Real life gundam

[Tak]

With all these talks of walking war machines, I cannot help but to imagine a horde of T-800 endo-skeletons marching down central avenue while taking pot-shots at frightened civilians.

Really, if they wanted a practical fighting robot, make 'em compact and in our likeness. Then we will have something to talk about.

- Tak ("As president of the United States, I hereby declare war on Iraq, because I can! American casualties, ZERO, because I am going in by myself! I'll be back!" Arnold Schwarzenegger)

[SilentGhost]

The kind of scenario I was thinking of was something like;

"An armed force has taken control of a city, established a base somewhere within, and has established a strong defense throughout the city.

Troopers and tanks can roll in but in a big maze of streets they could fall prey to traps and ambushes. Wrecked and abandoned cars are littered everywhere, and sections of the streets have also been destroyed hindering where your forces can travel. Knowing that the city wont be destroyed, the enemy is confident they can fight the battle on their turf.

A humanoid mech, agile enough to evade obstacles and travel quickly to the enemy base, could be air dropped and find its way swiftly to the enemy's location with little serious risk of being out gunned. Once the HQ is gone the resistance starts to fall apart and outside forces can proceed with less risk to clear the area."

^ or something like that anyways ^_^"

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

Troopers and tanks can roll in but in a big maze of streets they could fall prey to traps and ambushes. Wrecked and abandoned cars are littered everywhere, and sections of the streets have also been destroyed hindering where your forces can travel. Knowing that the city wont be destroyed, the enemy is confident they can fight the battle on their turf.

Realistically, a tank-infantry combined arms unit will advance with each element covering for the other's weaknesses. If necessary, they would call upon artillery to destroy whatever part of the city they need. Traps and ambushes can whittle down even a competent attacker, but any urban assault force would expect to take casualties if the defender was compentent.

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

A humanoid mech, agile enough to evade obstacles and travel quickly to the enemy base, could be air dropped and find its way swiftly to the enemy's location with little serious risk of being out gunned.

Small mecha will have to mount light armor which will be vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. RPGs will cause vast casualties. Moreover, their ability to evade obstacles (or travel quickly for that matter) is highly questionable.

Originally Posted by SilentGhost

Once the HQ is gone the resistance starts to fall apart and outside forces can proceed with less risk to clear the area."

I can see three problems with this: how do you expect the attacker to know where the HQ is? If they already knew where the enemy HQ is, then wouldn't it make far more sense to take it out with artillery or aircraft? One of the big problems with urban combat is that it's easy to lose communications between different sectors, so a competent defender would decentralize their command and control. The loss of the main HQ would be troublesome, but it wouldn't significantly compromise the defence of the separate sectors.

[Tak]

Think of the Terminator, mass produced. Its that simple.

- Tak

[supperrfreek]

well the problem with RPG's causing mass casualties for the smaller units is that an rpg can only fire one shot at a time, therefore they would have to be used in large concentrations. therefore if a scouting party were sent out or this concentration were found out by other means it could be disposed of quickly by other means or they could assault another spot.

[4Tran]

Since it's conceivable to equip anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of your infantry with RPGs, it'd be conceivable to cover just about all approaches with them. The only way to assault a city without taking awful casualties is with your own infantry supported by direct and indirect fire weapons.

[Jimmy C]

Originally Posted by 4tran

Since it's conceivable to equip anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of your infantry with RPGs, it'd be conceivable to cover just about all approaches with them.

I would like to point out that such a force composition, while effective against vehicles, is extremely vulnerable to infantry assaults. RPGs and other anti-vehicle weapons fire single shots, they're not fast enough or have enough AoE to take down scattered infantry.
But wait, you say, the RPG'ers have machineguns too. Then they won't be firing their RPGs. In which case, it's time to call in the armor to blast their positions. See, that's how combined arms works.

[4Tran]

Ideally, it'd be much nicer to have armor support to deal with enemy attack, but against a homogenous mobile suit attack, hunter-killer teams of mainly RPGs would be plenty. A tank-infantry combined arms force would be much tougher to deal with, but we're discussing a very different animal here.

HE and thermobarbic rounds make RPGs quite effective against enemy infantry in urban environments. However, it remains primarily the job of the assault rifle/machine gun-equipped troops to protect them (or more accurately, to keep enemy infantry from closing). Basically, the idea is to separate the armor from the infantry, thus making it easier to deal with each group in detail. By the way, I'm not sure why you think that RPGs don't have much of an an effect against infantry - they have 100+mm warheads and are generally more deadly than machine guns.

[supperrfreek]

although it's important to separate infantry from armor it is easier said then done. Consider the secondary armament on tanks (12.5mm, 7.62mm and maybe at lightest 5.56 mm machine guns) as well as smaller support vehicles with machine gun or light cannon armament. As well as the 40mm grenade launcher. these weapons are all effective against infantry and can be placed on armored vehicles.
Although a lot of these could be mounted on a smaller ms along with larger weapons, if tanks and other vehicles were present as well this would allow for greater protection from infantry and vehicles.
An urban environment really adds problems to this idea. not only because you can't see assaults coming, but they can come from every direction including the above ground levels of buildings. In this situation guerilla tactics will be more successful, and the use of armor will be difficult for reasons of maneuvering space, lack of most air support and the fact that the defender will have an advantage.
The only way I could see this working is by having a small group of soldiers advancing in front of any armor supported soldiers to clear the path of obstacles, take out small groups of soldiers and pinpoint large concentrations and with their backup take out the target.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

although it's important to separate infantry from armor it is easier said then done. Consider the secondary armament on tanks (12.5mm, 7.62mm and maybe at lightest 5.56 mm machine guns) as well as smaller support vehicles with machine gun or light cannon armament. As well as the 40mm grenade launcher. these weapons are all effective against infantry and can be placed on armored vehicles.

The concept of "separating the infantry from the armor" is usually achieved by making it too dangerous for the infantry to advance; therefore bringing up the armament of tanks doesn't really make any sense.

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

Although a lot of these could be mounted on a smaller ms along with larger weapons, if tanks and other vehicles were present as well this would allow for greater protection from infantry and vehicles.

If mobile suits have to be constantly supported by infantry, then wouldn't that reduce their mobility to that of infantry? And in that case, why would it make any sense to employ mobile suits to begin with?

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

An urban environment really adds problems to this idea. not only because you can't see assaults coming, but they can come from every direction including the above ground levels of buildings.

Are you kidding? The defender has almost all the advantages in urban environments. It's also not a particularly good idea for guerrillas to engage in high-intensity urban battles either.

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

The only way I could see this working is by having a small group of soldiers advancing in front of any armor supported soldiers to clear the path of obstacles, take out small groups of soldiers and pinpoint large concentrations and with their backup take out the target.

Read more here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...06-11/appc.htm

[wavehawk]

Originally Posted by Tak

Think of the Terminator, mass produced. Its that simple.

Soldierboys, Tak. Soldierboys. (Forever Peace reference) There's no rule that says combat mecha HAVE to have people on them, is there? You could pilot a 3-foot tall mini-tank and it'll still fit the profile.

[Dan the Man]

Another thought hit me. What would you say to the effectiveness of a 4-legged unit? I thought of it from earlier Armored Core games which have hovering mechs when equipped with 4-leg parts. Say you have a mech like that about 15-20 feet tall that hovers at moderate/fast speeds (like a Dom), has a good, powerful long range weapon, and support from other standard forces?

Don't go preaching to me the impossibility of it, I'm aware of that. Just say you had a few built, fueled up, stocked with a good pilot, and ready to go. How would it do compared to modern war-machines?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by wavehawk

There's no rule that says combat mecha HAVE to have people on them, is there?

No. However, the advantages and disadvantages of such units are a bit more difficult to conceptualize. You'd either have to control them by remote control or give them a fully capable AI. There's problems inherent with both approaches, so it's hard to say when and if they'll ever replace manned units. (Yes, I know about the Predator and the like, but they have lots of limitations, and they'd be probably all but useless against a high-tech opponent.

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

Another thought hit me. What would you say to the effectiveness of a 4-legged unit? I thought of it from earlier Armored Core games which have hovering mechs when equipped with 4-leg parts. Say you have a mech like that about 15-20 feet tall that hovers at moderate/fast speeds (like a Dom), has a good, powerful long range weapon, and support from other standard forces?

Don't go preaching to me the impossibility of it, I'm aware of that. Just say you had a few built, fueled up, stocked with a good pilot, and ready to go. How would it do compared to modern war-machines?

Quadrupedal mecha would be a huge improvement over bipedal ones: they'd be more stable, have a smaller and lower profile, a back mounted weapon would be the tallest part of the mecha, and it'd be a superior gun platform.

At 15 feet tall, the mecha you describe will be about 4.57m tall. Compared to the 2.22m of a T-90, it's still overly tall, but it's at least close. It'd probably have superior mobility to tanks, but inferior armor protection as well. Used as a support platform, it probably would be decent, but tanks would be more effective in direct combat. The increased complexity of the legged drive train is probably going to be a big drawback though.

[supperrfreek]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The concept of "separating the infantry from the armor" is usually achieved by making it too dangerous for the infantry to advance; therefore bringing up the armament of tanks doesn't really make any sense.

generally speaking a group of armored vehicles in some sort of open space would be able to utilize these weapons, think a park or large market square in an urban environment. not ideal for tanks but in my opinion the only ideal way to handle guerillas in an urban environment is a good old siege.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

If mobile suits have to be constantly supported by infantry, then wouldn't that reduce their mobility to that of infantry? And in that case, why would it make any sense to employ mobile suits to begin with?

the sense being that they could carry more weapons or heavier weapons. and who said there would be no sort of thrust pack or to increase the mobility if only a little.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Are you kidding? The defender has almost all the advantages in urban environments. It's also not a particularly good idea for guerrillas to engage in high-intensity urban battles either.

again, besiege them, show them that if they're up to fighting "unconventionally" that your up to encircling and napalming them into complete annhilation. which is one of the few (if any) advantages of using the mobile suit style platform is that you can move not only on the ground but into the air and still be in a firing position the whole time (although some adjustment may be necessary).

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by mikoo

who was using it? Axis or Allies?

The Axis got defeated overwhelmingly, so they were almost certain to be the ones using mobile suits.

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

the sense being that they could carry more weapons or heavier weapons. and who said there would be no sort of thrust pack or to increase the mobility if only a little.

If the mobile suits were to use some "sort of thrust pack", then it'd separate them from their infantry support and make them easy meat (more accurately, even easier meat) for enemy infantry. So, why again would you bother using them rather than more conventional vehicles?

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

again, besiege them, show them that if they're up to fighting "unconventionally" that your up to encircling and napalming them into complete annhilation. which is one of the few (if any) advantages of using the mobile suit style platform is that you can move not only on the ground but into the air and still be in a firing position the whole time (although some adjustment may be necessary).

Do you really think that all cities can be besieged? Moreover, I said that it's "not a particularly good idea for guerrillas to engage in high-intensity urban battles", so why the heck do you think that I'm talking about unconventional warfare?

[supperrfreek]

I'm not too sure a thrust pack would separate them too much, although I wouldn't put too much faith in them over conventional vehicles but nobody has really tested them. also the promise of vertical movement with maintained firing position, sounds good, and on the retreat they can shoot at a steep angle to hit targets which are below them by larger degrees. but otherwise there are quite a few steep disadvantages.


well generally speaking there are a few cities which are hard to besiege but I think it's safe to assume that regardless of the city you can heard people into a central area and besiege them you just have to be smart about it. well any mention of guerilla warfare brings in thoughts of unconventional warfare and just one more thought, the city seems to be a good environment for guerilla conflict, there are quite a few advantages to the defenders even after a large bombardment. therefore the best idea (in my opinion) is to seal off the area and move on.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

I'm not too sure a thrust pack would separate them too much, although I wouldn't put too much faith in them over conventional vehicles but nobody has really tested them.

Nobody's tried to use live hamsters as ammunition either, but it's still readily apparent that it'd be a really bad idea.

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

well generally speaking there are a few cities which are hard to besiege but I think it's safe to assume that regardless of the city you can heard people into a central area and besiege them you just have to be smart about it.

Why? And how the heck can it be done? Besides, this whole tangent revolves around the argument that mobile suits would have certain advantages in urban combat, then wouldn't your particular argument mean that it's a bad idea to begin with?

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

well any mention of guerilla warfare brings in thoughts of unconventional warfare and just one more thought, the city seems to be a good environment for guerilla conflict, there are quite a few advantages to the defenders even after a large bombardment.

What the heck are you talking about?

[supperrfreek]

well this actually seems somewhat feasible because infantry can go almost anywhere, using a vehicle that operates similar to infantry might be able to do the same, I see no harm in at least trying the idea out.
Well it could mean that but I'm saying that it is my preferred way to corral the enemy into an area of the city, seal it off, call helicopters drop napalm and HE to make sure you collapse buildings in which the enemy is, and then move on, the only advantage an ms has is the ability to fire down holes, and step over certain obstacles which tanks will have problems with.

well, the problems with trying to uproot any large group of people from a city is painstaking, tedious and requires a whole lot of time. Basically find all the buildings in a large square section of the city and make sure there are no people in the buildings in the perimeter pour plenty of concrete and be thorough in making sure there's no way out, positions snipers, machine gun nests and some sort of anti armor stuff in case they start suicide bombing, starving them out will require less soldiers, and although it will take plenty of time you can keep moving and it won't use up a lot of your soldiers and armor. the ms is good for this because it could easily get over walls and can shoot down at the ground, and into holes while having the ability to point it's weapon upwards toward soldiers on the upper floors of buildings and having a lower profile when being looked on from above and makes a harder target because of the low profile when optical sights are used.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

well this actually seems somewhat feasible because infantry can go almost anywhere, using a vehicle that operates similar to infantry might be able to do the same, I see no harm in at least trying the idea out.

What is it that allows infantry to survive battles? What gives them decent mobility? And why do you think that bipedal mecha can replicate these qualities?

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

Well it could mean that but I'm saying that it is my preferred way to corral the enemy into an area of the city, seal it off, call helicopters drop napalm and HE to make sure you collapse buildings in which the enemy is, and then move on, the only advantage an ms has is the ability to fire down holes, and step over certain obstacles which tanks will have problems with.

In such a case, you'd have to first establish a large military advantage. Anyone can win when they already have a large military advantage; if that's the only time that mobile suits are of any use, then they're obviously not worth a whole lot.

Originally Posted by supperrfreek

having a lower profile when being looked on from above

How do you assume this? What size of mecha are you thinking of?

And why do you keep going on as if it were about fighting guerrillas in an urban environment?

[supperrfreek]

a brain, some common sense and good training allow infantry to survive in battles the same goes for pilots of aircraft and the operators of mecha. What gives infantry the mobility they have is the ability to step over objects, climb over obstacles, and use reasoning to navigate towards the completion of an objective. Well if a bipedal mecha can step, and it can step over obstacles, then it can avoid many objects that tanks often have to wait for engineers to clear up. The only problem presenting itself is the replication of the human movement in mechanics which thanks to research is closer and closer every day.
well gaining an advantage is only the first step it is maintaining the advantage which is hard. After Rome was established it's very existence was challenged many times by many different events, circumstances and conspiracies.
well generally I'm thinking of any mecha and being that the profile is more compact when looking at the suit from the top of a building/cliff your most likely to see the head of an ms first , and despite the breadth of the shoulders making the profile larger, if it is looked at where the breadth of the shoulders is one side of a rectangle, then they would be the longer of sides meaning that as the suit moves by perpendicular to a group of soldiers hitting the suit would be harder with iron sights because the suit is moving horizontally, being shot at from a disadvantageous position and might even be moving in a vertical direction as well.
well I'm assuming it because I'm assuming the battle is in an urban environment.
Why I keep going on about this is because the urban environment is advantageous for the defender (assuming that the battle of Stalingrad can still be held as a viable example), and I can make the topside profile argument easier there and can also argue against the use of other armored vehicles because they can have problems in this environment.