I believe the japanese version of Beastwars featured a transforming Tanuki named Heinlad with a clock in his stomach... I'll see if I can find a picture for you...

Ah, here we go:

Speaking of real mecha, here is a guy who has decided to build his own. Definitely ready for prime time, but if someone can build this in their back yard, imagine what could be done with professional engineers and real research money.



I do agree with SHattereDragon that the most likely evolution will be small power armors/exoskeletons evolving into military configurations if and when it makes sense. If you ever look at the Dream Pod 9 game Heavy Gear, the evolution there was utility exos designed for bad terrain and hostile enviroment that were gradually outfitted with armor and weapons as the need arose (conflicts with limited resources are great at creating need). Many of the early weapons were really just heavy construction implements (the Snub Cannon was designed for demolition of buildings and large rocks). In that game, larger gears (mecha) suffer from the exact problems Grump mentions, they are easy to spot and this combined with their slow speed makes it easy to land a penetrating blow if you have a weapon capable of doing reasonable damage. Smaller gears carry smaller weapons, but their speed and maneuverability are big assets. They also manage the transforming thing in a reasonable manner, things like treads in the bottom of the feat coupled with retractable rear "landing gear" allows for higher speed over smooth surfaces, some even have wheels in the toes and knees (behind armo shileds of course) and can just kneel down to use them, minimizing the complexity of the trasformation while still allowing for a configuration change for improved speed. In the game, tanks are still present and still have massive firepower and armor advantages over gears, but a 10' tall gear (that can even dodge) is a hard target to hit compared to a tank, and one well placed shot from the gear can disable the tank quite handily.

McClaud - You may notice that when I have been discussing walkers I have repeatedly stated 'bipedal' or 'humanoid' - there is a reason for this - a horizontal walker (quadrapedal and hexapedal) is more akin to a tank design than a typical transformer.

Much fewer problems in structural support, stability, and armoring. And a low profile and resulting signature. Not as fast as a wheeled transport, but superior in broken terrain. Though current designs focus on wheeled platforms, not walkers. And all (missile carrier, gun carrier, and troop transport) are designed to maintain the same land speed. All are also cheaper than current tank designs.

And yes McClaud - the battlefield is returning to the infantry, part of the reason that vehicles are likely to be relegated to a support and infantry support role. Live feed drones are also going to be a large part of the battlefield of the future. ('Number Five is al*BLAM!*') If you go through my past posts you will find that I mentioned the fact that the tank is being phased out some time ago in this very topic. Beat you to it!

Helicopters... are targets, they have reduced armor in order to fly, and will see perhaps two more generations before they are completely removed from the battlefield. An expensive, vulnerable, target, but a good weapons platform. I have no idea what, if anything, will fill their role on the batlefield.

The U.S. has phased out mortars, several times in fact... (Problem is that there are roles on the battlefield that the mortar fills better than anything else.) A huge vehicle mortar such as the Karl, perhaps? (Scary vehicle from WWII.)

Shatterdragon - my comments about slope also come from (current) military engineers. A shell moves too quickly for a mech to 'make its own slope by turning' as you keep putting it - much along the lines of 'I am not going to wear my seat belt - if there is an accident I will brace myself against the dashboard!' *CRUNCH!* The reaction time is just too long for the act to be accomplished. The mech is in the act of turning when the shell hits. No slope. Dead mech.

I have been hitting that point repeatedly, simply because it annoyed me that it was being repeatedly ignored. As for 'would crush a tank like a snail'... If the weight woould crush a tank it will unbalance a mech, which will do the job of crushing itself. *CRUNCH* Dead mech. Saying 'it is too heavy to put it on a tank, so I will put it on a less stable vehicle' just does not hold water - if it is too heavy for one tank then split it between several, still less cost, and increased versatility.

You can put arms and hands on a tank or other vehicle just as easily as on a bipedal walker - null argument. And, for the most part, of damn little use.

Kevin Andrew Murphy - WWI tanks were a reaction to mustard gas (as well as to the machine gun) - standard procedure was for the crew to be wearing masks. And they could and did drive over 'boggy ground', faring much better than wheeled vehicles. Still no toys in sight. (Please do your homework.) A majority of the French battlefieds were a churned, charnel mass of mud, trenches, barbed wire, and craters. The Mk I traversed these, if not with ease then with regularity. The Mk I could actually traverse barbed wire with less difficulty than most tanks of the Second World War. (At the expense of a higher profile for the main carriage.) Its real problems came from the low sponsons that housed the tank's primary armaments, and from truely inferor steering methods. (Steering was accomplished by a drag trailer...) But as long as the crew wore their masks and drove in a straight line things worked.

By the 1920s and '30s J. W. Christie was addressing the steering and suspension difficulties. Ironically, Christie's home country (the U.S.) decided against using his suspension, while the U.S.S.R. adopted it for the T32 - the best tank of its day. The U.S. stuck with the Mae West (the M2, a horrible, horrible, bad, stupid design). Not replacing it until WWII.

The Auld Grump