FA+
Shop
Tech thoughts with Fox - Mechas
10 years ago
Everyone loves mechas or walkers, whatever you wanna call them. Not many things are more awesome than a huge robot suit bristling with weaponry. However, after I had my brush with the realities of vehicular warfare in the Finnish Army, it made me question the real-life practicality and usefulness of a walker as a weapon system. I seriously doubt wether or not we're ever going to have combat walkers at all because I couldn't really find a role for one where it would out-perform anything that's already in existence I'm trying to spur some healthy discussion here, so feel more than free to disagree with what I'm about to say.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Mobility:
There's no question about it, properly-made leg propulsion has some real potential with obstacle crossing, such as trenches, tank traps or barricades. However, by using legs you're placing the weight of the vehicle on two very small spots on the ground causing massive ground pressure. Considering that even the smallest of combat walkers in popular culture are pretty massive to begin with this would cause some real issues crossing any terrain. Roads would be completely destroyed in a single pass and the walker would simply sink into anything softer. Then there's the fact that the propulsion units themselves would be, atleast initially, really complex and expensive to manufacture over more traditional means of propulsion. High inclines could also present the danger of the walker falling over, but this would depend on how the propulsion unit takes hills into account.
Proportions:
The basic set-up of a combat walker would allow for some new methods in the exploitation of "hull-down" tactics or the use of other obstacles as cover to shoot over from. This brings up another problem, even the more modest and "realistic" walkers (Such as the ones in Battlefield 2142) I've seen are pretty damn high. Making them very easy to spot, really hard to hide and really easy targets for any anti-vehicle weapon when they can be seen coming from miles away. Which brings me to the next point.
Protection:
Maybe the silly proportions of this weapon system could be negated somewhat by the use of some new type of protection like shields or a new type of armour. This will just beg the question why would not that protection be installed on something that's smaller of a target to begin with. There's no reason to not equip your tanks with the same protection systems if you have it available for something that's as complex as a walker. Thinking back to the things I said in "Mobility", making the walker more heavily armoured to compensate for its size, would make its limited mobility even worse.
Armament:
Pretty much all the things I've said in "Protection" apply here as well. All the weaponry you could mount on a mech, you can mount on a tank. Putting multiple weapons on the walker would complicate crew training and supply logistics when you need supply the vehicle with multiple different kinds of ammunition. It would also again increase weight and hinder the vehicle's movement.
I don't wanna be a killjoy, but considering what I just said, as awesome as they are, I don't think we'll ever see any proper combat mechas. Anything they can do, a tank can do better and they're cheaper to make. But who knows, maybe in the future a combat role will arise where these vehicles will fit perfectly. This is what cavarlymen must've thought about tanks in 1917.
"The Idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd" - A british commander on tanks in 1916
Here are some of my thoughts:
Mobility:
There's no question about it, properly-made leg propulsion has some real potential with obstacle crossing, such as trenches, tank traps or barricades. However, by using legs you're placing the weight of the vehicle on two very small spots on the ground causing massive ground pressure. Considering that even the smallest of combat walkers in popular culture are pretty massive to begin with this would cause some real issues crossing any terrain. Roads would be completely destroyed in a single pass and the walker would simply sink into anything softer. Then there's the fact that the propulsion units themselves would be, atleast initially, really complex and expensive to manufacture over more traditional means of propulsion. High inclines could also present the danger of the walker falling over, but this would depend on how the propulsion unit takes hills into account.
Proportions:
The basic set-up of a combat walker would allow for some new methods in the exploitation of "hull-down" tactics or the use of other obstacles as cover to shoot over from. This brings up another problem, even the more modest and "realistic" walkers (Such as the ones in Battlefield 2142) I've seen are pretty damn high. Making them very easy to spot, really hard to hide and really easy targets for any anti-vehicle weapon when they can be seen coming from miles away. Which brings me to the next point.
Protection:
Maybe the silly proportions of this weapon system could be negated somewhat by the use of some new type of protection like shields or a new type of armour. This will just beg the question why would not that protection be installed on something that's smaller of a target to begin with. There's no reason to not equip your tanks with the same protection systems if you have it available for something that's as complex as a walker. Thinking back to the things I said in "Mobility", making the walker more heavily armoured to compensate for its size, would make its limited mobility even worse.
Armament:
Pretty much all the things I've said in "Protection" apply here as well. All the weaponry you could mount on a mech, you can mount on a tank. Putting multiple weapons on the walker would complicate crew training and supply logistics when you need supply the vehicle with multiple different kinds of ammunition. It would also again increase weight and hinder the vehicle's movement.
I don't wanna be a killjoy, but considering what I just said, as awesome as they are, I don't think we'll ever see any proper combat mechas. Anything they can do, a tank can do better and they're cheaper to make. But who knows, maybe in the future a combat role will arise where these vehicles will fit perfectly. This is what cavarlymen must've thought about tanks in 1917.
"The Idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd" - A british commander on tanks in 1916
Also, Bolo tanks.
This quality of physical imposiveness is pretty much the feature modern riot cavalry depend on. I could barely imagine something more terrifying as a 3 to 5 story tall mecha menaching the crowds.
Also, both concepts will be outdated once hovertanks become a thing.
I had 4 legged walkers as mobile FOBs that could literally get up and go as well as support platforms for artillery,logistics,and electronic warfare on a Battalion level. Big slow ,clunky and armored and not intended for direct combat.
Two legged reverse jointed walkers I had as snipers and rapid dominance machines for attacking defensive positions in pack tactics.The snipers were gun carriers like that of a tank destroyer with the hull/cockpit rotating at an elevated position great for forested areas or defensive positions and legs that fold down like a bird sitting for the "hull down" aspect. The rapid dominance ones were armed with multiple autocannons and APHE rocket pods for suppression and devestation. Like a road runner bird that would attempt to use pack tactics to overrun defenses or pursue routing units. These were small and lightly armored. I saw them as a cheaper version and mostly fodder with advantages.
Two legged bipedal humanoid walkers I saw as a longer term evolution of an exo-skeletal powersuit. They would be supported by infantry and would dominate urban combat.(Platoon size would have 1 mech and 24 infantry in 3 squads of 8.) While a tank can round a corner exposing it's front and turning it's hull a humanoid mech does not.It would use the terrain like one would an open world house. With the size and weight it could even charge through a house to make an opening or surprise a tank which would have less reaction time and lack this capability unless the buildings were much lighter or was traveling at high speeds. In addition to this because of two arms multi-targeting is also possible when faced with multiple opponents,unless of course it has basically an oversized gun instead of a gun in each hand feed through ammunition carried on it's back which would make that a weak point,but again a tank's turret based ammo rack and ass are weak points. Infantry would be supporting the mech at all times and in a building sweep the mech would simply change the room the gun is pointing at for support if infantry called for a room to be disintegrated. In open terrain I had mine support vehicles through mobile fire support and artillery capable for it's large size and stabilized by taking a knee. These were substantially armored in contrast to the reverse jointed ones and were meant to take a beating. Think of the clunkier Western versions of mechs without the horribly crippled speed.
They are perfectly viable in each form,but very niche. Versus a tank however in their niche they have the advantage.