It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who thinks they could build a Shagohod

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:16 PM
Forgive me... how exactly does one define "a mech"? Obviously such a vehicle is mechanized (unless of course it is transport for an entire regiment, and runs on "flintstone power".)
If a mech were considered to be a machine designed to be an extention of the operator, such as a HERC in Earthsiege or the APUs in Matrix Revolutions- well then I suppose it's not a mech, although the arguement would be a little to esoteric to concern me in that case.

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:13 PM
"Mechs" are generally considered as that.. extensions of human capabilities, though it basically is used just to refer to any immense weapons platform that has human qualities. (Legs/Tracks/Torso that moves independant, and Arms)

IF they ever became plausible to build the up side to them would be the massive amount of weapons they could carry. On something that large even our current em rail (sci-fi people read... Guass rifles) technology could be fitted.

Normal weight for Sci-Fi mechs are between 50-200 tons.

This is a MOVING object. Its top speed is under 5mph but it weighs in at over 13,500 TONS.

While a walking mech weighing 100 tons may be hard to fathom (only because we can't build a reliable walking anything) A track based mech is possible. It would be slow but its armaments could be massive, Its armor could also be 10 times as thick as any current armor.

Once walking is figured out it could be a large mobility upgrade but it would have the inherint downside of overly exposed joints. I would bet on cover plating acting somewhat as old knights armor in which it overlaps when the join moves. In that case the weakest point would be when a joint was straight and the strongest when it was flexed.

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:15 PM
I'm pretty sure its just slang used by video gamers and the likes because of games like mech assault. And it sounds cool.I guess

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:31 AM
Slang is what languages are made of. If enough people use it then it becomes real. That is the way language has evolved and changed throughout history. Just because it started that way doesnt make it any less the proper term.

Also if its just slang.. tell me a better word for the same object.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 08:04 AM
Mechs are inadvisable for terrestrial operations let alone combat..although any platform with highly manuverable arm would be advantegeous for:

1. construction
2. hazardous materials/environment ops
3. Rescue and relief (tsunami)
4. offplanet asteroid mining

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Xerrog
Also if its just slang.. tell me a better word for the same object.

Not sure of a specific word to say as there are none in the dictionary. But i am sure that something along the lines of bidepal robot or something like that but technically mech is not even a word in webster comprehensive dictionary.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:37 PM
it goes 80 kph thats like 40 miles per hour but when it has it rocket bosters it goes over 300 miles per hour

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:44 PM
You're talking about a toy, right?

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:40 PM
Talking about Sci-Fi Combat Robots or.. Mechs. And the MASSIVE Shagohod tank from Metal Gear.

I dont remeber the first game but there have been many. Battletech, Mechwarrior, Mech Assault, and a few other franchises.

Basically speculating on wheter actually building either would ever be feasible, and for what purpose.

And I definatly agree on the other uses.. construction, rescue and bio-cleanup could definatly be the real triggers for building something of this scope.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 08:32 PM
You're describing a big, highly breakable tank.

Current tanks weight 50-70 tons. The soviets once designed but never produced one that weighed over 100 tons if I remember correctly. Tanks can move upwards of 60mph on road surfaces and at variable speeds far beyond what you have described for Mechs over rough terrain.

The design of a tank presents minimal target surface and minimal 90-degree surfaces which creates maximum resistance to impact, not to mention improving the armor-coverage to weight ratio.

Tanks can be equipped with any number of weapons in any number of schemes. Innovations past and projected include side gunports, flame throwers, anti-aircraft guns, multiple cannons, mortars, missiles, troop carrying compartments, blinding lasers for use on aircraft or on thermal targeting systems, explosive reactive armor and other counter measures, and more. The only thing mechs would do that a tank currently wont is preform complex arm movements which would be useful primarily in non-combat roles.

Tanks are becoming, and mechs already would be, nearly obsolete as aircraft, artillery, and infantry firepower and targeting abilities improve. A single man can carry a rocket system that will destroy any tank currently in service on this planet from over 1km away. Even less well equipped militaries such as North Korea and most Arab nations can equip their infantry with AT-4 and equivalent weapons, which in volley-firing can also disable any tank currently in service. Mechs would be even more vulnerable to this because of their low speed and vulnerable limbs.
Tank designs are going for lighter and faster platforms, so something as heavy and slow as a mech would almost certainly not be considered useful in modern or future warfare.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:11 PM
The only real way mechs would really make sense is if they could duplicate the way they work on gundam. now that would be a fearsome thing to be reckoned with. Man would i love to be piloting one of those.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in