The Mecha in Gasaraki; Could they really exist? [Archive]

Kizzim

22-12-01, 11:00 PM

Finally, I get to speak, im including factual backing for most of my facts so that I dont get flamed, so here it goes...

Back when Gasaraki was being developed and they were writing the script Yutaka Izubuchi (the mechanical designer for the project) stated in an interview that when designing the story they tried to be as realistic as possible. The theme (confrentation in the middle east) was based on the gulf war and the mecha design was going to have a purpose. In the interview the designer states that he doesnt beleive mecha have a place in the world today but the reason for mecha to exist in the setting of Gasaraki was as an urban combat system, a place where tanks, jets and conventional warfare cannot function. However, I beleive in this statement he is also contridicting himself, just like its feasable in that world its feasable in this one. I am a mecha fanatic, its my life dream to atleast partially construct a possible and valid idea of mecha usable by today, here is how they would be valid and some of my ideas.

Reasons why mecha could exist:

1. Combat situations where they could be viable. Urban combat, mountainous combat, anyplace where conventional jets and tanks cannot penetrate. In WW2 the nazies refused to try to attempt and take sweden or any other nation where there was harsh terrain and the advantage was on the defenders side. The nazi power lied in tanks and mechanized infantry, a attempt to take sweden would have been futile and costly. Still any attempt to take sweden militeristicly would be futile. If mecha were introduced they could serve as tanks do today, support for infantry. Bipedal movement would be very important when dealing with terrain like that. Second, urban combat, when dealing with urban combat you have alot of unknowns for the terrain, places where vehicals cannot reach but you need to lay down heavy fire or heavy weapons on the area. Flying jets into the city is damn near suicidal because of wind speeds and just manuverability. A mech could cover 80% (in my eyes) of all urban environment, while a tank could only cover maybe 40-50%.

2. A mobile heavy weapons platform. Lets not discard what exactly a armored vehical is today. In my mind a mech would be roughly from 20-40 feet high, what this would do is allow the mech to not only carry equal firepower to that of a tank, but more, including more defensive systems. First defensive, there have been alot of critics posting that they arnt viable for defensive reasons. Let me explain to you defenses for a tank, and then a jet fighter. First, a tank. The tanks defenses lies in two major catigories: armor and infantry. We will ignore infantry because its self explanitory, and go straight to armor. Armor on a tank has 3 major catigories to make it effective: Materials, Slope Armor and Reactive Armor. The materials in normal armor today are a mix between steel, ceramics, alloys and plastics. The main reason for this is for damage that is done via explosion, the mix of materials helps to stop the explosion from drilling in. The slope is used when dealing with bullet like objects, this being like sabot type rounds which drive a steel rod into the armor. The slope ricochets the rod off the armor. And now lastly the reactive armor. This is more or less the most important part. Reactive armor consists of layers of armor with pockets and some of them have explosives inside. Your probably wondering, why? Well let me explain. Lets say a T-64 shot a HEAT round at my tank. Its a good shot and nails me square on the front of the tank. As it hits the very top my reactive armor kicks in, as soon as the top layer of my armor is hit it sets off a minature explosion also. This explosion is directed outwards and has two effects. One, force energy against the energy going towards my main armor, and two shoot outward the damaged plate. The plate pushes against the round and forces it to drive in more area to reach the main armor. This new type of armor is so awesome that in the gulf war not one M1A1 tank was every destroyed. One M1A1 tank took 3 shots from a T-72 (maybe a T-64) directly into the front plate. The first two shots did no internal damage. Then the 3rd reached inside but didnt harm anyone, it exploded the armor chamber which by design blew outwards and was extenguished. Thats powerful armor for only 31.5 inches of actual plate. When including the effects of the reactive armor against HEAT type weapons, that is an effective 51.2 inches. If your bored now from all this data and wondering why i even brought up tanks, well this is because this is the type of armor we would place on our mechs, this armor could easily be adapted to fit all parts of the mech. The mech would also have other defensive systems to protect itself against heat seeking and laser guided missiles. This is how: first, for heat seeking, the mech could employ chaf type defenses, these are heavily effective against any heat seeking device and proves to be one of the only defenses jets have now. Second, laser guided, for all those who dont know how laser guided things work let me explain, laser guided is only good against STATIONARY targets. Things that dont move, it requires a man or device to emit a beam targetting the device you want to hit, the beam emits a cone of light which the missile locks onto and follows, and that beam as long as its contiously on the target will give the weapon almost penpoint accuracy. However, there are defenses against this. Movement, a mech has a great movement rate, that better than tanks and maybe even some wheeled vehicals, the mech could simply sidestep out of the way of the beam (if it noticed it) or deploy defensive measures. Smoke decimates laser targetting, which means that clouds are a real bummer, if a ground target cannot target the mech due to movement and they are counting on air targetting they need to get below that cloud line (which makes them a easy target for a mech). A jet only has two defensive capabilities, which really suck, one, movement, second chaf and missile fooling systems. A mech is able to wield anti-aircraft weapons as well as ground weapons effectively. Now radar based weapons, the mech could easily imploy a jammer ability, usually these devices are combersome, and with the size of the mech, this should be easily imployable. Hopefully, these arguments would give you reason that in today's battlefield it has significant defensive ability to survive. Now onto offensive capabilities, this is where the mech truely shines, the mech is able to imploy what I call the big 3s, ground weapons, ground to air weapons, and what I call infantry killers. Ground weapons consist of cannons, ground missiles, anything heavy. Your ground to air weapons include stingers and anti-aircraft guns, hell you could even strap a tomahawk to its back and fire it. Lastely, the anti-infantry, these include large machineguns which can effectively fire at smaller targets. Hopefully these give you an idea at the effective offensive capabilities that a mecha could employ.

3. Piloting. I have two ideas how this could work, both would be heavily based on VR. 1. Something called telepresence. This is how those remote jets that they are using in afganistan right now use, they are controlled by a digital connection. The pilot would be in a suspended VR environment which he would control the mech using all parts of his body as well as voice. The second would be a pilots chamber which also uses VR to help him control the mech. I will not go deeply into how to use VR or a cockpit inwhich this could be used simply because its my idea and this is the most vital part to make a bi-petal mech work. You simply cannot allow a combat to make the controls work, the best technology that allows a machine to control bi-pedal movement is owned by honda, and their robot only moves about a foot every 10 minutes and even then it uses most of its resources just to keep the robot upright, it also requires alot of video devices to take pictures of terrain and places it steps to, what if these camras got damaged during battle? a human just has more computing power to control reflexes and movement. (So the battletech/mechwarrior type of piloting is out currently)

Anyways here is my brief reasoning for how mecha or mechs could exist and be viable in todays environments.

Ajay

07-02-02, 11:58 AM

I was thinking more around 10-25 feet in height but I'm sure that 20-40 could have its advantages.
As for mecha carrying more powerful weapons and armor than tanks....Legged movement isn't as effecient as wheeled locomotion. The mecha needs either a powerplant that can supply more power than a tank's or shed some weight, most likely armor. Whatever armror or powersource you can put on a mecha, it can also just as easily be applied to conventional wheeled vehicles, and in greater amounts. A mecha will probably not be as fast at top speed as other vehicles on open ground and probably won't be as heavily armored as a tank and would probably have to rely on things like chaff and smoke grenades for cover like jets and other lightly armored vehicles.
Heavy weapons like a huge tank gun would also be a burden to a mecha. Missiles have longer ranges, can track the enemy, and have a better chance of defeating armor than regular tank guns. 25-30mm machineguns can take out about anything on the battlefield today short of an MBT and then, you can just use guided missiles.
Mecha will have adaptability though. The ability to change from an air defense vehicle to an anti tank vehicle by simply "picking up" a different weapon is very useful.. All terrain abilities allow mecha to go where no other craft can go, even aircraft can be grounded due to bad weather while a mecha could operate in poor weather situations.
Height also provides an advntage/disadvantage. A mecha equipped with state of the art long range sensors and could make better use of them than vehicles lower to the ground simply because it has the height to use them to thier full advantage. That means, the mecha could see its enemies before they see it and attack before they do.
Piloting, I don't see as that much of a problem using throttles, joysticks, and maybe motion capture gloves. Suiting yourself up and having the mecha respond to your movements limits the mecha to your endurance. The mecha will only be able to run as far as you can, jump as high as you, and get tired as quickly as you do. Also, in a complete VR enviroment, you can't adjust ammo selection, change your radio seetings, etc . All those buttons in a jet cockpit have a function, even though they aren't all directly realted to actual combat.

Kizzim

12-02-02, 07:15 PM

Once again when i was pointing out muverability to mecha i was using urban environment as an idea source, that or mountainous regions. Places where tanks and aircraft cannot go as easily. I know most likely a tank could always outrun a mecha.

As far as using cannon's such as a tank, the reason being for this is 1. cost effective, and two range. Yes the huge 30mm guns can pierce most armor, but it doesnt have that long of a range, cannons can reach 4-5 times as far, maybe more, and with greater accuracy. With missiles there are defences, 1. you can use some sort of chaff system, if your using laser guided you need the perfect scenario almost to hit with pinpoint accuracy, and like i pointed out before clouds and smoke heavily reduce effectiveness. Then there is size. Most missiles which are fired from aircraft are small, reason why? they aint flying that far and they already are at a fast speed, you will notice that MOST rockets that are ground deployed are huge, you know how much fuel it takes to launch a rocket in the air, and then manuver? Then you might think about portable rocket launchers, their distance isnt that far and they are mainly used against aircraft. A portable rocketlauncher will most likely NOT pierce armor on a new tank. These are usually ment to kill soldiers, light armor units such as jeeps and personnel carriers. So in the end cannons are still viable which is why the military still uses them.

As far as a fuel supply, im thinking battery... i mean batteries power everything, from a turbine, to a watch, with the new technology out here a battery should be feasable for this kind of environment. You could use like the evangelion design, have a plug, use the plug as long as you can then kick in the battery, unlike evengelion where they last 5 minutes, with todays technology i can see a mecha atleast lasting an hour or two. Which isnt that bad, considering tanks need a refuel about two to four hours if they are moving.

Then you were talking about a total VR setting, you pointed out that you cannot change ammo, or change the radio. Two ways you can get around this... one voice activated, and two, place it somewhere easy to access, a button on your helmet maybe for radio? or for ammo selection somewhere near your hand, in an VR environment you would still have a joystick or maybe something attached to the hand, these would have buttons you can easily manipulate.

Ajay

15-02-02, 11:43 AM

There are missiles about 1.8 meters in leangth (a little larger than a TOW) with ranges farther than those of current tank guns. Missiles may not be as accurate as guns, but when they hit, they have a much better chance of destroying the target. Guns normally hit the frontal or side armor( the thickest parts on a tank). Missiles normally attack from the top where the armor is weakest. Missiles may not be as versitile as conventional guns, but when they hit, they tend to be more effective.

Also, its not as if tanks are the only thing on the battlefield. There are a wide range of vehicles out there, tanks take up a small part. Most combat vehicles have light armor, a 20-50 mm gun with a firing range of about 2 or 3 kilometers, and sometimes anti-tank missiles, and most can be killed with a 30mm chaingun and some light antitank weaponry. If a mecha can kill the majority of armored fighting vehciles out there , it 's not as important that it has to be able to defeat enemy tanks. Thats what our tanks are for (among other things).

Batteries with enough to power a mecha to acceptable levels could just as easily power a tracked or wheeled vehicle farther. Tanks and armored vehicles are also getting lighter, which means they'll require even less power to move. I'm not using this to discourage the use of mecha, its just a problem mecha will face: short endurance when compared to other vehicles.

Changing weapons, adjusting radio freqencies, adjusting radio, checking radar, HUD selection, navigation, swithing between visual modes, maneuvering, target select, weapon changes, reloading, ammunition types, smoke and flare dischargers, speed, crouching, jumping, crawling, checking on your mecha's fuel or power, personal settings, auxillary power systems (if there are any). That's alot to be done with just a pair of joysticks and voice commands. Alot of those commands require about 3 or more functions (visual modes alone include IR, Nightvision, normal passive optics and possibly even more options as technology progresses). A more conventional cockpit (not saying an exact relilca of another existing design) with a keyboard, dials, etc, would make alot of these functions a whole lot easier.

Fred

20-02-02, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Kizzim
Once again when i was pointing out muverability to mecha i was using urban environment as an idea source, that or mountainous regions. Places where tanks and aircraft cannot go as easily. I know most likely a tank could always outrun a mecha.

I forgotten about this post.

In any battlefield infantry will rule if they have the right equipments. Infantry is the king in the urban battlefield. Any armor will be destroy.

For mountainous regions they use attack and/or transport helicopters, like the US is currently doing in Afghanistan.

As far as using cannon's such as a tank, the reason being for this is 1. cost effective, and two range. Yes the huge 30mm guns can pierce most armor, but it doesnt have that long of a range, cannons can reach 4-5 times as far, maybe more, and with greater accuracy.

Missle and rockets will have greater range and accuracy then cannons rounds.

With missiles there are defences, 1. you can use some sort of chaff system, if your using laser guided you need the perfect scenario almost to hit with pinpoint accuracy, and like i pointed out before clouds and smoke heavily reduce effectiveness. Then there is size. Most missiles which are fired from aircraft are small, reason why? they aint flying that far and they already are at a fast speed, you will notice that MOST rockets that are ground deployed are huge, you know how much fuel it takes to launch a rocket in the air, and then manuver?

The Phoenix missile has a range of 115 miles (184 km). The Tomahawk missile, which can be launch by a plane, has a range of 1000 statute miles (1609 km). Maneuverability is really a non-issue. Unlike anime, missiles travel at four to six time faster then the speed of sound. Speed is the killer. The pilot have only a very few seconds to react.

Missile and bombs are so accurate now that they won’t miss their target unless there was human error involved. Today bombs use GPS to hit unmovable targets (buildings, bridge, etc.). For movable object like tanks, this is where special force comes in. They paint the target and 10 miles away a plane will drop a bomb on it. Clouds don’t affect it that much because the bombs will pick up the painted target after it clears the clouds.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-phoe.html

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html

Then you might think about portable rocket launchers, their distance isnt that far and they are mainly used against aircraft. A portable rocketlauncher will most likely NOT pierce armor on a new tank. These are usually ment to kill soldiers, light armor units such as jeeps and personnel carriers. So in the end cannons are still viable which is why the military still uses them.

Wrong. Most rocket launchers can penetrate armor. You be very surprise. Even land mines can do the job. You don’t need to destroy the whole tank. All you need to do is kill the crew inside the tank or immobilize the tank by destroying its track. In the end it come down to killing the crew and since WWII rockets, mines, and missile where design to only penetrate a small piece of tank armor in order to kill the crew inside it. The icing on the cake is when rounds inside the tank exploded.

New tanks, I don’t think any countries has developed a new tank since the 80s. A1 is the best tank in the world and it was made in the late 70s. Current tanks are just upgrades from old designs.

As far as a fuel supply, im thinking battery... i mean batteries power everything, from a turbine, to a watch, with the new technology out here a battery should be feasable for this kind of environment. You could use like the evangelion design, have a plug, use the plug as long as you can then kick in the battery, unlike evengelion where they last 5 minutes, with todays technology i can see a mecha atleast lasting an hour or two. Which isnt that bad, considering tanks need a refuel about two to four hours if they are moving.

The military is base on reality and not fantasy. Lives are at stake. War is not a game that is play by children.

Then you were talking about a total VR setting, you pointed out that you cannot change ammo, or change the radio. Two ways you can get around this... one voice activated, and two, place it somewhere easy to access, a button on your helmet maybe for radio? or for ammo selection somewhere near your hand, in an VR environment you would still have a joystick or maybe something attached to the hand, these would have buttons you can easily manipulate.

Again the military will never built mecha because mecha are obsolete from the get go. They are big targets, are very easy to destroy, high maintenance, and a pain to transport from one area to another, just like tanks. One helicopter can destroy a column of mecha or one B-52 carpet bomb the whole area.

Ajay

20-02-02, 01:20 PM

“In any battlefield infantry will rule if they have the right equipment.”

Infantry is not the almighty, all powerful force you believe it to be. Sure infantry can carry weapons to take out a tank but can infantry carry three 12.7 mm machine guns for anti-aircraft and other infantry as well? Or twenty five 120 mm shells for defeating heavily fortified areas and do it all while traveling 40+ mph? Can infantry resist fire from a minigun, or even shrapnel for that matter? Can infantry carry enough equipment to sustain themselves for days, locate enemies 3+ km away, and relay information to allies miles away?

Even in urban combat, armored vehicles are needed. They provide support, cover for allied infantry to hide behind, and the ability to make holes in buildings for infantry to hide, and the firepower needed to take down heavily fortified structures. Infantry may be more adaptable in urban combat than armored vehicles, but that doesn’t mean armored vehicles aren’t needed.

“Missle and rockets will have greater range and accuracy then cannons rounds.”

The missiles with the farthest range that’s MAN portable is the Tow. And that’s about 3500km. Machineguns average at about 2-3 km, and tank guns can fire nearly 4 or 5. If you want a missile or rocket with 7+ km in range, you’re going to need an armored vehicle to carry it around.

“The Phoenix missile has a range of 115 miles (184 km). The Tomahawk missile, which can be launch by a plane, has a range of 1000 statute miles (1609 km). Maneuverability is really a non-issue. Unlike anime, missiles travel at four to six time faster then the speed of sound. Speed is the killer. The pilot have only a very few seconds to react.

Missile and bombs are so accurate now that they won’t miss their target unless there was human error involved. Today bombs use GPS to hit unmovable targets (buildings, bridge, etc.). For movable object like tanks, this is where special force comes in. They paint the target and 10 miles away a plane will drop a bomb on it. Clouds don’t affect it that much because the bombs will pick up the painted target after it clears the clouds.”

Of course you know air craft can be taken out by man portable missiles too (missiles that would do practically nothing to armored vehicles but can rip a jet to shreds). They can even be taken out by machineguns. In order to bomb the enemy, a lot of planes have to go to lower altitudes and go very slowly, opening themselves up to fire.
Most air to ground missiles don’t travel at mach 4+ and those that do are called line of sight missiles and rely on velocity, not low reaction time on the part of the enemy to do damage. In fact, they move so fast, they don’t even have a ballistic arc and have to punch through the frontal or side armor of tanks. Even then, infantry can’t carry LOS missiles because of their large size. Also, aircraft are hindered by bad weather, but armored vehicles can travel in all weather.
Air power can do terrible things to ground forces, but can they nullify them completely? No.
There’s also a ground based system that uses cameras and maps to locate the target and then attack them from more than 10 miles away. It’s called artillery. It’s cheaper, operates in all weather, has better armor, requires less maintenance, and has been around for centuries. It’s also useful against large groups of infantry.

“New tanks, I don’t think any countries has developed a new tank since the 80s. A1 is the best tank in the world and it was made in the late 70s. Current tanks are just upgrades from old designs.”
And you say that nobody’s working on any new types of armored vehicles. Actually, they are. Here are just 5 that the U.S. are researching and developing.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cav.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fscs.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fiv.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lsv.htm

“The military is base on reality and not fantasy. Lives are at stake. War is not a game that is play by children.”

You say this as if you’re a weapons expert. From what I’ve seen, I believe you know just as much (possibly less) as the rest of us about war and weapons. Your statements that Armored vehicles are useless and that all wars can be won with just air power and infantry just isn’t true.

Ajay

20-02-02, 01:35 PM

And about the Mecha being useless. I’m basing all this on a Mecha that’s about 15-25 feet tall.

1. Mecha are tall and make larger targets than treaded vehicles
2. Mecha have lighter armor compared to tanks
3. Mecha can’t travel as far as conventional vehicles before refueling
4. Higher ground pressure than conventional vehicles and get bogged down in mud
5. Mecha don’t have a top speed as high as that of other vehicles

Feel free to add to the list of disadvantages. Here are some advantages of Mecha over conventional vehicles.

1. They’re taller, so they can see farther, identify targets from farther away, and use weapons that can fire from beyond the enemy’s field of fire
2. They can see the enemy from farther away and make good observation posts
3. They can go almost anywhere
4. They can switch weapons with ease like infantry, making them versatile
5. They serve to a certain extent as a demoralizer
6. They can also assist in other things not directly related to battle like loading supplies, helping move disabled vehicles, and other tasks
7. If a Mecha steps on a mine, it loses a leg, if a tank rolls over a mine, it loses a lot more
8. In urban environments, a Mecha can simply turn around in a cramped area, a treaded vehicle needs much more room to accomplish this
9. A legless Mecha can still crawl, but a vehicle with a damaged tread is stuck
10. From above, a Mecha presents a smaller target for bombs and top attack missiles

Of course these aren’t all the disadvantages and advantages a Mecha possesses, just what I could think up. If you have any other reasons why a Mecha would or would not be a useful military tool, please go ahead and post it.

Fred

20-02-02, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Ajay
“In any battlefield infantry will rule if they have the right equipment.”

Infantry is not the almighty, all powerful force you believe it to be. Sure infantry can carry weapons to take out a tank but can infantry carry three 12.7 mm machine guns for anti-aircraft and other infantry as well? Or twenty five 120 mm shells for defeating heavily fortified areas and do it all while traveling 40+ mph? Can infantry resist fire from a minigun, or even shrapnel for that matter? Can infantry carry enough equipment to sustain themselves for days, locate enemies 3+ km away, and relay information to allies miles away?

Yes they are almighty. They human body is one bad ass killing machine. Infantry can take out columns of tanks. It has been done before many times. That is the reason why armor needs infantry to support it.

Even in urban combat, armored vehicles are needed. They provide support, cover for allied infantry to hide behind, and the ability to make holes in buildings for infantry to hide, and the firepower needed to take down heavily fortified structures. Infantry may be more adaptable in urban combat than armored vehicles, but that doesn’t mean armored vehicles aren’t needed.

You know what happen to vehicles that go into urban areas? They get wipe out very fast. They won’t last but a few minutes in an engagement. They will be the first targets. Just look out your window and see how dangerous it is for combat vehicle going through a hostile urban area. The streets are narrow for tanks, curve a lot, and every building become a fort where the enemy can take them out. One reason why the US didn’t go into Baghdad, Iraq is because the US would have suffered over 60,000 casualties. Sarajevo is one of many examples where tanks and other vehicles became sitting ducks for the city defenders. They wipe them all out and the city became a battleground for infantry.

The missiles with the farthest range that’s MAN portable is the Tow. And that’s about 3500km. Machineguns average at about 2-3 km, and tank guns can fire nearly 4 or 5. If you want a missile or rocket with 7+ km in range, you’re going to need an armored vehicle to carry it around.

Realistically machine guns on tanks and in general won’t be use at their maximum range. Most of the time it will be less then 100 yards(91.44m) in combats against infantry. Most combat engagement that involved infantry are less the 50 yards (45.72m). Cannons wont do a damn thing against infantry. They are too close, too many, and are surrounded by them. Armor have/had one main advantage and that they can cover a lot of grounds at a very short time, but their weak point is that they need support from the air and from infantry or they will be destroy very fast. Do you know what kill the most tanks in the Gulf War? Not tanks, attack helicopters. There was only one major tank engagement and six Iraqi tanks were destroyed (if member serve me right) compare to six-attack that helicopter destroy over 150 tanks and support vehicles in less the 15 minutes, with all six helicopter undamaged after the engagement.

Of course you know air craft can be taken out by man portable missiles too (missiles that would do practically nothing to armored vehicles but can rip a jet to shreds). They can even be taken out by machineguns. In order to bomb the enemy, a lot of planes have to go to lower altitudes and go very slowly, opening themselves up to fire.

I don't know what country you are from but US fighters/bombers do not need to fly low and slow. This is not WWII, this is the 21st century! They are miles up and far away from their targets. This is what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. Special Forces on the ground relay to the pilot what direction to drop the bomb at 50,000 ft up in the air. The pilot does not need to see their targets to destroy it. No airplane was lost in the Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan campaign due to combat fire.

I haven't heard an airplane that has been taken out by machineguns fire since God know when (since WWII? by luck). In today modern combat AAA has become as useless as carrying a knife into a gun fight.

Most air to ground missiles don’t travel at mach 4+ and those that do are called line of sight missiles and rely on velocity, not low reaction time on the part of the enemy to do damage. In fact, they move so fast, they don’t even have a ballistic arc and have to punch through the frontal or side armor of tanks. Even then, infantry can’t carry LOS missiles because of their large size. Also, aircraft are hindered by bad weather, but armored vehicles can travel in all weather.

In today’s combat LOS weapon are obsolete. Even tank’s cannon do not need a LOS to kill their target. Only third world countries use line of sight weapons. US infantry do use portable shoulder mounted LOS weapons but they are getting away from that. These portable LOS will be replace by IR recognition shoulder mounted missiles like the Javelin. They just point their portable missile in the general direction and the target will disappear like magic. No need to see their targets.

There is no such thing as a dogfight in the air. It is all about speed. Speed of the airplane, speed of recognizing the enemy first, speed of the missile getting to the target. This is what happens n a modern air combat.
1. F-15 detected an enemy fighter 50miles away.
2. F-15 fire AIM-7 Sparrow missile
3. 30 miles away and a minute later the enemy fighter is destroyed.

There hasn’t been one single dogfight since the Vietnam War.

The US Navy Navy's RIM-7M Sea Sparrow can reach over Mach 4. There are a few missiles that can reach over Mach 6. Unfortunately they are Classified.

I can assure you that armored vehicles cannot travel in all weather. Mud, soft ground, snow, flood, etc will immobilize them. Months before the Gulf War started the US sent in a few hundred Special Forces into Iraq for one reason, to dig up soil sample. The reason for this is to make sure the ground was hard enough for our vehicles to travel.

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AIM_7_Sparrow.html

Air power can do terrible things to ground forces, but can they nullify them completely? No.
There’s also a ground based system that uses cameras and maps to locate the target and then attack them from more than 10 miles away. It’s called artillery. It’s cheaper, operates in all weather, has better armor, requires less maintenance, and has been around for centuries. It’s also useful against large groups of infantry.

They don't need cameras or maps. They use GPS. Artillery doesn’t have armor. If you call a 1 inch steel plate as armor, then sure why not. Artillery is cheaper to operates but not by much. Artillery is not all weather. Artillery is mainly use as suppression to back infantry.

And you say that nobody’s working on any new types of armored vehicles. Actually, they are. Here are just 5 that the U.S. are researching and developing.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cav.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fscs.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fiv.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lsv.htm

huh? Those are not even tanks/armor. They are light armor tracked vehicle that has been or will be canceled. They aren’t even operational!!! It’s all concepts. The US Army is not going for light armor tracked vehicles they are going for light armor wheels vehicles. The US Army decided that a year ago.

You say this as if you’re a weapons expert. From what I’ve seen, I believe you know just as much (possibly less) as the rest of us about war and weapons. Your statements that Armored vehicles are useless and that all wars can be won with just air power and infantry just isn’t true.

No I am not a weapon expert but I can tell you one thing I have handle a few weapons in my time. At least I have some experience at what I am talking about. It is true that the US Army is getting away from armor. Are their any tanks in Afghanistan? No. We are using light armor vehicles, Special Forces, attack helicopters, bombers, fighters, ships, and God knows what but no tanks. We didn’t use tanks since the Gulf War and that was 10+ years and three conflicts back.

Here is a history lesson. The reason why the US Army doesn’t want armor anymore is because of the Gulf War. The US Army got embarrass by their armor corp. Every body was ready to fight except for the Army’s armor corp. Bush sr. had to wait six more months before he could order an attack on Iraq because the Army’s tanks took that long to get to Saudi Arabia. The Army even had to hire civilizes cargo ships to get their tanks over there and it was televised on national TV! What an embarrassment that was for the Army. The US Army’s tanks play a non-role in the Gulf War. All they did was prison detail. The death and destruction went the to the attack helicopter, fighters, bombers, light armor vehicles, and infantry. In fact ground forces had to wait for the tanks catch up. After the Gulf War the US Army finally decided that armor day had come and go.

The US military pride themselves as ready for the next war and every war is different. They decided that tanks are not going be that important in the coming wars. Which is true because the new battleground is not in flat lands, it is in urban areas.

I won't even get into the mecha debate. Common sense will tell you they they will be sitting ducks in the battlefield.

Ajay

21-02-02, 04:50 PM

"Yes they are almighty. They human body is one bad ass killing machine. Infantry can take out columns of tanks. It has been done before many times. That is the reason why armor needs infantry to support it."
Yes, armor needs infantry, but infantry needs armor as well for protection, fire support, transportation, and other uses. Infantry is good, but it's not all powerful, and armor is not obsolete.

"You know what happen to vehicles that go into urban areas? They get wipe out very fast. They won't last but a few minutes in an engagement. They will be the first targets. Just look out your window and see how dangerous it is for combat vehicle going through a hostile urban area. The streets are narrow for tanks, curve a lot, and every building become a fort where the enemy can take them out. One reason why the US didn't go into Baghdad, Iraq is because the US would have suffered over 60,000 casualties. Sarajevo is one of many examples where tanks and other vehicles became sitting ducks for the city defenders. They wipe them all out and the city became a battleground for infantry:"
True, infantry is much better suited for urban combat than armored vehicles. But answer me, why do we keep on sending armored vehicles into urban situations? Because armored vehicles can provide infantry with protection, withstand most infantry weapons, draw fire, have the ability to clear holes in buildings for hiding places, and can take out heavily fortified structures. Until infantry can do ALL this by itself in a manner that's cheaper, more effective, and more efficient, than armored vehicles, tanks and APCs will continue to exist.

"Realistically machine guns on tanks and in general won't be use at their maximum range. Most of the time it will be less then 100 yards(91.44m) in combats against infantry. Most combat engagement that involved infantry are less the 50 yards (45.72m). Cannons won't do a damn thing against infantry. They are too close, too many, and are surrounded by them"
But you seem to forget that infantry don't normally use missiles at their max range. In fact, the closer infantry can get to use them, the better. Not to mention the fact that man launched weapons are less effective than vehicle mounted ones. If that man misses that tank or fails to disable it, heck, if there are more enemy tanks in the area, he'll be hailed with MG fire seconds after firing. That's the tactic they used in Desert Storm. M1 gunners just shot at any suspicious areas where an enemy could hide. Infantry support also hampers the dangers from man toted anti-armor missiles.

"Armor have/had one main advantage and that they can cover a lot of grounds at a very short time, but their weak point is that they need support from the air and from infantry or they will be destroyed very fast."
That's true as well. In fact, that applies for everything. Infantry can't win a war alone. Neither can artillery, aircraft, etc. Desert Storm wasn't won by air power alone, although that did help out a lot. Infantry didn't win Desert Storm, although it was an important part. Armor wasn't won by armor, although it was an important part. Armor has a place in the military: it supplements infantry and air craft to help win wars.

"In today's combat LOS weapon are obsolete. Even tank's cannon do not need a LOS to kill their target. Only third world countries use line of sight weapons. US infantry do use portable shoulder mounted LOS weapons but they are getting away from that"

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/losat.htm
Behold America's (not a 3rd world country) LOSAT missile system.

"They don't need cameras or maps. They use GPS. Artillery doesn't have armor. If you call a 1inch steel plate as armor, then sure why not. Artillery is cheaper to operates but not by much. Artillery is not all weather. Artillery is mainly use as suppression to back infantry."
GPS uses cameras, and other devices to locate FIXED objects and geographic formations to make a digital map of an area which makes it useful for bombs that normal hit buildings, radar towers, etc. GPS doesn't track the enemy; it tracks you, fixed objects, and geographic features. Cameras, telescopes, laser range finders, and all that are still needed for artillery and even aircraft (ones using missiles and bombs against vehicles and infantry).
Self Propelled guns provide a lot more than 1 inch of steel (which is better against shrapnel than bare skin). They provide faster movement for artillery and protect the crew from NBC agents.

"Huh? Those are not even tanks/armor. They are light armor tracked vehicle that has been or will be canceled. They aren't even operational!!! It's all concepts. The US Army is not going for light armor tracked vehicles they are going for light armor wheels vehicles. The US Army decided that a year ago."
Yeah, I guess the fact that the US military is investing money in new concepts of tracked armored and wheeled vehicles means nothing to the future of armor. Why would the US want to spend any money on a vehicle that has all the advantages of a tank, only lighter, with better performance, and transportable via C-130.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm
(Read the page. It's a tank. Read all the links again, they're all armored vehicles i.e. vehicles with armor)

Ajay

25-02-02, 11:55 AM

'I won't even get into the mecha debate. Common sense will tell you they they will be sitting ducks in the battlefield."

They're larger targets...is that your only reason?? I wouldn't go so far as saying they're sitting ducks on the battlefield (especially urban and forested battlefields). There's a difference between being big and being a sitting duck. Sitting ducks do not fight back, sitting ducks don't have a longer visual range than you (which gives them time to think of what they can do to avoid you before you see them), sitting ducks don't put up much of a fight or move very quickly.

A mecha will be a large target, but it will be moving around, crouching, swerving back and forth (possibly) , firing back, and have assistance from friendly units, and thats when you SEE it. If a mecha's height gives it enough of a searching advantage, it could very well knock you out before you know its even there.

On a conventional battlefield (flat rolling land or something similar) mecha are large targets. Why does so much tank armored vehicle combat take place in such terrain?? Because that's one of the only places those vehicles can go. A mecha can go almost anywere, so its chances of meeting regular armored vehicles and becomming a large target decreases.

If the future of combat lies in urban terrain, then height becomes even less of a problem. there are plenty of 2+ story buildings to hide behind, enemy infantry carries around more anti-infantry weapons like machineguns and grenade launchers as opposed to ATGMs and other heavy weapons you normally encounter in normal battlefields, planes and choppers aren't as much of a concern. Urban combat may be the one thing mecha can excel at (as armored vehicles).

Skywalkre

25-02-02, 05:46 PM

From above, a Mecha presents a smaller target for bombs and top attack missiles

One of the things that I’ve always seen brought up by folks who have actually served (and in particular in armored units) in regards to negative qualities of mecha is their height. They apparently don’t see being up higher than you’re opponent as all that much of an advantage.

The ability to see farther is more than direct LOS. I’ve read that many tankers use their thermal sights in daytime. This gives them a much better ability to pick out their opponents since they don’t need a direct LOS to spot them. I read how one American tank engaged Iraqui armor through a sand berm by spotting their exhaust plume above the berm and then shooting through it.

Also consider that the height bonus mecha have over conventional vehicles (maybe a 20 foot bonus at the most) is not all that much when your target is upwards of 4 km away, and when you couple in thermal sights which can see a target without direct LOS that height advantage isn’t one.

Also look at current vehicles and future designs when making the above assessment. Modern armored vehicles are low to the ground, and if anything the trend is to get even lower. If being higher than your opponent was so advantageous why wouldn’t armored vehicles be taller? Also consider that the advantages a mecha gains by being tall can be copied by a conventional vehicle with a periscope, and one such design concept I’ve seen for a scout platform had a periscope built in. Such a device would offer the same visual bonuses while presenting a smaller profile than a 30’ tall mecha.

They can see the enemy from farther away and make good observation posts

Look at the last paragraph of the above reply.

They can go almost anywhere

They can go different places compared to modern AFVs. Remember the ground pressure bit you wrote about in the disadvantages? That also limits where a mecha can be effective whereas tracked vehicles would have less difficulty.

They can switch weapons with ease like infantry, making them versatile

They have to switch weaponry because they don’t have a single weapon which can do multiple tasks. A tank gun is effective against infantry, armor, buildings, and helicopters given it can carry multiple types of ammunition for each role. A mecha has to carry different weapon systems because it can’t carry a large gun like a tank.

They serve to a certain extent as a demoralizer

When I think of advantages over conventional vehicles I imagine something that a conventional vehicle doesn’t have. Modern armored vehicles are incredibly terrifying to people on the ground already. This is nothing new for a mecha.

If a Mecha steps on a mine, it loses a leg, if a tank rolls over a mine, it loses a lot more
...
A legless Mecha can still crawl, but a vehicle with a damaged tread is stuck

That should read if a mecha rolls over a mine it loses a leg, if a tank rolls over a mine it loses a tread. They’re both pretty much immobile. Yet a mecha can crawl, but it would still be operationally immobile. At best it could crawl to a location where it has more cover and wait to be relieved. While a tank would be stuck, it at least has more armor to compensate for being stuck (and not having to worry about getting away like a mecha does).

In urban environments, a Mecha can simply turn around in a cramped area, a treaded vehicle needs much more room to accomplish this

A conventional vehicle can just drive in reverse, what’s the point here?

From above, a Mecha presents a smaller target for bombs and top attack missiles

Not true. If an attack was coming directly from above then yes that would be true, but attacks don’t happen like that. If the attack is coming from the air it’s being launched far enough away that a mecha is still as large a target as a conventional armored vehicle. If it’s a top attack weapon like the Javelin it’s being locked onto the mecha from the ground, so the mecha is a LARGER target than a tank would be. As the weapon raises it is still tracking the mecha which is certainly not directly beneath it (and thus still a large target). Either way, this statement doesn’t hold water.

Fred

25-02-02, 07:00 PM

Yes, armor needs infantry, but infantry needs armor as well for protection, fire support, transportation, and other uses. Infantry is good, but it's not all powerful, and armor is not obsolete.

Armor needs infantry for protection but infantry itself does not need armor for their protection.

True, infantry is much better suited for urban combat than armored vehicles. But answer me, why do we keep on sending armored vehicles into urban situations? Because armored vehicles can provide infantry with protection, withstand most infantry weapons, draw fire, have the ability to clear holes in buildings for hiding places, and can take out heavily fortified structures. Until infantry can do ALL this by itself in a manner that's cheaper, more effective, and more efficient, than armored vehicles, tanks and APCs will continue to exist.

Ok there seems to be a miscommunication here. APC is not armor in military terms. Tanks are Armor. APC and other like it are considered Light Armor Vehicles. APC are not armor. When people talk about armor they talk about tanks or very heavy vehicles that weight over 70 tons, heavy armored, and pack a punch. There is a huge difference between Light Armor Vehicles and Armor. It is probably my fault that I didn’t make this clear to you.

Armor does not provide one bit of protection to infantry in urban area. It is the infantry that do the protection for the Armor in urban areas. Armor is a liability to infantry in urban combat. You are right that Armor will draw fire and it is one of the first things that gets kill in combat. When infantry entering an urban area with Armor, infantry main job is to protect the armor, which will limit infantry fighting capability. When protecting Armor, infantry has to be in a defensive posture instead of an offensive posture. Tanks are very slow in urban areas (and in some cases they can’t get to an area because of their size, width, and weight) this slowness gives enemy the time to set up ambushes. It only takes one mine to disable a tank. Take the first and the last Armor in the column. What do you have? A massacre, because all the Armors in the middle of the column cannot move and return fire, they become a sitting duck. The infantry have to sit in one place to defend those armors, which in turn will get them killed. To survive an ambush, you have to get out of the killing zone as fast as possible.

Light armor vehicles in urban combat. Only a fool/crew will be inside an APC. The fastest way to die is to be inside an APC when entering a contested city. If an APC hit a mine or got ambushed everybody that is inside the APC will die. They won’t be able to escape or fight back. Pray that you die instantly inside an APC otherwise you’re going to get burn alive in it. That is the reason why you see infantry go on foot instead staying inside an APC. If an APC is in an urban area is most likely there to pick up the wounded or dead.

There is no such thing as a font line in urban combat. One minute you surrounded the enemy the next minute the enemy surrounded you.

Armor (tanks) will not exist in the US military in the future. There hasn’t been any Armor ground up development in the past 20 years. The current Armors that is currently used are upgraded version that was developed in the 70s and 60s. Light Armor Vehicles are being developed as we speak. They will be the backbone of the US Army. They will use wheel instead of track.

But you seem to forget that infantry don't normally use missiles at their max range. In fact, the closer infantry can get to use them, the better. Not to mention the fact that man launched weapons are less effective than vehicle mounted ones. If that man misses that tank or fails to disable it, heck, if there are more enemy tanks in the area, he'll be hailed with MG fire seconds after firing. That's the tactic they used in Desert Storm. M1 gunners just shot at any suspicious areas where an enemy could hide. Infantry support also hampers the dangers from man toted anti-armor missiles.

There are some very dumb and crazy people in world but for most of us we are not dumb nor crazy.

It is true that most weapons will never reach their maximum range before hitting their targets. It is also true that the portable man missile and rocketed are less powerful then their vehicle mounted counter part. This does mean that portable man missile or rocked are not lethal. They are very lethal in fact for their intended targets. Our soldiers are smart enough to know which weapons are effective against which targets. They are not going use a rifle against an APC. They are going to use a rocket. They not going to engage a target because it is fun, no they going engage a target because they think they have a chance to kill it otherwise it would be suicidal.

Look at my previous posts. The M1/Armor didn’t play an important role in the Gulf War. They were there to clean up. The main attack forces were the attack helicopters, infantry, and airplanes.

That's true as well. In fact, that applies for everything. Infantry can't win a war alone. Neither can artillery, aircraft, etc. Desert Storm wasn't won by air power alone, although that did help out a lot. Infantry didn't win Desert Storm, although it was an important part. Armor wasn't won by armor, although it was an important part. Armor has a place in the military: it supplements infantry and air craft to help win wars.

Infantry has been winning war since war was recorded in the history books. Long before Armor every existed. In the current state of affairs, infantry is now faster then Armor, this was proven in the Vietnam War and again in the Gulf War where infantry use helicopter transports to get them where they needed to go without having to worry about man made or natural obstacles.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/losat.htm
Behold America's (not a 3rd world country) LOSAT missile system.

Actually you don’t need a line of sight to use the missile. All you need is a spotter to direct the missile because it uses infrared sensors. This is not a dumb missile. In other words, you can send a solider to spot for the vehicle. Have the solider paint the target and all the vehicle has to do is lunch the missile in the direction of what the solider relay to the crew. The vehicle will never need to see the target.

GPS uses cameras, and other devices to locate FIXED objects and geographic formations to make a digital map of an area which makes it useful for bombs that normal hit buildings, radar towers, etc. GPS doesn't track the enemy; it tracks you, fixed objects, and geographic features. Cameras, telescopes, laser range finders, and all that are still needed for artillery and even aircraft (ones using missiles and bombs against vehicles and infantry).
Self Propelled guns provide a lot more than 1 inch of steel (which is better against shrapnel than bare skin). They provide faster movement for artillery and protect the crew from NBC agents.

??? GPS uses cameras? Do you know what GPS is? GPS is the Gobal postioning system.

GPS is the Global positioning system. The GPS do not need optics to work. The last time I look at my GPS box it does not have an optic. Our current dumb bomb has been converted to use the military GPS (the US military has their own GPS satellites). These kits cost around 25k to attach itself to the fins of our dumb bombs and it more accurate then laser-guided bombs. It does not use optics instead the GPS satellites will direct the bomb within feet of its target.

You are correct that it doesn’t tracks targets but I don’t see a bridge or a cave move by its own. These stationary targets has a fix location which the GPS will guild the bomb to it.

One inch of steel is not much. My .308/7.62x51 hunting rifle will penetrate 1 inch of steel and the bullet is not even AP. One inch of steel is like bare skin.

Yeah, I guess the fact that the US military is investing money in new concepts of tracked armored and wheeled vehicles means nothing to the future of armor. Why would the US want to spend any money on a vehicle that has all the advantages of a tank, only lighter, with better performance, and transportable via C-130.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

Is that all you have is that stupid site to go to. These vehicles are concept vehicles. Most of these concept vehicles will never get past the drawing board even if the military has spend billions on the program.

The Army will not use track vehicles; instead they will use wheel vehicles. This has already been decided by General Shinseki, the 34th Chief of Staff, United States Army. The Marine Corps will still use track vehicles but that because they wanted to be different from the Army. Money is not a problem with the US military.

The quote below is from the Army. From the mouth of the horse. Click on the link to read the rest of it.

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Apr2001/a20010419aulead1.html

Now, the battalion is being reformed into a cavalry squadron that will soon turn in its final 44 Abrams tanks -- "70 tons of rolling steel and sex appeal" -- for eight-wheeled light armored vehicles.

It is part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's plan for a leaner, lethal, more mobile force that can move out and be ready to do battle anywhere in the world within four days.

Armor is dead for the US military anyway. It doesn't matter what you think or do, the US military will dispose of it Armor.

The current transformation news of the US Army.
http://www.army.mil/vision/Transformationnews.htm

Yes the Army Chief of Staff is Asian. He control the most powerful Army in the world.
http://www.army.mil/leaders/images/leaderweb_r04_c01CSA.gif

More information about him:

http://www.army.mil/leaders/CSA/default.htm

Fred

25-02-02, 10:03 PM

They're larger targets...is that your only reason??

No but I have more reason. Here is just a few.

1. High maintenance cost.
2. Easy to destroy.
3. Easy to disable by mines.
4. Transportation is limited.
5. Does not pack a punch. Will have very limited armament.
6. Probably consume more fuel then a tank.
7. Will be vulnerable to Infantry
8. Will be vulnerable to Air power
9. Will be vulnerable to every combat vehicle.

I wouldn't go so far as saying they're sitting ducks on the battlefield (especially urban and forested battlefields). There's a difference between being big and being a sitting duck. Sitting ducks do not fight back, sitting ducks don't have a longer visual range than you (which gives them time to think of what they can do to avoid you before you see them), sitting ducks don't put up much of a fight or move very quickly.

They will be sitting ducks. They won’t even know what hit them. The wont even have a chance to fight back because they got a big red sign that say “I am stupid enough to pilot this ---- of big s h i t”.

How can you fight back when the enemy will see you first 50 miles away and one mile up? Or when an Infantry has a portable missile launcher hiding inside a building waiting a slow big moving target to show up. Mecha don’t even have a chance.

A mecha will be a large target, but it will be moving around, crouching, swerving back and forth (possibly) , firing back, and have assistance from friendly units, and thats when you SEE it.

Is this a joke? Yes I can see it now Mecha crouching, swerving back and forth like a brake dancers. You’re one funny guy. Man that was funny.

If a mecha's height gives it enough of a searching advantage, it could very well knock you out before you know its even there.

No, the Mecha will be dead before it know where the enemies is because you got airborne surveillance plane/drone way up in the sky relaying information and painting the target to a helicopter five miles away hidding behind a large hill. All heights does is to give you away.

On a conventional battlefield (flat rolling land or something similar) mecha are large targets. Why does so much tank armored vehicle combat take place in such terrain?? Because that's one of the only places those vehicles can go. A mecha can go almost anywere, so its chances of meeting regular armored vehicles and becomming a large target decreases.

They will probably have a lot more problems then Tanks. Because of the weight and size the ground got to be hard enough to support and balance them. They won't be doing mountain climbing. I can see them running and slip on the ground because it was raining. Can Mecha skate? I can see Mecha crouching just so it can get through an overpass.

If the future of combat lies in urban terrain, then height becomes even less of a problem. there are plenty of 2+ story buildings to hide behind, enemy infantry carries around more anti-infantry weapons like machineguns and grenade launchers as opposed to ATGMs and other heavy weapons you normally encounter in normal battlefields, planes and choppers aren't as much of a concern. Urban combat may be the one thing mecha can excel at (as armored vehicles).

You're killing me here. I am laughing my ass off! Stop it! "2+ story buildings to hide behind." hahaha. Yes I can see it now, the Mecha hide behind a two story building with an Infantry man having a launch break inside the building. The Infantry get out his trusty rocket launcher and said to himself, this is just too damn easy.

Skywalkre

26-02-02, 03:24 AM

Armor needs infantry for protection but infantry itself does not need armor for their protection.
…
Armor does not provide one bit of protection to infantry in urban area. It is the infantry that do the protection for the Armor in urban areas. Armor is a liability to infantry in urban combat.

This seems a rather odd and especially bold thing to say.

With the recent theatrical release of Black Hawk Down a lot of us have been reminded of the firefight that occurred between the best infantry forces in the world, the Rangers and Delta Force, against militiamen and hordes of Somali people back in 1993. The best infantry in the world weren’t able to extract themselves but rather had to wait till an armored column rescued them.

You also have two rather interesting happenings in two of the best militaries in the world which make the above comments suspect. One happening is the IDF response to the recent intifadah and you have the US Army’s Interim Force transformation.

The Israelis have made many incursions into Palestinian towns and villages, and their armored forces have spearheaded these incursions. Tanks in these actions have hardly been hindrances; instead they’ve been invaluable to the IDF in obtaining their missions and in displaying their power through shows of force. These shows of force would be worthless if they didn’t have anything behind them, but they’re far more than hollow threats and the IDF has shown recently and has shown in the past that armor is invaluable in MOUT when part of a well trained combined arms team.

The US Army’s transformation is another interesting subject in contrast with what you wrote above. The IBCTs are built around the Combined Arms Company which includes an MGS platoon. The MGS is the LAV-III fitted with the 105mm gun. It’s an invaluable platform used for defeating enemy personnel, bunkers, weapon emplacements and medium armored vehicles. While infantry are the primary combatants of the unit, the MGS plays a prominent support role. Don’t just take my word for it; I paraphrased the last paragraph right out of Armor magazine.

Tanks are very slow in urban areas (and in some cases they can’t get to an area because of their size, width, and weight) this slowness gives enemy the time to set up ambushes

How are tanks being slow a bad thing when they’re still faster than the infantry they’re working alongside?

The weight issue is a valid one. Probably the biggest fault with the Abrams is it’s limited to bridges that can hold 70 tons, and outside of the US and Europe that’s a rare occurrence. The speed issue isn’t one at all though.

Armor (tanks) will not exist in the US military in the future. There hasn’t been any Armor ground up development in the past 20 years. The current Armors that is currently used are upgraded version that was developed in the 70s and 60s. Light Armor Vehicles are being developed as we speak. They will be the backbone of the US Army. They will use wheel instead of track.

Well, the Abrams as of right now is slated to be around in some form or another till 2030 or so. While the FCS is certainly not a tank as we know them today it will be filling the same role and it is being developed as we speak.

Another thing to consider is that the US Army’s move to light, wheeled vehicles hasn’t been proven to be the right decision at the moment. It’s a calculated move to keep the Army relevant and it may or may not be the best move to make. I know I’ve certainly read quite a bit about how the change and direction being taken are a mistake, and the more and more I look into it the more I agree.

Hopefully when the time comes when this new direction is tested under fire the decision will be looked back on as the right one, for the sake of those young soldiers who will be there putting it all on the line.

Money is not a problem with the US military.

This is most certainly not true. The US Army a few weeks back announced how they were cutting 18 programs so that the funds could be shifted elsewhere, with one of the largest beneficiaries being the FCS.

Armor is dead for the US military anyway. It doesn't matter what you think or do, the US military will dispose of it Armor.

This is a misleading quote. The US Army is transitioning to a lighter force but as of now they don’t plan on phasing out the Abrams for another 20+ years. In the meantime the Abrams will be continually upgraded. It’s not that the US Army is disposing of armor, just taking it in a different direction.

Fred

26-02-02, 07:44 PM

This seems a rather odd and especially bold thing to say.

With the recent theatrical release of Black Hawk Down a lot of us have been reminded of the firefight that occurred between the best infantry forces in the world, the Rangers and Delta Force, against militiamen and hordes of Somali people back in 1993. The best infantry in the world weren’t able to extract themselves but rather had to wait till an armored column rescued them.

Do you really know what happen in Somali? You got over 100 very highly train solider against 10000+ poorly train militiaman. The US side suffers less then 80 casualties while the militiaman casualties were over 1500+. Some say that it ran as high as 5000. Who won that battle? The US did. We kick some major ass. We won that battle but lost politically and the liberal media hammer it all the way home. We got a whole bunch of guys wanting to go back in and finish the job but Klinton wanted us back home. We got our marching orders so we went home.

What armor column came to the rescue? None, we went to them, they didn’t come to us. We had to fight our way there because you know what, those armor guy are smart enough not to get themselves slaughter. Do you mean humvees? Those are not Armor. Do not base your knowledge on what you see in the movie. It is all fake.

You also have two rather interesting happenings in two of the best militaries in the world which make the above comments suspect. One happening is the IDF response to the recent intifadah and you have the US Army’s Interim Force transformation.

The Israelis have made many incursions into Palestinian towns and villages, and their armored forces have spearheaded these incursions. Tanks in these actions have hardly been hindrances; instead they’ve been invaluable to the IDF in obtaining their missions and in displaying their power through shows of force. These shows of force would be worthless if they didn’t have anything behind them, but they’re far more than hollow threats and the IDF has shown recently and has shown in the past that armor is invaluable in MOUT when part of a well trained combined arms team.

The IDF has been push to the limit by the Palestinians. Mass desertion is happening inside the Israelis military. You got officers and enlistment deserting left and right in the Israelis military. IDF is one of the most overrated military in the world. They are a second rate military with first rate weapon fighting fourth rate opponents with third rate weapons. The Israelis military is a conscripted army. Eight tenth of their solider don’t want to fight. Their morale is at an all time low.

You will never hear what really is happing in Israel. It is a blood bath over there. Everyday gun battles rage on with both side taking casualties. Palestinian is now conducting an offensive against military targets. In the past the Palestinian gone only after civilians but the past few weeks they are waging an all out war against military targets. Some of these targets are tanks. They destroy one with a home made mine two weeks back in an ambush.

Do not think for a second the IDF is in the same league as the US military.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/15/mideast/index.html

Officials said "a sophisticated anti-armor device" went off as the tank rolled over it Thursday night in Gaza. The turret of the Merkava 3 tank was blown off and the tank overturned, pinning an Israeli soldier underneath as the tank caught fire.

Everything changes now because the Palestinian targets the military instead of Israeli's civilians.

How are tanks being slow a bad thing when they’re still faster than the infantry they’re working alongside?

The weight issue is a valid one. Probably the biggest fault with the Abrams is it’s limited to bridges that can hold 70 tons, and outside of the US and Europe that’s a rare occurrence. The speed issue isn’t one at all though.

The US military is base on speed. Unlike 95% of the world armies, the US Army is pure offensive. They are not design to be an offensive/defensive army like most of the armies in the world. That is the US Navy job. The US Navy is our primary defense.

In the Vietnam War we pioneer helicopter insertion. We drop thousands of solider into the font line via helicopters. In the Gulf War we did the same thing. Infantry was punching holes in enemy lines with the help of attack helicopter so Tanks can past by. Read my above post. Slowness is not an option in urban combat. Slowness will get you kill. Slow is not good. Everything changes in a heartbeat.

Well, the Abrams as of right now is slated to be around in some form or another till 2030 or so. While the FCS is certainly not a tank as we know them today it will be filling the same role and it is being developed as we speak.

Another thing to consider is that the US Army’s move to light, wheeled vehicles hasn’t been proven to be the right decision at the moment. It’s a calculated move to keep the Army relevant and it may or may not be the best move to make. I know I’ve certainly read quite a bit about how the change and direction being taken are a mistake, and the more and more I look into it the more I agree.

I really doesn't matter what we think. There wasa lot of resource and brainpower that was put into these questions before finial decision was made. I don’t think we are smarter then those people that spend their lifetime thinking what new enemies that the US will face in the future.

This is most certainly not true. The US Army a few weeks back announced how they were cutting 18 programs so that the funds could be shifted elsewhere, with one of the largest beneficiaries being the FCS.

Yes one would think that if you were in a transformation, you would want to put all your resource to complete that transformation as fast as possible. Like other US military transformation in the pass (this happen ever 20 year cycle) it will take 6-10 years to complete.

Now lets do the US military Budget. In 1999 the US military budget was 276.7 billion. The combine military world budget will be less then the US military budget. The current transformation of the US military will cost over 3 trillion dollars. We are modernizing the most powerful and advance military the world has seen. Every military in the world is at least 15 years behind the US military. The US military want to widen the gap to 30 years. Next year the US military will have a budget of 380 billion dollars. I am too lazy to check what the military current budget for this year.

Here are some notable countries military budget.

US = $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
UK = $36.884 billion (FY97)
Israel = $8.7 billion (FY99)
Italy = $20.7 billion (FY00/01)
Iran = $5.787 billion (FY98/99)
Iraq = $NA (probably less the $6 billion)
Japan = $43 billion (FY01)
China = $12.608 billion
Colombia = $3 billion (FY00)
Cuba = $NA (less the a billion, probably less then 500 millions)
Denmark = $2.47 billion (FY99)
Egypt = $4.04 billion (FY99/00)
Australia = $6.9 billion (FY98/99)
Austria = $1.7 billion (FY98)
Argentina = $4.3 billion (FY99)
Brazil = $13.408 billion (FY99)
Germany = $32.8 billion (FY98)
Greece = $6.12 billion (FY99/00 est.)
France = $39.831 billion (FY97)
Philippines = $995 million (FY98)
Poland = $3.17 billion (FY00)
Canada = $7.5 billion (FY00/01)
Russia = $NA (probably less the 10 billion)
Turkey = $10.6 billion (FY99)
South Korea = $12 billion (2000)
North Korea = $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.)
Taiwan = $8.042 billion (FY98/99)

Here is a little secret. Don’t tell anyone about this ok. At the end of each year budget cycle, if there is any money left we need to spend it all. So if a department has $100,000 dollars left and three days before the budget cycle ends. They got a problem. The department need to spend 100,000 in three days or else it all goes back to Congress and my friends that is a no no, because the department will get less money in the next budget cycle. Yes it does take a lot of work to figure out how to spend $100,000 in three days with only 10 people to do it. When they finish spending all of the money the department will ask for more money then the last budget cycle or we cry to our congressman. That is our little secret; don’t tell anyone about that ok!

For military budget around the world go to CIA fact book website.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

This is a misleading quote. The US Army is transitioning to a lighter force but as of now they don’t plan on phasing out the Abrams for another 20+ years. In the meantime the Abrams will be continually upgraded. It’s not that the US Army is disposing of armor, just taking it in a different direction.

If you put it that way then Armor is not dead. The new direction they have is staying in once place forever in a junk yard waiting to be called up again which will never happen.

SamIam

26-02-02, 08:31 PM

Interesting thread....

Well, to start off, IMO given what I know of military/civilian technologies... I would say that a first generation mecha could be built ... would it be effective?

Probably not, for the following reasons...

In urban settings, size/ground pressure and weight could be decided disadvantages in a significant percentage of scenarios...

Cost and complexity would be proibitive for most applications ... not to mention the factor of reliability ....

Limitatations in armour and ecm tech would expose the armoured mecha to at least a fair percentage of hostile fire... with devastating consequeces... the mecha in anime for the most part do not even try to explain or solve the problems of Armour/Speed and Firepower...

The question of Humaniform shape as the starting point...

If we use human capability and scale it up for a Mecha, one could make a convincing argument for flexibility and adaptability... with the disavantage of superiority in specific areas... the "jack of all trades" principle.

So in essence, this Mecha would be able to do almost anything that a human could... and like the human, do none of it extremely well.

In the face of an unknown enemy or situation, not a bad thing, but if faced with a highly trained force consisting of specialized hardware and training, this mecha would have a very hard time of it.

So unless, the designer of the Mecha also had a monopoly on a key technolgocial advance, i.e. Gundamium , Getta Rays, Lost tech of the ancients... etc. Conventional forces should have the upper hand with the advantages of:

1. Force size for given financial expenditure

2. Capability of replacing tech and personnel from existing resources..

3. Infrastructure for secondary support

4. Application of mature (and thus reliable) technologies

SamIam

Skywalkre

27-02-02, 01:15 AM

Do you really know what happen in Somali? You got over 100 very highly train solider against 10000+ poorly train militiaman. The US side suffers less then 80 casualties while the militiaman casualties were over 1500+. Some say that it ran as high as 5000. Who won that battle? The US did. We kick some major ass. We won that battle but lost politically and the liberal media hammer it all the way home. We got a whole bunch of guys wanting to go back in and finish the job but Klinton wanted us back home. We got our marching orders so we went home.

What armor column came to the rescue? None, we went to them, they didn’t come to us. We had to fight our way there because you know what, those armor guy are smart enough not to get themselves slaughter. Do you mean humvees? Those are not Armor. Do not base your knowledge on what you see in the movie. It is all fake.

I’m quite aware what happened in Somalia and I must not have been clear enough in describing my point because I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Your original point was ‘Armor needs infantry for protection but infantry itself does not need armor for their protection’. The armored column that I’m referring to that came to the rescue of TF Ranger and their Delta Force comrades was the mixed convoy of Malaysian and Pakistani armor sent in to retrieve the force and extract them to the Pakistani base at the soccer field. The Rangers and D-boys were holed up in their position and unable to extricate themselves. It took armor to get them out, and armor was even requested by their commanding officer in the weeks before to help in case a situation like the one they were in came up. Clearly, these events don’t make it appear that infantry does not need armor for protection.

For three very different views of the battle check out Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden (an American reporter), Hazardous Duty by Colonel David H. Hackworth (US Army, Ret.), and Death Ground: Today’s American Infantry in Battle by Daniel P. Bolger (active Colonel in the US Army at the time of writing of the book).

You also have two rather interesting happenings in two of the best militaries in the world which make the above comments suspect. One happening is the IDF response to the recent intifadah and you have the US Army’s Interim Force transformation.

The Israelis have made many incursions into Palestinian towns and villages, and their armored forces have spearheaded these incursions. Tanks in these actions have hardly been hindrances; instead they’ve been invaluable to the IDF in obtaining their missions and in displaying their power through shows of force. These shows of force would be worthless if they didn’t have anything behind them, but they’re far more than hollow threats and the IDF has shown recently and has shown in the past that armor is invaluable in MOUT when part of a well trained combined arms team.

The IDF has been push to the limit by the Palestinians. Mass desertion is happening inside the Israelis military. You got officers and enlistment deserting left and right in the Israelis military. IDF is one of the most overrated military in the world. They are a second rate military with first rate weapon fighting fourth rate opponents with third rate weapons. The Israelis military is a conscripted army. Eight tenth of their solider don’t want to fight. Their morale is at an all time low.

What does this have to do with the conversation we’re having? Your original point was basically that armor is ineffective in urban settings. I merely pointed out that the IDF has done so in the past and continues today to use armor in MOUT and does so successfully. Your reply has nothing to do with refuting that and backing up what you said originally.

Some of these targets are tanks. They destroy one with a home made mine two weeks back in an ambush.

The Palestinians have destroyed 1 tank. That’s it. How many IDF infantry have died in the intifadah? Not to trivialize the loss of life (an unfortunate side effect of conversations like this) but the fact is that the armored forces of the IDF have been more successful than their infantry comrades in this fight so far and the fact that they’ve only lost 1 tank actually helps demonstrate this.

How are tanks being slow a bad thing when they’re still faster than the infantry they’re working alongside?

The weight issue is a valid one. Probably the biggest fault with the Abrams is it’s limited to bridges that can hold 70 tons, and outside of the US and Europe that’s a rare occurrence. The speed issue isn’t one at all though.

The US military is base on speed. Unlike 95% of the world armies, the US Army is pure offensive. They are not design to be an offensive/defensive army like most of the armies in the world. That is the US Navy job. The US Navy is our primary defense.

In the Vietnam War we pioneer helicopter insertion. We drop thousands of solider into the font line via helicopters. In the Gulf War we did the same thing. Infantry was punching holes in enemy lines with the help of attack helicopter so Tanks can past by. Read my above post. Slowness is not an option in urban combat. Slowness will get you kill. Slow is not good. Everything changes in a heartbeat.

Are you comparing the strategic movement of infantry by helicopter (your Vietnam and Desert Storm examples) to infantry engaged in a tactical engagement on the ground? They’re two completely different things. Or are you talking about infantry hopping around an urban fight on helicopter rather than walking around on their own?

Well, the Abrams as of right now is slated to be around in some form or another till 2030 or so. While the FCS is certainly not a tank as we know them today it will be filling the same role and it is being developed as we speak.

Another thing to consider is that the US Army’s move to light, wheeled vehicles hasn’t been proven to be the right decision at the moment. It’s a calculated move to keep the Army relevant and it may or may not be the best move to make. I know I’ve certainly read quite a bit about how the change and direction being taken are a mistake, and the more and more I look into it the more I agree.

I really doesn't matter what we think. There wasa lot of resource and brainpower that was put into these questions before finial decision was made. I don’t think we are smarter then those people that spend their lifetime thinking what new enemies that the US will face in the future.

I realize what I stated may sound a bit arrogant. I mean, I’m posting on AnimeBoards about Army transformation (nothing against AnimeBoards, but it’s not really a hotbed of professional discussion). I too get upset when I see armchair generals criticize military decisions when they really don’t know what they’re talking about.

However, my skepticism comes from what I’ve read by professionals in the field who disagree with the Army’s decision yet as good soldiers are carrying it out to the best of their ability. They raise valid points about the risks involved and history has certainly shown that not all decisions made by militaries are the best. This is what I base my skepticism off of, the professional opinion of those in service to their country (and so far, they’ve done a better job convincing me than the Army leadership has of their position).

Yes one would think that if you were in a transformation, you would want to put all your resource to complete that transformation as fast as possible. Like other US military transformation in the pass (this happen ever 20 year cycle) it will take 6-10 years to complete.

I was merely refuting the point you made that ‘Money is not a problem with the US military’. If that were true the Army would not have had to cut those programs. Instead, they’ve been forced to cut funds for units that are the first to go into the next fight we have for a project that has yet to prove anything.

Kizzim

27-02-02, 11:41 PM

You people have more or less destroyed this thread. Ive given solid evidence why mecha could exist, etc. And you ignore it and instead comment on anime.

You say foot soldiers rule in urban environment, ill tell you that its a stupid idea to think that. Show me infantry who can destroy a tank with only portable weapons. Yeah, show me the guy who destroys a abram tank with a law rocket. Id laugh at you. In desert storm a abram tank took 3 shell hits and wasnt destroyed.

Armor is armor, its needed and in an urban or mountanous environment mecha could be used because its a viable armor substitute. You scream that attack helicoptors can destroy armour, mecha can destroy attack helicopters. Most of what Fred says its bull, i cant beleive hes quoting a movie, specially after 2 weeks ago they were screaming at it because it wasnt historically active. What about vietnam, where about twice as many american soldiers died than vietkong soldiers? its pretty easy to subdue mobs and poorly equipped militia.

SamIam

28-02-02, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Kizzim
You people have more or less destroyed this thread. Ive given solid evidence why mecha could exist, etc. And you ignore it and instead comment on anime.

You say foot soldiers rule in urban environment, ill tell you that its a stupid idea to think that. Show me infantry who can destroy a tank with only portable weapons. Yeah, show me the guy who destroys a abram tank with a law rocket. Id laugh at you. In desert storm a abram tank took 3 shell hits and wasnt destroyed.

Armor is armor, its needed and in an urban or mountanous environment mecha could be used because its a viable armor substitute. You scream that attack helicoptors can destroy armour, mecha can destroy attack helicopters. Most of what Fred says its bull, i cant beleive hes quoting a movie, specially after 2 weeks ago they were screaming at it because it wasnt historically active. What about vietnam, where about twice as many american soldiers died than vietkong soldiers? its pretty easy to subdue mobs and poorly equipped militia.

________________________________________________

You say foot soldiers rule in urban environment, ill tell you that its a stupid idea to think that. Show me infantry who can destroy a tank with only portable weapons. Yeah, show me the guy who destroys a abram tank with a law rocket. Id laugh at you. In desert storm a abram tank took 3 shell hits and wasnt destroyed.

< Well, to be fair, (using your example) the first generation LAW rocket or Light Anti-Tank Weapon was never meant to defeat the armor of a Main Battle Tank... it was designed to give the Infantry a man-portable anti armer capability that could defeat the majority of vehicles that it would encounter ... without making it to cumbersome, heavy or complex.

To defeat the type and thickness of armour found on MBTs other weapons systems are available ... yet the most effective systems usually trade a degree of portability for offensive capability.>

________________________________________________

Armor is armor, its needed and in an urban or mountanous environment mecha could be used because its a viable armor substitute. You scream that attack helicoptors can destroy armour, mecha can destroy attack helicopters.

< I agree that the concept of a mobile armoured force is still valid (when used correctly)... and I also agree that in all likelyhood, a hypothetical Mecha could destroy attack helicopters (or at least I would hope so).

In fact, given the probable extreme cost of such unit(s)... for it to be attractive, this Mecha would half to be relatively immune to convential forces in large numbers=- as in "GundamWing"...

How else could you justify the cost?

... especially now... with in effect only one Superpower with a budget for "state of the art"

... How many countries can afford the likes of the F-22, or the B-2 bomber? ... and the very country that can afford it, is the least likely to need it... (and presently budget conscious as well)

The point is, could this Mecha do it cost effectively?...

I would argue that, while we have the basic technology for the creation of a "Mecha", it is only in the absolute sense... as in cost is no object...

Compound a potentially expensive defense program (in its infancy) with the given fact that this weapons platform will (by necessity) be cutting edge with much "pioneering" use of said tech, and you have a steep developement cycle with (if history is any indicator) many set backs and problems to overcome>

_________________________________________________

What about vietnam, where about twice as many american soldiers died than vietkong soldiers?

<Now I am not absolutely sure on this, but I was under the impression that by the end of the Vietnam conflict, we Americans lost aproximately 100,000 combat personnel... and the tallies for Vietnamese was about 10 times that at 1,000,000 individuals... (to be fair, I would take that figure with a grain of salt in terms of differentiating between combat personnel and civilians... but...>

SamIam

Fred

28-02-02, 02:09 AM

Your original point was ‘Armor needs infantry for protection but infantry itself does not need armor for their protection’. The armored column that I’m referring to that came to the rescue of TF Ranger and their Delta Force comrades was the mixed convoy of Malaysian and Pakistani armor sent in to retrieve the force and extract them to the Pakistani base at the soccer field. The Rangers and D-boys were holed up in their position and unable to extricate themselves. It took armor to get them out, and armor was even requested by their commanding officer in the weeks before to help in case a situation like the one they were in came up. Clearly, these events don’t make it appear that infantry does not need armor for protection.

Malaysian and Pakistani armor came to our aid, what a joke. They hide inside a football stadium, if you call that aiding us. Our people had to go to them and not the other way around.

The engagement was over by the time these light armor vehicles came to our 'rescue'. Our boys escape the ambush and broke the enemy back. Don't give them that much credit.

You know what got them out? Little birds. Little fast unarmored helicopter modified with a min-gun. That is what got our boys out. The little birds and blackhawks reinforcement was there within hours when the first bullets started to fly. It took armor over one day to get ready. Might as well shoot yourself waiting for armor to come to your 'rescue'. Who needs armor for protection when your enemy is dead before they can fire a shot. Protection through pure speed and firepower. That is how the US military works.

We did fine without armor or light armor vehicles in Somalia. Our boys was outnumbered 100 to one and only suffer 18 death (? If I remember it correctly) and less then 80 in total casualties compare to the enemy god only knows how many of them die and at least 1500 in casualties. Our boys escape the trap and kick ass without the needs of light armor vehicles or armor for protection.

The Palestinians have destroyed 1 tank. That’s it. How many IDF infantry have died in the intifadah? Not to trivialize the loss of life (an unfortunate side effect of conversations like this) but the fact is that the armored forces of the IDF have been more successful than their infantry comrades in this fight so far and the fact that they’ve only lost 1 tank actually helps demonstrate this.

What I was trying to point out is that it doesn't take that much effort to destroy a tank. That home made mine cost about $20 to make. $10 for the remote control, $10 container, and a lot of free horse/animal s h i t. $20 to destroy a $1.5 million tank.

Let me make it clear that in the past the Palestinians has gone after civilian’s targets. Their new targets are the military. The Palestinians are now mimicking Hezbollah tactics, like destroying tanks. This won’t be the last tank that the Palestinians will destroy. You can bet on that.

The Israeli got massacred in Lebanon. The Hezbollah bleed them dry.

Are you comparing the strategic movement of infantry by helicopter (your Vietnam and Desert Storm examples) to infantry engaged in a tactical engagement on the ground? They’re two completely different things. Or are you talking about infantry hopping around an urban fight on helicopter rather than walking around on their own?

I am talking helicopter insertion, where fast transportations of troops to the font line whichever that maybe. They rope or drop to the ground and engage any targets they might encounter. It is fastest way to get troops into battle. US Army has APC but we don’t use them as much as other countries do because helicopter insertion can do it much faster and better then their ground counterpart.

However, my skepticism comes from what I’ve read by professionals in the field who disagree with the Army’s decision yet as good soldiers are carrying it out to the best of their ability. They raise valid points about the risks involved and history has certainly shown that not all decisions made by militaries are the best. This is what I base my skepticism off of, the professional opinion of those in service to their country (and so far, they’ve done a better job convincing me than the Army leadership has of their position).

These are the same questions that were asked fifty years ago when the US military had their first transformation after the Koran War (the first since WWII). Instead of tanks it was the battleships. A large part of the Navy fought tooth and nail to prevent the battleships from being decommissioned. They posed the same questions as you just did but for the battleships. They lost and the battleships got decommissioned. As we can see now it was the right decision.

We still have those old battleships in docks, between 100-200, I think. They are there waiting to be call back into battle but in reality never. Well, two battleship got recommissioned in the 80s but was decommissioned right after the Gulf War. They were only use to show US Naval might. This is what will happen to US tanks just like the battleships of the past. They will be store like the battleships hopping to see battle again which in fact will never come. The attack helicopters replace the tanks like carriers replaced the battleships of the past.

I was merely refuting the point you made that ‘Money is not a problem with the US military’. If that were true the Army would not have had to cut those programs. Instead, they’ve been forced to cut funds for units that are the first to go into the next fight we have for a project that has yet to prove anything.

A fair and honest question. A lot of international (non US) members don't understand how the US military work. Let me explain to them first before I answer your question Skywalkre.

The US military is made up of volunteer. In the USA there is no draft. In the USA you are not force to go to the military when you are 18 years old and out of high school. I think the USA is the only country or one of a very very very very few countries that do not force its citizens to join the military. So in the USA the only people that want to join the military do it on their free will.

An all volunteer has many advantages, but it does have one major major draw back. Manpower. If you're not force to join the military why join in the first place right? People don't go to the military because of money. Hell, you make more money flipping buggers then joining the military. Last year the US military hire director Spike Lee to do their commercials. Yes, that is correct the military spend billions of dollars on advertisement each year. They have to complete with the fast food restaurants for the US labor force, which was very very limited in the 90s and still is.

Now to answer your question, Skywalkre. Money is not a problem for the US military. Manpower is.

The USA current has 12 (or 13) US super carries. Each of these carries takes at least 5500 sailors to be combat operational. Currently each of these carriers only has around 4000 sailors. The last two super carrier that are being built and will be operational this decade will need at least 5500 sailors to be combat operational. The Navy is thinking how the hell are we going to get 11000 sailors? The answer is that they will have to decommission a lot of ships to supply enough sailors to make it somewhat combat operational.

The Navy is not the only one that is having manpower problems. All of the branches is having manpower problem. The military haven't meets its recruiting goal since the early '90s. Each year it is lower then the previous year.

Canceling a program is very common in the US military even if billions of dollars has been invested in that program. What make this worst is if that program is successful but don't have the human resources to man it, it's not going anywhere. That is the reason why you see those programs being cancel because the Army needs to consolidate their already limited human resources.

It takes around forty soldiers to make a tank combat operational but you don't need that much to support a light armor vehicle. You are correct to think that human resources is a major driving force in this transforamtion.

Fred

28-02-02, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Kizzim

Armor is armor, its needed and in an urban or mountanous environment mecha could be used because its a viable armor substitute. You scream that attack helicoptors can destroy armour, mecha can destroy attack helicopters. Most of what Fred says its bull, i cant beleive hes quoting a movie, specially after 2 weeks ago they were screaming at it because it wasnt historically active. What about vietnam, where about twice as many american soldiers died than vietkong soldiers? its pretty easy to subdue mobs and poorly equipped militia.

*sight* Around 50,000 America solider die in Vietnam. I think over 2 million Vietcong die in the Vietnam War.

No military in the world will make a Mecha. That is the honest truth about it. It is useless. If the US military wanted they could have one operational within 10 years but they won’t because a lot of smart people decided that a mecha is a joke in combat and that the enemy will die laughing at the sight of it.

Ajay

01-03-02, 03:09 PM

Anyways…back to the mecha subject
1. High maintenance cost.
2. Easy to destroy.
3. Easy to disable by mines.
4. Transportation is limited.
5. Does not pack a punch.Will have very limited armament.
6. Probably consume more fuel then a tank.
7. Will be vulnerable to Infantry
8. Will be vulnerable to Air power
9. Will be vulnerable to every combat vehicle

1. Compared to ground vehicles. But proper designing and engineering should help reduce the amount of work needed to repair and maintain the machine. Then. It shouldn't cost much most air craft.

2. Compared to a tank. Not compared to APCs, LAVs, and MAVs .

3. Mecha fare far better against mines than infantry or armored vehicles. A mecha steps on a mine and POW, it loses 1 leg. An armored vehicle steps on a mine and POW, it loses a tread or wheel……..if it's lucky. An infantryman steps on a mine and POW, him and 3 people next to him get maimed or killed.

4. 20x7x5 and a weight of 12 tons are reasonable dimensions for a mecha wouldn't you say? That should fit into a C-130 and all larger craft. That's not even mentioning if the mecha can fold its legs up to its body or attain some sort of space saving configuration.

5. A high caliber chain gun with about 300 rounds on the right arm, a 50 or 40 mm grenade launcher on the left, two 4 tube anti-armor missiles (or 6 surface to air missiles) on a backpack like mount, and a pair of MG in the torso. That's about the firepower a Bradley carries (although they do have more ammo for the guns).
That should be enough to take out almost anything on the battlefield.
Or you could exchange the missiles for a pair of back mounted 81mm mortar launchers or give it a 90mm gun instead of the chain gun. The mecha can be especially designed with "hard points" to place the self contained weapons so it can change out quickly for various mission roles.

6. Can't argue there. It will probably use more fuel than a tank. However, with more efficient power sources coming out, it's possible that a mecha fuel efficient enough for service is created. Also don't forget that tanks have to move around 70 tons of armor (although future versions will only have around 40). Mecha will have to move a small fraction of that weight, probably no more than 20 tons.

7. Almost anything can be vulnerable to infantry.

8. Almost anything can be vulnerable to air power

9. Almost anything can be vulnerable to a combat vehicle.

Out of all the disadvantages you named, the only real problems are maintenance costs, and fuel consumption. I'm sure there are other problems that each of us have failed to mention and there are probably just as many advantages. All vehicles have their disadvantages; that's just a fact of life. So far though, there's no very big, glaring, unavoidable problem that would make mecha impossible to use effectively on the battlefield.

"They will be sitting ducks. They won't even know what hit them. The wont even have a chance to fight back because they got a big red sign that say "I am stupid enough to pilot this ---- of big s h i t". How can you fight back when the enemy will see you first 50 miles away and one mile up? Or when an Infantry has a portable missile launcher hiding inside a building waiting a slow big moving target to show up? Mecha don't even have a chance. "

They'll have plenty of time to fight enemy vehicles when they see them from 5+ miles away with their height advantage and fire their long range anti-armor missiles. Infantry is a problem, but mecha, like all other armored vehicles, will have assistance from friendly infantry. Mecha will be taken out, tanks will be blown up, and infantry will be killed.

" Is this a joke? Yes I can see it now Mecha crouching, swerving back and forth like a brake dancers. You're one funny guy. Man that was funny. "

No, not swerving like a break dancer. Just 4 steps in a single direction and then turning for 3 steps in the another……..heck of a lot more agile than any tank or most combat vehicles are. That may not allow it to dodge bullets, but it could help against missiles or slower projectiles. Of course, you never fire unless you're very sure you can hit the target anyway, and if a target is 3+ miles away, moving even a few feet in either direction, at an unpredictable and erratic pace, you're going to have to work a bit harder to aim.

"You're killing me here. I am laughing my ass off! Stop it! "2+ story buildings to hide behind." hahaha. Yes I can see it now, the Mecha hide behind a two story building with an Infantry man having a launch break inside the building. The Infantry get out his trusty rocket launcher and said to himself, this is just too damn easy."

That infantryman fires and fills the room with the backblast of his portable rocket launcher, possibly hurting friendly units inside. Also keep in mind that portable rockets aren't as powerful as anti-armor missiles (which you wouldn't find too many of in a combat setting primarily for infantry). The mecha takes a direct hit to its left arm…BAM. Mecha loses an arm but is otherwise, unhurt. It and its friends continueson, minus a mecha's grenage launcher and proceed to take out 2 enemy APCs.
Armored vehicles in urban environments aren't meant to just fight infantry (they should try to avoid it). They block the small arms fire of enemy, to allow allies to advance, clear out blockades, barbed wire, etc, take out enemy armored vehicles, and provide the ability to effectively destroy heavily reinforced structures. They still require friendly infantry for protection and mecha will be no different.

"So in essence, this Mecha would be able to do almost anything that a human could... and like the human, do none of it extremely well."

There's a difference though, between not being able to do everything extremely well and not being able to everything well enough. I could make a 100 in advanced physics, but make Ds and Fs in every other class. Or I could make a B- in most classes and Cs and some, and maybe a B+ in one class. Mecha won't replace anything, they'll just give you more options when deploying forces.

"They will probably have a lot more problems then Tanks. Because of the weight and size the ground got to be hard enough to support and balance them. They won't be doing mountain climbing. I can see them running and slip on the ground because it was raining. Can Mecha skate? I can see Mecha crouching just so it can get through an overpass."

A mecha may not be able to skate and skip rope but it can make it over a trench 90 inches wide pretty easily. Its turning diameter is 0 ft and if not that, it's not much more than its overall width so it can turn right around in a narrow street or path. It can make it up 90 degree inclines (height does limit it), and make it down steep inclines. It can cross bodies of water up to 10 ft deep before having to worry about drowning its engine (if it uses an air breathing one), and doesn't neeed to be prepped to cross the water. It can squeeze between trees 8 feet apart, and make it over a pile of ruble. In mine fields, it stands a decreased chance of stepping on mines, heck, it can dig them up itself and doesn't have to worry about snipers. Those simple obstacles are what stop a lot of armored vehicles. Enemy forces now have to set up defenses over a much wider area (or make totally new ones), because the mecha can attack from many more points than conventional vehicles can. That spends up resources, man power, and time.
A mecha that's 20x6x5 won't have the heavy armor of a tank. If anything, it'll be about as a little heavier or lighter than many wheeled combat vehicles, maybe 5-15 tons. This means the foot can be made smaller (and will probably already be proportionately large) decreasing ground pressure. It will have high ground pressure compared to many ground vehicles, but that doesn't mean that it'll churn up concrete as it walks and leave 5 inch deep foot prints in the ground.

Skywalkre

01-03-02, 11:30 PM

Now I am not absolutely sure on this, but I was under the impression that by the end of the Vietnam conflict, we Americans lost aproximately 100,000 combat personnel... and the tallies for Vietnamese was about 10 times that at 1,000,000 individuals... (to be fair, I would take that figure with a grain of salt in terms of differentiating between combat personnel and civilians... but...>

From 1959 through 1975 the US lost 58,209 killed in Vietnam. To contrast this, the Viet Cong and NVA lost more men in 1968 alone in their Tet and mini-Tet offensives.

--------------------------------------------

Malaysian and Pakistani armor came to our aid, what a joke. They hide inside a football stadium, if you call that aiding us. Our people had to go to them and not the other way around.

You’re correct in that the Americans had to ask for assistance from the Pakistani and Malaysians to send in their armor, but the key is the US asked them because the US needed their armor to get their forces out. Now, I’m not sure where you’ve read about the accounts of the battle but the truth is those armored forces did proceed to the crash site where Task Force Ranger was holed up during the nite and help extract them. They were accompanied by American ground personnel, but the point is the extraction couldn’t have occurred without that armor support.

You know what got them out? Little birds. Little fast unarmored helicopter modified with a min-gun. That is what got our boys out. The little birds and blackhawks reinforcement was there within hours when the first bullets started to fly. It took armor over one day to get ready. Might as well shoot yourself waiting for armor to come to your 'rescue'. Who needs armor for protection when your enemy is dead before they can fire a shot.

Don’t take this too personally but you might want to read up on the events of this battle. Those Little Birds and Blackhawks didn’t respond within hours, they responded immediately because the ground forces rode in on those same helicopters. In fact, some have said that it was because of those helicopters that Task Force Ranger wasn’t overrun.

You should also be clearer in putting down the role the armor played in the battle. It took so long for the Malaysian and Pakistani armor to respond because they were not under US command, they weren’t even aware of the operation and thus weren’t standing by to go in, and weren’t really all that excited about going in to help. Now, if American forces had armor of their own waiting back at base in the QRF role it wouldn’t have taken hours to respond, so you can’t really fault armor for the time it took in this battle as the fault laid with those in command of those assets.

Our boys escape the trap and kick ass without the needs of light armor vehicles or armor for protection.

If that’s the case why did it take the armored relief column to get them out?

What I was trying to point out is that it doesn't take that much effort to destroy a tank. That home made mine cost about $20 to make. $10 for the remote control, $10 container, and a lot of free horse/animal s h i t. $20 to destroy a $1.5 million tank.

So what’s this have to do with tanks being ineffective on today’s battlefield? Look at man portable ATGMs, they’re a lot cheaper than tanks and quite capable of taking them out yet they haven’t made tanks obsolete. All you have to do is look at the ’73 Arab-Israeli war to see that.

I am talking helicopter insertion, where fast transportations of troops to the font line whichever that maybe. They rope or drop to the ground and engage any targets they might encounter. It is fastest way to get troops into battle. US Army has APC but we don’t use them as much as other countries do because helicopter insertion can do it much faster and better then their ground counterpart.

If this is the case why does the US Army have so many M2/M3s in service? While helicopter insertion is faster than ground insertion it has its faults. For one it’s not an option if you’re using it against an opponent who has any decent anti-air assets available. Just look at the battle in Mogadishu that we’ve been discussing. All the Somalis had were RPGs and they were able to down 3 helicopters in like a week’s period (and severely damage another). Now imagine how ugly it would’ve been for American forces if the Somalis had anything DESIGNED for anti-air use like a Stinger or two.

A good example of this is the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. A recent article in ARMOR magazine detailed how the Soviets used mostly helicopter transported troops to move around the countryside but it became impractical once our Stingers started showing up on the scene and the Soviets were forced to switch back to ground transportation.

Now to answer your question, Skywalkre. Money is not a problem for the US military. Manpower is.

How exactly does this explain why the US would have to cut 18 programs so money can shifted to other projects like the FCS? Sure sounds like a money problem to me…

Canceling a program is very common in the US military even if billions o