Further Discussion on Titan Plausibility

[bean (OP)]

Interesting read. Seems most of the "shoddy" metalwork was a product of rushed production and availability of metals and tools/people at the specific factory rather then a lack of knowledge. Same as german metalwork late in the war then. Really not worthy of the word "abysmal". Also, most of the shells studied had been captured in korea, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the soviets had started there long habit of not really giving away there best stuff to its allies by then.

My initial statement was based on an informal source, and it appears that it was somewhat overstated.

Remember what the german army were expecting to meet, things like the horrible t-28. And then you suddenly meet a kv1 at really long range and no mater how many shoots you fire into it it will not explode or go up in flames. Same with the t34, a tank that accelerated when you killed its driver.

That's probably another part of it.  In fact, I vaguely recall very glowing reports of the Sherman's initial performance in North Africa.  It's just that the early reports of the T-34's invincibility got turned into legend, and those of the Sherman ignored.

Some time after the war ended the swedish army tested a Sherman, a Panther and Strv m/42 (basicly a LT-38 copy) for cross-country capability. Lets say that the sherman dont fare very well. The link I had to the report has sadly been subject to link rot but here is a information film about it.

I haven't been pushing the mobility line.  And the Strv m/42 wasn't a LT-38 copy.  It weighed about twice as much, for one thing.

If I remember correctly this changed rather drasticly when the allies started pushing out of france and they could no longer flank the german tanks as easily.

To some extent, it changed even in Normandy, when they discovered there were more Panthers than expected and the Tiger wasn't as easy to deal with as it had been in Tunisia and Italy.

Heard that it had more to do with crew comfort more then anything else.

That may well be true.  But even so, it's good evidence that it wasn't considered to be a significantly worse tank by the Soviets.  If they'd had any reason to doubt its performance, they'd have shuffled them off on someone who wasn't a guards unit.

Actually, that was the US's tank doctrine at the time because the generals in charge (Patton for example) were cavalry officers. An a thing about the US R&D is that they fulfill the needs the commanders need at the moment for what they need to do. The cavalry officers wanted a tank that was ultra reliable and fast/maneuverable that they can rush through breaks in the line made by infantry. The Sherman was born.

Only sort of.  While the doctrine statements at the time of the Sherman's selection do support that, the history leading up to it doesn't.  Remember that the Armored Force wasn't created until July 1940, and for most of the 20s and 30s, the Infantry had sole responsibility for tanks.  If the Cavalry had totally dominated the process, we'd have seen a faster tank with less armor.  As it was, the Sherman was pretty clearly a compromise between the 'Infantry' and 'Cruiser' tanks of, say, the British.  (Parallels to the development of the MBT are left as an exercise to the reader.)  More can be found in volume 10-9 of the US Army in WWII green books.

It wasn't a matter of range, it was a matter of reliability. The T35s would break down and have to be abandoned (and were plenty of times) long before they ever reached the Sherman's top range (which was extended by jerrycans and supply trucks they would bring along).

That makes no sense.  It's the equivalent of building a ship in aurora with 1000 days of fuel and a maintenance life of a year and a half.  If the T-34 had a mean failure range in the double digits (the Sherman's range was ~100 miles), then why did they give it 200 miles of fuel?  I'm not disputing that the Sherman was more reliable than the T-34, but everyone (except the Germans) put a fair bit of emphasis on reliability.  We were just better at it, but that's a pattern which occurs across pretty much every piece of military equipment we built.
(I believe the reason for the disparity in range had more to do with the US having considerably greater confidence in its logistics train than the Soviets did in theirs.)

[83athom]

"The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi)" -Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

So comparing it to Aurora ships; A Sherman has a year or two worth a fuel and a decade worth of parts. A T34 has 3 years of fuel but forgot to install engineering spaces (maybe cause they checked the no overhauls box).

[bean (OP)]

"The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi)" -Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

That's referring to the radios, not the tanks themselves.  See this for a more complete version of the report, which makes it very clear that's talking about radios.  Even the Tiger generally did better than 10 miles between breakdowns. 

[DIT_grue]

I was just reading the Chat thread on TN Ground Combat, and it occured to me to wonder why Titans aren't vulnerable to meson fire? If they were, it would completely break them, so there has to be a reason; but unlike other ground units they are a relatively huge single target, so the usual 'dispersal' argument doesn't work.

[Garfunkel]

If I remember correctly, the rule of thumb was that a Panther ran 150 km before breaking down while a T-34 ran 500 km before breaking down.

[sloanjh]

I was just reading the Chat thread on TN Ground Combat, and it occured to me to wonder why Titans aren't vulnerable to meson fire? If they were, it would completely break them, so there has to be a reason; but unlike other ground units they are a relatively huge single target, so the usual 'dispersal' argument doesn't work.

You might want to post this one back in the main discussion thread - I'm not sure if Steve is reading this thread, and it sounds like a potential inconsistent he'd want to be aware of.

John

[Nathan_]

As a former armour and artillery officer, I can safely vouch (argument from authority, my apologies) that there will not be a technical or tactical advance that would make Walking Mechs a better option than a traditional tank.

If you invent super-duranium armour to protect a Mech, a tank can use it more of it to achieve higher protection level - or less and stay more mobile. If you invent gravity manipulation, tank again benefits more of it. You can't cripple a tank by shooting a relatively thin leg off - even a busted track can be put back in action in just few hours. Powered armour for infantry kinda works but anything bigger than that and it becomes more of an handicap than an advantage.

Having said that, more options is never a bad thing and I'll use them, just change the name to Air Support. I already try to make Combined Arms divisions as much as possible and Heavy Assault are my tanks so this will actually fit in pretty well.

Starsiege had to go the distance of forbidding shield generators for tanks for the purposes of balance, as well as lowering the number of weapon hardpoints. I think that's the 40K thing as well, titans have starship classed void shields that tanks may not be able to mount because reasons.

[boggo2300]

you just have to look at the vehicle design rules used in Battletech,  they had to add so many arbitrary limitations on non-Mecha vehicles to justify the entire Battlemech thing, which to be fair would've invalidated the entire setting if they hadn't.

[ardem]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree that tracked vehicles are better in many terrains, but not all environments, again the mech need to be a full articulation human, hell yes it complex weapon platform, but in some environments it might be the only option,  A mech could be even based on spider legs instead of human legs. I do believe a mech say in mechwarrior are possible too big and not articulated enough to be a good example of a desirable weapon platform, perhaps transformer type mechs are more in line with my thought process, with that level of articulation and strength.

Hell yes the power source for out current level of technology does not even come close to that level of speed and power, but neither did the first motorcar out run a horse.

A Mech can be a viable weapon platform (but not until there is a serious amount of technology and power supply available to make it fully articulated)

[83athom]

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).

And the mech can be anything from a Gundam, to a Armored Core, to a Chromehound, to a Heavy Object, to a Emporer class Titan, etc. ANd on the note of technology, I do agree with bryon on that, techs that will advance mechs will also advance tanks and current types of vehicles. However, we simply don't know how the warfare of the future will be handled. We once fought in large battlelines charging with swords/spears, then we had battlelines with ranged weapons sitting at range blasting at each other, then we had skirmish lines picking off the enemy while behind cover, then trenches, then blitzkrieg, etc etc, all the way to our current tactics. Who knows how we evolve warfare in the future, you never know, we could find that mechs are more potent than you believe or that they are a terrible weapon platform.

[ardem]

That is why I stipulated strength to weight ratio.

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.

[83athom]

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.

Its no as cut-n-dry as that though. Its more like a line graph snaking around each other as they grow (armor tech is better than weapon tech at one point, the next point gun tech is better, then back, etc). Take HESH and Sabot rounds for example. They were death sentences for enemies at their introduction, hence why most countries then prioritized mobility over protection. Then advances in armor (angles, thickness, composites, reactive, spall lining, etc) then made sabots and HESH a lot less effective. Then came guided HEAT missiles (and more advanced HEAT than what was previously available). Then tank sized active defenses and stealth techs. And now, railguns.

[ChildServices]

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.

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.

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.

Nope.  If that was true they would have never invented the Lunar Roving Vehicle because astronauts bounding everywhere and just carrying all of their stuff would've been the most practical solution.
Also I'm fairly certain friction is something you want if you've got something that has constant contact with the ground.  That's why it's illegal to have bald tyres on your car in this country.  That's why shoes before we learnt how to make rubber were so terrible to run in.  It depends on the specifics of the planet and the dirt its driving on, but all you'd need in most cases are some snow-weather tracks and the tank would be able to move just as fast as the walker.

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.

Nope.  Ground pressure, and having colossal snowboots on the mech to negate this would make it too wide to be purposeful.  Even if the tank wins, infantry and aircraft are more useful than both.  Vietnam? Any takers?

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.

Aircraft and infantry are more useful than both.  Why would I get a very situational robot to climb over these things when I can just airdrop my men over it? Even in a very special circumstance where I can't because of anti-aircraft defences, that doesn't really help the mech out very much either if its on the attacking team.

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.

Infantry and aircraft.

I agree that tracked vehicles are better in many terrains, but not all environments, again the mech need to be a full articulation human, hell yes it complex weapon platform, but in some environments it might be the only option,  A mech could be even based on spider legs instead of human legs.  I do believe a mech say in mechwarrior are possible too big and not articulated enough to be a good example of a desirable weapon platform, perhaps transformer type mechs are more in line with my thought process, with that level of articulation and strength.

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

[Rich.h]

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.

As pointed out above you cannot really use too many real Earth historical technical arguments, especially not when you are talking about craft that instantly move from zero to fractions of the speed of light and back again, or any of the other space magic technologies we happily accept as normal for Aurora.

[ChildServices]

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.