# Giant Robot Battle - IRL



## Open_Mind (Oct 12, 2017)

This is really happening: Epic giant robot battle scheduled for October 17th






Article for more info:
www.engadget.com: Epic giant robot battle scheduled for October 17th


----------



## Lexiand (Oct 12, 2017)

Holy shit This is going to be great I can't wait to see this live or on a stream


----------



## GigaBit (Oct 13, 2017)

Dang! I want to see this now!


----------



## Lexiand (Oct 13, 2017)

The robot apocalypse is here


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

I've been hyped for this for a long time, bring it on!

I will get a poster up soon.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

I've been keeping an eye on this for some time. 

Personally, I think I would prefer they stop using tracked/wheeled vehicles altogether.  Do the gyroscope programming, and then you'll see a better fight.  Battlebots/Robotwars ended up being boring to me because of this, just slamming into people and smash the attack button. 

If I fabricated anything like this, the ATF would be beating my door in with an Abrams tank.  Then the world's jaw drops as they figure out what a Bushwacker Mech was from the old Mechwarrior days.


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

Scratch a Bushwacker, I fancy myself a Timber Wolf, Titanfall Titan or a Jagaer.

But yeah, I want to see actual mechs take each other on. Still, gotta start from somewhere right?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 13, 2017)

YES! 






MechWarrior anyone?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

I had went though the actual design requirements years ago, along with practical applications in a wartime environment.  For our current climate, a ~20' tall machine serving as a close combat support tool would be ideal. 

It falls between a MBT and a Stryker, but will doubtfully be able to keep up with either regarding speed over distance.  On top of that, our current AH-1Z and AH-64E attack helos already cover that gap of close ground support, while being faster than all of the previously mentioned.  From personal experience, they are all (except the Abrams) susceptible to the indiscretion of the tried and true RPG.

Cost and close quarters armored support are what would make it a viable weapons platform honestly.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> MechWarrior anyone?



I played the everliving crap out of MW4 Online.  My bushy was the bane of our server.  Once I got the expansion, everyone realized just how nasty my LBX20 loaded Masakari was if you got too close.


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> YES!
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Yep, Timber Wolf please!



-..Legacy..- said:


> I had went though the actual design requirements years ago, along with practical applications in a wartime environment.  For our current climate, a ~20' tall machine serving as a close combat support tool would be ideal.
> 
> It falls between a MBT and a Stryker, but will doubtfully be able to keep up with either regarding speed over distance.  On top of that, our current AH-1Z and AH-64E attack helos already cover that gap of close ground support, while being faster than all of the previously mentioned.  From personal experience, they are all (except the Abrams) susceptible to the indiscretion of the tried and true RPG.
> 
> Cost and close quarters armored support are what would make it a viable weapons platform honestly.



I actually came up with a set of criteria on another forum on what would make a decent mech with current or near future technolgy:



Spoiler: Mech Criteria



*1) The mech must be both very mobile and agile*
A common point about mechs is they are going to typically slower than tanks and other vehicles depending on design. By mobility, it should be able to go almost everywhere on the ground, perhaps with the ability to scale buildings and cliffs, difficult yes, but not completely impossible. I have came up with a suggestion quite a few times that if our technology gets miniaturised or advanced enough, we can put some jet engines or duct fans onto a small mech to enhance its agility in an enclosed space (more agile than tanks, IFVs and cars, but less than helicopters and jets), aid with any scaling, and prevent it from sinking into the ground. Giving the mech the dexterity to crouch, and fire around cover (similar to hull down tactics with tanks) would go a long way too.
*
2) The mech must be armed with IFV grade weaponry and in good quantity*
Mechs won't be lugging around 120mm cannons around, even then they would be stupid compared to tanks. Throwing on simple machine guns is mostly pointless, so the only logical weaponry would be weapons that would be common on an IFV, so, heavy miniguns/chainguns coupled with an auto cannon or rocket system. An advantage of a mech over ground vehicles is the the ability to carry a greater quantity of weapons, throwing in some module ability would be handy too. (Less than of course helicopters and jets)

*3) The mech must be armoured enough to withstand small arms fire and some IFV fire*
Again, full tank grade armour is ridiculous with a mech, so, even full IFV armour is pushing it, so the armour must at the very least be able to stop small arms fire, at the higher end, it has to be able withstand a few auto cannon hits or a light rocket. The thing has to avoid getting fully hit, not tanking shots.

*4) The mech must be repaired easily and logistically operable*
This is the biggie around here, Mechs are frowned on a lot for their technical unreliability and complexity, bipedal mechs are more easily damaged and crippled, whilst anything with more legs is more maintenance heavy. It needs to be easily repairable (modules could come in handy). Also, it needs to not be a logistical nightmare, it has to be easily transported (a dexterous mech should be able to be easily disassembled and assembled, or at least take up as much space as an IFV or tank, preferably less (folding up the mech into storage perhaps?).

*5) The mech must be a reasonable size*
This is for pretty obvious reasons, too small, and you started entering the realm of power armour and reduce the overall ammo and fuel capacity of the mech. Too large and and the mech will be an easy target, difficult to repair, maintain and store. An optimum size for a mech would be between 3-6 metres tall, with four metres being preferable.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

I'll chime in on that in a bit, getting ready to start our morning meeting.

Then I'm rebuilding one of those 20mm rotary cannons you're referencing


----------



## Open_Mind (Oct 13, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I had went though the actual design requirements years ago, along with practical applications in a wartime environment.  For our current climate, a ~20' tall machine serving as a close combat support tool would be ideal.


This one may be a little 'old school' but still my favorite...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

Ok, I'm finally off work, and I'll just hit this in sections to make it all easier to read.  I'm only using current US weaponry to not turn this into a dictionary of current warfare



StolenMadWolf said:


> Spoiler: Mech Criteria
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler: Mech Criteria



We already have small enough turbines for this, but the weight of a mech is the problem.  VTOL on the USMC Harrier is a prime example.  It's simply a redirect of existing exhaust gases.  Downside, it is insanely LOUD.  It also eats a massive amount of fuel which would limit either range, or uses. 

Crouch? Yes, all day for several reasons.  Digitigrade legs are almost a given requirement.  The machine will need to bring CG down for transport, servicing, recoil stabilization, etc.  

As far as mobility, it needs to turn, strafe, and ideally hit at least 30mph.  I picture them more as close support/patrol, because if you need to go faster, get in a Stryker, UH60/CH47/MH53, or MRAP.  It's what they are designed to do. 
*


StolenMadWolf said:



			2) The mech must be armed with IFV grade weaponry and in good quantity
		
Click to expand...

*


StolenMadWolf said:


> Mechs won't be lugging around 120mm cannons around, even then they would be stupid compared to tanks. Throwing on simple machine guns is mostly pointless, so the only logical weaponry would be weapons that would be common on an IFV, so, heavy miniguns/chainguns coupled with an auto cannon or rocket system. An advantage of a mech over ground vehicles is the the ability to carry a greater quantity of weapons, throwing in some module ability would be handy too. (Less than of course helicopters and jets)



I personally wouldn't go bigger than a .50SLAP fed into a GAU-19 as a counter armor projectile on a 120 degree electric turret with at least 65 degrees of elevation available.  Next steps up are the M197 20mm high rate (3 barrel rotary), the M242 (25mm Bushmaster), or an M230 (30mm chain gun).  There's just too much recoil with those, and the ammo weighs a LOT.  .50BMG is plentiful, and can hold it's own against everything up to medium armor.   We call anything bigger in for the A-10, AH-64, AC-130 to deal with anyways.  I'm not even bothering with the fact Mechanized Infantry already carries AT-4's. 

Next thing I would require, be the M134 Dillon Aerocannon as anti personnel.  One is enough, trust me.  Big ammo mag for this one, because that's what Infantry sees in combat mostly, personnel. 

I wouldn't bother with A2A.  It would require a very fast turret slew rate, and equally fast optics to track/lock.  It's not common warfare anymore anyways, and we honestly don't throw legs into an area we haven't completely leveled airpower anyways.  


*


StolenMadWolf said:



			3) The mech must be armoured enough to withstand small arms fire and some IFV fire
		
Click to expand...

*


StolenMadWolf said:


> Again, full tank grade armour is ridiculous with a mech, so, even full IFV armour is pushing it, so the armour must at the very least be able to stop small arms fire, at the higher end, it has to be able withstand a few auto cannon hits or a light rocket. The thing has to avoid getting fully hit, not tanking shots.



100% agree.  Needs to stop the venerable 7.62x54R, somewhat deflect RPG rounds and still walk, and protect the pilot.  Nothing more.  

*


StolenMadWolf said:



			4) The mech must be repaired easily and logistically operable
		
Click to expand...

*


StolenMadWolf said:


> This is the biggie around here, Mechs are frowned on a lot for their technical unreliability and complexity, bipedal mechs are more easily damaged and crippled, whilst anything with more legs is more maintenance heavy. It needs to be easily repairable (modules could come in handy). Also, it needs to not be a logistical nightmare, it has to be easily transported (a dexterous mech should be able to be easily disassembled and assembled, or at least take up as much space as an IFV or tank, preferably less (folding up the mech into storage perhaps?).



Modular construction, you already said it.  QD hydraulic fittings, ITT/Cannon electrical disconnects, on the arms and legs for BDR.  I already envision a HEMTT M984A4 wrecker/custom flatbed with additional modules/repair limbs, and space for transport (faster redeploy, pull up on flatbed, drive to new site, kick it back off).  These already have a decent crane on the tail.  This thing basically needs its own service truck if your miles away from everything, there's no way around it.  

*


StolenMadWolf said:



			5) The mech must be a reasonable size
		
Click to expand...

*


StolenMadWolf said:


> This is for pretty obvious reasons, too small, and you started entering the realm of power armour and reduce the overall ammo and fuel capacity of the mech. Too large and and the mech will be an easy target, difficult to repair, maintain and store. An optimum size for a mech would be between 3-6 metres tall, with four metres being preferable.



Anything around 5-10 tons basically.  An AH-64 tips the scales at ~12 tons for reference.  It's mostly aluminum skin, but Mech legs will have massive hydraulic cylinders and fairly thick structure in the legs/hips area.  You can't afford to lose one to BD, so it's worth overbuilding them.  The rest gets standard aviation structures.  


This is just my idea, using the reference of being an Armament Tech, DART member when I was in as an AH-64 tech, and what I think would have made our lives easier inside and outside the wire.  What I know creates issues, and what I know is efficient in those types of environments.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 13, 2017)

And there is a big reason why I picked those weapons.  They don't require a lot of black box interfaces.  You pull the trigger, they fire.  The less crap you have to worry about incapacitating the unit, the better the survivability.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Oct 13, 2017)

I HEARD GIANT ROBOTS AND MECHWARRIOR AND I CAME AS FAST AS I COULD

(sorry, BattleTech fanatic)

Anyway, scratch the BushWacker and Timber Wolf, get you one of these:

www.sarna.net: Fire Moth (Dasher)

130 MPH burst speed and rather potent short range missile salvos.

It doesn't have much armor, but the ground speed and small size more than compensates.

Downside is it requires skillful insanity to pilot at maximum speed.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 18, 2017)

There's the fight.  

Personally, it was kind of boring and lackluster given current technology. The chainsword was pretty much the highlight.  Kudos to attempt using a drone to do something, but I'm not even sure what it's purpose was honestly.  

All three machines were fully hydraulic articulation, but Jesus you'd think they use high flow pumps and fittings at least.  Super slow movement...  

None of the ranged weapons appeared to have any accuracy, which surprised me.  Simply boresighting a camera to a computer monitor with distance hash marks would have been sufficient.  

They were big, but I feel there wasn't anything beyond 1980s tech between the two.  Basic electrohydraulic interfaces.   I am honestly disappointed.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> There's the fight.
> 
> Personally, it was kind of boring and lackluster given current technology. The chainsword was pretty much the highlight.  Kudos to attempt using a drone to do something, but I'm not even sure what it's purpose was honestly.
> 
> ...


That was pretty cringy actually, though I imagine that it would have been more entertaining if the robots were more agile and if the weapons were more effective.

At least the exaggerated reactions from the hosts were pretty funny.


----------



## real time strategist (Oct 19, 2017)

Every time I see a mech I always think why use a gun when water kills mechs instantly? I want to see a mech water gun fight, damnit.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

real time strategist said:


> Every time I see a mech I always think why use a gun when water kills mechs instantly? I want to see a mech water gun fight, damnit.



Because using standard military electrical connectors makes them waterproof.  It's how we fly helicopters in the rain, wash them with pressure washers, etc. 

Still, most are powered by hydraulics to deal with the weight, and hydraulic rams are cheap to obtain and install anyways.


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Oct 19, 2017)

Honestly, combining the arm motion tech from S.Korea's Method 2 bot and the leg and mobility tech from plenty of Boston Dynamics bots together will go along way to making such fights alot more fun.











In the meanwhile, it's still the first fight, I mean, lets be honest, the first RW and BB robots were terrible. So where the first tanks, now look at them.

Thoughts -..Legacy..-?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

I've paid attention to both of those houses for a while.

M2 is very articulate, but it has a huge drawback to me.  It's entirely umbilical controlled.  They've programmed their bipedal motion without a power plant.  Since it's an electrically based design, they'll need an independent power generation system.    Engines and subsequent generators aren't light weight at all.  This is going to skew their CG formulas, and basically require them to be completely re-written.  Kudos to the current iteration, but they just did things a little backwards to me. 

BD is light years ahead of everyone, because they understand what gyros and feedback systems are.  Everyone else is single manual input/single manual output. These guys have quadruped movement down better than anyone, and they've already gone into strafe capability awhile ago.  It's almost scary how fluid it moves.  

Couple that with a fairly simple set of feedback sensors, and you get that automatic crouch as it walks under the table.  It sees the object (think radar), which triggers the crouch program.  The aft sensor eventually gives the all clear to raise the platform back up when it no longer "sees" the object.  Seems high tech, but it still a simple sensor hooked up as a yes/no program modifier.  

 As with the M2 though, it wasn't designed for anything but electrical power.  It is at least self-powered, but we all know how limited power storage technology is.  I am unsure of its current run-time, but I know it isn't much in sprint mode.  It's agile, but without a large power source, it can't run much more than itself.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

Besides that, their "Handle" project is much more advanced when it comes to gyro stabilization.  

Example:


----------



## Open_Mind (Oct 29, 2017)

Update for those who were following this:

Giant robot duel


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Nov 19, 2017)

Megabots have currently got a kickstarter up for an actual tournament, it's not going well at the moment so I thought I might as well leave it here.


----------



## Open_Mind (Nov 19, 2017)

10 years from now... who knows, maybe they'll make 'bot battles illegal 'cause robots have rights. But I'm the designated optimist for the forum, lol. Just like the days of gladiators in the Colosseum -- but with lasers and rockets


----------



## Jay98 (Nov 19, 2017)

now if only they could get them to stand on their own two feet...


----------

