So, answer me a question: If an M1 Abrams tank weighs 60 tons and is only 32 feet long and 8 feet tall, how can a Catapult stand several stories tall and still only weight 65 tons? Are these giant death robots full of empty space? Even if you take that the M1 engine makes up a LOT of the weight (assuming future fusion/whatever engines would be lighter) and say that they have some crazy alloys that reduce the weight of the armor, there's still some silly math in there.
Yes, a lot of the inside of the mech is empty, and also, a lot of the weight saving is with the actuators, they use plastic muscles to move everything, as opposed to big electric servos. Once you strip the armour off, there is not much to the mech, the Engine is the biggest part of it and takes up the most space weight wise in each class. Also, don't forget, this is Science Fiction, not Science Fact, they can have things made up.
Sarna is your friend; http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battlemech I just finished reading the whole thing and it was quite educational. Like Moon says, this is Science Fiction and not Science Fact however based on mankinds present rate of advancement, in terms of technology, it is not unreasonable to assume that we could easily achieve ultra light weight composite materials used in the construction of Battlemechs within the next 400 years. This is, of course, assuming we haven't bombed ourselves into Oblivion yet or used up every resource on the planet rendering Earth a dead world. I do disagree with Moon in that most of a mech is NOT empty; or at least shouldn't be. From what I've found on the web.... EDIT: Then again this image is also kind of BS because nowhere do we see any "Myomer Muscles" which are supposed to be like bundles of "cables" that, when an electrical current is passed through them, expand and contract. Regardless, the inside of a mech isn't hollow. It is full of Faerie Dust and Space Magic like Recon said.
Haha, yes yes. Willing Suspension of Disbelief. I just had a hard time wrapping my mind around a multi-story death machine that could weigh about as much as one of our most advanced death machines that's not a lot bigger than a car. Particularly the idea that they could be so tall and get hit with ballistics that are just absolutely huge and not fall over every single time.....
I've actually heard a LOT of reasons why Mechs aren't feasible in real combat, even if we were able to somehow make them. Ignoring numbers comparison to real life (i.e. range and damage of current ballistics vs. in-game ballistics, tonnage of these giants), they include... 1) A tank has a low profile. While "higher weapons platform" sounds nice, it also ends up being an easy target. Tanks like to hide in ditches. They survive not with their armor, but with their ability to hide and shoot from the turret on top of their head. Mechs would also be very top-heavy. If, on the other hand, you needed the high-mounted weapons platform, an attack helicopter provides the same capabilities, but with a more mobile and smaller package. 2) A mech's legs would likely sink into the ground. The tank's tracks actually give the M1 Abrams less PSI on the ground than your average car, because it distributes the weight over the entire track. A mech focuses its weight on two legs. This means it will have good traction, but it will also likely stick into the ground deep enough to get stuck. This is all I remember from these discussions, but basically it came down to the only logical reason to choose a mech over a tank or a helicopter is because the mech looks badass.
I often think of this same thing because to me a mech is the ultimate incarnation of plate armor. If you aren't marching on bed rock I would assume you would get stuck rather easily. One of the factors leading to the decline of full plate mail in combat was getting stuck in the mud. A soon as a knight dismounted odds are he was stuck in the mud as men, horses, and plenty of bodily fluids being spilled turns battlefields into mud pits every time. Then the knight gets to wait for all of the men with maces to show up and beat him silly. Sure there isn't going to be a lot of bodily fluids spilled but lets assume the ground you are on is hard and dry enough to support you until 4 tons of heat sinks spill who knows how many thousands of pounds of coolant all over the ground around the machines feet. I believe a lot of this could be somewhat represented in table top with the piloting skill rolls. To me piloting skill also represents knowing where your 60 ton walking death machine has sure footing and where it does not. Also something similar that bugs me. Missile technology made crazy advancements in miniaturizing rocketry in a thousand years to hold so many missiles per ton but apparently warhead technology went way downhill seeing as even in table top it seems like LRMs are weak. It could be movies making us believe that any little missile will blow a building or plane away.
It depends on how the missiles are designed. From what I understand, anti-tank missiles are designed not just to explode, but basically with a shaped charge designed to put the force of the explosion onto a very small portion of the tank's armor. Cannons are similar; the penetrator sabots used by tanks and the anti-tank cannons used by aircraft (like the A10) use depleted uranium. From my understanding, DU turns into a pyrophoric powder on high impact, so it basically sharpens itself as its blowing up and penetrates real well. Neither of these technologies seem to be employed in battletech.
