A more real mechs

[kimek0986]

I'm curious how could we make our beloved bi-pedal machines more realistic?

For example: how much tonns each mech-class should really weight to keep it in line with their size.
My answer: each mech, approximatelly shuld weight 50 tonns more (lights), 60 (mediums), 70 (heavies) and 80 (assaults).

Or how tall they should be to fit their weight?
My answer: 2-2.5 meters (lights), 3-3.5 (mediums), 4-4.5 (heavies), 5-6 (assaults)

What m,y fellow Battletech's fans think?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

For those numbers to work some assumptions must be true.

First of all, the height of 2m tall, 50 ton light 'mech puts it in the same ballpark in both height and mass as certain modern tanks. This means that either the 'mech would be significantly more dense than a tank or that it would have similar shape (i.e. longest dimension is length or width rather than height).

For the height differences between 'mech classes to make sense, they need to have very different densities or shapes. Volume scales by cube of the increase in dimensions, so for example if you were to double dimensions of an object equally along all three axes it would mass 2^3=8 times as much. So presuming equal density a 50 ton object doubled in dimensions would mass 400 tons.

IMO ~8-13m on tonnage scale of 20-100 is pretty reasonable. Something like e.g. ~5-8m on same tonnage scale could also work if the basic assumption about density is changed, however this would probably need a visual re-design of many of the 'mechs on account of cockpit.

 

[Mechabattler]

This is an old picture provided by Koniving over on the MWO forums. It's apparently one of the older pics. Before the video games made the scale of mechs much larger.

 

[OSWALDtheOCTOPUS]

More realistic? Lighter. And a whole lot smaller. Think Landmate, Wanzer, or Protomech sized at most. Physics can only bent so far over a barrel before the barrel collapses lol.

That much mass on two points of contact. I wouldn't want to maintain those knee actuators.

 

[kimek0986]

True. Actually, for example, if 20 tonn Locust is 3 meters tall then 100 tonn Atlas should be... 5 meters tall

 

[Kurnn]

I'm curious how could we make our beloved bi-pedal machines more realistic?

For example: how much tonns each mech-class should really weight to keep it in line with their size.
My answer: each mech, approximatelly shuld weight 50 tonns more (lights), 60 (mediums), 70 (heavies) and 80 (assaults).

Or how tall they should be to fit their weight?
My answer: 2-2.5 meters (lights), 3-3.5 (mediums), 4-4.5 (heavies), 5-6 (assaults)

What m,y fellow Battletech's fans think?

According to physics, a 3-6 meter tall moving body is possible. But it would need 4 legs, which needs to be very large, short and would have a problem with speed.

By only using 2 legs, puts a huge requirement on internal structure, material and balance technique. (The balance control for 2 legs, is key and requires a computer similar to a human brain to do that)

For example the T-Rex, which is the largest 2 legs moving body ever to walk on land, had a huge tail for balance, and the brain was very developed in the "body movement area".

Physics puts a limit on weight and size of any moving object on earth because of gravity. Gravity is relative, which is why tiny critters can run on water and large animals such as whales, can only be found in water.....since water negates the weight.

Your suggestion of 3-6 meters robots are possible according to physics, but to be able to move, you need either 4 legs or wheels, or some other way of moving the body weight on a bigger surface then what 2 legs and feet can do.
So far, science has only been able to create a 2 legged moving machine in the size of a human, and with a weight less then 100kg (0.1 ton).

The worlds most advanced moving robot, is azimo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO

Physics allows for a larger moving body with 2 legs then Azimo, but its an engineering question to get locomotion in the right balance, which scales up in difficulty with weight.

The mechs weight would need to be from 100kg up to 2-3 tons, for 2 legs to work.
Physics can in fact calculate the heaviest possible locomotion for 2 legs. Which means 2 legs for a body over a certain weight is impossible on earth.

This is only a problem on earth, since earth is a quite large gravity well.
A larger mech with weights of 50 -100 ton would be easy to use on the moon for example. You still need the balance technology, but the weight would not stop you, as it does on earth.

If you want any moving body that's heavier then 10 tons, it requires 4 legs or more, or any other solution for locomotion that spreads out the weight to make the mech possible, on earth.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

 

[OSWALDtheOCTOPUS]

Well I'm not sure how much it weighs, but it IS about Landmate sized. Slow as he'll but a nice proof of concept.

 

[Kurnn]

Well I'm not sure how much it weighs, but it IS about Landmate sized. Slow as he'll but a nice proof of concept.

Very cool example!
The weight is key how much larger, or how much you can put on it though.

Note: It's attached to the structure above, which functions as support.
I would like to see that mech walk on its own, to explore that marble of engineering.

 

[Vanguard319]

Kind of an old show, and as long as you ignore the supernatural [Mod Edit: Language] going on, the size of the mechs, and the tactics used seem viable.

 

[unclecid]

the biggest issue with making the mechs more real is ammo storage and ammo feed.
for many mechs it seems they have TARDIS like capabilities when it comes to those.

 

[Lardaltef]

According to physics, a 3-6 meter tall moving body is possible. But it would need 4 legs, which needs to be very large, short and would have a problem with speed.

By only using 2 legs, puts a huge requirement on internal structure, material and balance technique. (The balance control for 2 legs, is key and requires a computer similar to a human brain to do that)

For example the T-Rex, which is the largest 2 legs moving body ever to walk on land, had a huge tail for balance, and the brain was very developed in the "body movement area".

Physics puts a limit on weight and size of any moving object on earth because of gravity. Gravity is relative, which is why tiny critters can run on water and large animals such as whales, can only be found in water.....since water negates the weight.

Your suggestion of 3-6 meters robots are possible according to physics, but to be able to move, you need either 4 legs or wheels, or some other way of moving the body weight on a bigger surface then what 2 legs and feet can do.
So far, science has only been able to create a 2 legged moving machine in the size of a human, and with a weight less then 100kg (0.1 ton).

The worlds most advanced moving robot, is azimo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO

Physics allows for a larger moving body with 2 legs then Azimo, but its an engineering question to get locomotion in the right balance, which scales up in difficulty with weight.

The mechs weight would need to be from 100kg up to 2-3 tons, for 2 legs to work.
Physics can in fact calculate the heaviest possible locomotion for 2 legs. Which means 2 legs for a body over a certain weight is impossible on earth.

This is only a problem on earth, since earth is a quite large gravity well.
A larger mech with weights of 50 -100 ton would be easy to use on the moon for example. You still need the balance technology, but the weight would not stop you, as it does on earth.

If you want any moving body that's heavier then 10 tons, it requires 4 legs or more, or any other solution for locomotion that spreads out the weight to make the mech possible, on earth.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_robot

Which is why the heavy gears in the heavy gear universe make so much more sense

The namesake machines of the universe setting are the Heavy Gears. They are 12- to 18-foot-tall (3.7 to 5.5 m) machines usually weighing between 5 to 12 tons,

They supplement tanks which are still the main power on the battlefield and gears are more special operations and (really) heavy infantry. As cool as battlemechs are realistically gears make more sense (also they run off a combustion engine not the same design as found in a tank or car. It is an actual working design.)

 

[AncientRaig]

Battlemechs as we know them aren't as insane as they may appear at first glance. While we either haven't tried or haven't figured out a way to make the composites used for the internal structure, the artificial muscle bundles and neuro-helmets (which, for those who don't know, is what allows mechs to be so agile. The neurohelm reads the brainwaves of certain sections of the pilot's, and conveys that information to the mech's central computer. Mechs can stay balanced on their own, but they aren't good at knowing when it's a good idea to be off-balance slightly to say, dodge an incoming missile barrage. It also helps feed a bit of data to the pilot about the mech's surroundings and balance, but it can't do much without lobotomizing the pilot) are real world technology, though not as advanced or developed yet.

 

[Mad_kat]

The first thing that should be changed above all others IMO to make mechs realistic is the cut the weapon payload right down bar a few designs for anything other than energy weapons or machine-guns. Then give them a range that isn't so laughably small, its one thing in battletech that's almost embarrassing is the pitiful distances involved. I completely get why its done though.

In line with that ammo should be stored in the same location as the weapon or in an adjacent component with either the ammo feed belt travelling externally or the arm for example being locked. (think Kintaro reload problems).
Also the concept that ammo can be stored in legs is nothing short of ridiculous judging by the art of a lot of mechs the only area there would be space for ammo bins is in the calf's so feeding LRM/SRM/Autocannon ammo around myomers, looms, sensors, structure, actuators, knees, hip joints, pelvis, through a turntable and a gyro before it even gets to the centre torso is just absurd and that's before even thinking about articulation angles between them. The Clan mechs like Timberwolf and vulture are the worst for this with almost none existent knee and elbow areas.
Energy mechs would be the most realistic in terms of firepower/payload balance some mechs like the Catapult would get away with ammo storage in the torso's but you can bet its 'ears' would be twice the size they are and barely move.
Come to think of it the Dragon after the awful art remake would have the most realistic arm out there thinking that battleship hanging of its right should would have enough space for ammo storage.

 

[Lardaltef]

The first thing that should be changed above all others IMO to make mechs realistic is the cut the weapon payload right down bar a few designs for anything other than energy weapons or machine-guns. Then give them a range that isn't so laughably small, its one thing in battletech that's almost embarrassing is the pitiful distances involved. I completely get why its done though.

In line with that ammo should be stored in the same location as the weapon or in an adjacent component with either the ammo feed belt travelling externally or the arm for example being locked. (think Kintaro reload problems).
Also the concept that ammo can be stored in legs is nothing short of ridiculous judging by the art of a lot of mechs the only area there would be space for ammo bins is in the calf's so feeding LRM/SRM/Autocannon ammo around myomers, looms, sensors, structure, actuators, knees, hip joints, pelvis, through a turntable and a gyro before it even gets to the centre torso is just absurd and that's before even thinking about articulation angles between them. The Clan mechs like Timberwolf and vulture are the worst for this with almost none existent knee and elbow areas.
Energy mechs would be the most realistic in terms of firepower/payload balance some mechs like the Catapult would get away with ammo storage in the torso's but you can bet its 'ears' would be twice the size they are and barely move.
Come to think of it the Dragon after the awful art remake would have the most realistic arm out there thinking that battleship hanging of its right should would have enough space for ammo storage.

I'd imagine most ballistics wouldn't have any reloads. Just whatever they carried. Like the vf-1 from macross couldn't reload it's autcannon. Once it fires the rounds it had (300 I think) it was out till it got back to the hangar.

Really anything larger caliber than a machine gun on a mech doesnt make sense to be mounted internally on a mech. Either hand carried or mounted externally (like on the side of arm/in place of the arm or an over the shoulder backpack mount) makes more sense for ammunition reasons.

 

[unclecid]

I'd imagine most ballistics wouldn't have any reloads. Just whatever they carried. Like the vf-1 from macross couldn't reload it's autcannon. Once it fires the rounds it had (300 I think) it was out till it got back to the hangar.

Really anything larger caliber than a machine gun on a mech doesnt make sense to be mounted internally on a mech. Either hand carried or mounted externally (like on the side of arm/in place of the arm or an over the shoulder backpack mount) makes more sense for ammunition reasons.

actually for ballistic you can follow the example set by naval aviation ordnance.
the MG mounted on mech is uses a 50cal.

then you have the anti missile gun which is a 20mm gun in use today on ships

and then the much maligned ac/2 is the same 30mm system used in the a10 warthog

all of these i see no issue with putting in a mech as long as ammo is right next to it and not in legs.

the ac5/10/20 is where we start to have issues as these are what i would consider naval guns as they range in size up to 203mm which equates to an 8 inch cannon

i see no issue with internal mounting for ac/2 and under....ac5 and above...there is gets tricky.

 

[Lardaltef]

actually for ballistic you can follow the example set by naval aviation ordnance.
the MG mounted on mech is uses a 50cal.

then you have the anti missile gun which is a 20mm gun in use today on ships

and then the much maligned ac/2 is the same 30mm system used in the a10 warthog

all of these i see no issue with putting in a mech as long as ammo is right next to it and not in legs.

the ac5/10/20 is where we start to have issues as these are what i would consider naval guns as they range in size up to 203mm which equates to an 8 inch cannon

i see no issue with internal mounting for ac/2 and under....ac5 and above...there is gets tricky.

Hmmm yeah. That does work. It really depends on the ammo bin for the ac2. Might make it have to be in the arm. Of all of them the jagermech, rifleman and blackjack arms worl the best. Though the centurion seems to work fairly well too. I mean if it is short like the 20 and 25mm ones in most aircraft it would work fine. And I'm sure there are 30mms that are much shorter than the warthogs avenger.

 

[unclecid]

the only thing keeping us from mechs today is a proper power source.
myomer fibers are being worked on
computers, heatsinks, actuators, structure and armour are all doable
and while we dont have a human brain linked gyro...im sure something could be scaled up from the ones the bipedal robots use today.
we have ballsitic weapons that will fit...even a frikking gauss cannon

 

[Lardaltef]

the only thing keeping us from mechs today is a proper power source.
myomer fibers are being worked on
computers, heatsinks, actuators, structure and armour are all doable
and while we dont have a human brain linked gyro...im sure something could be scaled up from the ones the bipedal robots use today.
we have ballsitic weapons that will fit...even a frikking gauss cannon

If you mean the railgun the navy has there is maybe 1 ships in the entire fleet that can fire and that is the ship designed to use it. Also the railgun apparently tears itself apart after enough use.

 

[unclecid]

If you mean the railgun the navy has there is maybe 1 ships in the entire fleet that can fire and that is the ship designed to use it. Also the railgun apparently tears itself apart after enough use.

just a matter of more research/testing is all
both china and russia are also working on them

 

[AncientRaig]

the only thing keeping us from mechs today is a proper power source.
myomer fibers are being worked on
computers, heatsinks, actuators, structure and armour are all doable
and while we dont have a human brain linked gyro...im sure something could be scaled up from the ones the bipedal robots use today.
we have ballsitic weapons that will fit...even a frikking gauss cannon

The neurohelm isn't a direct link, it just reads brainwaves and does its best to translate the pilot's intentions to the computer. The gyro is powerful enough to keep the mech upright, but the computer isn't smart enough to know when it's time to say, unbalance itself so it can dodge an incoming LRM barrage. We have things like this already, though not quite as advanced IIRC.