Jump to content

Afganistan + Mechs


Guest dnoyeB!
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest dnoyeB!

Seems to me based on all the Mechwarrior games I have played that the perfect tool for this war in Afganistan would be Mechs. They can get into cities and lay down fire, without destroying everything. They can get into 1 on 1s without wasting heavy ammo, and they can hit tanks if they sneak out. They also walk down city streets rather easily.

Seems like mechs is a better fit than the 20Billion dollar planes we just bought which will arrive in 6 years and be totally useless in the current warground...

opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, lets say we can build mechs and they are cheaper then planes. What would be easier to aim and destroy, a plane that is at 25,000ft and looks like a small dot or a huge hunk of metal walking down the street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Ok, lets say we can build mechs and they are cheaper then planes. What would be easier to aim and destroy, a plane that is at 25,000ft and looks like a small dot or a huge hunk of metal walking down the street?

You're forgetting the, erm, 14" of ferro fibrous steel all over it. Though, if you're like me, you didn't bother to shield the arms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dnoyeB!

Hehe. The mechs dont eliminate the planes. The 20B of planes is a farce all by itself. We have already admitted they would be useless in the current war. Or would perform no better than the current stock. Yet we still shell out the duckats. Get your defence contracts in while the gettin is good...

Mechs are still great. They dont have to be massive like walking buildings. Smaler ones. Sized to fit the environment. About 20 of these things stomping down the street should move some asses very quickly. Drop down the heat seeking targeting and the night vision, and you got a kik azz offensive weapon.

In any event, my point was that when are we going to develop "new" weapons. Surely we can get more than evolution for 20B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, anything that mimics the human form could do much better wuth something of equal mass.

For example: How much more armor/weaponry/electronics/(insert other bit here) could we pack into a tank that had the same mass of an aforementioned mech, but not any of the servomoters required to move legs, keep balance, orient body, etc ...

In addition to packing that extra punch, these tanks could have a much less visible profile. Which is easier to detect/hit: a 14m cube, or a lumbering 60x6.5x6.5 man shaped thing? I'd rather be in the cube any day of the week ...

[EDIT]

As an extension of the above point, the aforementioned cube is also less vulnerable with its profile. To disable the mech, all you'd need to do is give a nice solid hit to one of the leg joints. The only orifices the cube would have are the wheels, the guns, and the manhole thingamawhosit.

Also, the mechs center of balance makes it possible to disable it by delivering a high momentum shot to the upper body. While this may not cause much in the way of actual damage, it could very well topple the mulitbillion dollar piece of machinery, rendering our high-tech infantry unit useless.

[/EDIT]

In conclusion, I think that the only purpose that a mech would have in a conventional war is one of morale and propoganda. Seeing tanks rumble down a road is one thing, but seeing this towering hunk of metal step towards your location is a whole other can of beans.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: TBone ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's say that mechs were even a plausible idea for the sake of argument. What, exactly, would be the advantage over tanks? If we're going to deploy ground forces, why would we use something like a mech as opposed to an actual tank? Futhermore, what has the Dept of Defense never really looked into creating mechs?

Answer: Because their science FICTION.

First of all, we'll look at the mechanics of it. If a mech is to have comparable armor to a tank, it's engine would have to be MUCH more powerful than a tank's. To move, a mech supposedly "walks". Just think -- to lift a leg that has to support literally TONS of armor above it not to mention its own armor, you'd need probably about 50 times the power of a tank. There *IS* a reason humanity invented the wheel, you know. The wheel transmits and distributes power over a larger surface, thus allowing it to move with less over energy. It's surface is also uninterrupted therefore there is no waste of energy.

Now we'll look at the tactical reasons:

For one, a mech is WAY too high-profile. If I'm in a combat zone I'd much rather have the low-riding M1A1 than a ten-foot-tall machine. The tank presents much less of a target for both the ground and the air. Being too "tall", in fact, is one of the reasons the Sherman tanks led to the development of the M1A1s. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to defilade a mech on a battlefield.

And what would it be armed with? Again, science fiction comes into play. When designing a mobile weapons platform of any kind, you must decide what weaponry it should use. Tactically, one big ass gun is all an armored ground vehicle really needs. Missiles are not necessary because any target you'd be fighting that's truly ranged to require a missile could be MUCH more easily hit from the air due to line-of-sight necessities. If the mech was going to be outfitted with missiles capable of overcoming line-of-sight problems, then the missile's guidance system and the fire control system on the vehicle itself would be more costly than an aircraft. A more costly system in a machine much more easily located and killed. Not good.

So, the mech would more likely need to be outfitted with a large caliber rifle like today's tanks. Again, what's the point? First, that would even MORE greatly increase the profile with a long gun jutting out of the front. No, it can't be a short gun --there's a reason tanks have such long barrels. And where would the ammunition be stored? Perhaps the buttocks?

OK, fine -- not long rifle, just some rocket launchers and machine guns like in the fiction. Again, a testimony to the fiction of it all. First of all, the rockets would have to be guided to be of any effect long range. That would mean another costly fire control system. For short range purposes (assuming that something so obvious could even approach short range) the effect would be a little too much bang. Today's tanks can engage short range because the weapons don't "blow up" enemy tanks and other targets. They penetrate and destroy from the inside. So the rockets are rather useless.

Mechs are not battlefield weapons and most likely will NEVER be battlefiend weapons. Too large, too power-hungry, too limited in deployment and arsenal.

One of the things that such fiction skewers is the role of ground armor on the modern battlefield. They do NOT typically fight in a skirmish type of melee as depicted in fiction and games. Armor typically fights a more controlled, LONG range battle because it can be supported by air, and due to the fact that armor is much more limited in close-combat instances.

Also, the reason we don't use rockets or missiles on our tanks is due to terrain purposes. You WANT to keep your hardware low, bear in mind. Now, if you're firing a rocket it would have to avoid the ground and be able to travel TOTALLY straight to target. That's impossible in most cases from the ground. Hills, peaks, valleys, that sort of thing. Rifles, on the other hand, can arch the rounds to the target.

Mechs are just glamorous war fiction, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede your points Aramike, but here's a few advantages I see going for mechs (and i mean things like the Macross mechs, not those overstuffed pigs from MWarrior)

Increased mobility. A mech would be able to leave any ground based unit in the dust, cross over any terrain.

Firepower: The ammo for a mech's main weapon would be externally carried in the weapon itself. In the case of Macross that was a gargantuan 150mm assault rifle with clips holding 300rnds. As anti-personnel and vs soft-targets weaponry is included on the mech's body (50 cal MG's, 30 cal mg's, rockets). Some A-A guided missiles are included as defensive measures.

Armour: If you gonna make something that big, its gotta be armoured. If an abrams tank today is almost unkillable by 120mm shells from ANOTHER abrams (gulf war saw 1 abrams disabled due to the elements and crew decided to destroy it by having another abrams shoot it... 10 rnds at point blank range and no penetration.. a repair team was able to get the tank back into action a few hours later), you can sure as heck armour a mech to resist up to a 11" battleship shell.

Fuel/Power: You got small subs using reactors that can power a large city.. what's the problem here?

Cost: Great cost. Almost the same as a warship i'd say. but then again, a mech is literally a land based battleship. And as in all stuff, it will become increasingly cheaper to make them as new materials and techniques are developed. However, put ONE of these things on a battlefield.. and you got a HUGE, HUGE advantage.

As for the con of it being too big, too vulnerable... it may be so, but a thing of that size literally STOMPING over the enemy troops and murdering the enemy armour and being practically imprevious to any weaponry that can be thrown against it (except a very large caliber gun..like the one the mech is carrying). Its kind of like the same argument with Aircraft Carriers. They big, cant hide them, extremely vulnerable... but hey, they can carry force to the enemy.. just like the mech can..but its on land.

You think mechs are far off? Think again. When I was in Japan some geeks in the Sony Tower were showing off their robot toys (Tekno the dog and other stuff), and they had a fully Gerwalking little bipedal robot that could crouch, run, stand on 1 foot,walk slowly and walk on its tiptoes. It was about 10 inches high. Now take that, add a few million dollars in high-tech military grade hardware and development.. you'd have your mech in less than 10 years.

I'd say they dont exist now 'cause they would be too expensive and unnecessary. A batallion of Abram tanks do the job much cheaper and can "control" more ground.

If they ever make one, im enlisting *grin*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one big plus going for mechs. If you destroy it, then the nuclear reactor powering it will blow spreading radioactive stuff over enemy territory. So not only does it kill the enemy when it works, it continues killing after it's destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

There's one big plus going for mechs. If you destroy it, then the nuclear reactor powering it will blow spreading radioactive stuff over enemy territory. So not only does it kill the enemy when it works, it continues killing after it's destroyed.

BAAADDD thing. We want to kill the enemy, not everyone. Radiation doesn't instanously kills (after the blast I mean)

Mechs wouldn't be good. They would sink in the ground. A thing that big would weight about 50-70 tons and each hit of a footh on the ground would create about 150-200 tons of pression. Mech aren't made to be powerful, they are made to be cool looking. Anyone remember MW2:GBL Stone Rhino? THAT's a cool mech.

I think a very large, long and heavily armored APC-looking tank with multiple artillery and cannons would do great.

However, I think what we need to win is those human-guided missiles they did. Nothing better than that. Pinpoint accuracy.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

I think a very large, long and heavily armored APC-looking tank with multiple artillery and cannons would do great.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

And I got a name for such a machine --> "Hedgehog"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by dnoyeB!:

Seems to me based on all the Mechwarrior games I have played that the perfect tool for this war in Afganistan would be Mechs. They can get into cities and lay down fire, without destroying everything. They can get into 1 on 1s without wasting heavy ammo, and they can hit tanks if they sneak out. They also walk down city streets rather easily.

Seems like mechs is a better fit than the 20Billion dollar planes we just bought which will arrive in 6 years and be totally useless in the current warground...

opinions?


Yeah OK.

OK, anyone got the Thorazine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those TOWS are really cool by the way, just don't trip over the wire afterward, those things hurt!!

An M-1A1 Abrhams tank would take out a mech, pretty much in a heartbeat. I know, I used to work and ride on the things.

These tanks are FAST, and if you take out the governor, forget about it, you'll tear off the tracks before you hit top speed. They are fully computerized, the targeting system is incredible, If a target is moving at 35MPH, and the tank is movind at say 40, the commander paints the target, the computer takes it from there and will destroy the target. No IF's and's or but's.

In the Gulf war, these things were unstoppable, I heard about the one that was told above, but there is nother story as well, 1 platoon, that is 13 tanks if I remember correctly, Aramike will if I'm wrong, it's been 13 years, so sue me. and that platoon took on a batallion of T-72's, the latest and greatest Russian tank, and tore them up, the whole batallion was wiped out to the last tank, and we had 1 DAMAGED by a direct hit.

We don't need Mechs, we have the top tank in the world, and they will do anything that a mech could do, and be less targetable to boot

And if another country were to make such a device, we'd wipe it out as well, ever heard of the A-10 Warthog, it would take out a mech and not even notice.

Mechs are fun to think about, but totally science fiction. Tactically, they would be a disaster waiting to happen.

And I don't know where you are getting your info as far as the 20B in new aircraft for the defense dept is concerned, but those new planes are asskickers!! They combine 2 or 3 of the planes we have now, they can do air to air combat, air to ground target and aquisition and bombing, and can take out troops on the ground. They combine the missions into one aircraft.

The aircraft we have now are getting VERY old, some of them are over 30 years old and going on their 30th or 40th rebuild.

We need NEW aircraft, and that is a fact. instead of needing 3000 aircraft, we will only need 1000 of these, because they can do all the jobs of the old aircraft combined into one.

This is not a waste of money, it is a necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

getting rid of a mech would be as easy as digging a 20 foot deep hole in the ground and covering it up, then have about 20 guys get the mechs attention and then have them run across the hole and when the mech follows and falls in the hole toss in about 20 pounds of c4 amd bam that would be what 100 billion bucks blown up in smoke?

nope mechs would not work at all

there to big of a target, the next advance in wepons will be getting a bigger bang into a smaller package. such as small robots or somthing like the LAND WARRIOR system where attemps will be made to give a common infantry man the power of a tank.

why run around in a 20 ft tall metal shell that every one can see for 5 miles when you could do the same mission but you could move and blend in with your enviroment and have the same amount of killing power?

something like battle armor will come next, not some armored dinosaur that could not stand up to a hole in the ground.

battle armor= see metal gear solid the cloked ninga guy that keeps running around. [ didnt he pick up the mech? ]

it would be a lot like metal gear solid, big honking thing that just trips over then no more mech.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle Armor, there you go Warreng.

Actually you hit it right on the head, no idea if any of you have actually read Starship Troopers, not the movie, YUCH!! But the Book.

The powered armor in that book is technically feasible, and would not be surprised to see something like it come out pretty soon for our infantry. Right now the battle gear that these guys take into combat is getting a little ridiculous, worse then getting dresses for the ball.

A one piece unit such as battle armor would be way above and beyond that, and it would give our infantry a decided advantage over anyone else. Who cares if your seen, the armor could take just about any small arms fire, and the infantry man inside would be doing his own sort of damage at the same time. Nothing short of an RPG would take someone out in one of those.

Now that would be tactically feasible and oh so much fun!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you could jump along super fast like 60 or 70 mph, hay if i had some of that bin laden would already be dead!

de damed with the mechs just have one like a suit of armor with survoes and wepons bilt in

that would make a one man army for real....

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...