What could be a good reason to use Mechas?

War is no longer affordable.

Like that's going to stop it.

Though I guess that's your and Scriblerian's point.

edited 14th Mar '13 5:22:07 PM by Alma

The same was said 100 years ago in regards to the battleship navies of the world and their army equivalents. Hell as part of the "the tank is dead!" mantra immediately after the Yom Kippur War, they thought there would be no advantage to further mechanized conflict in the age of missiles and nukes.

Both times they were wrong. Just because we're killing hajis in the hills of Afghanistan today doesn't mean we won't be fighting tanks or vehicles or aircraft or mecha in the future.

...Remind how long the battleship navies lasted after that, again?

Depending on the navy anywhere from 32 to 80 years.

After World War One which tempted a lot of battleship fighting and losses (though most of them were to smaller craft like torpedo boats), everybody still had them. After World War Two the near entirety of them were on the bottom of the sea or headed for the shipbreaking yards because of a replacement large war machine: the aircraft carrier.

In a very real sense, it already has. We haven't had a war between first-rate armies for a longer period of time than any other in recorded history.

^ The 19th century conflicts were by and large proxy or imperialist ambitions towards lesser powers. Very few "first rate" conflicts. Really, only the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War were the "first rate" ones. They set the stage for the World Wars of the 20th century. The Crimean War had little significance, the War of 1812 while equivalent to the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union to the US wasn't world changing and the US Army wasn't the first rate army it is today. Really the largest first rate conflict of the 19th century was a civil war.

No matter how small, they included world-class armies fighting each other. Nobody does that anymore, no matter how small. Even clashes between second-tier and third-tier armies have become exceedingly rare.

What's the current weight of kit, armour and munitions that a modern infantryman is expected to carry into battle?

IIRC, it was 70lbs for UK infantry during the Falklands War.

Up to 120lb or more for Afghanistan on patrol.

edited 17th Mar '13 4:39:39 PM by Night

Yoicks!

And I can see that it could only get worse if they wanted more munitions, more powerful weapons, more computer/comms gear, more armour. And wouldn't it be nice to stick in some active cooling/heating for the poor schmuck lumbering around with all that crap?

That's why I can see Powered Armour becoming real.

It might not make the soldier "invulnerable", but Level IIIA armour is better than Level I or II, and Level IV is better still. At the very least, it might be the difference between sustaining wounds that can be survived, given a good M.A.S.H, and being pureed.

And (s)he gets the same capability as a jet-fighter pilot to see not only what's around him/her, but what's around his/her buddies and have it all tied into the same tactical information that has been picked up from other sources - including robot/drone units.

I note that networking has become really big in jet fighters to give a more comprehensive view of the theatre of engagement to the pilots, I can see that giving the infantry a comparable system would be also advantageous - but heavy.

Something that'd be equally useful in dense jungle, sand dunes, city streets, inside buildings; in the Arctic or Death Valley.

Infantry seems to be something that's never gone out of fashion so far (if it does, I'd expect it to be replaced with robots that filled the same function) - there always seems to be a need to send something in at ground level that's versatile, selective and fairly autonomous. Able to spread out to cover an area, small enough to enter places that armoured vehicles can't, well armed and able to manipulate the environment.

Standing back and blitzing entire areas from a distance has become quite popular and people brag about how they can bombard an entire building from a ship miles off shore like they're actually some sort of heroes, but for all that capacity, there's still a heavy dependence on infantry for things that require more "finesse" (and it sounds rather odd describing the actions of a large armed infantry as "finesse") and combat skills than standing back and playing "Space Invaders" with entire city blocks.

Lots of good points on this thread. I always enjoy these disussions about mecha.

As usual, most of the main advantages and disadvantages of mechas have been covered. Someone mentioned the spider tanks in Ghost In The Shell, and that has usually struck me as one of the best examples of how tank technology could pragmatically evolve. The spider tanks were demonstrably efficient and deadly at various ranges due largely in part to their ability to use both ambulatory locomotion and caterpillar-style tread-based locomotion.

I've noticed that mecha tend to be discussed in terms of how they contribute to ground combat scenarios. I only skimmed through bits of the thread so if someone already mentioned this, pardon me. I've always wondered how mecha will contribute to aerial combat and air-to-ground combat. From what I've researched, this is based on how BVR (beyond visual range) technology will continue to evolve as well as how and why a humanoid application would be used in airborne tasks when a combat aircraft already does that. It sounds silly, but I can see the feasibility of transforming mecha and semi-humanoid mecha with physical attributes closer to an aeroplane. All kinds of mechanics and properties will have to be taken into consideration such as mass, velocity, maximum altitude, weapons loadout, stealth capabilities, cost of maintenance, and ease of transportation and deployment, to name a few. Of course, if you're going to have transforming mecha, you're going to have to tackle a number of complicated issues regarding modularity and long-term practicality.

The one thing that airborne mecha writers tend to struggle with is answering the question of why said mecha would exist when fighter jets already fulfill that role. The way I see it, a writer builds his world around a conflict, ideology or central message, however shallow or deep that message may be, and the technology should be a secondary concern. Construct a world that necessitates your mecha technology or at least excuses its existence rather agonizing over real-world physics and real-world military technology. Clearly, you want to study military history to understand how humans change their technology over time, but don't let that history excessively bind you to a narrow technological premise. One common lesson taught in creative writing is to focus on creating technology that is plausible within the world you have created as a writer. We've all heard this before. Don't betray your own rules. Your mecha should make sense within the comfines of your universe, no matter how wacky that universe may be.

I can't remember if someone mentioned this, but energy conservation technology is slowly improving. As one sci-fi fiction analyst put it, the ultra-compact fusion reactors of the Gundam universe are surprisingly within reach. It may be possible within the next 50-100 years (or sooner) to develop UCF reactors that are modular enough to be placed in something as small as a 20-foot mecha. Recall that some refrigerators of the past were once the size of entire houses, and we now have refrigerators capable of being carried by one or two people with a dolly, and they are significantly more energy efficient. So, any mecha you make for your story needs to have an explanation for its energy efficiency, depending on how modular you want it to be.

I agree with this. I also strongly agree with Drunk Scriblerian's original post.

edited 17th Mar '13 10:18:21 PM by Aprilla

The problem is that nobody has, and probably nobody will, ever construct a world where 20ft-or-more mecha actually make sense without painfully obviously weighting the playing field. (This armor magically only works when applied to a humanoid form!) Between issues of protection, profile, mobility, and tactical utility it's just not there. What Scrib fails to acknowledge is that many of these issues are constants, that they will not be changed by new materials and technologies because it's not the materials or technologies that are the controlling factor. Basic efficiencies of design are. On some level it will always be cheaper and easier to design and maintain a tank-like vehicle and it will always be easier to armor it and arm it.

Ironically the most worthy attempts have probably been Western walking-tank efforts like Battle Tech.

Years ago, I saw a six-legged walking robot that had enough articulation and range in its legs that it could climb onto the back of a flat-bed truck.

It could also splay its legs wide for stability or pass through a standard doorway by moving its legs in towards its central body.

The legs allowed a reasonable height extension capability (certainly high enough to lift its chassis to clear the deck of the truck.

A multi-legged "all-terrain" vehicle that can bypass some of the limitations of tracked/wheeled vehicles - by being able to alter its clearance height and reach by means of properly articulated (say insect- or spider-like) legs could possibly have a use.

The main problem would be the weight being concentrated on three or four (whatever the minimum number contact points) relatively small "feet" (compared with a tracked or wheeled vehicle) - perhaps having the ability to widen the contact areas when required for softer terrain.

It would be able to alter its leg geometries to maintain a mostly level platform on a lot of uneven terrain if required. It could be made so that its feet (or at least the front pair) can reach higher than the top of its cabin (like a spider raising its feet up above its head), enabling it to climb over extremely tall obstacles - possibly even the height of a single-storey building.

It could make itself extremely stable by extending its legs laterally or bring them inwards to negotiate narrow streets.

Computer systems could control the actual placement of the legs in response to simple guidance from the human operator - forward, left, right, reverse, over that bus etc.

Imagine a tank that could "step nimbly over" a six-foot fence then climb up onto a 20-foot-high embankment.

^^ Technology Marches On. The recent focus in vehicle defenses hasn't been making heavier armor or even new types of armor. It's been systems which outright stop or deflect attacks in their tracks. Things like explosive reactive armor blocks, slat armor add ons and active protection systems. All of which are relatively inexpensive, effective and lightweight compared to adding 30 tons of armor.

So-called "constants" are more of a slippery concept than most people realize.

For example; someone in I believe the 18th century once calculated that, by the year 1990, the streets of London would be basically buried in a massive pile of horse-dung from all the carriages...they got this by calculating population increase, the number of carriages vs. population and so on. After all, there was only so much one horse could pull, and populations increase, right? All very logical...based on the environment of the time.

They did not imagine the invention of the train - and then the automobile - but then again, how could they? The internal combustion engine hadn't even been dreamed up and the Industrial Revolution was years off. Sure, we've got the basic problem they envisioned (environmental pollution stemming from too many humans trying to get from point A to point B) but it ended up taking a form no one from the 18th century could have imagined...because science has a way of surprising us.

Sure, I agree that a walking tank would probably not replace the weapons we have now completely any time soon; bolt-action rifles, for example, still see military service. despite the design being very, very old it still does some things other designs cannot do for the price.

It is funny that you should mention Battle Tech; I was an avid player of that wargame in high school and experimented with this exact phenomenon in several matches.

We used to play with cost; that is, every player got a certain amount of money with which to build their army. Now, Battle Mechs are freaking expensive compared to everything else in the book, as well they should be. Other players wanted the "coolness factor" of walking tanks; I, on the other hand, looked at bang for the buck.

I tried this in three matches. The first, I purchased large numbers of small, cheap hovercraft (Savannah Masters for those who have actually played Battletech). In another, I bought an infantry regiment. In a third, I invested in conventional aircraft *

In all three matches, I smoked the battle-mechs I went up against. However, it should be noted that in two of the three matches I took better than a 50% casualty rate. Sure, I "won" by the standards of the game but I lost by any real-world military evaluation. In the third, I won because I basically had complete air superiority...which let's face it is a damn fine advantage for any army to have.

So yeah; it might be on-paper efficient to give soldiers proven designs which cost less...this strategy has the habits of both keeping costs down and getting more men killed. Ask the soldiers which they'd prefer having. Yeah, when I bought large numbers of cheap units and won by sacrificing them, I was insulated from dealing with the human costs of that decision because hey...it was just a game.

I'll admit; a wargame is not reality. But all three battles handily illustrated the benefits and limits of trying to save money when going to war. Sure, you'll save dollars. But war is expensive and someone always has to pick up the tab...usually the guys fighting said war pay the difference with their lives.

Maybe the reason a culture might adopt walking death machines might be to allow one soldier with one mech to wreak just as much havoc as 10,000 men armed with an infantryman's kit...and hey, the bonus is that one soldier gets to come home alive. As opposed to the inevitability of some of those 10,000 not doing so.

A fascinating digression about London.

Also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of basic design efficiencies of a tank over a humanoid form.

You're arguing that the basic laws of physics are going to change, that one day it will be harder to balance a heavy weapon on a centerline turret with a 360 degree field of fire instead of on one extremity with the same field of fire. That the high center of gravity will be easier to manage than low; that feet in any number will disperse weight more effectively than treads or even a hoverskirt. This isn't going to happen. Anything that can be used to make a a giant robot can be used to make a cheaper, simpler, and ultimately more effective tank.

Your efforts with Battle Tech are unpersuasive by your own admission; you won. By real-world military standards, you also won; you inflicted greater losses on the enemy then you suffered and held the field. You also won by Battle Tech standards in that you held the salvage and the normal military ones. (And in the infantry case your opponent was a moron, or as we would have put it "had not learned the Elemental Lesson". One needs patience to work over a shorter-ranged and slower opponent properly.)

They're also unpersuasive because Battle Tech's methodology for 'Mech superiority, while somewhat innovative with its ability to spread damage and internal compartmentalization, is still pretty much magic.

edited 18th Mar '13 6:23:25 PM by Night

So I sacrificed hundreds of lives to win a piece of ground (when the opponent did not) and that's winning? Infantrymen everywhere are glad you don't lead an army.

Like most wargaming systems, Battletech suffers under a microscope.

And like most internet denizens, you seem adept at missing the point.

That's an interesting analogy, and I'm glad you mentioned the concept of air superiority. As I mentioned before, people still have a habitual inclination to automatically associate hypothetical mecha designs with tanks. The reason for doing so is fairly obvious and by no means unjustified, but I think much of it has to do with viewing combat as a 2-dimensional battlespace rather than a 3-dimensional battlespace. This is the reason why I can more thoroughly enjoy mecha stories set in space. Combat mechs deployed in a vacuum make more sense because the entity in question doesn't have to account for atmospheric problems such as gravity, atmospheric pressure, crosswinds, the Coriolis effect, and the friction created from air resistance. In other words, a space mecha would be more energy efficient and cost effective simply because it has less to work against in its environment. This is the same reason why aerospace enthusiasts have argued that if we're going to propel space travel to the next level, we need to construct space vessels in space where they will be closer to raw materials on nearby planets and moons. The reduction in friction and overall resistance will make labor and energy consumption more manageable.

Another reason why I keep bringing up the aerodynamic issues of mecha is because of the whole notion of a humanoid mecha even needing feet to begin with. As far-fetched as it sounds, I appreciated Zone of the Enders for doing away with feet on the orbital framers. If your mech is capable of sustained flight and low-altitude hovering, sinking under your own weight becomes something of a non-issue. However, we would have to develop technology that would make hovering and indefinite flight sustainability a reality. Current research shows that we need to learn how to further exploit the Van der Waals force in such a way that a mecha or similar device would be able to levitate without consuming prohibitive amounts of energy. There's also the problem of having a hover vehicle operate on a surface in that you basically have to ionize the ground around you in order to maintain flight. VTOL technology on fighter jets and innovations made on rotary wing aircraft give us an idea of what we're up against in that realm, but progress can be made.

edited 18th Mar '13 7:11:56 PM by Aprilla

I think this needs the caveat that it's not a binary spectrum, but otherwise I agree. While I already agreed with the argument that "tanks with legs" have a lot of uses, I haven't seen anything in here to convince me that the full-blown humanoid mecha shape really offers any major advantage when it comes to combat (although I think they'd have a ready-made niche in construction).

I think what Scrib was trying to say was that future trends in warfare are hard to predict.

It's like those articles that say "scientists have calculated" that all the world's fish are going to be extinct by 2050 or all the blondes are going to die out. (In another article, it was redheads.) But all of these doomsday scenarios rely on things staying exactly the way they are—rates of overfishing remaining the same or climbing, the blonde birth rate continuing to drop, etc. There are so many factors that are unaccounted for there. It's entirely possible that, say, there'll be a sudden baby boom among blondes or that new laws will be written that restrict overfishing.

edited 19th Mar '13 7:12:05 AM by Alma

Ah mechas.

They are cool.

I skipped some points here and there, but I seen the arguments for(intimidation factor, possible dexterity arguments) and against(weight troubles, vulnerable legs, a big slow walking target) Giant Robots.

I honestly think there's too much fridge logic for it to work on earth, but maybe on a different world, with different Gravity, that went in a alternate direction for one reason or another.

Or you could just do it because they look cool.

That's my two cents on the subject.