assault rifle with SLAP ammo)

While I agree that in the same way that Armor (or Cavalry, or Helicopters, or Air Support) will never make infantry obsolete, there's a reason why IFV's and Heavy Armor still exist on the battlefield, and given the right situational design requirements, they could definitely be incorporated.

And I'd love them.  As Light Infantry, I always watched the armor roll by and thought "Wow.. tracks are cool."  Of course, I never had to break track or pull an engine or wait for an 88 to come drag me out of the mud.  And if it were a giant spider tank, i KNOW i'd like that too

Quote from: The Traveller;564104No, what sets off alarm bells for me are comments like this:

"And there are no get-through-jungle-free mechs for a very good reason either. You're just spouting rhetoric now. There are in fact, no vehicles designed to go through jungles like an infantryman."

If you read further down the short paragraph you would find this reason I gave:

"The main reason that there are no vehicles in jungles is that the unforgiving nature of the place makes most machinery break down. The complexity that the mech will have to deal with by its design alone isn't going to help it."

QuoteWhat you seem to be doing is analysing each sentence and responding to each sentence without considering the implications, intention, or previous comments in context.

That comment applies to you just as much as me.

Any complex machinery in the jungle tends to break down a lot. Even simple firearms without any sort of electronic equipment gets jammed or requires constant cleaning and maintenance.
What are the reasons that would make mechs resistant to this sort of problem in the jungle?

QuoteExcept for the ROBOT MULE which is still in the early stages of development. Have you seen that monstrosity jump? It jumps! Never stop killing it with fire!

Now this is not a reference to our earlier discussion on jumping breaking legs. Its an expression of my amazement at the skill of the engineers.

It's a bit hard to tell whether you're just admiring something for the sake of the ingenuity or raising it in an argument. But in a thread such as this, I don't think it's unreasonable that I point out the flaws in such a design.

QuoteAnd then there are the meaningless objections. You're talking about recoil in a theatre that I have many times mentioned is closed terrain. It has no bearing on the topic and as such I see no reason to engage on it, and yet this gets added to the list of "concerns not answered" and thrown in my face.

Granted, my objection seems irrelevant. But I do think the issue with armaments and armor are valid even in both tight and open spaces. In close quartres, it seems to me that what is most desirable is to have heavy enough armor to stop the weapons carried by infantry, but a mech, with all its legs and joints is incredibly hard to armor and still keep any semblance of agility. The amount of armor needed on such a contraption is going to be far more than a box due to how inefficient it is with its surface area to volume ratio.

QuoteAnd on and on and on, there are a several such in your comment above, not including the ones which have already been answered in the thread. This contention that mecha wouldn't stand up very well in mud for example - you know what else doesn't stand up well in mud? Trees. Having been in dense jungle I can tell you that sinking is the least of your worries.

Actually, trees have a very wide root base in which they grip inside the soil. They're kinda tied to the ground to to speak, and to each others roots as well.

As for being in the jungle, you've been in the jungle but have you operate heavy machinery in it? You need an argument against the alternatives to the mech, like infantry, man sized IFVs, power armor, tanks, and normal IFVs having worse performance in mud. Not against indigenous immobile vegetation. With the exception of the last two, I've argued that the first three will be able to get the job done better than the mech at a much lower cost. The last two of the three will however suffer from the problems of a punishing jungle environment as a mech due to their complexity in design.

QuoteI refer to the mule as a vehicle, you say ah but its not a vehicle, I say it could certainly carry a person, you say but that's no good in combat, I say how good are horses in combat, you say but there's no robot horse, I say check back in twenty years and there bloody will be, you say speculation, and round and round we go.

Actually, it's not so much a vehicle than another human or robot is a vehicle. It can serve as such I don't disagree, but most armies already have an incredibly large array of mules.

Again, what is needed is the demonstration of how this is more cost effective than just using mules or donkeys. A donkey can carry a comparable weight and go even further than this. It would also require little maintenance, or at least the type of maintenance needed for such a contraption in the field. From what is shown, it doesn't seem very cost effective unless the price comes down dramatically.

All the comparisons I've raised against it is against the mule that it is based upon, not as any sort of combat vehicle. When you scale something like this up, you get results like the incredibly slow tree cutting rig you raised as an example. There's simply too much mass for the decreasing efficiency of leg designs the bigger we go up to compensate.

QuoteTwo things only, both indisputable facts. Around half of Vietnam was impassable to tanks even at the best of times, due to it being mountainous jungled terrain, and they have built a robot bloody mule. Regardless of how functional it is at this very early stage of development, although it is a horrible sight to behold, it does indicate a recognition of the problem and a means to solve the problem which it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect to mecha in those theatres. Not neccessarily huge mecha, but definetely mecha.

I personally think that's a robot, but I'm willing to call it a mecha for this argument's sake so long as we make clear what type of equipment we're talking about. Especially the type of mech you're proposing can transverse this area. How big would they be? I don't think I've gotten much information about this as most of the time I'm guessing at what you have in your mind. From a dozen tons to 30. I really have no idea how big the mech is. The cut off range for me for a mech then, would be a contraption that has legs and a cockpit being a mech, and power armor being something a human has to roughly fit themselves into like armor.

As for the two indisputable facts, I do not dispute them. I am disputing that a mech can transverse the same type of terrain its counter parts can and doing so in such a manner and carrying enough weaponry and armor to justify its cost. If a mech can't stand up to rpg fire, anti-armor rifles, concussive blasts, or even heavy machine gun calibre bullets in close fighting areas and can't pack much more if it sights tanks in the open, how you could you justify this machine?

QuoteSo no, I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion, if you absolutely refuse to take aboard facts which are opposed to your position, except to pick apart stray sentences out of context and with what I can only assume is deliberate misreprentation. Hence my characterisation of your objections are religious in nature. Because they are.

Traction

Mobility

Armor

Explanation of what sort of mech you have in mind.

Square cube law on the efficiencies of the leg.

The complexity of the machinery in the jungle.

Above all- Cost of maintenance vs alternatives.

The very last one is the most important.

---

QuoteWithout meaning to get between yall at all, feel free to continue slinging..

Welcome to the slinging. Do you see what I did there ?

QuoteHere's some real world mecha things. I wouldn't normally post a link to a Cracked article, but having them together is convenient. I'm specifically thinking about #5,3 and 1. Imagine what taking those sort of designs to a more modern technology level could accomplish.

3 and 1 might not qualify as mechs in some circles. They just have two hydraulic arms instead of one most Caterpillars have.

The issue of those is why would you have two dinky arms instead of one massive one that lift more than both?

The truck design of 5 is a little strange since wheels are by far much better than legs as a form of straight forward locomotion, not to mention we already have vehicles with raised wheels that can transverse the type of obstacle this machine is shown trying to step over.

QuoteOverall, I think that the most utilitarian design for mecha would follow along with the GITS:SAC style of mecha, low hull spider-crab looking multi legged designs that would have inherent stability, high carrying capacity, and legged maneuverability.

I've always had a problem with the GTs spider walkers in that they were never really consistent with the world they're in.

The tachicomas move much too fast for something that unbalanced and much too fast compared to the other machines in the show. This is made worse by the knowledge that there are people in the show who are almost all machine yet still can't exhibit this kind of agility when comparable tech is applied to them.

The legs also pose the problem of not adding to its mobility. A wheel vehicle or even a mech on two legs for a full rotation of its parts in order to move would be far lower than a mech requiring 6 or 8 legs. Each leg has to be powered to individually lift up each and every time the mech want to move. As opposed to a wheeled design.

As for capacity and stability, you'll never get as much from a tracked of wheel vehicle where the system of locomotion is much simpler, and the weapon system has a solid base to absorb the shock.

The effectiveness of the armor on those spider tanks is likely useless when if the weapons used against it in the show weren't nerfed. The stresses on those parts alone would make breaking them with fire easier.

QuoteGundams look cool in mangas, but unless you can make them 100% resistant to man-portable weapons, they're just walking targets. You'd want something that could easily go into defolade to take advantage of natural cover, and 40' people just have a hard time finding foxholes. For reasonable function, I think we'd be looking at 5-6m tall walking tanks with armor equivalent to IFV's and redundant legs to prevent mobility kills, supported by power-armor infantry with upgraded armor (and air conditioners, since noone's bothered to fight a war in nice weather since WWII) and slightly heavier weapons (thinking something in the nature of a low-vel MK19 or ASP 30mm, possibly some sort of 12.7x99mm assault rifle with SLAP ammo)

5-6m on the battle is way too tall. The abrams tank is 8ft, or roughly 2.5 metres. Any higher and the mech is going to be a huge target. It's weight will also be too much for the legs to handle. Efficient leg designs pretty much cut off at our human scale. The smaller you get down the scale the stronger they become, ants are proportionally stronger than most of us, but if you super size it to human scale it loses a tremendous amount of its efficiency.

A mech is also very hard to armor as I've stated before. The amount of surface area it has to volume to power the armor you slap onto the surface is atrocious. IFVs tend to weight between, on the extremely light side, 15 tons, to around 30 at its heaviest. 30% of this weight goes into the armor that it has. It's questionable if the legs can move it at any sort of reasonable pace, let alone considering it's rather poor dimensions, how much more than 30% you need to dedicate to its armor to achieve IFV armored status.

QuoteWhile I agree that in the same way that Armor (or Cavalry, or Helicopters, or Air Support) will never make infantry obsolete, there's a reason why IFV's and Heavy Armor still exist on the battlefield, and given the right situational design requirements, they could definitely be incorporated.

IFVs and heavy armor exists because they provide the best possible stable firing platform that can move, and the best structural design to accommodate armor while still having the volume inside to move it. Not to mention that they are quite fast.
A mech will have to be justified on other reasons than that it can simply fire or put on armor. In war it's the most efficient design for your buck that wins. Even ignoring the great costs of mechs, it doesn't do any of the three things well enough.

QuoteAnd I'd love them. As Light Infantry, I always watched the armor roll by and thought "Wow.. tracks are cool." Of course, I never had to break track or pull an engine or wait for an 88 to come drag me out of the mud. And if it were a giant spider tank, i KNOW i'd like that too

Yeah, those Russian T-series tanks are really awesome in the mud.

Quote from: Swadius;564448Any complex machinery in the jungle tends to break down a lot. Even simple firearms without any sort of electronic equipment gets jammed or requires constant cleaning and maintenance.
What are the reasons that would make mechs resistant to this sort of problem in the jungle?

See this is the result of thinking Platoon was set in 2011. My netbook and Canon t2i Rebel with associated fiddly bits did just fine in dense jungle for weeks on end, and are still doing fine years later. These things you claim are impossible are, once again, possible.

As for the rest, well you actually quoted the part where I foretold the direction the discussion would go, and then went on to do exactly what I said you'd do.

Good luck with that.

It's easy to justify mecha. You need something that size to go toe-to-toe with a Zentraedi.

Quote from: The Traveller;564575See this is the result of thinking Platoon was set in 2011. My netbook and Canon t2i Rebel with associated fiddly bits did just fine in dense jungle for weeks on end, and are still doing fine years later. These things you claim are impossible are, once again, possible.

A computer is not a piece of machinery that has to transverse the terrain. For all intents and purposes, you were the one protecting it while you were in the jungles moving it around. We're talking about machinery that needs to get through mud and detritus, that's probably tall enough that it needs to deal with branches, and probably has to deal with being away from its maintenance lines for at least a week.

The mech might get away with it if the soldiers carried it every where in a large pack, shield from all the detritus it might encounter, and cleaned immediately when mud and water does get into its joints.

Comparing the operation of a piece of large, heavy, and complicated machinery that needs to move itself through jungle environment and a note book a soldier can carrying around in his pack or a camera someone has around their neck is not a good example.

It's like comparing a tiny piece of machinery that has a billion moving part encased encased in a thick plastic cube and hung around someone's neck to a machine that has to move mechanical legs through mud, foliage, branches, etc. and raising the point that because the cube came out fine, anything can be made immune to the jungle environment.

We don't even need to go into the jungle for heavy machinery to break down. Modern 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.

QuoteAs for the rest, well you actually quoted the part where I foretold the direction the discussion would go, and then went on to do exactly what I said you'd do.

Good luck with that.

Well, then I'm afraid that someone else will have to defend your points for you.

Quote from: Vile;564681It's easy to justify mecha. You need something that size to go toe-to-toe with a Zentraedi.

I would disagree, it's probably more practical to fight them with dedicated space combat craft and conventional armor inside the ships than with giant mechs.

Quote from: Swadius;564945I would disagree, it's probably more practical to fight them with dedicated space combat craft and conventional armor inside the ships than with giant mechs.

Who's talking about practical? When you've got to look good slugging it out hand-to-hand with giant aliens, giant humanoid mecha are the only option. With boot knives.

Quote from: Vile;565085Who's talking about practical? When you've got to look good slugging it out hand-to-hand with giant aliens, giant humanoid mecha are the only option. With boot knives.

Well yes, but this is a meta-reason though, not a reason within the source that justifies the existent of mechs other than the unexplained or unmentioned stupidity of everyone in the series.

Look, I like mechs, Traveller likes mechs, you like mechs, we all like mechs, even chicks dig mechs. It's just that I just don't want their existence in fiction that takes itself seriously to be a plot hole you know?

As far as my position goes on this at the moment, its mechanical usefulness is a little suspicious cost wise. But a piece of equipment need not be entirely justified by its practicality in war. Other reasons might make mechs exist in the fictional world. The most obvious one is political incompetence. You could write an 2000 page epic with an incredibly asinine plot device whose only justification for its existence is political incompetence. You probably only need one line in those 2000 pages to justify its existence in the story; political ineptitude leading to 'x' doesn't need much of an explanation if 'x' is causally linked to the state.

On the other hand, mechs could be like UAVs, it's admitted in the story they won't do as much good as its counterparts, and that it's much more expensive than just sending in a bunch of trained grunts to get the job done cheaply, but the political climate is such that public support is swinging against the people making the war due to the high casualties. Though this is probably more of an argument for power armor and autonomous tanks and man sized robots than full blown mechs like the ones we see in fiction.

One reason coming from a fictionalized universe about why mechs exist even though they admit they aren't practical war machines is to limit the destructive range of war that can be waged. I've forgotten the name of the series that had this though. Yes, the warring states could just switch to tanks and more cost efficient vehicles (and sometimes they do), but doing so is like using chemical, biological, nuclear, or other highly uncontrollable mass effect weapons in war. While there might be very few rules of war, escalation in the use of violence, especially those waged in far off places, generally isn't such a good idea for the people living there. There might be circumstances where one state might abandon these machines for more cost efficient vehicles, and as a response competing states will do so as well ending the use of mechs, but just as chemical, biological, or weapons like cluster bombs aren't used all that often in war, the resistance to escalating the level of violence employed can be wide spread and enduring given the right circumstances.