Semi-Viable Mecha Idea?

[Venator]

I was tossing this idea around a while back for a type of mecha that would be at least quasi-plausible for a "realistic" sci-fi warfare setting, and I'd like some criticism on it.

Basically, the mechs would be on the small side, with a profile something like an AT-PT. Walking crouched, they'd have a profile not much higher than a conventional armoured vehicle (4-5m tops).

The kicker is that the vehicles would have short-span wings on their legs, and similar on the main hull. The 'body' would be effectively a giant engine aside from cockpit and weapons. They'd be folded back during land operations.

The mechs themselves would be made of the lightest materials available (carbon composites, plastics), with only the cockpit and legs being built out of sturdier materials.

All this is so that with a massive thrust boost (and possibly anti-grav aid), the vehicle could become airborne, possibly functioning as a gunship.

It goes without saying that this kind of vehicle would be too lightly armoured to compete with strict land vehicles and too unwieldy to hold it's own in the air.

However, it's not without upsides; it could self-deploy, perhaps even from orbit, and self-extract without assistance. It could also keep up with a running battle despite the speed limits of walking vehicles.

So, verdict? Fanboy mech-wank or just crazy enough to work?

[weemadando]

So what's the point of this?

You've got something that's trying to be an IFV AND heli-gunship/CAS. You're sacrificing too much from both to get a single unit that can't do either job nearly as well. And will cost about as much per unit as a goddamn frigate.

Self-deploying? You need range for that. So there goes weapon loads, armour and other functions in favour of more fuel or load-lightening.

Height of 4-5 m? A fucking IFV (almost uniformly "taller" than MBTs) only reaches 3m or so (3.1 for the new Puma models which I believe is the tallest out there). So you are 1.5-2 times taller than any other target on the battlefield aside from some SAM launchers in their primed to fire position. Or of course SPGs.

By making it so lightweight, it would have the protection MAYBE of a HMMMWV (up-armoured if you want to be generous). It's weapons would be probably only for use on infantry or unarmoured vehicles.

The whole idea is simply preposterous. And stupid. Not to be mean, but this kind of thing gets brought up occassionally and it always meets with the same response.

[Venator]

The whole idea is simply preposterous. And stupid. Not to be mean, but this kind of thing gets brought up occassionally and it always meets with the same response.

Not mean at all, I wanted to know if it was viable, and you gave a good breakdown of why it's not.

On the upside, if it's nonsensical anyway, I can have more fun wanking out the mechs and the universe in general .

/thread?

[Ford Prefect]

You've gone about this the wrong way. Mecha are not reasonable, and at the end of the day there's no pussy-footing around this fact. Attempting to create a mecha-design which is functional in the same way as an actual weapon system is folly. You can only 'justify' a mecha with ultra-high performance, which in itself can be a difficult task if you think about it too much. After all, if a mecha has technology which makes it a powerful weapon (be it power plant, a new kind of armour, whatever), how long before it gets put together a superior design which can actually serve a purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I think that humanoid mecha are an end in themselves, given that it is a fact that they are the only armoured vehicle which can headbutt another armoured vehicle.

[Darth Raptor]

Quite frankly, mecha are more realistic than anti-gravity. At least the former is possible, if wildly impractical. Also, the only two justifications for giant, humanoid robots (multiped tanks have real uses) are also the most compelling. Ideally, a power would field mecha because:

1) The humanoid configuration interfaces readily with the pilot, requiring minimal cross-training from infantry. Although this precludes the kind of fighter cockpit schemes you normally see, and begs the question of why there's a pilot at all if their neural networking is that good (and there are actually ways of addressing that, namely security).

2) They can. They have the engineering, power generation and materials science to make it happen. Yes, you could put all of that Clarke-tech on a tank, but then it wouldn't be a mech. The salient point here is that mecha are fucking awesome and, like Ford said, an end unto themselves. Don't be afraid to make your setting fantastic and interesting. Real life is boring. That's why we write fiction. Internal self-consistency is far more important than realism.

[Covenant]

Any interface which simulates a user's normal movement as a control mechanism could be used in a tank too. You could put a single guy in a standing position who points to fire his main cannon while 'walking' to direct where the treads go. Maybe it's not as natural but it also doesn't require a lot of fussing around with legs and arms, and still natural enough for it to work.

Really, mecha are just worthless as weapon designs go, but they're really only tremendously worthless when they're bigger than tanks. Things like Gundams are the worst example of it, whereas the WWII inspired designs of Ring of Red at least look like weapon systems. I can't think of any reason you'd ever want legs instead of tracks except for completely urbanized terrain where big vehicles have trouble getting around and the huge weight of a robot leg won't sink into the ground the way it would in open terrain. Even then, eh. The way I see it, the one advantage of a leg is height. If you postulate a weapon system that requires a certain heavy kind of powerplant or ammunition supply (like a laser) as the only viable, or the most viable, weapon system... and you MUST get this weapon system into a city fight... then arranging the tank vertically via legs might be okay? But still, it needs to be something so heavy it can't be on a helicopter, so big it can't be on a tank, and so important you can't just exchange it for aerial bombardment.

[Darth Raptor]

Mecha are often intended to usurp the role of MBTs, but they don't. That's not even how they're portrayed. They're closer to heavily armored gunships than any kind of tank, as the most absurdly high performance wankmonster mecha fly more often than they walk from place to place. When you're dealing with something along the lines of a Gundam, it's the weapons/armor/propulsion technology that's ruling the battlefield and it could essentially take whatever form you want. Would a tank flying around like that be any more inherently realistic? Seems like a stretch.

[Ford Prefect]

1) The humanoid configuration interfaces readily with the pilot, requiring minimal cross-training from infantry. Although this precludes the kind of fighter cockpit schemes you normally see, and begs the question of why there's a pilot at all if their neural networking is that good (and there are actually ways of addressing that, namely security).

I had an original story which featured the cutting edge weapons of an implausibly powerful arms company; one of these was a mecha, which relied on high-output artificial muscle and a neural interface, where one becomes the machine (I use this technology all the time in my stories, with varying levels of prevalence). At the time of writing, the technology was not developed enough that people could use it with something like a tank, simply because they flipped out mentally. I can't actually say whether this is actually accurate, but as you say, self-consistency is most important.

Things like Gundams are the worst example of it

To be fair, mobile suits in the original series were not actually designed to replace tanks; their original purpose was to operate in space, though they would eventually end up on the ground, and it of course varies from series to series. Of course, there are other problems with this regardless, but hey, lightsaber battles in space between giant robots. Sold.

[Commander 598]

The argument that mechs will never happen or that they serve no place (Which is pretty much true) and thus will never happen assumes that man kinds does nothing but make totally logical decisions and will continue to make them... As it turns out, weapons follows trends just like fashion. I see MBTs being mostly phased out over the next couple of decades or less for lighter wheeled vehicles like the MGS. The only thing really required for mechs to suddenly appear in the military is for someone to make them, for them to not totally suck, and for some politicians to think it's awesome. About half the internet agrees quite loudly that the V22 is a horribly stupid idea but, welp, guess what's on the USMC's vehicle roster and would you believe that they're considering quad tilt-rotors in the future too? Tanks were the "in" thing of the 20th century, but nations are kinda starting to look at each new iteration and the pricetag on them and going "Eh...".

Also, arguing that a single meter of height (while standing) is going to be a potential mechs Achilles heel is quite silly.

[Darth Raptor]

I had an original story which featured the cutting edge weapons of an implausibly powerful arms company; one of these was a mecha, which relied on high-output artificial muscle and a neural interface, where one becomes the machine (I use this technology all the time in my stories, with varying levels of prevalence). At the time of writing, the technology was not developed enough that people could use it with something like a tank, simply because they flipped out mentally. I can't actually say whether this is actually accurate, but as you say, self-consistency is most important.

That's a good one. I generally eschew humanoid mecha in my near(ish) future settings altogether so the relevant technology is never in its bleeding edge infancy. Also, my humanoid robots tend mass far less than a tank, as the whole point of them is to operate in and around space habitats. They're in that fuzzy range wherein the distinction between single pilot mecha and powered armor becomes academic.

More particular to my favored setting; the party that uses mecha most prevalently (by that I mean animu real robots, all sides have multiped tanks and one of the factions ARE mechanoids) are all about aestheticism and are like kids in more ways than one. They essentially started from the conclusion that they wanted animu robots and went about how to make it happen.

[Ford Prefect]

That's a good one.

It's almost like Gurren Lagann's 'humanoid forms have exponential increases in power' stuff.

More particular to my favored setting; the party that uses mecha most prevalently (by that I mean animu real robots, all sides have multiped tanks and one of the factions ARE mechanoids) are all about aestheticism and are like kids in more ways than one. They essentially started from the conclusion that they wanted animu robots and went about how to make it happen.

Cultural reasons and cultural inertia are actually fairly reasonable justifications for almost anything. Atomic Rocket uses cultural prefences as an example of a way for a person to 'justify' the usage of space fighters.

[Stark]

I had an original story which featured the cutting edge weapons of an implausibly powerful arms company; one of these was a mecha, which relied on high-output artificial muscle and a neural interface, where one becomes the machine (I use this technology all the time in my stories, with varying levels of prevalence). At the time of writing, the technology was not developed enough that people could use it with something like a tank, simply because they flipped out mentally. I can't actually say whether this is actually accurate, but as you say, self-consistency is most important.

This is almost as hilarious as neural interfaces in fiction that have fatal biofeedback as a non-removable feature. What's that you say, there's an abstraction layer? SURELY YOU JEST.

[Ford Prefect]

This is almost as hilarious as neural interfaces in fiction that have fatal biofeedback as a non-removable feature. What's that you say, there's an abstraction layer? SURELY YOU JEST.

That particular usage was actually silly (blah blah blah worthless justification here), I don't think it's fair to compare it to 'if you die in the Matrix your brain makes it REAL'. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing, having a person not being able to mind-meld with a machine which doesn't have arms and legs is not especially outlandish when it comes to science fiction technology. It just indicates that you should probably not make neural interfaces because you clearly such at it.

[Shroom Man 777]

How do you personify a tank's movements, anyway? With mecha, you can imagine moving your arms and the machine will move its arms. When controlling a tank... can you turn the treads by... imaginarily clenching your sphincters?


Hmmm... Imagine giving a T-34 one of those Gundam wings and giving it the same color schemes as one of those Gungans. Gundam, I mean.

As the flying T-34 and the flying Panzers duel in space, their tank commanders shall have battle philosophies! Rommel will be enigmatic, he will have an iron mask or something, to go with his flowing beautiful blonde hair. Erwin Rommel - Desert Bishonen!

Field Marshall Zhukov is going to cry manly tears while totally eviscerating his Space Panzer, though.

[Ford Prefect]

How do you personify a tank's movements, anyway? With mecha, you can imagine moving your arms and the machine will move its arms. When controlling a tank... can you turn the treads by... imaginarily clenching your sphincters?

Any decently designed interface wouldn't require you to imagine moving your arms or anything else like that; you would simply control the tank with your mind. You would be the tank. Rolling forward and moving your turret and operation your co-axial weapons would be as naturally as using your actual body. Obviously it depends on how you write it.

As the flying T-34 and the flying Panzers duel in space, their tank commanders shall have battle philosophies! Rommel will be enigmatic, he will have an iron mask or something, to go with his flowing beautiful blonde hair. Erwin Rommel - Desert Bishonen!

Gundam SEED did actually have a character based very clearly on Rommel (in addition to a character fromt heo riginal series, Ramba Ral), right down to the nickname of Desert Tiger.

[Shroom Man 777]

Anyway, I think the best Gundam was when they had a giant ring that extended to outer space, and had the Giant Robots beat the everliving crap out of one another live on Interstellar TV.

Plus, all the Gundams were, like, totally racist national stereotypes. Master Asia!

[Stark]

That particular usage was actually silly (blah blah blah worthless justification here), I don't think it's fair to compare it to 'if you die in the Matrix your brain makes it REAL'. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing, having a person not being able to mind-meld with a machine which doesn't have arms and legs is not especially outlandish when it comes to science fiction technology. It just indicates that you should probably not make neural interfaces because you clearly such at it.

Well yeah, that's the point; just like in TEH CYBASPCCZZ the primary goal (make hacking 'better') is subservient to something else (ie, making hacking FULLY SENSUAL VIRTUALTRONS). If you can neural link to something and it doesn't work unless the thing is roughly human, just throw an abstraction layer in. It's plot-driven technology, and it's funny as hell.

Remember, if you took the biofeedback out you'd be invincible hacker, but you wouldn't get to FEEL THE AWESOME SWORDFIGHTS and FUCK DEM BITCHZ!

[Sea Skimmer]

Mecha are often intended to usurp the role of MBTs, but they don't. That's not even how they're portrayed. They're closer to heavily armored gunships than any kind of tank, as the most absurdly high performance wankmonster mecha fly more often than they walk from place to place. When you're dealing with something along the lines of a Gundam, it's the weapons/armor/propulsion technology that's ruling the battlefield and it could essentially take whatever form you want. Would a tank flying around like that be any more inherently realistic? Seems like a stretch.

Yeah actually it would be, because the tanks compact shape will always let it have much thicker armor, more volume under armor and a generally stronger structure. It doesn’t matter what the hell you do with technology, mecha are always going to be fucked by the need to armor so many facets, not to mention the large joints in the legs and arms. If your going to fly, a tank shape would also have a lot less drag, and could actually be realistically streamlined. For a mecha a bunch of streamlining would interfere with the normal motions of the arms and legs.

Plus, flying tanks actually exist. The Antonov-KT turned a T-60 into a glider with detaching wings, and which was successfully flight tested, same story with the Japanese KU6 Light Tank turned glider. Had WW2 lasted much longer the Japanese intended to send several dozens of them against B-29 bomber bases in the Marinias.

America however went further and built an actual prototype of the Christie M1932 tank, which was capable of taking off and flying under its own power as an aircraft, though it was still intended to shed wings upon landing and entering combat. Technically it should be called be an assault gun because the 75mm main gun was in the hull, but hell, in 1932 most tanks still only had machine guns or maybe very light cannon so its impressive none the less. It was never flight tested because of engine reliability concerns, but the Soviets were interested enough to buy the prototype.

Of course, if we can build pratical flying tanks or practical flying mecha, even ones which only have the performance of helicopters, then we can also build armored supersonic fighters which will blow either of the things out of the sky with ease, while being immune to laser weapons and most missiles. Probably what would happen is armored fighters rule near unchallenged, while a tank with a very low cost flight system that just lets it fly only 25 feet off the ground (eliminating the effectiveness of more or less all natural and manmade anti armor obstacles, as well as AT mines) is fielded to mop up. You can’t make one system do everything well.

1) The humanoid configuration interfaces readily with the pilot, requiring minimal cross-training from infantry. Although this precludes the kind of fighter cockpit schemes you normally see, and begs the question of why there's a pilot at all if their neural networking is that good (and there are actually ways of addressing that, namely security).

That’s preposterous, a pilot for any kind of mecha is going to need intensive training to handle such an awkward vehicle unless he’s doing nothing but indicating a general direction of travel. At that point it sure would be pointless to have a pilot onboard, a mecha would be a lot more viable if you didn’t need to find a way to pack a person inside it on top of its limited volume all the other demands being made. Course then you could also make an unmanned ultra low profile tank with even heavier armor.

[Sea Skimmer]

The argument that mechs will never happen or that they serve no place (Which is pretty much true) and thus will never happen assumes that man kinds does nothing but make totally logical decisions and will continue to make them... As it turns out, weapons follows trends just like fashion. I see MBTs being mostly phased out over the next couple of decades or less for lighter wheeled vehicles like the MGS.

People have been projecting the end of the tank every since the end of WW1. In fact most armies almost or in some cases completely abandon tanks for several years after 1918 because hey, the tank was only for trench warfare, and surely no war would ever be so gridlocked. They also made the argument that new anti tank guns could defeat tanks armor, thus making them useless. You see the exact same set of arguments of ‘improved weapons make armor useless’ and ‘mobility too limited, costs too high’ ect.. today but none of it really holds water. Reality is that air mobility for armor has come in cycles over the decades and the whole Styker-FCS axis is just another example of this, but with the budget higher then ever.

Also, just because a 70 ton tank may no longer be desirable doesn’t mean MBTs are doomed, the first MBTs weighed less then 40 tons, so an awful large scope exists for weight reductions without fielding true light tanks (20-25 tons or less). Recent wars have certainly not supported the idea that militaries need less armor protection, as seen by the armored hummve and now MRAP swarm, as well as even Abrams getting armor upgrades.

The only thing really required for mechs to suddenly appear in the military is for someone to make them, for them to not totally suck, and for some politicians to think it's awesome. About half the internet agrees quite loudly that the V22 is a horribly stupid idea but, welp, guess what's on the USMC's vehicle roster and would you believe that they're considering quad tilt-rotors in the future too? Tanks were the "in" thing of the 20th century, but nations are kinda starting to look at each new iteration and the pricetag on them and going "Eh...".

V-22 is wildly considered stupid because it failed to meet any of its performance requirements while spiraling in cost enormously. However in general terms, its just another helicopter with the added feature of being able to stall and crash like a plane too, not a radical departure. A mecha would just be a totally new and radical idea, and ideas like that tend to make a lot less progress when they clearly don’t work.

Some weapons do fade away, but the tank is nowhere near gone or even fading much at this point, in fact just about every nation on earth with a worthwhile military is currently designing new or heavily upgraded tanks. The new ones might not be 70 tons, but reality is only the US ever fielded vehicles that heavy in large numbers, so this doesn’t mean much. The Russians for example have never mass produced any tank heavier then 50 tons.

Also, arguing that a single meter of height (while standing) is going to be a potential mechs Achilles heel is quite silly.

Not really, in fact tank designers have fought hard to reduce profiles by even a single foot, and accepted undesirable features like a reclined driver’s position and eliminating commander’s cupolas to do it. In general the bottom 1 meter of a tanks profile is considered to be a non target. This is because no one will aim that low, small irregularities in the terrain plus vegetation are likely to shield it from view in a long range engagement, and part of that is space is below the hull already, so a hit down their is not likely to destroy the tank, though it may disable it. This means controlling height above that first meter is all the more important in reducing hit probability, and an extra meter of overall height is all the more damning. However it is all dependent on the specific design and role of the mecha.

[Raxmei]

How do you tell a neural interface you want to fire your shoulder-mounted missile launcher? There's going to be some abstraction no matter what you're trying to control. Mechs have a problem with having so many more possible actions to map to, not all of which will match what a human can do. I wouldn't be surprised if neural linking tanks turned out to be easier than mechs. Fewer commands and false analogues to worry about.

[Sea Skimmer]

How do you tell a neural interface you want to fire your shoulder-mounted missile launcher? There's going to be some abstraction no matter what you're trying to control. Mechs have a problem with having so many more possible actions to map to, not all of which will match what a human can do. I wouldn't be surprised if neural linking tanks turned out to be easier than mechs. Fewer commands and false analogues to worry about.

You can say that again, just think about the difference between walking down into and then out of a ditch with feet, compared to simply driving over the same. I mean even for a human, it takes years of all day long practice to really get the hang of walking and running and even then you can and will still trip and fall sometimes You just don’t have that added complexity and the problems it brings with a wheeled vehicle (tracks are just an extension of wheels).

Some day it will almost certainly be possible to build a working mecha, and it might even have enough armor and firepower to avoid being knocked out of action by AK-47 wielding militia, but every piece of technology that helps make that possible will also help improve other weapons which inherently work better.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I've tried thinking of realistic and logical ways of adapting mecha into my stories, but every attempt has pretty much fallen short. Anything larger than really chunky power armour can usually be trumped by tanks or fighters or whatever you care to name. So that's usually as far as I go in my stories. On the other hand, however, I still love mecha. Armored Core is possibly one of my favourite video game series.

But really, if you try to reconcile humanoid mecha with reality, you'll hit numerous roadblocks along the way, so if you are using robots, either throw logic to the wind, or find a really great excuse for it. Best I've come up with so far is piloted mining robots that were infected with an alien nano-virus to become bipedal, hyper-advanced sentient war-machines, and that the humans had yet to figure out how adapt the advanced technology to the rest of their technology, but even that had flaws with it.

[Captain Seafort]

Not really, in fact tank designers have fought hard to reduce profiles by even a single foot, and accepted undesirable features like a reclined driver’s position and eliminating commander’s cupolas to do it. In general the bottom 1 meter of a tanks profile is considered to be a non target. This is because no one will aim that low, small irregularities in the terrain plus vegetation are likely to shield it from view in a long range engagement, and part of that is space is below the hull already, so a hit down their is not likely to destroy the tank, though it may disable it. This means controlling height above that first meter is all the more important in reducing hit probability, and an extra meter of overall height is all the more damning. However it is all dependent on the specific design and role of the mecha.

The height issue can be explained away by giving them line-of-sight weapons, and thus turning the disadvantage into an advantage - like the AT-AT. The biggest problem, as I see it, is the complexity of the things - you can't handwave that away nearly as easily.

[Shroom Man 777]

The AT-AT is in no way a practical machine. Plus, that line-of-sight weapon would be pretty shitty, since the vehicle has to be exposed to everyone and everything in order to be able to use it. Another vehicle with the same line-of-sight weapon, but without the height problem, would be able to kill your tall mecha by virtue of looking-first and shooting-first.

[Captain Seafort]

The AT-AT is in no way a practical machine. Plus, that line-of-sight weapon would be pretty shitty, since the vehicle has to be exposed to everyone and everything in order to be able to use it. Another vehicle with the same line-of-sight weapon, but without the height problem, would be able to kill your tall mecha by virtue of looking-first and shooting-first.

As a tank, sure. As SP artillery, it's not so bad. It's certainly a manufactured excuse, as tube artillery wouldn't have that limitation, but it's at least slightly more believeable from an IU point of view than "it looks cool".