How to Make Mecha Work in a realish setting

[bunnyboy]

Mecha could work as a setting, where road or large field-like areas just arent available. For example, planet without infrastructure or Mars-like rocky deserts. Or perhaps area covered by volcanic eruption and several meters of sticky dust and flowing ash, and every step is step toward unknown danger.

[Werra]

Realish mecha in a setting are quite simple. You only need to come up with a niche a mecha can fill well. They don't have to supplant tanks. So there is little point in comparing the two.

Mecha could be the option for operations that suffer weight and space constraints. Like deep space exploration and planetoid landings. Especially when mecha can double as heavy duty vehicles for construction and engineering.

Mecha could also be in the same weight class as a jeep or armored car and therefore be small and nimble. If they carry weapons that are too heavy for infantry and remain armored against infantry weaponry themselves, that can be a very useful combat branch.

If you're still worried about tanks outshining mecha, then take the other route and make tanks less effective. That's easily done for example by having weaponry that makes short work of tanks and which therefore makes lighter, less armored combat vehicles more attractive.

[MBehave]

Human running on tarmac as fast as they can without shoes will tear up their feet, the same human running on sand or dirt does not have that problem.
Humans can't exist because they get damaged running at 20km/h on tarmac...
using your argument...
Right?

Strawman argument much mate?

Tanks moving at that speed on roads DESTROY THEM...
Tank tracks get destroyed very rapidly at that speed too...

By golly...
TNT...Lets ignore time frames and just lump all the energy together at a single moment and point.

4000j per gram of TNT
2000 grams=8000000
100 ton mech with one foot touching down =4802000J under 9.8g
We already have TNT levels of energy at stationary...
A tank has TNT levels of energy at stationary...
OMG TANKS AINT REALISTIC....

Mech legs need to go super fast?
100ton mech...
Mechs foot lets say its 4m long.
at 24m/s its contacting the ground for 0.16 seconds.
Lets assume for the first half its absorbing the downward velocity, rolling onto the flat like a human then the next half pushing off.

The Mech raises its foot/body on the run 1.3m(takes ~0.5 seconds to rise and 0.5 seconds to fall)
This means that it needs a foot down every 1 second.
The each leg needs to piston at a rate ~ once every 2 seconds.
It has a 24m stride.
Do those legs need to move very fast?
Nope...vastly slower then a human.

How much extra force does the 100 ton mech need for a 1.3m high step?
Since you used J lets use J
1274620j on landing and 1274620J on the push, over 0.166s.
Thats equal to a little over ~4.5X its normal ground pressure total.

Having a maximum on any part of the foot at say 10X isn't unrealistic when you add the extra energy to keep its current velocity.
Is that beyond steel?
NOPE
30cm*30cm steel pad can handle 1000 tons easily.
It can handle ~4500 tons before suffering failure either as cracking or plastic deformation.

This Mechs feet on normal surfaces like dirt/sand/clay are not going to do anything the STEEL can't handle.
Concrete... well its gonna wear fast due to friction and yeah the ground surface is likely also going to be chewed up.

Good job building an entire strawman argument that says humans and most vehicles are not realistic.
Chewing up roads at 86km/h doesn't mean anything.

MBehave: Actually yes it does matter, what overkill engine pointed out was the difference between human standing still and human walking(which doubles the pressure) and the example with horse told the simple tale of 20x higher... so yes, a running(or jogging, or even a slightly larger than average just walking) human has a higher ground pressure than the big McFattie M1 Abrams.

And no, the reason humans can walk over those muddy terrains is because humans can choose the best area to walk over that are much better compared to the 'average' whereas the tank can not....oh and that annoying total weight over area comes into play again on 'soft' ground.

And no again, the shear forces come from SPEED and impact.
Lets take the classic Timberwolf(Mad Cat for you inner sphere freeborn scum) as the example.
It has a top speed of 86.4km/h, a gait length of what? lets be wildly optimistic and say 24m which gets us a nice even number of one full step per second, those legs need to swing back and forth really fast....
so, that foot you calculated has a surface area larger than abrams(you probably skipped the fact that it is not a flat even round or square surface, it is a three toed foot.) that needs to absorb the impact of a 75 ton mech moving at 24m/second, true not ALL of that will be going down, but a lot of it will, and when you add in that it will take that force on a single rear toe..... it is just not possible...
Just crunched some numbers on it, that would either rip apart super reinforced airfield runways when you effectively slam well over 2kg(more likely closer to 5kg but rounding down a lot to give it every chance possible) of shaped charge TNT equivalent of energy into it on a surface area of 1/4 meter(probably less, but giving it every chance possible.) or the foot, one of them will break, probably both.
And I will not even get into traction, ye gods that would be a mess.
So yeah, that gait thing does not scale well at all.

But this thread is about coming up with some plausible explanation why mecha actually could be a thing, so stop talking about science stuff, if science could give us a reason why mecha could be a thing we would already have them, and no need to ask for IMAGINARY reasons why we could have them.

[discord]

MBehave: you are either a person with just enough knowledge about how things work to get it totally wrong with confidence, or a troll, either way I will leave you with a last question.

If it is as doable, effective and simple as you describe, why has it not been done yet?

[boldilocks]

MBehave: you are either a person with just enough knowledge about how things work to get it totally wrong with confidence, or a troll, either way I will leave you with a last question.

If it is as doable, effective and simple as you describe, why has it not been done yet?

I mean I agree that MBehave sounds trollish, but this is a question that suggests no technological breakthrough could ever happen. Because if it could have, it would have.

[Jagged]

If it is as doable, effective and simple as you describe, why has it not been done yet?

Because its not easy. Even the applications where the benefit is not in doubt, haven't been done yet. But companies are investing large sums of money trying.

[Moik]

So, I went to read up on the Japanese WW2 Submarine Aircraft Carriers to see what led to the creation of ridiculous, massively expensive, highly specialized, low-benefit vehicles with lots of existing lower-tech counters creating a lot of risk for their use. I thought there had only been three submarines which could carry aircraft, and that it had been a novel idea. But, it turns out, Japan had 47 subs which could carry aircraft, because at first they just carried one, then carried two, and were just beginning to deploy the three-plane configuration near war's end. Would they have stopped at three if the war continued and they had proper resources?

So, this got me thinking of a "use case" which could result in Mecha appearing in a setting. Just as Japan followed submersible air deployment past its "logical conclusion", maybe a sci-fi setting could see a military carry power-suits past their logical conclusion. Like, if you already have logistics for submersible aircraft carriers, it's easy to push more resources down that line. Maybe if you already have resources for enhanced infantry, it's easier to push more resources down that line. Like, the Department of Commandos would just be requisitioning progressively more advanced tools to continue to do commando shit in the commando way because commando is all they know. If resources are available, and the military is in a state of total war, and they already make war in the manner being used, the motivation to impede one of their own departments is reduced down to the academic. It's then a lot easier to get the rubber stamp and enter production.

[Ithekro]

Well a modern submersible super carrier would have the ability to evade long range ship killer missiles, which seem to be the largest threat to the US Navy's current super carriers (the very long range, high speed missiles from China, specifically). With the coming of the F-35B and other supersonic VTOL aircraft, one could adapt a periscope depth elevator launch tube/landing platform to continue limited flight operations while under water.

[Moik]

In a sufficiently advanced society with sufficiently available resources, I can see the submarine branch of the Navy choosing to do that. The aviation branch might protest that air-deployed sonar can easily find something with a profile that massive, and they can drop torpedos on it without risk as surfacing the sub-carrier to deploy interceptors would open it to normal surface attack. But the aviation branch doesn't get to approve or deny the submarine branch's requisitions. Central planning already approves aviation for every other branch, why not submarines?

[MBehave]

I like how you make a insulting statement instead of actually proving anything.
I am sure I get things wrong, happy to have them pointed out, it furthers discussion.
You had a view point, you now got emotional when your viewpoint was challenged, you even made a strawman argument of a mech running on concrete at 86km/h.
The insult and strawman arguments tells me its an emotional not logical belief.

Why don't we make mechs now?
We are making mechs now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldJswGpkjY
Whats even better is it was believed to be fake.
https://www.livescience.com/57296-giant ... -hoax.html

Mechs today are at the same point as the Wright brothers first successful airplane.
Primative and pathetic.

Engine/Control is the problem
Not the material science for the general frame and forces involved.

MBehave: you are either a person with just enough knowledge about how things work to get it totally wrong with confidence, or a troll, either way I will leave you with a last question.

If it is as doable, effective and simple as you describe, why has it not been done yet?

[bunnyboy]

Well, the first video said, it haves 46 motors/servos. How many of them is required to walking? And what you do after one of those will break, or any of the joints? Or they get full with dirt?
On the tank the smallest parts where bullets, schrapnels or nature can reach during mission are likely 2 or even 4 inch thick. So they just crunch whatever goes between gears and continue work even after small deformations & wear.
Now, do expect that mecha of the size seen on video, can take bullet or piece of metal from nearby explosion into knee and shrub it of like nothing?

[bunnyboy]

I do think there is definitely space for mechas in future, but I dont think heavy combat is the right place.

[Overkill Engine]

I like how you make a insulting statement instead of actually proving anything.
I am sure I get things wrong, happy to have them pointed out, it furthers discussion.
You had a view point, you now got emotional when your viewpoint was challenged, you even made a strawman argument of a mech running on concrete at 86km/h.
The insult and strawman arguments tells me its an emotional not logical belief.

Why don't we make mechs now?
We are making mechs now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldJswGpkjY
Whats even better is it was believed to be fake.
https://www.livescience.com/57296-giant ... -hoax.html

Mechs today are at the same point as the Wright brothers first successful airplane.
Primative and pathetic.

Engine/Control is the problem
Not the material science for the general frame and forces involved.

MBehave: you are either a person with just enough knowledge about how things work to get it totally wrong with confidence, or a troll, either way I will leave you with a last question.

If it is as doable, effective and simple as you describe, why has it not been done yet?

You are moving the goalpost a bit there. Those are hardly the kind of mechs that the thread title or Discord is referring to unless you wish to take the borderline facetious stance that non combat worthy prototypes somehow count. One of the links is broken at the time that I write this reply, and the other cited example would not hold up against modern infantry weapons or even primitive IED's. A single concussion grenade would be enough to take out the pilot without even needing to breach the cockpit. And it would be far more expensive if not impossible to maintain/field service than a traditional military vehicle of the same size, while still not bringing greater speed or armament to justify it. Also of note that visual inspection of the cockpit makes it apparent that successfully tipping that mech over (which could be accomplished by a pickup truck and a steel cable as it is only 1.6 tons) would cause significant pilot injury if not immediate incapacitation. And it moves slower than infantry and cannot use the same cover that infantry can.

TLDR; the cited example is an expensive deathtrap that would be grossly outperformed by a traditional combined arms squad of the same cost.

[Werra]

Overkill, you're critiquing a prototype that was made to field test basic movement and functions on not being combat ready. Wait until the advancements of robotics from the past decade get integrated into a design that's big enough to seat a human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vIT2da6N_o
That two-wheeler for example could be a useful design if it had a human pilot and guns. Doesn't need to be heavier than a car. The real question should be, why not control it remotely? But that could also be said about every other vehicle.

[RedDwarfIV]

You are moving the goalpost a bit there. Those are hardly the kind of mechs that the thread title or Discord is referring to unless you wish to take the borderline facetious stance that non combat worthy prototypes somehow count. One of the links is broken at the time that I write this reply, and the other cited example would not hold up against modern infantry weapons or even primitive IED's. A single concussion grenade would be enough to take out the pilot without even needing to breach the cockpit. And it would be far more expensive if not impossible to maintain/field service than a traditional military vehicle of the same size, while still not bringing greater speed or armament to justify it. Also of note that visual inspection of the cockpit makes it apparent that successfully tipping that mech over (which could be accomplished by a pickup truck and a steel cable as it is only 1.6 tons) would cause significant pilot injury if not immediate incapacitation. And it moves slower than infantry and cannot use the same cover that infantry can.

TLDR; the cited example is an expensive deathtrap that would be grossly outperformed by a traditional combined arms squad of the same cost.

Mechs today are at the same point as the Wright brothers first successful airplane.
Primative and pathetic.

You aren't saying anything they don't already know, or have outright stated.

[Arioch]

Mechs today are at the same point as the Wright brothers first successful airplane.
Primative and pathetic.

The shortcoming of this analogy is that the benefits of flight are substantial and rather obvious. The possibly benefits of humanoid-shaped vehicles are much harder to imagine. Hence this thread.

Just because something is new and unorthodox doesn't mean it will ever be useful.

[Ithekro]

Or it may take a very long time for a use to be found and the technology to make it practical is developled.

The proto-steam engine was designed in Roman times, but had no practical application that couldn't be done better or cheaper with existing resources in the local region. It was roughly a millennia and a half before it came up again, and still another two or three centuries before it became what we know and widely used.

[SVlad]

I have a feeling that war planes today are used only if enemy have no weapons to oppose them (or the attacker believes they have no weapons). Because anti air missiles are much cheaper than planes and very efficient. The same with tanks - there is no tank army vs tank army fights as was in WW2. And tanks mostly fight against weaker enemies. And again there is anti tank missiles, cheap and efficient.
So I think that if mechs would ever be real, they would fight against weaker enemy too.

[dragoongfa]

I have a feeling that war planes today are used only if enemy have no weapons to oppose them (or the attacker believes they have no weapons). Because anti air missiles are much cheaper than planes and very efficient. The same with tanks - there is no tank army vs tank army fights as was in WW2. And tanks mostly fight against weaker enemies. And again there is anti tank missiles, cheap and efficient.
So I think that if mechs would ever be real, they would fight against weaker enemy too.

Partially true, if only because of happenstance; the meat of the matter is that there has been no full scale war between two developed and determined states with properly equipped and trained armed forces since Vietnam.

The first Golf war was an aberration in terms of warfighting, if only because Arab and Iranian armed forces have a systemic problem with their officer corps which result in severely diminished military potential on all levels. Case in point, the US led coalition's expected casualties were around 10% of the total forces deployed. In the airwar the expected casualties were even greater, with the coalition estimating that at best the coalition would lose about 200 planes and helicopters to the Iraqi airforce alone and another hundred or so from Iraqi anti-air. Suffice to say that casualties weren't anywhere near these estimations.

Modern warfare is highly complex and deadly, state of the art weapons are all well and good but training and determination are still pivotal in fighting. We have yet to see a fight between two well equipped and well trained opponents; when that happens, doctrines and suppositions will either prove themselves or die.

[Quickdraw101]

The Iranians aren't hampered by incompetence, rather their arsenal of available equipment is severely outdated, and they face sanctions that cripple them. We saw this during the Iran Iraq war, when mostly Iranian light infantry surrounded and obliterated Iraqi armor units. That's why any modern war between Iran and its neighbors, assuming America and Europe didn't jump in, would result in Iran running roughshod over its neighbors.