/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

dubba bump

The mech is the missing link between infantry and artillery:

infantry can roam the battlefield at will, but are both vulnerable and lacking in firepower;

artillery can inflict immense damage upon an opponent while resisting similar damage, but is at the mercy of the terrain.

A tank with legs would be able quickly traverse the battlefield, dealing and repelling force on a scale never before seen.

Think Votoms.
Thats about as real as you're going to get.

Rollers give decent mobility and the knees help with cornering. Lots of firepower and variability while being very effective in close combat.

Never goes up against tanks, although tanks are present so I guess Votoms just avoit them.

>>2914114
And now we know where that weird-ass Big Dog research is headed...

Forgot to ask before, how big would they probably be?

Hello, OP.

You included a walker from Battlefield 2142 as your picture. However, Mechwarrior is a completely different franchise. A Mechwarrior could literally stomp on a walker from 2142. Pic related, compared to your pic they are 4-5 times bigger.

>>2914114
Metal Gear?!?

Mechs will never be practical in the battlefield.

;_;

>>2914214

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhj3Z9o6t0g

>>2914250

Game companies will never embrace mech simulators again.

;_;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdK2y3lphmE

>>2914271
Or space combat simulators.

;_;

>>2914119

Nah thats bs, right now motorized legs aren't practical because our technology for it is pretty bad, the kind of intricacy required to mimic organic motion in engineering is slightly out of our reach but when we start using things like carbon nanotube more efficiently, their use will out stip that of conventional land vehicles especially for war.

>>2914172
I know, I just chose the first mech picture I could fnd on google that wasn't Anime and wasn't able to do all these 'wonderful fantastica things' that are a complete load of crap. Besides in my head a mech with just legs and a torso actually seemed to make more sense

>>2914302
see
>>2914279
>>2914260

too high and upright. huge target. tanks would rape the shit out of them. fighting vehicles are designed to be as low profile as possible.

We've got centuries of historical data on practical armor for limbs. It should be much easier to attach blocks of armor to a leg than to a wheel or track.

>>2914765
Wow, you still think the mech is going to replace the tank.

Mechs are never going to be used in combat because they fall over.

/thread

>>2914316
Hey gundams are fucking tight and might actually make sense when we have the tech for super fast efficient joints, they're not really the same as mech tanks which arent as cool or good.

>>2915267
...No, virtually all "mecha" that are depicted in fictitious settings would be astronomically impractical. Hands for instance. Why would a giant robot need hands? To grab a big weapon? Why not just build the weapon into the damn thing? And legs, dear god, the legs. To take a round from a tank or an RPG would render such a machine useless. The only way you could conceivably have something at all resemblant of a "mecha" would be to either keep it on a small scale (such as in a mechanical exoskeleton for a foot soldier) or to make the machine quadropedial, the latter for covering steeply inclined terrain which tanks may be unable to handle, and with four legs it could still stand to lose one.

someone may have mentioned it, but the real deal that people are working on now is human exoskeletons. several military models and commercial hikers now exist.

>>2915291
I mean when we have the tech for legit gundams they might be worth building. Which isn't going to be for centuries most likely, it'll take decades to even get the materials tech needed for the thing to stand up and walk and then the tech to make responsive joints will take much longer after that. Tank shells are less of an issue when you're fucking huge and can run around like a nigger, plus the materials to make that shit stand up can probably withstand a lot of damage. And yeah I know I'm basically having an anime future tech fapfest here but it's at least more possible than some retarded slow ass walker thing that trips on shit and falls down.

Also who says it has to be just for warfare shit a fucking gundam would be tight as fuck for a ton of shit.

>>2915328
Pic related.

Nobody is going to go out of their way to build a giant humanesque robot that acts as an "extension of the pilot's soul" or something like animes tend to do. It'd be a complete waste of materials and time. However, that's not to say that you might not be able to get a smaller kind which you could outfit with whatever you please to resemble one sometime in the future. I imagine that it might not be so different from owning a motorcycle, for example.

>>2915291
Hands, or any manipulator, would be useful for engineering purposes and would make conversions to different weapon sets quicker. It also helps when a weapon jams or carting around a physical shield. Historicly, large shields have been the counter for ranged weaponry. It worked for the Romans, it worked throughout the middle ages, it can still work here. In this case, the shield can be discarded once it gets blasted beyond usefulness.

While it is true that a leg can be destroyed with a powerful hit, the same can be said about treads or wheels. In the case of legs, however, they can be well armored, just like how full plate armor can protect the human leg. Putting the lions share of the armor also means that the hip joint does not have to deal with all that weight.

Also, have you ever seen Votoms?
Pic related.

>>2915328

jesus christ, you're such a faggot.

So I'll never be able to take the world over with a mech flying faggot?

>mfw

>>2915509
...Y'know, I can actually make a case for a flying mech. Not a good argument, but an argument.

>>2915291

The only thing that I can think of that is a pretty verosimile mod of a tank that could give the thing movility and versatility would be the Shagohod in MGS3.

That, or make the tanks "jump" like in Metal Slug.

Other that that, would be a waste, because sensitive engineering for legs and hands could be lost easily and would render the machine useless, like a person would be in combat given the situation.

The only advantage mechs would have is making heavy weapons available with high mobility in very tough terrain.

The problems of making natural 2 leg motion are on the verge of being solved. Computers and software have gotten good enough to start letting bipedal robots run. The trouble I see at the moment is that they are not agile. To give them any kind of advantage over tanks they'd need to have a capacity to move quickly and track their weapons very quickly. That means they need a power source that outputs a lot of power. Look at most large hydraulic equipment and how slowly it moves. We can generate large forces in the relatively compact spaces of a vehicle. But, getting the right power output to get the speed needed to make these things have any hope of being practical would be tough.

So basically the power source seems to be a problem. A simple diesel wouldn't be enough. You'd need the power output of a turbine engine which wastes a ton of energy as exhaust and severely limits the range. They might need some kind of nuclear power source.

That's ignoring the matter of making it a robust technology platform. I think this GITS robot sort of seems realistic to me. Low profile, can walk if needed. But, the legs have wheels in them for moving quickly on good terrain.

Another thing is I question whether such an advanced piece of technology would even need a pilot. The pilots of real world mechs might look more like these predator drone pilots.

Check that dude out on the corded phone, calling the pizza guy to make sure they don't go hungry in the middle of the upcoming battle. Gundam Meister's indeed.

>>2915875
And why not? Future wars may be little more than economic battles, battles waged by men sitting in rooms on other sides of the world, controlling combat machines remotely. Whoever cannot stand to continue to lose capital on replacement machines is the loser in such a conflict.

lets build a 200 billion dollar mech so the dumb fuck pilot will mess up and the mech will fall over and self destruct.....

>>2915899

Oh no reason not to, I completely agree.

I'm just highlighting the difference between reality and our imagination with respect to how we imagine the pilots of remote controlled killing machines would be.

Just one other thing about real world mechs that wouldn't be as cool as anime/games/movies.

No harmonious merging of man and machine into a weapon that becomes an extension of the warrior within. In anime these things are presented as mythical and having a power that is a function of the will, fortitude, determination and "heart" of the pilot.

On the contrary, this is a job where video game skills are something to put down as a bullet point on your resume. You could even be fat!

So how about this>

>>2915948
There was that one study which proved MLG level players would actually outperform real life soldiers on the battlefield.

For all of ten minutes before they run out of stamina.

fucking field too long

>>2918093
>a mini nuclear device can be used in an RPG, and take out a tank platoon

And yet, these are not used, and have never been used in a combat situation. I think you know why.

why not build a mastah cheef type of armor. a full body armor but with pressure sensors on the insides of it. especially in arms and legs. when you move leg forward you hit the sensors and a servo motor at the joints will start to work and move the leg of the suit in the direction. no complicated calculation is needed. just, press soft at sensor leg moves slow. press hard leg moves fast. basically a direct connection of sensor and motor. how rotation of the arm would work is not as easy as this but i think also simply achievable.
if you lie down on your back you legs will be pulled down pressing the sensors but when the leg retracts you hold you leg stiff and the sensors on the upside get pressed thus neutralizing the effect.

>>2918068
Most of that is correct. Although the author seems to think that most of the things therein require magic, when in fact, they already exist.

His statement that legs are inefficient however, is incorrect. Grossly incorrect. Legs are one of the single most efficient forms of locomotion we've seen in nature, and they are A LOT more efficient than wheels over anything but a smooth, flat, high friction surface.

You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems#Disadvantages_of_wheels

I've always found it humorous that so many people argue against legs - when everywhere you look in nature, animals have evolved legs, and even these very people arguing against them, have legs.

Legs are efficient and versatile, you can use them for a lot of things, and they can break and still be of some use. You can entirely lose a leg, and still be capable of moving, the same cannot be said of losing a tank track, and legs are certainly more robust than aforementioned tank tracks, as merely driving over a rock the wrong way can throw a track and immobilize your tank.

>>2918093
This image however, is pretty much 99% bullshit.

>>2918196
>>2918068
I'd further like to add that his comment on maintenance - stating that mechs are more complex with more moving parts.

First of all, that really depends on the mech design, of which, nothing large scale yet exists.

But disregarding that, there are hundreds, if not thousands of individual moving parts in the motive system of a tank, from the suspension, to the drive shaft and even the individual chain links on the track. Quite frankly, comparing a few levers in a mech to the thousands of moving parts in a tanks tracks, it seems obvious which is *actually* more prone to mechanical failure.

And that, again, is without taking into consideration the fact that a mech can have a join lock up, and still have a semi-usable appendage in spite of it, if the other joints are still fine. For example: locking the knee does not mean the ankle can no longer move.

>>2918206
>For example: locking the knee does not mean the ankle can no longer move.

And likewise, a knee that can no longer bend does not mean you cannot walk. Your other working leg can drag the damaged one along, and the damaged one can still be used as support.

If both legs are damaged and incapable of movement, at the very least you can drop to the ground and crawl using the arms.