Cogitating Garbage Brain

A comment made at, I think, our most recent gaming day (which was probably in the 19th century) has been circulating around in my brain. It had to do with the unfeasibility of BattleMechs a la Battletech.

Now, while I'll agree that in Battletech, 'Mechs are the kings of the battlefield, I still hold them to be impractical from more of a real-world point of view. This is because in Battletech, many of the design problems of mecha in general are conveniently ignored (much like human-controlled fighters in Star Wars, or the lack of engineering review in Star Trek - it's a genre convention). These are things like the vulnerability of complex drivetrains like legs; the balance issues inherent in firing massive autocannons from the arms of 'Mechs; the idea of being a big fat target on the battlefield; and others.

I finally hit on the main reason 'Mechs are practical in Battletech - their armour is way stronger than anything on modern Earth. This is true even of tanks and suchlike - on earth, a single SRM shot from an infantry soldier can destroy a top-of-the-line tank (albeit only if shot at the rear armour), and tanks have a fair chance of penetrating the other's front armour in a single shot.

In Battletech, it will often take several SRM hits, even on the back of a tank, to destroy it. Of course, BT still assumes 'Mechs can carry vastly more armour than anything else on the field, but at least it explains how their legs aren't especially more vulnerable than their other bits. It still doesn't completely explain why the complexity required to build 'Mechs isn't applied more effectively to tanks, but it's a start.

A real-world mecha would be more expensive than a tank and less useful than a soldier. It would be slower and less protected than a tank, as well as not being able to mount as large weapons (the speed is a function of having big, heavy legs to support it - takes a lot of power to move - while the others come from needing to cut the weight so it can still move on those legs). It wouldn't be able to get everywhere infantry could (though it might arguably have greater range than a tank - maybe). It would also be hellishly more expensive to maintain, as a walking drivetrain has a lot more points of failure than a wheeled or tracked one. Further, you won't be able to armour the joints. (Imagine a straight leg, and surround the knee with a steel plate. Now, try to bend it.) 'Mechs look cool, but need super-tech to be at all feasible, and if you have super-tech, you can make better tanks with it.

Is this any clearer now, Grant? :)