Further Discussion on Titan Plausibility

[Rich.h]

That's not a solution that makes the mech better than the tank, since the tank can use this as well. 

And we're not talking about craft that can move at percentages of C, we're talking about bipedal fighting machines which we can actually theoretically build in real life.

Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive. So the strength of armour plates in Aurora must be equally mind boggling to cope with such impacts.

Now with that as a baseline it is quite easy to imagine a mech that has a series of thrusters all over itself, and that these all have a high degree of individual rotation. This first of all solves any and all problems with regards to planetary weight of the mech, and issues of gravity and so on. But it also means you have a machine that can far outclass the ability of any other to move, if you have an object moving towards you then sharp burst of thrusters allow you to make a sidestep dodge. Likewise you could use them to facilitate running, jumping, or even climbing (since you can vary your own weight).

I may have got the entire wrong end of this discussion in that it may be all about arguing the possibility of actually making and using mechs in the real world as a successor to the modern battle tank. In which case then obviously yes they are a stupid idea that cannot possibly work, but surely that is so obvious due to real world metallurgy that such a debate should be moot. If this is about how plausible they are in the context of Aurora then again it should be obvious that they can be done, and one quite easily with zero space magic needed. Aurora has already given us the required amount of technology to create a usable platform like this, all it takes is creative application of that technology beyond the original intended usage.

[QuakeIV]

Giving the mech maneuvering jets to cancel out its weight seems like kindof a cop-out to me.  Yes that would allow it to push off of the ground and maneuver to some degree, but it would still be pretty sharply limited in the amount of acceleration it could achieve.  Low contact area means low friction force for the same PSI.  So you are kindof going to be running in place digging trenches where a tank would be accelerating relatively rapidly.

I tend to side with the hover-tank crowd.  If you could give it some jets that can rapidly modulate their thrust then you'd have superior maneuverability in every way.  For that matter, you could switch to having a low flying heavily armored gunship.

[Sheb]

Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive.

I always just assumed the missiles couldn't do direct hit, which is why we need warhead in the first place.

[Garfunkel]

And the WW1-era tanks already had major advantages over horse cavalry - they were armoured, giving protection from machineguns and artillery shrapnel, which were the two big killers of cavalry at the time. Plus, it could just drive over barbed wire. Yes, they were actually slower than horse cavalry and very little operation mobility, hence why during the inter-war period the Cavalry officers managed to claw back some prestige - but every major power was going toward mechanization. Germany had their Panzer divisions and only a single cavalry brigade, France had multiple types of motorized/mechanized/armoured divisions, Soviet Union had tank brigades and motorized rifle divisions, and even Britain - where the Cavalry officers held most power - had an Armoured Division on the making.

If we're giving Mechs maneuvering jets, why can't the tank have them too and increase its mobility?

Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.

It's impossible to make 100% accurate predictions because none of the big players have engaged each other in a full-scale mechanical warfare since the Korean War (where Sherman and Pershing proved superior to T-34/85). In the 1991 Gulf War, the Sabot rounds fired by Abrams achieved very impressive penetrations against the Iraqi T-72s. However, these were export versions of the original T-72 and Soviets always kept their best toys at home. Tank protection has advanced since then, so it's not certain that "one shot, one kill" is still an absolute truth in tank-to-tank combat.

[83athom]

If we're giving Mechs maneuvering jets, why can't the tank have them too and increase its mobility?

Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost. There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design. And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area. The tank would have most of the trhusters facing either up or down, and can fit some facing back/sides. So basically you now have a gunship that can land and crawl around. Now lets look at the mech. The most common places that you would find thrusters on these are the feet and torso (front and back). You now have forward, back, and up thrust. Ad vectoring to the trusters and you get virtual all angle thrust (would help the tank example as well but a lot less).

[jem]

Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a  tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.

Friction you want, unless you like skating around on ice........ Just saying.

Don't forget about shock absorption. If a tank were to take a fall, it would barely have any suspension to absorb the force of landing, the rest of the energy goes to something important (like the suspension or drive shaft) and breaks it. A mech would be able to absorb that force from landing a lot better (not 100% all the time, but a lot better than a tank. And tanks with legs like the Pupa/Shagohod of MGS would be considered mechs).

And on the note of terrain, I've tried explaining that, but he keeps going back to the "ground pressure" thing. Yes, mechs would sink somewhat in a lot of terrains, but when said terrain gets compressed enough, it is hard and stable enough to cross (hence why vehicles and living things leave tracks, they all sink somewhat).

You have a LOT of shock absorption in a tank. And why cant one take the shock absorber from your mech and put on a tank?

It is not just about sinking and being able to get free, it is about the amount of energy required to get it free. The less energy required the better. For example, if you are traversing a snowy field and you sink down to your knee or above, it is easier and faster to crawl over the field then to walk.

If you look at 10 ton two legged dinosaur or a 4 legged 60 ton dinosaur, if ground pressure was a problem they coul never of grown to such a size.

Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.

the disclaimer is as usual this is not the best weapon's platform, but perhaps the best platform for certain terrain and complexed issues on an alien world without roads.

They did not have those dinosaurs in a swamp or a thick forest.

The question is not if two even weapon system can take out each other. The question is what inferior weapon can take out your weapon. For example, can I take out your mech with, say, a hand grenade to the knee?

And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.

Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost. There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design. And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area. The tank would have most of the trhusters facing either up or down, and can fit some facing back/sides. So basically you now have a gunship that can land and crawl around. Now lets look at the mech. The most common places that you would find thrusters on these are the feet and torso (front and back). You now have forward, back, and up thrust. Ad vectoring to the trusters and you get virtual all angle thrust (would help the tank example as well but a lot less).

I really don't understand your thinking here. I mean, no mater where you put your thrusters you have a roughly 180 degree area where they can push. And this is the same on both the mech and the tank. Also, if you are putting a lot of thrusters on your mech/tank, why not remove the tracks/legs completely?

[83athom]

You have a LOT of shock absorption in a tank. And why cant one take the shock absorber from your mech and put on a tank?

I know there is a lot of shock absorption in a tank. However, by design the mech will have more shock absorbtion and you cant put them on a tank because then it would be a mech.

The question is not if two even weapon system can take out each other. The question is what inferior weapon can take out your weapon. For example, can I take out your mech with, say, a hand grenade to the knee?

Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").

And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.

When you wear a mech like a suit (tank as well) it would be a lot different. Also, another benefit the mech has is that it can just pop its arm off and reinsert a new one (or leg, or head, or gun, etc). Of course with some tanks being made with modular parts now they could start doing just that.

I really don't understand your thinking here. I mean, no mater where you put your thrusters you have a roughly 180 degree area where they can push. And this is the same on both the mech and the tank. Also, if you are putting a lot of thrusters on your mech/tank, why not remove the tracks/legs completely?

When you line thrusters up behind each other, they can damage each other and other things. MEchs have less of a problem with that. And why you wouldn't remove them completely is fuel reasons. The thrusters would be for combat engagements and burn a lot of extra fuel.

[ChildServices]

Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").

This is pretty asinine considering that it's harder to just toss a grenade into the crew compartment of a tank (especially if they're expecting a fight and have most of their entry points closed), than it is to throw a grenade into something's path and cause damage to its legs.  This is more comparable to tracking a tank.  The only difference between a tank getting tracked and a mech getting legged is that the tank is still a fully operational weapons platform that poses a threat to anything attempting to get past it, where the mech is completely disabled outside of its self-guided weaponry (missiles etc)

[bean (OP)]

First, wow.  I thought this thread was dead. 

There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages.

Yes.  Because obviously I'm a luddite who doesn't want any new technology, just like anyone who questions the plausibility of the latest fad.

Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.

Condensing?  If you're going to insult people, at least make sure you're using the right words.

Let take everything you know about Earth and flush it down the toilet.

Sorry.  My head is too big to fit down the pipe.

Number 1: ground pressure.
Let look at a low gravity planet, I see bounding maybe more useful and practical then a  tracked rolling tank, less friction and all.

I'm not sure I do.  Bounding means you're out of contact with the ground and easy to shoot at.

Number 2. A complete planet which is a swamp, and very tall trees.
Sorry a high gaited, lean able, walking suit would be better then a tank.

No, it'll just bog.  Swamps are the place where low ground pressure is the most important.  Look up the M29.

A planet criss-crossed with consistent steep gullies which require climbing.
A full articulated mech which has the ability to climb like a human being, is better then a tracked tank.

That's really, really hard to do.  Also, look up AVLB.

A planet with tank size boulders that cover the whole landscape.
where something that is able to squeeze through narrow gaps is needed instead of a wide flat based weapons platform.

I'm going to call special pleading here.  How likely is this?

Again the Mech has to have the same articulation and strength to weigh ratio as a human

Well, the strength to weight ratio has to be much, much higher (square-cube law and all).  And articulation is very, very hard.  I take it you're not an engineer who spends much time on mechanical things.

Don't forget about shock absorption. If a tank were to take a fall, it would barely have any suspension to absorb the force of landing, the rest of the energy goes to something important (like the suspension or drive shaft) and breaks it. A mech would be able to absorb that force from landing a lot better (not 100% all the time, but a lot better than a tank. And tanks with legs like the Pupa/Shagohod of MGS would be considered mechs).

Square-cube law again.  Big things are inherently more vulnerable to falling.  Mice can fall from any height and not be injured.  Some of this is terminal velocity, some is the aforementioned law.

And on the note of terrain, I've tried explaining that, but he keeps going back to the "ground pressure" thing. Yes, mechs would sink somewhat in a lot of terrains, but when said terrain gets compressed enough, it is hard and stable enough to cross (hence why vehicles and living things leave tracks, they all sink somewhat).

And how much does the terrain need to compress before it becomes stable?  A mech is much worse than a tank of similar size/weight, and while walking may be slightly better in terms of movement/ground pressure than a tracked/wheeled vehicle, the increased ground pressure more than makes up for that.

If you look at 10 ton two legged dinosaur or a 4 legged 60 ton dinosaur, if ground pressure was a problem they coul never of grown to such a size.

By that logic, horses should never get stuck in, say, mud, or they wouldn't have grown to the size they are.  I'm not claiming that a mech would sink into firm ground at reasonable sizes, but you keep bringing up bad terrain.

Yes taking out a leg would kill the weapon system, but these days it really is a one shot kill with comparative technology weapon system these days anyway. First on target hit wins. I would argue also that a smaller cabin size with a smaller crew may make the weapon system more durable.

There's a reason tanks pretty much all have a crew of at least three.  It's because that's the minimum number to fight them well.  And modern tanks are surprisingly durable.

We never had tanks before WW1; we did however have bipedal fighting machines that tended to sink in mud if you loaded them down too much.  Roughly 38 million of them were destroyed in WW1.

That's quite good. 

Nah, in those specialised environments the solution is a squad of dudes in powered armour and a dropship.

Well, powered armor has its own problems.  It's really hard to get enough armor to be useful and still be able to go up stairs.

Just to throw a large spanner in an already unstable set of cogs, there is a blindingly simple solution to the issues of weight for bipedal mechs with regards to low, standard, or high gravity. Just strap on a set of directional thrusters in various places, when you walk over soft muddy ground aim the nozzles towards the ground thereby giving you a perceived reduction in overall weight, when fighting on a small moon aim them upwards to do the opposite. If you went a slight stage further and said they were near omni-directional nozzles then it also fixes your problems of mobility and speed, a well set up system that alters the nozzle direction in relation to what a limb is doing and the speed desired can then happily take off the load from the mechanical moving parts and so on.

Leaving aside trans-newtonian effects, that's a bad plan.  Rocket fuels are often nasty, the amount of weight required is non-trivial, and the exhaust is a hazard to everything around you.  Let's say we're in an environment with lots of dust.  Congratulations.  You've now made a giant cloud, so you can't see, and everyone can see where you are.

[bean (OP)]

Ok I will argue the "theoretically build in real life" statement is a little far when you then also take into account my initial point about speed of ships etc. But also consider things such as how strong armour is in Aurora, we have a plate material that is able to withstand a hit by an object moving at percentages of C. I'm not sure on the calculations but just imagining the sheer kinetic energy of a missile moving at say 76,000km/s is mind boggling, and that excludes the warhead explosive. So the strength of armour plates in Aurora must be equally mind boggling to cope with such impacts.

No, it doesn't have to.  It's trivial to prove that Aurora beam weapons are superluminal (otherwise, tiny bits of dodging would make hits impossible), and due to trans-newtonian technobabble, things don't have kinetic energy/momentum.  Aurora armor is impressive, but so are aurora weapons.

I may have got the entire wrong end of this discussion in that it may be all about arguing the possibility of actually making and using mechs in the real world as a successor to the modern battle tank. In which case then obviously yes they are a stupid idea that cannot possibly work, but surely that is so obvious due to real world metallurgy that such a debate should be moot. If this is about how plausible they are in the context of Aurora then again it should be obvious that they can be done, and one quite easily with zero space magic needed. Aurora has already given us the required amount of technology to create a usable platform like this, all it takes is creative application of that technology beyond the original intended usage.

Again, though, all of these are things which could be done to a tank, too.  What technologies has Aurora added that give a mech a relative advantage over a tank?

Because unless it is a hover tank of some sort (or oversized thrusters pointed to the sides) it wouldn't benefit enough from the added cost.

If it's a choice between a hovermech and a hovertank, the answer is obviously the hovertank.  It's simpler, which means it's cheaper and needs less maintenance.

There would even be a point when doing so would hinder a tank as it would have too little ground friction for its own design.

The mech has the same problem.

And the "Standard" mech design (Bipedal, fairly humanoid) would be a more efficient platform for thruster placement (you can have thrusters in all directions without getting in the way). Assume a mech and a tank has the same surface area.

And?  Look at the base of a modern booster.  It's the smallest (or second smallest) side of the rocket.  Improved rockets mean the problem is even smaller.

And we can build tanks that can be operated by only one person. We have been able to do that for 30-40 years. Reason we don't is (at least according to the captain I asked during my military service) that when things do go wrong and your tank breaks down you need more then one guy to fix it in a reasonable timeframe, it keeps morale up and it gives more eyes able to notice things.

That's one of the big reasons cited for keeping the loader.  During WWII, they discovered that 1 and 2 man turrets didn't work well, because the commander was having to do things besides command, namely either load and shoot, or just load.  This distracted him, and made his tank much less efficient than a 3-man turreted tank.  These days, we have decent autoloaders, so a 2-man turret approximates the 3-man turret of WWII, maintenance/morale/personnel issues aside.

Can I take out your tank with a hand grenade to the crew compartment? Can I disable your tank by blowing off the tracks? And considering the protection on a lot of mechs' legs, I would say most likely no (unless they add a hole to the critical part of the joint with a sign saying "insert live grenade here").

Tank designers have been aware of the threat of infantry at close range (in fact, a chunk of metal shoved into the tracks will often immobilize a tank) since at least WWII.  They haven't managed to make the tanks infantry-proof yet.  What makes you think that your mech will be any better?

When you wear a mech like a suit (tank as well) it would be a lot different.

Why?  You can still only look in one direction at once, and you have to split your attention between move, shoot, and think.  A modern tank has one person for each job, which means they get done better. 

Also, another benefit the mech has is that it can just pop its arm off and reinsert a new one (or leg, or head, or gun, etc). Of course with some tanks being made with modular parts now they could start doing just that.

That's not really a differential advantage to mechs.  Doing that is really, really hard.  Theoretically, it's easier to do with mechs, but there is the problem that for a given weight, you have a lot more vulnerable surface area, which means the limbs are easily damaged.

When you line thrusters up behind each other, they can damage each other and other things. MEchs have less of a problem with that. And why you wouldn't remove them completely is fuel reasons. The thrusters would be for combat engagements and burn a lot of extra fuel.

Well, if we have trans-newtonian tech, not so much.  But even granting you the fuel, you fit the tank with lightweight road/minor offroad wheels instead of full tracks.  If the going gets really bad, you fly.  Also, tracks are much, much simpler mechanically than legs.  Probably lighter, too.

[Rich.h]

Well now I am just totally confused, is this thread an argument to:

1. Debate the possibility that a mech could be build based on real world history and technology (I sincerely hope five pages haven't been generated on this one).
2. Debate on if a mech is possible from within the confines of Aurora and the tech involved in the game.
3. Debate on which is better two legs or two tracks (there was an Orwellian joke there somewhere I just couldn't find it).

Now I personally won't even look at #1 since the concept is madness with a capital Cthulu. Looking at #2 though is simple as you can happily come up with hundreds of ways a mech can work, you simply need to have enough power generation and the right sort of metallurgy. Both of these are in abundance in a trans newtonian universe. But the idea of #3 seems a really strange thing to try and argue the merits of, simply because it is debating an arms race and the entire point of one of those is that one side does something to render their opponent impotent on the field.

Yes a tank is generally the obvious solution to ground battle for all the benefits it has, though a mech could be argued to be sacrificing some of that brute force for versatility (a mech could for example step quickly over an obstacle, or could also lift large equipment in place ala Ripley in her loader). But then you simply move to create a hover tank, and so you create a hover mech, a tank becomes a gunship and a mech becomes Optimus Prime. In short there is no real winning concept simply because Aurora is far too flexible in what can be achieved with TN technology and materials.

So yeah I am a bit baffled as to what this thread was trying to do at the beginning and moreso what it is at this time, it seems like there are points crossing between each of the above ideas which could well be why it is about as successful as a G8 summit at arriving at a point.

[bean (OP)]

Well now I am just totally confused, is this thread an argument to:

1. Debate the possibility that a mech could be build based on real world history and technology (I sincerely hope five pages haven't been generated on this one).
2. Debate on if a mech is possible from within the confines of Aurora and the tech involved in the game.
3. Debate on which is better two legs or two tracks (there was an Orwellian joke there somewhere I just couldn't find it).

Yes. 

Now I personally won't even look at #1 since the concept is madness with a capital Cthulu.

That's quite a good line.

Looking at #2 though is simple as you can happily come up with hundreds of ways a mech can work, you simply need to have enough power generation and the right sort of metallurgy. Both of these are in abundance in a trans newtonian universe.

The problem is that you can apply the same techs to tanks, and it's hard to see what technologies would give mechs more of a benefit.

So yeah I am a bit baffled as to what this thread was trying to do at the beginning and moreso what it is at this time, it seems like there are points crossing between each of the above ideas which could well be why it is about as successful as a G8 summit at arriving at a point.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that arriving at a point is the reason for the exercise.  To some extent, I'm just here because it's fun.  And to some extent, to defend the position that a mech is not likely to be a good combat vehicle under any circumstances absent very, very precise special pleading, which is not a good general reason to build them.

[Rich.h]

I believe the only correct response to it all is.

[bean (OP)]

There is no point arguing with Bryon because he come up with the same argument, which is built around history and Earth, and the same first car v horse debate. If we all thought like Bryon we would still think the horse Calvary was better then the slow tank of ww1, hell we probably never got out of the dark ages. Yes you were being an arse to others in your condensing way so I aint apologizing.

I looked at this again.  I'm sorry about whatever I may have done to get you boiling over, but that was no reason to misspell my name.

[ardem]

First, wow.  I thought this thread was dead. 
Yes.  Because obviously I'm a luddite who doesn't want any new technology, just like anyone who questions the plausibility of the latest fad. Condensing?  If you're going to insult people, at least make sure you're using the right words.

Hell NO! Spelling ####! <Smile>. Do not play the validate your argument by a spelling/grammar test, I am not playing that game (because I will lose, I am terrible at spelling and grammar, but not bad at everything else <smile>. I found your posts to others opinions to be condescending (happy) that is what got me fired up. But calmer now.

I am sorry, but I think the greatest combat weapon platform, is a bipedal, AKA the human being. Now if you give that human being an armour exoskeleton, to protect it from small arms and a weapon that is capable of engagement range and that human being witht he same fluid of movement as human does without the suit. Then IMHO it would be better than a tank as a weapons platform, the articulation and view and movement responsiveness to acquire and engage a target would be far faster then a metal box with a rotating turret.

Now the size of that armour exoskeleton, may only be double that of a human to deploy a weapon system capable of knocking out that coffin box. If that platform has the ability to climb, step over objects, crawl,  surprise and flip over your turtle tank, in close combat, grab the turret gun in urban combat and bend it.

yeah you may have straight speed and possible range on the mech, but put that into a urban or close quarters environment. My money is on the Mech you can have your turtle.