133
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
133 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13533 readers
1013 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
maybe if you replace the mech torso with a more traditional turret, i'm thinking something more along the lines of a normal tank with 1 or 2 arms on the outside, maybe 1 on the top or side or rear of the turret for reloading the MGs or AT missile tubes without exposing the crew, maybe 1 on the front or side of the lower hull for picking up debris, equipment, or wounded friendlies and the like, or maybe bigger arms on the lower hull for combat engineering tasks like digging, moving obstacales, EOD, etc.
in a bipedal or even quadrupedal mech the torso height could be less important, because a legged mech could hypothetically go prone or otherwise take cover/adjust posture to reduce its profile. on a traditional tank chassis however a tall torso would probably be a liability, unless it was unintuitively flat in design for what we might expect from a mecha torso
ALTHOUGH even on the AC style tank-legs humanoid-torso-and-arms mech, if we put the main weapons somehow in the arms or held by the arms and hands of the vehicle, it could hypothetically hold its weapon in such a way as to shoot without leaving cover positions, assuming the weaponry has remote camera gunsights linked to crew station screens. this is true for pretty much any mech design and is almost never considered by mecha media or fiction. but even a basic-ass 'tank with a huge robot-arm-with-a-gun for a turret' kind of vehicle could shoot 'around cover' like this without the neccesary advances in robotic legs we probably need for bipedal or quadrupedal (or even more legs) mechs. additionally putting weapons in or on robot arms would allow greater freedom of movement, allowing the vehicle to aim the cannon higher than any traditional tank turret design.
Armored Core explains the lack of cover-tactics as a change in combat doctrine that occurs as a result of the effectiveness of speed and aggression that the mechs are capable of. The cover based tactics stopped because any mechs hiding in cover were quickly overrun by hyper-aggression. Hyper-mobility becomes the only way to oppose hyper-mobility. With cover only functioning as a temporary visual block or way to place objects between yourself and incoming missiles.
Imagine tank warfare where you fire your shot but between firing your shot and killing one enemy vehicle now all of the remaining enemy vehicles are behind you while you stood still in cover.
This all results in a process of stripping armour in favour of mobility and avoidance countermeasures, and a new combat doctrine is born. It's like cavalry-archers but mechanised.
i agree that eventually a paradigm shift like that might occur, but armored core has some wild tech we are probably a long way away from developing, plus i don't think the series takes into account the true ranges for modern let alone futuristic weapon systems (at least handwave at me about passive/active defense systems shooting down projectiles if they have enough time to calculate or something) or the possibility of smart munitions that can track moving targets (not to mention laser weapons with near-instantaneous 'projectile' speed). imagine the havoc that could be wreaked with a smallish mech or even power armor equipped with something like a davy crockett nuclear recoilless rifle and a drone swarm launcher system, one or two of those every few hundred miles could saturate an entire border region land sea and air and no matter how fast you are you can be got with a big enough area of effect weapon. basically even if we had the ability to make armored core style speedmechs covered in infinite/regenerating fuel thrusters (could we do this with miniaturized nuclear reactors maybe? idk the specific physics of how jets/thrusters work), i think they would fill a specific role on the battlefield rather than replacing everything else, like any other kind of remotely feasible mech i don't think they will make tanks and artillery go anywhere - which they don't in the game, cool enough.
maybe instead of infinite use jet-thrusters giving smaller mechs wheeled or hovercraft shoes/foot units could achieve a degree of the speed-cavalry effect in a pretty feasible way... no reason a humanoid mech has to be constrained to humanoid limitations, limbs can fold in and wheels or hovercraft units could be put anywhere from feet to knees to the underside of the chassis. like a transformer but somewhat reasonable and not a car advertisement, or a skate-mecha.
on a related note, i can totally see legs and or arms being added to jets and helicopters as the technology matures and becomes lighter, more durable, and cheaper to produce and maintain. at least a basic task arm could make mid-air refueling and stuff like that easier, and legs could let a VTOL capable jet or helicopter land basically anywhere regardless of uneven terrain.
Oh you're definitely correct in that they have a "role". I think nukes are generally off the table because the combat zones the mechs are deployed to are always locations that they wouldn't want to completely and totally destroy. Generally speaking anywhere that mechs are deployed to is the kind of location you would have deployed infantry to traditionally because you can't just blow it to pieces.
Anything you want to shoot a nuke at you'd just use an ICBM or shoot with a laser from a cruiser or battleship at high altitude. The deal with mechs is that they're deployed in places where the only thing you can deploy to fight against them are other mechs.
I'm not too sure about the whole adding of things to them that are impossible on infantry, like wheels for knees or whatever. I think the whole point of mecha is that it's very close to the human form which makes it totally natural for a human controlling it. I think inhuman features make more sense on AI drones specifically designed for them instead.
putting nukes on mechs would be a limited scenario thing but they could hypothetically infiltrate close range less detectable weapon systems into place for a surprise attack to take out nuclear response facilities.
for fighting in close terrain, i think slower mechs using traditional cover based tactics (modified to account for tactical and comms options and equipment specific to the mechs) would be better than super fast thruster mechs. in armored core you take no damage from impacting walls, but in real life flying a jet at 100ft above ground level is incredibly dangerous, let alone lower. i doubt a human could withstand the g-forces and pilot accurately enough to maneuver in urban combat for example without drugs or cybernetics, and even then the risk of crashing would be significant. thruster-mechs if we could build them would probably be better for aerial interdiction (missiles or aircraft) or for launching hypersonic missiles as a first stage launch vehicle. they could hypothetically out-maneuver airplanes (airplanes can't strafe and mechs can have thrusters basically anywhere) if not match their speed which could help them avoid anti-aircraft missiles. i could see them being carried by aircraft carriers or missile boats as close-range air defenses. maybe even as ground-based missile/aircraft defenses.
the non-humanoid design elements might make more sense on mechs that are semi-autonomous where the pilot more or less just guides and overrides, but even a humanoid brain-interface mech could have some kind of removeable, collapsible, or retractible wheel attachment for logistical movement purposes at least, but also i think skate-style movement with wheels or hovercraft on the feet/legs could be intuitive as well for humanoid control.