The Tanks in this game have inspired me

zerg rush ftw :D

 

A billion dollars for a single mech?

That's a little extreme of a cost estimate there. Maybe for a first few prototypes, but then again ALL prototypes of new technology tend to be expensive.

A finalized, production-ready mech of a realistic size and shape might cost a around the same as a jet, maybe a bit more at first. The real problem, I think, is that we don't really have a computer powerful enough, small enough, and reliable enough to balance something like that in real-time. It'd be a nightmare right now, but given enough processing power in a small enough space, it'd be possible (please remember, once again, that there was a time when no one thought that airplanes were useful. Then, WWI happened and they were found to be priceless at recon. Then, the American Generals thought they were only good at recon and bombing and thought they'd be useless at naval combat. Then, they won us WWII's Pacific theatre after the rest of the navy bit the bullet at Pearl Harbor. That's a long step from being completely useless.).

On mechanical complexity: It's two backhoe arms with a tank on top.

Now, back to the original question:

Join me, and we shall rule the galaxy together!

Yeah, it'd be cool to see one, and I've actually been thinking about something like that for a while now.

 

okay, lets see here...
1) Yes a billion is quite alot, but .338 billion isn't a whole lot less... also, we're talking about significantly more material and systems than a Jet.
2) As for balancing, how about say, a Gyroscope? You know those things that are used to maintain balance...
3) They also said that jet planes were both physical impossible and impractical

-Sheepe

 

1) I could forsee this taking well over a billion. It would be an astronomical undertaking.

2) As long as we're throwing words out there with no explanation, let's use, oh, say, magnets for the power supply. Giant magnets.

My point is that yes, a gyroscope might work as one component of the balancing system, but it would have to be a bit more than that. The system would have to detect miniscule changes in the leg position and the surrounding terrain thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, times a second, and make tiny adjustments accordingly. Putting aside the fact that the slightest blow could damage a sensor or motor and compromise the entire leg, you would need an incredibly powerful and complex system to have it work with any degree of efficiency. Yeah, a gyroscope would be a part of it. Probably many gyroscopes. That doesn't go very far towards solving the problem, though.

3) It's not that a mech is physically impossible, or that it would be impractical, it's just that they don't really add any new dimension to combat, especially the classic design.

 

Tanks do anti-armor and anti-personnel, but are mostly anti-armor
SAM sites do anti-air, but are quite vulnerable.
APCs/Humvee-type-things do transport and anti-personnel, but are somewhat vulnerable.
Infantry do anti-personnel, anti-armor, and anti-air, but not all at once, and can be quite vulnerable if unprepared or surprised.

A mech could potentially do all three (depending on size), though they would likely specialize to one or two tasks. Besides, seeing a giant mech thingy walking towards you would be quite a bit more intimidating than a tank.

If there is any use for a mech in the future, someone will figure it out, I'm sure.

 

I think that with all the destruction a mech COULD cause, it could probably be taken out fairly easily, and the cost-effectiveness of a mech wouldn't nearly be worth building one. Even if a mech wasn't destroyed, the probability of a crippling injury is extremely high, and it would cost lots and lots of money to fix it :D A lot more money than it would cost the enemy to repair/replace the damage the mech did.

 

Sorry, those mecs are gay

THIS is how it should be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlQvZ6TFq1s&search=tiberian sun

or like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlQvZ6TFq1s&search=tiberian sun

 

Hehe, Titans and Juggenauts are cooler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0oJwJqomMg&search=tiberian sun titan

 

LOL when it showed the inside of the cockpit, I was thinking that it would show the outside and it would be an old beater-mobile on stilts or something :D



Oh crap what are those things called.......................................ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ZOIDS!!!! That's what this thing looks like. A zoid.

 

Jn.:
Tanks are expensive to field and to repair, but we use them.

Why?

Intimidation, for one. For another, they're a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than the same number of infantry it would take to do the same work as a single tank. Then again, the US hasn't been in a war involving tanks where we've actually had an acceptable opponent since when... World War II? From what I can see, most potential armies that modern nations would face consist mostly of infantry (easily dispatched by a mech, and don't say "missile" or "rocket", if an RPG has a hard time hitting a motionless tank....) and old Soviet tanks (again, easily dispatched).

I'd also like to note that all modern weaponry, as in the expensive stuff (tanks, jets, aircraft carriers) happens to be entirely useless and too costly for countries that can't afford to train their soldiers to be effective with them. Weapons are not purchased on basis of cost alone, but on a cost-to-effectiveness comparison with the training of the users included (with the occasional exception where someone does something horrendously stupid).

On another note, it's inconceivable to say that a weapon that hasn't been developed, or even used, yet would be worthless. I will, again, point to the pre-WWI era where planes were seen as completely useless, and the pre-WWII era of the American naval forces where a certain American higher-up (forgot the name) had to fight like hell to get America to have carriers at all (carriers which, by the way, won us the Pacific Theatre after the loss of essentially our entire Pacific fleet).

History shows us that there are usually people out there who simply cannot see how a weapon or type of combat may be useful. Usually, these people are the ones to lose. Luckily for America, which has made this mistake many a time, we've got the production capacity to make up for our mistakes.

 

Ok, and once your billion dollar mech steps on a landmine placed by a lone footsoldier and breaks its ankle, rendering it useless and immobile, I shall laugh :D Hell, two guys can just stand out there with rope and trip the damn thing when it walks by Or the enemy can just pull a starwars on it. Yay our billion dollar experiment just got pwnt by two jets and a rope.

 

They are great in terms of crossing harsh lands, but when it comes to combat tracks still take the cake on that one bub.

 

But will they still be great at traversing rugged terrain when they stub their toes? Or do they have mech Timberlands?

 

That landmine would blow a tank, too. Then again, the entire tank would be destroyed and all occupants killed instead of simply being immobilized.

Two guys, an amazing four hundred pounds of meat, can hold a rope well enough to trip twenty tons? Really? I wanna see that. Are these the same supermen who stop tanks in their tracks by looking at them?

I remember those Ewoks in Star Wars being dragged quite a ways by that AT-ST. Those AT-AT's at Hoth still won the day, and even if a couple got blown up the damage to the Rebellion was still a hell of a lot more expensive.

Edit: Random sidenote to Dumpster Fox, if we can fit a long-range chlorine laser meant to shoot down ICBMs on a 747, I'm sure shorter range versions could be fitted to smaller things. Unfortunately, international agreements prevent the use of lasers against manned (or human) targets. Oh, yes, before you guys say "OMG the 747 doesn't work tho! LAWL!", I'd like to point out that the laser itself works quite well. The mirrors used to aim and focus the thing, along with the computer/software used to control the concavity and direction of the mirrors, however, don't quite work yet.

 

LOL I only keep going because you're taking this so seriously(I think). I just find it hilarious that you're sticking up for something that won't be developed, or even thought to be developed in our lifetimes :D Lighten up brother, mechs are just videogames. Don't take mech insults personally And btw, the most damage a mine could probably do to a tank is blow off the treads which are the weakest spot, and the easiest way to kill a mech in all seriousness now, would be to shoot some missiles from a jet in to some joints, or just right in to the cockpit, unless the cockpit is missile-proof. Then I shall recant the cockpit statement and leave the joint statement to fend for itself. Then we could just do the good ewok strategy and tie two logs to rope and crush it :p

 

Mechs wouldnt be practical bigger then a tank...

Though their value as exo suits (Small powered infantry) now thats extreamly usefull...

A huge lumbering thing walking through a forest or anything is begging to get ambushed, materials we have currently wouldnt be strong ehough to create a joint that could withstand a missle hit while still housing all the equipment needed to stabalize the thing; Bipedal motion is a trainwreck waiting to happen, with each step you are about to fall down face first, so you move your other foot foward, while still adjusting your body from falling to either side...

As much as I love mechs... I dont think they would be practical if they are bigger then a tank >.<

 

I know a pilot fur, he says it's bullshit.

 

Jn.:

Yes, missiles from jets destroy ANYTHING. Does that mean we shouldn't even bother making tanks, since tanks are so damn expensive when destroyed, too?

To the person talking about tanks and mines: Maybe an anti-personnel, or cheap Russian mine would just blow off the treads, but then again Jn here seems to think it would be a war between modern countries like Britain versus Japan or something.

If a war between two modernized countries happens, I'm ducking for cover.

 

A war between two modernized countries would involve very few actual soldiers and little to none first-hand combat.

 

Belgium has 30'000 soldier, I may hope it's not soldier based... We have less troops then the Al Quaida.