The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
Koto, Tsunami, and Morpheus as well it looks like.
Which is a shame, because that Koto looks fucking ace (because it was from the Japanese release, so of course it was) compared to the model IWM eventually brought out. Which had to be "legally distinct", because *sigh*.
I will say, I'm also not a fan wholesale of the Japanese Battletech designs. A number of them are great, but just as many of them are poop from a butt stupid looking.
I loved the original Colossus (Japanese Marauder) artwork. Looked up the Colossus a while ago and Sarna had the reseen version instead which really confused me
I think the Bullshark would count as a cool, westernized Macross/Gundam inspired design. It's fairly similar to a Destroid Monster/Koenig as a heavy artillery platform. Also the King Crab.
The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
I was thinking more the equivalent of just taking an apache helicopter, removing the flying bits (so you’d be left with a torso about 12 feet tall and 12 feet longish), and putting either 2 or 4 legs on it.
It would be roughly 10 tons, have a height of less than 15 feet, and carry a shitton of firepower.
For single infantry you could make an exoskeleton style power armor suit, probably around 9-10 foot at most, that would simply give a single soldier decent armor and allow them to use a normally crew or vehicle supported heavy weapon on a mobile platform. Something like a m2 heavy machine gun, automatic grenade laucher, etc.
The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
I was thinking more the equivalent of just taking an apache helicopter, removing the flying bits (so you’d be left with a torso about 12 feet tall and 12 feet longish), and putting either 2 or 4 legs on it.
It would be roughly 10 tons, have a height of less than 15 feet, and carry a shitton of firepower.
For single infantry you could make an exoskeleton style power armor suit, probably around 9-10 foot at most, that would simply give a single soldier decent armor and allow them to use a normally crew or vehicle supported heavy weapon on a mobile platform. Something like a m2 heavy machine gun, automatic grenade laucher, etc.
Okay, but the walking Apache, how is that superior to a tank? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just not seeing it.
It's a ground target which means it's losing out the flight capability and speed of an apache, and since we're keeping the weight down, the armor is going to be limited. It may be able to take some hits, but nowhere near as much as the tank with 3 times the weight in armor. And once you add the mechanical complexity of legs into things, that's a ton of extra bits that can be targets and broken.
Sure, it'd mount a lot of firepower, but without being able to fly, it's going to be really hard to get that firepower to the place it's needed. And much of the Apache's firepower is designed to be used from an aerial platform, otherwise it'd be mounted on a tank.
For infantry, I think you'd get most of the benefit of a power armored infantry by up armoring a quad and strapping a vision tracking weapon module (like that of the Apache's gun) to it. Let the operator control it from the inside of the armored shell. I think minimal windows, we can get a handful of cameras mounted to the outside feeding screens on the inside and adding sensor data (from both onboard sensors and networked from command and other units networked together).
+3
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited December 2020
Eh, at the end of the day, the vast majority of mecha will probably never work in real life. But that's no reason not to enjoy sci-fi that features them. The important take-away is this: 'realism' in mecha has no basis in reality, so it's an entirely subjective aesthetic preference. But just because someone acknowledges that giant robot sci-fi is nonsense, doesn't mean they can't have personal opinions about where they want a series to draw its lines.
For me, I try to look at the larger picture of what a series has done so-far; I'm fine with the crazier stuff in Gundam Wing or G Gundam, because that's their style, whereas I prefer works set in the old 'UC era' universe of Gundam to be a little less 'super robot'. On the flip side, I'm not a big fan of Gundam Thunderbolt (a new-ish UC entry) grafting a bunch of real-world looking space vehicle bits to the Mobile Suits, even though it's more realistic, because I feel like it undermines the whole conceit that Mobile Suits make better combat spacecraft. Put another way, I like series to be internally consistent, even if it's not consistent with reality.
Eh, at the end of the day, the vast majority of mecha will probably never work in real life. But that's no reason not to enjoy sci-fi that features them. The important take-away is this: 'realism' in mecha has no basis in reality, so it's an entirely subjective aesthetic preference. But just because someone acknowledges that giant robot sci-fi is nonsense, doesn't mean they can't have personal opinions about where they want a series to draw its lines.
For me, I try to look at the larger picture of what a series has done so-far; I'm fine with the crazier stuff in Gundam Wing or G Gundam, because that's their thing, whereas I prefer the old 'UC era' meta-series of Gundam shows to be a little less 'super robot' or 'toy gimmick'. Put another way, I like series to be internally consistent, even if it's not consistent with reality.
Yeah, I think we're all on the same page here. Mecha are cool, but impractical with current technology. And, baring any miraculous or unexpected breakthroughs, they're only likely to get more impractical in favor of smaller, faster, smarter weapons. But it's a fun discussion to have none the less.
This conversation always makes me think of the Ogre boardgame though. I think they started with the idea of "Okay, but how about tanks the size of a city block?" and worked backwards to figure out how that made sense.
The answer is "Radar guided long range laser defense systems make orbital or aerial weapons obsolete as they're targeted and destroyed instantly upon clearing the horizon, so giant tanks are the only way left to move large amounts of firepower without having it obliterated hundreds of miles from the target". The lasers require too much power to be made mobile (even on a tank the size of a city block), but their range means the only range limitation they've got is the curve of the earth.
see317 on
+5
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
It is my dream to have a hex-based game like Battletech, but in the Hammer's Slammers universe
why oh why won't someone make it a reality
you could command a platoon of 4 tanks and it would be awesome
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
This kind of thing happens any time you need to break the rules of the real world to achieve fantastical results. If all you did was change the amount of energy needed to boil water it would have massive ramifications for the real world.
I like how Dune handled melee combat, for example - by creating a detente between ranged weapons and shields that made their interaction devastating for everyone involved. A simple case of working backwards without over-thinking things or getting into too much detail.
I think it's also a bit soon to be calling the future of warfare to be all uber-drones and hacking anymore so than other sci-fi depictions of war including land ironclads.
Cause I garantee you no 1st world government is going to get away with a drone/kill bot exclusive army after some major hack causes them to devastate multiple allied bases sitting down for chowtime, because someone hacked their IFF protocols.
We have the capacity now to make far more devastating anti-personnel bullets for example than are used by modern militaries. Such as exploding or fragmenting bullets. However, current rules of war, and secure borders through nuclear deterrence means that such "uncivilized" weapons aren't likely to be used because of the humanitarian (or PR if you're cynical) optics are so bad.
So we can make some reasonable guesses, but warfare in 100 years is likely to be as unrecognizable to us as it is to WWI trench warfare,
It is my dream to have a hex-based game like Battletech, but in the Hammer's Slammers universe
why oh why won't someone make it a reality
you could command a platoon of 4 tanks and it would be awesome
There’s a game system using Hammers Slammers, but it doesn’t appear to be hex based. I stumbled across it by accident because a site I found for DFC alternatives was selling models for that game system
It is my dream to have a hex-based game like Battletech, but in the Hammer's Slammers universe
why oh why won't someone make it a reality
you could command a platoon of 4 tanks and it would be awesome
There’s a game system using Hammers Slammers, but it doesn’t appear to be hex based. I stumbled across it by accident because a site I found for DFC alternatives was selling models for that game system
Now let's make a PC-based version of it!
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Battletech really needs to get some cool looking mecha.
I couldn't disagree more.
A lot of the reason why I like Battletech is that it doesn't strive to try and be Japanese anime mecha. These are war machines, and they have rugged odd looks to them, and that is cool as hell and unique to me. Especially in a world where things are designed to look cool in works of fiction.
It's why during my time in MWO I kept making fun of the Vapor Eagle I bought, because it was the most Japanese Anime looking piece of shit in the game.
Battletech really needs to get some cool looking mecha.
I couldn't disagree more.
A lot of the reason why I like Battletech is that it doesn't strive to try and be Japanese anime mecha. These are war machines, and they have rugged odd looks to them, and that is cool as hell and unique to me. Especially in a world where things are designed to look cool in works of fiction.
It's why during my time in MWO I kept making fun of the Vapor Eagle I bought, because it was the most Japanese Anime looking piece of shit in the game.
I do like that idea of the aesthetic Battletech is going for, but I think there's a way to do that and still look cool and I feel like a lot of Battletech mechs I've seen don't really hit the mark on that.
cB557 on
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
There's definitely some Battletech designs that play into the anime look, I won't deny. I just chalk it up to engineers in-universe being fans of anime. Which still exists in the year 3050.
The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
I was thinking more the equivalent of just taking an apache helicopter, removing the flying bits (so you’d be left with a torso about 12 feet tall and 12 feet longish), and putting either 2 or 4 legs on it.
It would be roughly 10 tons, have a height of less than 15 feet, and carry a shitton of firepower.
For single infantry you could make an exoskeleton style power armor suit, probably around 9-10 foot at most, that would simply give a single soldier decent armor and allow them to use a normally crew or vehicle supported heavy weapon on a mobile platform. Something like a m2 heavy machine gun, automatic grenade laucher, etc.
Okay, but the walking Apache, how is that superior to a tank? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just not seeing it.
It's a ground target which means it's losing out the flight capability and speed of an apache, and since we're keeping the weight down, the armor is going to be limited. It may be able to take some hits, but nowhere near as much as the tank with 3 times the weight in armor. And once you add the mechanical complexity of legs into things, that's a ton of extra bits that can be targets and broken.
Sure, it'd mount a lot of firepower, but without being able to fly, it's going to be really hard to get that firepower to the place it's needed. And much of the Apache's firepower is designed to be used from an aerial platform, otherwise it'd be mounted on a tank.
There actually are vehicle mounted versions of all the apache’s main armaments. Hellfire missiles are used in the stryker platform, hydra rockets are used on vehicle mounts, and the autocannon is used on ground based AA systems.
As for why? If you had a sufficiently stable platform it would be useful for rough terrain, it would be capable of zero turn radius movement, it could fire from a higher vantage point than a tank for visibility but still crouch into cover, and would probably be less fuel intensive and less vulnerable to AA compared to a helicopter.
Wouldn’t be a perfect weapon but would probably be reasonably useful as infantry close fire support in rough terrain.
It would be chunked by an MBT round, but it would also potentially have non-line of sight anti-tank missile capability.
The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
I was thinking more the equivalent of just taking an apache helicopter, removing the flying bits (so you’d be left with a torso about 12 feet tall and 12 feet longish), and putting either 2 or 4 legs on it.
It would be roughly 10 tons, have a height of less than 15 feet, and carry a shitton of firepower.
For single infantry you could make an exoskeleton style power armor suit, probably around 9-10 foot at most, that would simply give a single soldier decent armor and allow them to use a normally crew or vehicle supported heavy weapon on a mobile platform. Something like a m2 heavy machine gun, automatic grenade laucher, etc.
Okay, but the walking Apache, how is that superior to a tank? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just not seeing it.
It's a ground target which means it's losing out the flight capability and speed of an apache, and since we're keeping the weight down, the armor is going to be limited. It may be able to take some hits, but nowhere near as much as the tank with 3 times the weight in armor. And once you add the mechanical complexity of legs into things, that's a ton of extra bits that can be targets and broken.
Sure, it'd mount a lot of firepower, but without being able to fly, it's going to be really hard to get that firepower to the place it's needed. And much of the Apache's firepower is designed to be used from an aerial platform, otherwise it'd be mounted on a tank.
There actually are vehicle mounted versions of all the apache’s main armaments. Hellfire missiles are used in the stryker platform, hydra rockets are used on vehicle mounts, and the autocannon is used on ground based AA systems.
As for why? If you had a sufficiently stable platform it would be useful for rough terrain, it would be capable of zero turn radius movement, it could fire from a higher vantage point than a tank for visibility but still crouch into cover, and would probably be less fuel intensive and less vulnerable to AA compared to a helicopter.
Wouldn’t be a perfect weapon but would probably be reasonably useful as infantry close fire support in rough terrain.
It would be chunked by an MBT round, but it would also potentially have non-line of sight anti-tank missile capability.
That's what the Elemental with a TAG is for.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I'd figure if we're going with something Heavy Gear/Votoms/Protomech sized, they'd probably be deployed generally in situations where close air support is not practical or as heavy infantry. I'd have to imagine that there are military commanders who would absolutely wet themselves over the idea of a combat system that'd give an infantryman equivalent firepower to an Apache.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Bleh, neither of those look any good to me as battlemechs. All articulation and a thousand bits and pieces looking to get snapped off walking anywhere but clear, open terrain and spots to get shot where things will break easy. Also, hilarious clown feet.
The current iteration is by far the best. Chunky, stout, and with a bigass cannon jammed in the shoulder because fuck you for dismissing mediums as harmless. And it matches the chassis name perfectly because of that cannon. There's just no doubting what that mech is going to do when it sees you, and the visual profile is so damn distinct.
Bleh, neither of those look any good to me as battlemechs. All articulation and a thousand bits and pieces looking to get snapped off walking anywhere but clear, open terrain and spots to get shot where things will break easy. Also, hilarious clown feet.
The current iteration is by far the best. Chunky, stout, and with a bigass cannon jammed in the shoulder because fuck you for dismissing mediums as harmless. And it matches the chassis name perfectly because of that cannon. There's just no doubting what that mech is going to do when it sees you, and the visual profile is so damn distinct.
Bleh, neither of those look any good to me as battlemechs. All articulation and a thousand bits and pieces looking to get snapped off walking anywhere but clear, open terrain and spots to get shot where things will break easy. Also, hilarious clown feet.
The current iteration is by far the best. Chunky, stout, and with a bigass cannon jammed in the shoulder because fuck you for dismissing mediums as harmless. And it matches the chassis name perfectly because of that cannon. There's just no doubting what that mech is going to do when it sees you, and the visual profile is so damn distinct.
Tanks are notorious for just crushing the shit out of or going over what is in front of them, so there's not going to be a lot of crap hanging over them to knock any of that stuff off. And most of that stuff hanging off is antennae, which they know will break easy but are also super-easy to replace. And none of it is hanging off the sides or front or back, just waiting to get snagged by terrain or trees or walls or whatever.
Tanks can take cover as well, even if they can't like, hunch down. They're generally better at taking cover than a mech of equivalent mass, due to their lower profile.
If the cover is set up for them yes... but also no. Mechs can lay down (well not all of them but many)
Battlemechs are not feasible warfare devices as they are presented in the game, for many reasons, including the fact that all this time and energy put into making it walk up right, carry weapons and whatnot, and then put armor on it, is going to lose to a squat compact vehicle with more armor and bigger weapons, built cheaper, and much much sturdier. Tanks are easy to kill in battletech because it is a game. In reality, a mech would go down pretty damn easily.
Also real life tanks can shoot ( and see) through walls, sand dunes, etc, cover...isn't really a thing. From like 3km away to boot.
All of this would lose to over the horizon missle spam anyway, Battletech had to specifically invent a reason why this tech went away in the future because it would be the answer to everything.
There would probably be a place for small bipedal mechas, but it wont be anywhere near Battletech's size, they wont be the main armament, and they would lose straight up to a tank battalion every time.
Real life tanks cannot see and shoot through sand dunes and definitely not from 3km... And walls are semi-effective cover even if it’s one use for the same reason that windows are semi-effective cover against bullets.
Over the horizon missile spam would... probably not be effective unless you were not planning on having anything living in the area. For a variety of reasons. Countermeasures exist and seeing over the horizon is only really possible with satellites (which would be first to go) and is kind of necessary because it’s difficult to understate just how large land is. Like... you would just shoot the missiles with lasers
The American M1 Abrams' M256 120-millimeter smoothbore gun has a maximum effective range between 3 km (1.86 miles) and 4 km (2.48 miles).
There have absolutely been reports of m1a1 shooting through sand dunes to destroy russian built tanks (I forget the designation) during the gulf war. They can use thermal vision to see heat signatures through walls and other stationary objects, as well as other sensing devices. The rounds these tanks use have depleted urianium tips of such density a regular concrete wall would be about as useful as tissue paper.
Tanks aren't obsolete tech they are the kings of the battlefield for a reason.
Over the horizon engagement is the current state of combat in the world today. There is no reason why this would change. If anything it would get worse. Especially given the orbital capabilities, most mech engagements would be endable with pinpoint orbital bombardment from space. It wouldn't have to be apocalyptic either, im not talking rods from god here. You can get from orbit to the ground very quickly, and at that height, there's no way to get away in time. The ordinance would simply be able to adjust its flight path for the minuscule distance you could reach, and it would be targetting you from above the entire time. The only reason we don't really try to go for this shit now is the cost involved in getting up there, but in this world, they can pick up 400 tons of battle mech and get them back up to space easily.
Like, I know you like mechs but I'm sorry real world military tech is fuckin terrifying and it's only going to get worse, with automated battle machines coming soon. Nevermind that something as large as a battle mech wouldn't survive on a battlefield, it wouldn't even have a human pilot. The best case use (and a viable one) is a small elemental sized bipedal thing, that bridges the gap between infantry and tanks. They wouldn't have much armament, but they'd be much more mobile, especially in an urban environment. Big stompy robots are never going to happen. Small zippy ones, while more boring, could probably work, which is why they're still trying to make them. Although currently since bipedal motion is quite hard, they're going more for quad robots.
Just, enjoy your games dude. Don't try to realify this. It doesn't work.
Nah. The value of ground vehicles is that they’re resistant to infantry. Tanks aren’t obsolete because they’re kings of the battlefield they’re not obsolete because you must have boots on the ground and those boots need support and also lose to tanks. Geek out about their guns all you want, but a plane can cross their effective range is 10 seconds and drop a missile that will hit them from twice the range of the tanks cannons.
As a result what matters is armor to withstand infantry attacks and weaponry to fight its equivalent.
In a world where bipedal mechs are possible they’re going to have the same targeting and weapons capability as a tank, but they have all the other advantages of a human does. The ability to modify their profile to fit the situation. The ability to articulate their weapons to find optimal defilade regardless of terrain... The ability to modify terrain without the aid of infantry thus limiting critical infantry exposure.
It’s true that in reality we will probably have bipedal infantry first. But this isn’t because bipedal tanks are a bad idea, it’s because we don’t have the technology to allow them to stand and move at reasonable speeds.
I feel like at that point you are going to be better off with something like Terminator armor or fallout power armor on the small end or heavy gears on the large end.
Like I can see an argument for bipedal armor that can carry heavier weapons than a man, but I don’t see the point in scaling it up to 30-50 foot mechs.
You would think so but for the same reason that bigger tanks tend to be better than lighter(the Abrams as an example keeps getting heavier*) bigger power armor would likely be better than smaller. That doesn’t mean those things wouldn’t have use it just means that if it were possible to make them larger you would probably want to as well. Though they would probably not end up that tall. An Abrams is about 12x8x32 and weighs about 70 tonnes but a good deal of that length is the gun(i think) sticking out over the front bumper. So a 30 ft tall mech would be at the tall end if you were aiming for like 50-70 tonnes of weight.
The wheeled mech ideas would be nice but even if you could make mechs work you could probably not get wheeled mechs to work. Doubling your motive system and having more than one is... significantly difficult even when we are figuring super tech that allows walking mechs.
*square/cube law helps here in that you’re able to add much more armor/weaponry as you get larger for less of a size increase. Provided that your materials/engines can support it.
It was a link to the MIA2's System Enhancement Package configuration which is pretty hilarious for all the extra bits of armor, optics and other kit. It ain't sleek like the original design. Someone mentioned hating Gundams with a bunch of extra shit bolted to their frame.
I think you would have more balance issues and cover issues the higher weight and size you go though. At a certain point it just makes more sense to put it on treads.
I think one thing that will probably affect viability of aircraft and long range missiles which by necessity need to fly towards a target, is if they ever develop a mobile power source sufficient for laser weapons to be viable, because it is much easier to hit a moving target with a laser weapon, especially with computed aided targeting. There has already been a lot of work done in this (LaWs is actually currently being deployed on ships for field testing) but the big issues have been with power generation.
If you have a strong, extremely accurate line of sight weapon all of the sudden cover and ground forces, and even things like weather and visibility, become a lot more important.
The only problem with the Hunchback's current look is big guns usually don't have short barrels because you want the gas to have the max time to accelerate the shot.
Solution! Rocket AC/20 rounds. Full size kick then when the shell leaves the mech woooish.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I really like the Hunchback in a weird way. If MWO were a more tactical minded game than FPS I would've rolled in it. I unironically like it a lot in Battletech.
It was a link to the MIA2's System Enhancement Package configuration which is pretty hilarious for all the extra bits of armor, optics and other kit. It ain't sleek like the original design. Someone mentioned hating Gundams with a bunch of extra shit bolted to their frame.
The only problem with the Hunchback's current look is big guns usually don't have short barrels because you want the gas to have the max time to accelerate the shot.
Solution! Rocket AC/20 rounds. Full size kick then when the shell leaves the mech woooish.
The only problem with the Hunchback's current look is big guns usually don't have short barrels because you want the gas to have the max time to accelerate the shot.
Solution! Rocket AC/20 rounds. Full size kick then when the shell leaves the mech woooish.
I'd estimate that hunch box is roughly 4-5 meters long. Or about as long as a modern tank barrel. It's no battleship gun, but in battletech an AC/20 can only go 270 meters :rotate: so "logically" there's less need of a long barrel for accuracy or high velocity for distance.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
It was a link to the MIA2's System Enhancement Package configuration which is pretty hilarious for all the extra bits of armor, optics and other kit. It ain't sleek like the original design. Someone mentioned hating Gundams with a bunch of extra shit bolted to their frame.
The bolt on extra armor is pretty hilarious (I guess it’s probably reactive and designed to be easily replaced?)
Some of it is reactive and some of it is uhhh. Window dressing(?). I.E. its kind of designed to work the same way a window or curtain would in defeating a bullet. Ablative isn't quite the right word even though it isn't intended for more than one use.
So modern HEAT rounds are very dependent on the angle and distance to the armor that they explode at. They basically use a cone to focus the explosion into a single point, which melts/destroys the armor. You could actually think of it like a magnifying glass and ant (also how lasers work) writ large(except with a mirror). If the magnifying glass is not perfectly focused then the ant doesn't fry. The bolt on armor is designed to offset the HEAT explosion such that it is not focused enough to penetrate the armor, and also to deflect/tumble solid rounds as they come in so that the angle is less ideal to impact the armor.
It was a link to the MIA2's System Enhancement Package configuration which is pretty hilarious for all the extra bits of armor, optics and other kit. It ain't sleek like the original design. Someone mentioned hating Gundams with a bunch of extra shit bolted to their frame.
I have to say i do love these images when someone is all "why would this mech have a freaking machine gun mounted in the head!" because it puts to rest a lot of complaints of design choices that the default mechs have.
Posts
Don't you wish your PhoenixHawk was hot like me?
The flexibility and reaction time of infantry, the mobility, defense and firepower of armor, and the adaptability to make one mass-produced weapon be able to function well in essentially any battlefield.
VOTOMs are cheap as dirt (essentially Jeeps), as easily destroyed as any battlefield weapon, but they give a standard infantry soldier a 30mm automatic cannon and the ability to engage any weapon or craft on the battlefield with a reasonable chance of success, 1 vs. 1. Also, they're not some specialized uber-prototype, they're completely disposable. That would be the tech gap that we currently just don't have. Also, they're more reasonably sized than most mecha.
The early 90's version of Battletech sold in Japan used art like that:
http://www.gearsonline.net/series/battletech/mecha/
Edit: they used a few pieces in the Solaris VII box set. That was the original art for the Colossus: (zoom in on the mech cards): https://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:TheGameWorld2.jpg
Koto, Tsunami, and Morpheus as well it looks like.
Which is a shame, because that Koto looks fucking ace (because it was from the Japanese release, so of course it was) compared to the model IWM eventually brought out. Which had to be "legally distinct", because *sigh*.
I will say, I'm also not a fan wholesale of the Japanese Battletech designs. A number of them are great, but just as many of them are poop from a butt stupid looking.
I was thinking more the equivalent of just taking an apache helicopter, removing the flying bits (so you’d be left with a torso about 12 feet tall and 12 feet longish), and putting either 2 or 4 legs on it.
It would be roughly 10 tons, have a height of less than 15 feet, and carry a shitton of firepower.
For single infantry you could make an exoskeleton style power armor suit, probably around 9-10 foot at most, that would simply give a single soldier decent armor and allow them to use a normally crew or vehicle supported heavy weapon on a mobile platform. Something like a m2 heavy machine gun, automatic grenade laucher, etc.
Okay, but the walking Apache, how is that superior to a tank? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just not seeing it.
It's a ground target which means it's losing out the flight capability and speed of an apache, and since we're keeping the weight down, the armor is going to be limited. It may be able to take some hits, but nowhere near as much as the tank with 3 times the weight in armor. And once you add the mechanical complexity of legs into things, that's a ton of extra bits that can be targets and broken.
Sure, it'd mount a lot of firepower, but without being able to fly, it's going to be really hard to get that firepower to the place it's needed. And much of the Apache's firepower is designed to be used from an aerial platform, otherwise it'd be mounted on a tank.
For infantry, I think you'd get most of the benefit of a power armored infantry by up armoring a quad and strapping a vision tracking weapon module (like that of the Apache's gun) to it. Let the operator control it from the inside of the armored shell. I think minimal windows, we can get a handful of cameras mounted to the outside feeding screens on the inside and adding sensor data (from both onboard sensors and networked from command and other units networked together).
For me, I try to look at the larger picture of what a series has done so-far; I'm fine with the crazier stuff in Gundam Wing or G Gundam, because that's their style, whereas I prefer works set in the old 'UC era' universe of Gundam to be a little less 'super robot'. On the flip side, I'm not a big fan of Gundam Thunderbolt (a new-ish UC entry) grafting a bunch of real-world looking space vehicle bits to the Mobile Suits, even though it's more realistic, because I feel like it undermines the whole conceit that Mobile Suits make better combat spacecraft. Put another way, I like series to be internally consistent, even if it's not consistent with reality.
Yeah, I think we're all on the same page here. Mecha are cool, but impractical with current technology. And, baring any miraculous or unexpected breakthroughs, they're only likely to get more impractical in favor of smaller, faster, smarter weapons. But it's a fun discussion to have none the less.
This conversation always makes me think of the Ogre boardgame though. I think they started with the idea of "Okay, but how about tanks the size of a city block?" and worked backwards to figure out how that made sense.
The answer is "Radar guided long range laser defense systems make orbital or aerial weapons obsolete as they're targeted and destroyed instantly upon clearing the horizon, so giant tanks are the only way left to move large amounts of firepower without having it obliterated hundreds of miles from the target". The lasers require too much power to be made mobile (even on a tank the size of a city block), but their range means the only range limitation they've got is the curve of the earth.
why oh why won't someone make it a reality
you could command a platoon of 4 tanks and it would be awesome
I like how Dune handled melee combat, for example - by creating a detente between ranged weapons and shields that made their interaction devastating for everyone involved. A simple case of working backwards without over-thinking things or getting into too much detail.
Cause I garantee you no 1st world government is going to get away with a drone/kill bot exclusive army after some major hack causes them to devastate multiple allied bases sitting down for chowtime, because someone hacked their IFF protocols.
We have the capacity now to make far more devastating anti-personnel bullets for example than are used by modern militaries. Such as exploding or fragmenting bullets. However, current rules of war, and secure borders through nuclear deterrence means that such "uncivilized" weapons aren't likely to be used because of the humanitarian (or PR if you're cynical) optics are so bad.
So we can make some reasonable guesses, but warfare in 100 years is likely to be as unrecognizable to us as it is to WWI trench warfare,
There’s a game system using Hammers Slammers, but it doesn’t appear to be hex based. I stumbled across it by accident because a site I found for DFC alternatives was selling models for that game system
Isn't this basically Renegade Legion: Centurion? Apparently there's some kind of crowdfund aiming to relaunch the IP next year.
Now let's make a PC-based version of it!
A lot of the reason why I like Battletech is that it doesn't strive to try and be Japanese anime mecha. These are war machines, and they have rugged odd looks to them, and that is cool as hell and unique to me. Especially in a world where things are designed to look cool in works of fiction.
It's why during my time in MWO I kept making fun of the Vapor Eagle I bought, because it was the most Japanese Anime looking piece of shit in the game.
There actually are vehicle mounted versions of all the apache’s main armaments. Hellfire missiles are used in the stryker platform, hydra rockets are used on vehicle mounts, and the autocannon is used on ground based AA systems.
As for why? If you had a sufficiently stable platform it would be useful for rough terrain, it would be capable of zero turn radius movement, it could fire from a higher vantage point than a tank for visibility but still crouch into cover, and would probably be less fuel intensive and less vulnerable to AA compared to a helicopter.
Wouldn’t be a perfect weapon but would probably be reasonably useful as infantry close fire support in rough terrain.
It would be chunked by an MBT round, but it would also potentially have non-line of sight anti-tank missile capability.
That's what the Elemental with a TAG is for.
The Japanese version of the Hunchback is so good
e: the Enforcer, as well
The current iteration is by far the best. Chunky, stout, and with a bigass cannon jammed in the shoulder because fuck you for dismissing mediums as harmless. And it matches the chassis name perfectly because of that cannon. There's just no doubting what that mech is going to do when it sees you, and the visual profile is so damn distinct.
I don't see what is likely to get "snapped off", by way of comparison.
Tanks are notorious for just crushing the shit out of or going over what is in front of them, so there's not going to be a lot of crap hanging over them to knock any of that stuff off. And most of that stuff hanging off is antennae, which they know will break easy but are also super-easy to replace. And none of it is hanging off the sides or front or back, just waiting to get snagged by terrain or trees or walls or whatever.
You would think so but for the same reason that bigger tanks tend to be better than lighter(the Abrams as an example keeps getting heavier*) bigger power armor would likely be better than smaller. That doesn’t mean those things wouldn’t have use it just means that if it were possible to make them larger you would probably want to as well. Though they would probably not end up that tall. An Abrams is about 12x8x32 and weighs about 70 tonnes but a good deal of that length is the gun(i think) sticking out over the front bumper. So a 30 ft tall mech would be at the tall end if you were aiming for like 50-70 tonnes of weight.
The wheeled mech ideas would be nice but even if you could make mechs work you could probably not get wheeled mechs to work. Doubling your motive system and having more than one is... significantly difficult even when we are figuring super tech that allows walking mechs.
*square/cube law helps here in that you’re able to add much more armor/weaponry as you get larger for less of a size increase. Provided that your materials/engines can support it.
It was a link to the MIA2's System Enhancement Package configuration which is pretty hilarious for all the extra bits of armor, optics and other kit. It ain't sleek like the original design. Someone mentioned hating Gundams with a bunch of extra shit bolted to their frame.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Xs1mCf0L1Hw/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-tnPeUOfm7g/maxresdefault.jpg
Just saying, that's kinda been done already.
I think one thing that will probably affect viability of aircraft and long range missiles which by necessity need to fly towards a target, is if they ever develop a mobile power source sufficient for laser weapons to be viable, because it is much easier to hit a moving target with a laser weapon, especially with computed aided targeting. There has already been a lot of work done in this (LaWs is actually currently being deployed on ships for field testing) but the big issues have been with power generation.
If you have a strong, extremely accurate line of sight weapon all of the sudden cover and ground forces, and even things like weather and visibility, become a lot more important.
Solution! Rocket AC/20 rounds. Full size kick then when the shell leaves the mech woooish.
The bolt on extra armor is pretty hilarious (I guess it’s probably reactive and designed to be easily replaced?)
Wasn’t there a ww2 joke about that?
Germans: spend 2 years developing an anti-tank round that would reliably penetrate a T-34’s side armor.
Soviets: spend 3 hours bolting on a 30mm thick side armor plate.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunderbolt_20
I'd estimate that hunch box is roughly 4-5 meters long. Or about as long as a modern tank barrel. It's no battleship gun, but in battletech an AC/20 can only go 270 meters :rotate: so "logically" there's less need of a long barrel for accuracy or high velocity for distance.
Some of it is reactive and some of it is uhhh. Window dressing(?). I.E. its kind of designed to work the same way a window or curtain would in defeating a bullet. Ablative isn't quite the right word even though it isn't intended for more than one use.
So modern HEAT rounds are very dependent on the angle and distance to the armor that they explode at. They basically use a cone to focus the explosion into a single point, which melts/destroys the armor. You could actually think of it like a magnifying glass and ant (also how lasers work) writ large(except with a mirror). If the magnifying glass is not perfectly focused then the ant doesn't fry. The bolt on armor is designed to offset the HEAT explosion such that it is not focused enough to penetrate the armor, and also to deflect/tumble solid rounds as they come in so that the angle is less ideal to impact the armor.
I have to say i do love these images when someone is all "why would this mech have a freaking machine gun mounted in the head!" because it puts to rest a lot of complaints of design choices that the default mechs have.