How to Make Mecha Work in a realish setting

[Incinerator]

But we can go on what we have now and costs and the fact the Mech can have a large amount of its components made out of cheaper materials then metal and its joints are not under anywhere near the same amount of friction loading as a wheeled/tracked system for heavy vehicles.

When we deal with fiction in engines and cars/tanks we are talking about shafts that have RPM in thousands a minute connected to a transmission etc that are under far greater frictional forces then the joint of say a mech leg that does a full movement say 20 times a minute while running.
*snip*
That transmission has to step down 10000-30000rpm.
Thats up to 500 revolutions a second.

Mech joints will not suffer anywhere this level of frictional loading such a transmission will experience.

A bit of an apples to oranges comparison there. The working areas of a turbine are going to be immersed in lubricant, drastically reducing the wear on those components. You can't do this as effectively on a mechanical joint. If the joint is exposed to maximize its range of movement, it can only be given a minimal coating of lubricant - much like the components of many modern automatic firearms. (Not all of those components are joints, but it does need to be open inside to extract and load ammunition, as well as allowing gas operation to work.) If the joint is enclosed, you still need flexible rubber seals to cover the gaps between the enclosure and the limbs. And the bigger the enclosure is, the more it restricts the joint's range of movement.

[Werra]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovial_fluid

[MBehave]

Plus you can use things such as Self Lubricating Nylons or the like that may be strong enough to act as cartilage and have very low friction coefficients would also work.
This type of setup(using UHMWPE not nylon) is used in hip replacements to envelop the metal/ceramic ball and hip replacements last 7-15 years.

Did the math they can easily handle it.
Using a ball joint current high strength non glass reinforced plastics can handle the strain just fine on a 10 ton mech for reasonable number of cycles.
My own estimates are a 6cm inner radius plastic ball cup liner would survive for over 2million cycles at a loading of 50tons average.
The plastic liner is engineered to have a life expectancy on par with the muscles and be replaced at the same time.

At loadings which self lubricating polymides can handle, they have friction loading coefficients significantly better then metals.

If people want to do the math themselves.
A strong polymide in compression can have a failure load per cm2 of 1529kg(non fiberglass reinforced)
Metal on Plastic+lubrication or Plastic on Plastic +Lubrication has a wear rate of 10⁻¹⁴mm/N.
I simplified ball point loading to 23% surface area(~70% total load is on this area)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovial_fluid

[Jagged]

What makes synthetic muscles wear less at mecha than tank? If "wheels are so inefficient and wastefull way to travel" then how you can go faster, longer and less sweat by bicycling than walking?

By making a road.

[bunnyboy]

This video should give you an appropriate explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zo ... Q9&index=5

So, basically all you have is "i got feeling"?

No, as much you love mecha anime and believe that makes mecha superior in any field, it is not enough. The facts do not care your feelings.

[gaerzi]

What makes synthetic muscles wear less at mecha than tank? If "wheels are so inefficient and wastefull way to travel" then how you can go faster, longer and less sweat by bicycling than walking?

By making a road.

Then off-road biking should be more tiring and slower than walking through the same path.

[Werra]

There are lots of situations in which driving or biking is worse than walking.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the non Americans in this forum can outrun a MBT in the woods.

[Jagged]

What makes synthetic muscles wear less at mecha than tank? If "wheels are so inefficient and wastefull way to travel" then how you can go faster, longer and less sweat by bicycling than walking?

By making a road.

Then off-road biking should be more tiring and slower than walking through the same path.

Try crossing an actual field as opposed to a track and you will get off your bike and walk.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Try crossing an actual field as opposed to a track and you will get off your bike and walk.

I bike a lot. I mean, a real lot. On roads, off roads; uphill and downhill; in the summer, in the winter on snow and ice. If you've got the right tires, difficult terrain isn't that difficult.

Tanks have treads, so they don't really have difficult terrain either unless someone has gone out of their way to build obstacles. (Obstacles, that will work against mecha too.)

Also: WW2 US Army Bicycles

[MBehave]

You can ride over soft sand dunes and muddy ground... it just takes more energy then walking.

Czech hedgehog
Stops tanks and other vehicles, mechs can get past them no trouble from what I can see.

Trenches .
Tanks can get past trenches in 2 ways.
Slow right down and tip into the trench and then push up which takes a good 10-20 seconds.
Race over it, which can be counted by simply taking out some of the soil from the direction the tank will come causing it to fall enough it slams into the other side and harms or kills the crew and damages the tank.

Mechs have no problem with such Trenches.

I can't think of any terrain a Tank can traverse that a mech couldn't while thats not true in reverse.

hi hi

Try crossing an actual field as opposed to a track and you will get off your bike and walk.

I bike a lot. I mean, a real lot. On roads, off roads; uphill and downhill; in the summer, in the winter on snow and ice. If you've got the right tires, difficult terrain isn't that difficult.

Tanks have treads, so they don't really have difficult terrain either unless someone has gone out of their way to build obstacles. (Obstacles, that will work against mecha too.)

Also: WW2 US Army Bicycles

[icekatze]

hi hi

You can ride over soft sand dunes and muddy ground... it just takes more energy then walking.

Although I can't say much for soft sand due to my location, I've walked through mud, swamp, and snowdrifts. It takes a lot of energy.

One of the biggest benefits of treads is that they have the lowest pressure per unit of area. If a tank cant cross terrain without sinking into it, a mech is definitely not going to be able to.

I'm not sure how a mech will not also be slowed by a trench. They're going to have to jump down, and then climb back up the other side. If they're big enough to step over it, then a tank of comparable mass is going to be able to drive over it. Will the wall of the trench be able to support the mech's weight? I've got some experience climbing up dirt cliffs, there's often a lot of sliding back down involved.

Czech hedgehogs are over 80 years old, and most modern tanks don't have problems with them. Heck, tests with soviet T-54s showed that heavy tanks had the abilitiy to overcome them.

[StarCruiser]

Right - stop this thread immediately! It's getting very silly!



People are spending far too much time and energy trying to justify something that has very limited practical applications.

Mechs are -cool- but, not really something that would work well in the real world - at least, not on this world.

[MBehave]

Where would technology be today if great inventors and pioneers actually listened to people like you?


Lets review.

Napoleon “You wish to sail a ship up stream by lighting a fire under its decks, I have no time for such nonsense.”
Powered ships became deciding factors of war, first armored warships led to the battleship, a deciding factor of navel and coastal battles WW1.

Montgolfier brothers were told they were insane and humans couldn't fly on hot air...
Even after they made their manned baloon flight it was still disbelieved across the world.
Baloons are used for recreation and science from weather to space.

Cars where said to be to dangerous with explosive liquid inside them it was considered INSANE.
Combustion engine could never replace a horse...
Combustion engine would never match steams power.
Combustion engine replaced horses and steam engines.

Wright brothers were told it was impossible for a human to fly on wings.
They had gliding flights, they were told ok thats possible but powered flight is not...
Months after they HAD FLOWN their first powered flight, a physicist proved it was a lie with math.
After they proved they could fly yet again, others claimed it was a gimmick and aircraft would never replace a car.
40 years later aircraft were a deciding factor of WW2.

Seems like any major advance had people yelling and screaming it couldn't possibly work... then it did.

Right - stop this thread immediately! It's getting very silly!



People are spending far too much time and energy trying to justify something that has very limited practical applications.

Mechs are -cool- but, not really something that would work well in the real world - at least, not on this world.

[StarCruiser]

Kinda missed the point of the comment there but..?

[Retagin]

IIRC, the original point of this thread was to find a way in which mechs work in a close to realistic but not purely realistic setting, not our reality. So saying that we should stop all discussion because they don't fit our universe is not the point.
Along with this point, we are not actually good at explaining why our universe works the way it does and there are a lot of principles which we can explain how they work, but not why. There is a good amount of ground for new innovation and discovery, which in this hypothetical universe we are discussing, could lead to mechs being used in some fashion.

In terms of the main discussion, I don't think mechs are going to out compete conventional armored vehicles in such a hypothetical universe. The benefits of a bipedal design compared to its drawbacks usually tips the balance in the favor of a land vehicle. That being said, military engagements are full of niche circumstances that requires a special piece of gear for a certain task, and bipedal designs could certainly be able to fill in some of these rolls better than a conventional vehicle.
Where I see mechs really being useful is in industry. Being able to grab things is an incredible boon that we currently have to get by using piles of straps and harnesses along with a clunky crane. A power loader is the historical example here.

[dragoongfa]

Alright, so here are my genuine two cents on 'How to Make Mecha Work in a realish setting'.

A 'realish' setting is weird to define. Are we talking full realistic or are we talking 'realistic with quirks'?

On a full realistic setting Mecha are a military impossibility. Modern military thinking is that whatever is observable/detectable is dead. Mecha are ridiculously easy to detect, even with a full 'cloaking' field that also absorbs radar the sound of their footfalls traveling through the ground itself is enough for very accurate detection down to the direction, speed and even classification. So in short the Mecha are an impossibility because they will instantly draw enemy fire because one cannot hide them in the battlefield after they join the action. Depending on their threat envelope the enemy response will range from immediate artillery barrage (with smart ammunitions that exist even today), to a variety of airstrikes and ending down to good old fashioned anti-tank missiles.

On a realistic with quirks? Depending on the quirk you will always have contend with the detect-ability of the mecha and will have to offer both a plausible explanation for Mecha existing and a way to circumvent/counteract enemy firepower. One has to think about what Mechs offer from the bottom up to deliver plausibility.

So here are my thoughts about how I would do the above:

1) The Universe itself would have to be high tech (which may defeat the 'realish' angle but bear with me here). We are talking about Interstellar warfare where Mechs are capable fight EVERYWHERE. Not just on terrestrial planets but on asteroids, barren planets, toxic planets and etc. Even on boarding actions if the ship sizes are 'big enough' although that would certainly break the realish angle significantly.

2) Reason for them existing. The Mechs aren't meant to be in the main battle line, at least not for long. Their main advantage of being able to be deploy everywhere at a moments notice means that military planners are able to put heavily armed feet to the ground quick even at inhospitable terrain to secure objectives that ordinary terrestrial armies cannot do without proper equipment and training. In short they should be both elite and niche in a single package. Niche because they are not the main fighting force but they are needed in exotic environments and elite because objectives in such environments could be crucial.

Lets say the mining of an exotic and substance that can only be found on planets that are both toxic and extremely hot, where infantry and regular weapon platforms would be counterproductive in the open but you would still need firepower and eyes out there. Extremely expensive and otherwise 'useless' weapon platforms but in dire need if one is to project force in such a niche environment.

All in all, realistically speaking Mechs are a no go, instant firepower magnets and all that. In a 'realish' setting without much space tech magic one has to provide tangible reasons for them existing and being fielded.

[Werra]

On a full realistic setting Mecha are a military impossibility.

Unless mech weight and sizes are kept along the lines of cars, not tanks.

[MBehave]

Instantly detected and destroyed?
How is that different to tanks?
Tanks are already detected through ground and air vibrations including type, as is artillery fire, infantry, aircraft.

Smart artillery rounds carry 2 anti tank warheads and have a range of around 28km.

Funny enough the radar systems of those artillery shells would have more trouble trying to pick out a mech on the terrain then a tank when dealing with 3m high mechs.

Ignoring active defenses for both tanks and mechs, why would mechs be instantly destroyed but the tanks survive?

Alright, so here are my genuine two cents on 'How to Make Mecha Work in a realish setting'.

A 'realish' setting is weird to define. Are we talking full realistic or are we talking 'realistic with quirks'?

On a full realistic setting Mecha are a military impossibility. Modern military thinking is that whatever is observable/detectable is dead. Mecha are ridiculously easy to detect, even with a full 'cloaking' field that also absorbs radar the sound of their footfalls traveling through the ground itself is enough for very accurate detection down to the direction, speed and even classification. So in short the Mecha are an impossibility because they will instantly draw enemy fire because one cannot hide them in the battlefield after they join the action. Depending on their threat envelope the enemy response will range from immediate artillery barrage (with smart ammunitions that exist even today), to a variety of airstrikes and ending down to good old fashioned anti-tank missiles.

On a realistic with quirks? Depending on the quirk you will always have contend with the detect-ability of the mecha and will have to offer both a plausible explanation for Mecha existing and a way to circumvent/counteract enemy firepower. One has to think about what Mechs offer from the bottom up to deliver plausibility.

So here are my thoughts about how I would do the above:

1) The Universe itself would have to be high tech (which may defeat the 'realish' angle but bear with me here). We are talking about Interstellar warfare where Mechs are capable fight EVERYWHERE. Not just on terrestrial planets but on asteroids, barren planets, toxic planets and etc. Even on boarding actions if the ship sizes are 'big enough' although that would certainly break the realish angle significantly.

2) Reason for them existing. The Mechs aren't meant to be in the main battle line, at least not for long. Their main advantage of being able to be deploy everywhere at a moments notice means that military planners are able to put heavily armed feet to the ground quick even at inhospitable terrain to secure objectives that ordinary terrestrial armies cannot do without proper equipment and training. In short they should be both elite and niche in a single package. Niche because they are not the main fighting force but they are needed in exotic environments and elite because objectives in such environments could be crucial.

Lets say the mining of an exotic and substance that can only be found on planets that are both toxic and extremely hot, where infantry and regular weapon platforms would be counterproductive in the open but you would still need firepower and eyes out there. Extremely expensive and otherwise 'useless' weapon platforms but in dire need if one is to project force in such a niche environment.

All in all, realistically speaking Mechs are a no go, instant firepower magnets and all that. In a 'realish' setting without much space tech magic one has to provide tangible reasons for them existing and being fielded.

[dragoongfa]

Instantly detected and destroyed?
How is that different to tanks?
Tanks are already detected through ground and air vibrations including type, as is artillery fire, infantry, aircraft.

Smart artillery rounds carry 2 anti tank warheads and have a range of around 28km.

Funny enough the radar systems of those artillery shells would have more trouble trying to pick out a mech on the terrain then a tank when dealing with 3m high mechs.

Ignoring active defenses for both tanks and mechs, why would mechs be instantly destroyed but the tanks survive?

Tanks are designed for two things in mind: survivability and recyclability.

Survivability is simple, strap armor that is sturdy enough to keep the machine intact against most weapons.
Recyclability is also simple: in case of a mission kill make the tank easy to be recovered and brought back into action. Despite their complexity most tanks are designed to be able to return into action in a matter of hours provided the mission kill was merely a catastrophic engine/track damage. Same with gun damage, even armor damage. Provided that the main chassis and the turret ring is intact a field maintenance depot is able to return most of the ordinary mission kills back into the fray in less than a day provided a proper logistics chain is available. Recycling is the reason as to why many armies suffered larger total tank loses in battles than the total number of tanks fielded, this is particularly noticeable in the desert war of north Africa in WW2.
I wouldn't want to be a tanker in a war; it is far more probable that I would be killed and the tank would end up recycled than unscathed survival.

By their nature mechs would be impossible to recycle in mission kill situations. Not only is the machinery highly complex and expensive making field maintenance a night mare but just the fall damage would severely damage other otherwise unharmed components.
The expected nature of their engines is also dubious, in case of fisson or fusion based powerplants then a powerplant failure/mission kill (the most frequent reason for mission kills for tanks) makes recycling impossible due to radiation leakage alone. This is the reason as to why the early cold war concepts of 'nuclear engines' for ships, airplanes and tanks was shafted; it's simply impossible to salvage any equipment that has been bathed in radiation. Anti-matter and other similar high tech generators? Same deal but even worse because of the booms they make.

Scrapping the whole power plant angle and going for good old internal combustion engines?
Those are really finicky when they are violently shaken (see mech running) and dropped (see mech falling). The large amounts of fuel would also pose extreme problems in terms of stability since the fuel consumption would alter the moving characteristics of the mech (much in the same way of airplanes) with the added problem of balance on top. You think that standing tall under fire is hard? Try to stand up while taking hits after one of the fuel tanks is catastrophically ruptured while the other one is intact. To see the difficulty on balancing while carrying uneven weights try to run in a field while strapping a few dozen kilograms of extra weight on the arm and leg of one side of your body.

In short, tanks are relatively cheap weapon platforms that are designed to come back from the dead because they will be a priority target by the enemy. Mechs? By their nature far harder to do so in a realistic setting.

Certain things in realistic settings cannot be hand waved away. For Mecha you either provide magic tech or a plausible niche to make them viable.

[Werra]

Unless mech weight and sizes are kept along the lines of cars, not tanks.