Welcome to the future: South Korea develops the world's first mech
108 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sasupoika;51615196]People do tend to dig bit too quickly "it doesn't have military usage, so it is useless."
Mechs are not very viable in many tasks, and it might be hard to find a niche, at least here.
I'd imagine there potentially could be some use in space or other celestial bodies, if the tech improves.
Then again, even then legs probably lose to alternative options.
Zeong is the future.
Because it is fiction.[/QUOTE]
It is fiction, but it's a pretty realistic fiction
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51615160]I don't see why mechs are impractical. Look at the Battletech universe.[/QUOTE]in addition to originating from the "Everything Must Be Awesome" age that was the 80's, Battletech takes place over a thousand years in the future where humanity's interstellar domains offer a lot more resources and industrial power than our Earth-based society, the power supply problem has been solved with comfortable-sized fusion technology, balance and propulsion are handled by electronic muscles instead of servos and the only real reason for a battlemech to exist is to carry an overpowered arsenal of hugeass railguns and beam weapons that can't be all crammed into one nuclear-powered battle tank for the same price and mobility
and even then the 'mechs are still under constant threat from jets, helicopters, tanks, anti-tank infantry and all the other things that harass modern-day armored vehicles. have fun patrolling a contested city in a loud, heavy mech when behind every corner could be the ambush spot of a tank destroyer or an infantry squad pointing rocket launchers at your cockpit
I can see mechs finding itself in more niche civil applications rather than warfare, kinda like that mech from Aliens
unless they could get bigger mechs to be affordable, articulate, maneuverable, and fast, I could only see that technology being capped off at armored exoskeletons for infantry, rather than full blown mechs for warfare (and fast mechs are a staple in a lot of "realistic" mecha anime, where mech and robots are ridiculously maneuverable and fast they render tech like tanks and gunships obsolete)
"mechs are superior" - person with anime avatar, 2017
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;51613786]On a more serious note, you might also be a person who would think "tanks will never be a practical thing in war". You'd probably think that because they're not very agile that they'd be easy targets, but we still use tanks, so that logic must not hold up for some reason.[/QUOTE]
The thing about this is that all the people saying 'tanks will never be serious weapons of war' were arguing so based on tanks' technological capabilities at the time. The arguments against mechs are based more on physics, principles, and limitations, fundamentally coming down to the fact that everything mechs do tanks simply do better.
For example, one weakness of early tanks was poor armor, allowing them to be disabled by oversized rifles. This was a serious deficiency, but was addressed as technology improved over time.
In contrast, mechs have a weakness in that the human form has enormous surface area, making them more vulnerable than tanks regardless of the technological level. You don't get nearly as much protection per ton of armor mass as you do with a boxy shape. No matter how good your armor is, a tank can use it more efficiently.
The same goes for things like ground pressure. Technology is not going to escape the fact that even with giant snow shoes, a bipedal form has much less area to distribute its mass on than a wheeled or tracked vehicle. You can drive a tank effortlessly over terrain that a simple infantryman sinks to his knees on, and square-cube law is real unforgiving when you start scaling that infantryman up.
These aren't engineering challenges, like the absurd complexity and fragility of bipedal motion or the imprecision of aiming a gun with articulated joints. They're fundamental physical limitations and inefficiencies inherent to building an anthropomorphic AFV.
I'm a huge fan of Battletech, but the only reasons anthropomorphic vehicles exist in fiction are because nerds think they're cool and because they provide a humanoid stand-in for the protagonists. It's a form of fantasy, essentially a literary metaphor in militaristic form, not a plausible futuristic military technology.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51615160]I don't see why mechs are impractical. Look at the Battletech universe.[/QUOTE]
Battletech is a video game and violates the square cube law at every turn.
A mech that moves that fast, would probably break itself under it's own weight after it took a few steps unless we find some kind of ultra-light ultra-hard special material that has the same protective power of Dorchester composite or similar armour plating, at a tenth of the weight.
And at that point you might as well make tanks that drive like off-road rally cars, or give your aircraft the proteciton of a conventional tank.
Oh, someone already brought up Battletech? One of the amusing things about Battletech is that the game allows you to create your own vehicles, and when you look at how the vehicle creation rules work it's clear that tanks are inferior to mechs just because. Not only is Battletech fiction, but even within its own fictional context it can't come up with an internally-consistent reason for mechs to be as viable as tanks, so it simply gives them better performance and politely asks you to look the other way.
The main argument for anthropomorphic machines is that they're cool. The main argument against them is that in the real world there is precious little that limbed vehicles do better than their mundane counterparts, and that goes for both military and civil applications.
To those who say this is impractical, you do know this is essentially Gen 1 right? Gen 1 are always big, bulky and impractical.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51615252]in addition to originating from the "Everything Must Be Awesome" age that was the 80's, Battletech takes place over a thousand years in the future where humanity's interstellar domains offer a lot more resources and industrial power than our Earth-based society, the power supply problem has been solved with comfortable-sized fusion technology, balance and propulsion are handled by electronic muscles instead of servos and the only real reason for a battlemech to exist is to carry an overpowered arsenal of hugeass railguns and beam weapons that can't be all crammed into one nuclear-powered battle tank for the same price and mobility
and even then the 'mechs are still under constant threat from jets, helicopters, tanks, anti-tank infantry and all the other things that harass modern-day armored vehicles. have fun patrolling a contested city in a loud, heavy mech when behind every corner could be the ambush spot of a tank destroyer or an infantry squad pointing rocket launchers at your cockpit[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, I know it's impractical today. I just don't understand why people always say "mechs are dumb and useless"
They actually point those faults out in the universe too
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51615718]Well yeah, I know it's impractical today. I just don't understand why people always say "mechs are dumb and useless"
They actually point those faults out in the universe too[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLrnn2tEmY[/media]
@0:00-0:45
The engineering required to make a machine so large even walk while maintaining useful (and mandatory) joint flexibility renders them impractical for combat scenarios.
9 times out of 10 the main reason fictional factions tend to rely on large walking combat machines is because "it scares people shitless", and in the end, combat efficacy and cost effectiveness > "big robot is scareh". (also worth noting that tanks have an intimidation factor as well, doesn't stop them getting blown up any)
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;51612970]Mechs will never be a real thing in war. Sorry guys. Still looks cool regardless.[/QUOTE]
All you need is a power source and controls, even if its slow they would be great with heavy weapons.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;51613225]It's probably fake.
[URL="http://www.livescience.com/57296-giant-humanoid-robot-video-hoax.html"]http://www.livescience.com/57296-giant-humanoid-robot-video-hoax.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
It's not fake. There were a number of raw instagram videos linked in the other thread (video section) about this very mech.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;51613786]
On a more serious note, you might also be a person who would think "tanks will never be a practical thing in war". You'd probably think that because they're not very agile that they'd be easy targets, but we still use tanks, so that logic must not hold up for some reason.
The only reason why I agree with you that mechs will never be a real war thing is that we probably won't have a war in which we will have them active and need to use them.[/QUOTE]
they're not really easy targets when they're shooting at you from two miles away while going 70 kmh like they're designed to
the reason tanks don't need to be agile is because they have a tons of armor. if we manage to discover some magical material that's light enough to put on a mech but can still resist AT weapons, why not just put them on tanks instead?
at most we'll get armored exoskeletons and walker gear-esque mechs for personal protection against small arms fire a hundred years into the future, but anything above 10 feet doesn't have any use that outweighs the enormous pain in the ass it'll be to produce and maintain it
Walkers will probably play second fiddle to tanks at best, unless we somehow invent something that can generate high-strength repulsive forcefields or hard light energy shields. Though even then, even if we could fit a mech with some sort of thorium-based "microreactor" to power the fields and shields, "why not just install it in a tank?" would be the first question on the table.
armored exoskeletons and small mechs will have problems with muddy areas sure, but they can provide much better protection in forests and mountainous areas. right now they suffer from energy efficiency and production cost issues, but those are problems which can actually be solved over a few decades, unlike the fundamental practicability problems with large battle mechs
[QUOTE=DELL;51615799]All you need is a power source and controls, even if its slow they would be great with heavy weapons.[/QUOTE]
You could strap a heavy weapon to a self propelled artillery piece with the treads and stabilizers, it'd do the same job but be cheaper and easier to maintain.
I could see this being useful on Nimitz class carriers. Hook them to the nuclear core and boom, fuel source. Now you have a forklift that is as articulate as a human.
I think it would be more practical if you slapped wheels on it
Arms could probably be useful with some tweaking
The way it keeps swaying to the sides has me thinking that the walker really can't engage in close combat without the risk of a sufficiently organized squad tipping it like a cow.
So the problem I see with everyone arguing pro-mech is that A: they're still in denial that ground-pressure is a thing, and B: they're constantly coming up with ways a mech can be almost-as-good as whatever we have already.
"Zoom around at 70km/h with heavy weapons, providing fire-support and recon"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg/640px-Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg[/IMG]
"Perform engineering-duties at the front lines"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Backhoe_loader_during_Operation_Desert_Storm.JPEG/640px-Backhoe_loader_during_Operation_Desert_Storm.JPEG[/IMG]
"More manoeuvrable forklift"
[IMG]http://www.gseecrane.com/images/equipment/Manitou%20TMT%2055HT_002.JPG[/IMG]
(These buggers can do a 360 on the spot, it's rad as heck!)
"Carry more diverse weapons at high speed into combat"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Trophy_APS_-_operational.jpg/640px-Trophy_APS_-_operational.jpg[/IMG]
(120mm gun, .50 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 60mm mortar, up to 6 infantrymen in ATGM-squad)
Yes, you [I]can[/I] probably maybe some time in the future possibly make a mech that can perform tasks like this, but we already have things that do those tasks, and do them better than anything feasibly doable on legs.
Legs generally suck. If God was a smart man, he would have given humans tracks instead. Or at least wheels. Or the ability to hover. But he was not, and it has been up to us to improve upon his creation, by inventing tanks.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51614225]Not that I'm arguing for the idea mechs are a good idea, but there's a reason tanks exist, mobility isn't the sole quality of a military asset.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;51613786]You'd probably think that because they're not very agile that they'd be easy targets, but we still use tanks, so that logic must not hold up for some reason.[/QUOTE]
tanks are very agile though, they can drive at 40-60 km/h offroad depending on vehicle
[QUOTE=gufu;51613887]Not even a tank can go through directly through a thick forest - having something that can actually move between trees would make for a terrific AA capability.[/QUOTE]
if it's still stuck on the ground level at the same height as humans with MANPADS it's a costlier solution to a nonexistent problem, as AA has basically no visibility from the woods
and even that's been solved by infantry
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBF09CUWEAACM4C.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51615462]To those who say this is impractical, you do know this is essentially Gen 1 right? Gen 1 are always big, bulky and impractical.[/QUOTE]It's not a matter of the tech being young, it's fundamental physics. Any tech that'd make mechs more viable, e.g. lightweight and strong armour, would make tanks even better.
[QUOTE=Riller;51616817]So the problem I see with everyone arguing pro-mech is that A: they're still in denial that ground-pressure is a thing, and B: they're constantly coming up with ways a mech can be almost-as-good as whatever we have already.
"Zoom around at 70km/h with heavy weapons, providing fire-support and recon"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg/640px-Scorpion_CRVT_%284119399295%29.jpg[/IMG]
"Perform engineering-duties at the front lines"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Backhoe_loader_during_Operation_Desert_Storm.JPEG/640px-Backhoe_loader_during_Operation_Desert_Storm.JPEG[/IMG]
"More manoeuvrable forklift"
[IMG]http://www.gseecrane.com/images/equipment/Manitou%20TMT%2055HT_002.JPG[/IMG]
(These buggers can do a 360 on the spot, it's rad as heck!)
"Carry more diverse weapons at high speed into combat"
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Trophy_APS_-_operational.jpg/640px-Trophy_APS_-_operational.jpg[/IMG]
(120mm gun, .50 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 7.62 machine-gun, 60mm mortar, up to 6 infantrymen in ATGM-squad)
Yes, you [I]can[/I] probably maybe some time in the future possibly make a mech that can perform tasks like this, but we already have things that do those tasks, and do them better than anything feasibly doable on legs.
Legs generally suck. If God was a smart man, he would have given humans tracks instead. Or at least wheels. Or the ability to hover. But he was not, and it has been up to us to improve upon his creation, by inventing tanks.[/QUOTE]
So why have 4 different machines to do these jobs, which means many different spare parts needs to be supplied in event anyone of them breaks, while you can have just 1 machine to do all of these instead?
[editline]3rd January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;51617338]It's not a matter of the tech being young, it's fundamental physics. Any tech that'd make mechs more viable, e.g. lightweight and strong armour, would make tanks even better.[/QUOTE]
I don't see tanks being made out of carbon fibre though.
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617569]So why have 4 different machines to do these jobs, which means many different spare parts needs to be supplied in event anyone of them breaks, while you can have just 1 machine to do all of these instead?[/QUOTE]
Oh-... Oh, you mech-people actually think that a single design can perform all those tasks? Let me laugh even harder, then. How the actual hell would you design a fuckin' robot to do even two of those tasks, let alone all four, without seriously compromising its abilities in every single one?
[sp]For the record, the unimog already functions as a forklift too, so combining those two isn't impressive[/sp]
[QUOTE=Riller;51617592]Oh-... Oh, you mech-people actually think that a single design can perform all those tasks? Let me laugh even harder, then. How the actual hell would you design a fuckin' robot to do even two of those tasks, let alone all four, without seriously compromising its abilities in every single one?
[sp]For the record, the unimog already functions as a forklift too, so combining those two isn't impressive[/sp][/QUOTE]
Easy, just give it hands. All anyone needs to do now is to develop the tools for it.
[sp]Also, the first and last point you made are exactly the same so technically it already does two of those task.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617613]Easy, just give it hands. All anyone needs to do now is to develop the tools for it.
[sp]Also, the first and last point you made are exactly the same so technically it already does two of those task.[/sp][/QUOTE]
First off, hands suck, badly. They're terrible. The amount of coordination required for a hand to work at all is stupid high, and that's before taking into account the fact that it is full of weak joints, over-complications and shit like that.
Second, if you seriously think a Scorpion and a Merkava perform even [I]remotely[/I] the same task, I'd be inclined to say you're horribly unqualified to consider the needs and uses of military equipment.
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617569]So why have 4 different machines to do these jobs, which means many different spare parts needs to be supplied in event anyone of them breaks, while you can have just 1 machine to do all of these instead?[/QUOTE]It's ultimately cheaper to have one machine for each task that does it as well and simply as possible, than to have one mediocre and complicated jack-of-all-trades. You don't need as many e.g. forklifts as tanks, so why have all your tanks double up as forklifts?
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617569]I don't see tanks being made out of carbon fibre though.[/QUOTE]Because it'd be an absolutely absurd idea to make an armoured military vehicle out of that stuff, and for logistical equipment like forklifts it'd be an unnecessary expense. In addition to the physical vulnerability of leg and arm joints, making a military ground vehicle, that's expected to see frontline combat, out of carbon fibre is akin to making a bread submarine.
[QUOTE=Riller;51617623]First off, hands suck, badly. They're terrible. The amount of coordination required for a hand to work at all is stupid high, and that's before taking into account the fact that it is full of weak joints, over-complications and shit like that.
Second, if you seriously think a Scorpion and a Merkava perform even [I]remotely[/I] the same task, I'd be inclined to say you're horribly unqualified to consider the needs and uses of military equipment.[/QUOTE]
You're strawmanning here.
First of all, I never say anything about the Scorpion and the Merkava performing the same task. All I said was that
[QUOTE]Zoom around at 70km/h with heavy weapons, providing fire-support and recon[/QUOTE]
And
[QUOTE]Carry more diverse weapons at high speed into combat[/QUOTE]
Are the same task, if not, very closely related since if you can carry diverse weapons at high speed, some of which can be heavy weapons, obviously you can provide fire-support as well. Besides, to a recon vehicle and a tank, both might be different task that they can only accomplish one of but to a mech, it can do both.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
