RX-78-2 slices tanks like its nobody's business
and then the tops promptly fly away because zeon tanks are also jets
>implying tanks could put a fight against a Zeong
Zeong have no legs by the way.
I'm really irritated that Civilization 5 has mecha. Of all the futuristic ideas one could come up with, why would you pick a mecha for a game that actually attempts to follow some sort of scientific chronology?
Do you even Loto, OP?
Fucker have the best of both worlds.
>DRAGOON tank gun
>Dead waifus warhead
Kio doesn't stand a chance.
>That don't exist yet.
Even if they did, why would you want to make your vehicles intentionally unstable? Engineers have been working hard on getting the centre of mass as low as possible on tanks.
Mechs are cool, sure, but when real physics are applied they are hopelessly impractical.
>In anime however, mechs will always win.
The second movie has a combat scene where mechs get obliterated by simple soviet tech tracked vehicles and infantry with RPGs.
Impractical does not mean impossible.
Giant mecha would be a really fucking stupid idea.
The only good reason why you'd want to get them is that your side is so much superior that you can afford the handicap for the coolness factor.
Haven't you read his post? He said impractical, not impossible. Of course it's possible to build giant mechs already with today's technology but there is absolutely no reason to do so because of how incredibly stupid and inefficient mechs are.
gundam age's greatest mistake, well after this of course
>Tank is always the correct answer
To get trashed in.
Everything is inefficient at first. Are you retarded or just pretending to be?
Any technology starts off needlessly impaired and terrible inefficient, then it evolves past those problems.
Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea because it is still a foreign concept in the real world.
I am an actual scientist and engineer and I can confirm that we won't use mechs in future warfare.
Already now we are transitioning to unmanned vehicles and robots. Mechas are unbelievably inefficient and flawed, they are also immensely restricted by the pilot.
You have to be an uneducated idiot to genuinely believe that mechas will ever be used outside of silly anime or an edgy teenager's fantasy.
Come back when that gun can actually defeat the armor of anything but old Cold War shit.
You might as well replace it with a much lighter one and use the extra weight for missiles.
They still aren't an efficient platform for most problems. Small scale powered armor or similar will likely get use, but there just aren't enough compelling reasons for a walking vehicle.
Possibly if land wars in jungle or rough terrain (a lot of asia for example) a mech might be feasible, but as it stands even tanks are a bit outdated as a concept.
You forgot to
tip your fedora anon
>Everything is inefficient at first.
>Any technology starts off needlessly impaired and terrible inefficient, then it evolves past those problems.
You obviously have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. This is also completely unrelated to the viability of such a technology.
Give me a single substantial argument why mechas should ever be used.
>Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea
Because they are a needlessly large target with needlessly vulnerable parts.
Tanks hug the ground for a reason, and there's already people who say that the idea of a tank is outdated because the armor is insufficient.
See the problem is you are thinking about the future of warfare as it is today. You aren't considering what the FUTURE of warfare would be like, most importantly space combat.
Do you know what a mech is, or do you just know what a Gundam is?
All this mech vs tank discussion is retarded.
Hurr durr future mechs will be better.
Alright nerds, how about we compare a car to the human body?
A car can go much faster than a person, on the other hand, if it looked like a running mech, that mech wouldn't be able to run as fast as the car because running is still inferior to a car.
Also mechs have little to no space for weaponry.
>take low-budget tank
>slap huge-ass gun on it
>Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea because it is still a foreign concept in the real world.
Large mechs are outlandish because there is nothing a large mech can do that the several tanks and aircraft you can build for the same cost can't do better and with more tactical adaptability.
The problem with mechs is that they're made to look like humans, not to be efficient as weapons or vehicles. Planes and tanks were built to be as efficient as the tech allowed. I'm pretty sure there are better ways to get around terrain than simulating walking.
checkmate 2nd armored division
The main issue with a mech or even power armor is the energy required for operation is too much from too small a vehicle.
A power armor suit with actual armor protection is going to be kicking past 5,000kg. What engine are you going to mount on it and what fuel source is going to fit? Skipping the engine, and just using batteries what level of energy density are you going to need?
But lets just hand wave away the energy issue. Power armor is staggeringly good, while a mech is a poor vehicle.
If you limit your anti tank armament to a limited number of AT missiles you can have a normal soldier make a reasonable effort to attack a MBT. Take it up to a vehicle size, lets say even something as small as an ATV and you and put on a very deadly AT missile and guidance system.
With power armor you have the situation of the tankette, to well armored to kill with anti personal weapons, but overkill to shoot with a MBT killer. However crew served and light vehicle mounted guns are very good for attacking both power armor and tankettes.
The 20mm to 30mm auto cannons are going to be the weapons of the future. A full power armor infantry would be almost impossible to damage without heavy weapons that foot soldiers can't carry (20mm cannons), or would be using too much overkill on (full sized AT missile).
The giant mecha, is a terrible design for reasons of functional mobility. If it can fly then it doesn't need arms and legs. If it can't fly then what is it so big? Tanks are their size because that's how small they can be to mount their main gun armor to offer some protection and an engine to power it. A mecha large enough to pack around a full sized MTB cannon is going to be larger than a tank, and have effectively less armor due to it's layout.
It's not that it's outdate (the whole plane is regularly updated) it's the age of the airframe. Like a lot of the US air fleet, some of these airframes are running up to 40 years of service which is why projects like the JSF exist since the USAF needs a replacement now.
>Cant debunk his claim or bring any arguments to strengthen my claim
>I just call him a faggot instead
You are good at this debating stuff, maybe you should try your luck in the politics.
Are mechas "edgy" now? This shit needs to fucking stop. Something you don't like =/ edgy. It's not a catch-all phrase to look down on something with, it does have an actual meaning.
In theory, a fully humanoid machine would be superior in terms of maneuverability and adaptability to various environments in which a tank would be next to useless (space, forests, etc). A tank has it's uses as a mobile artillery platform but a single mobile suit fulfills this role and more.
I'd say the main advantage of a mech besides walking is the versatility: guns can be treated as modules and exchanged at will even in battle. An armored vehicle is specialized to one function it does very well.
Gee anon, I didn't see you tips your fedora yet.
That and the gun the whole thing is built around cant penetrate present day tanks.
Unless of course you would arm it with depleted uranium rounds, but you know... Radiation weapons...
>guns can be treated as modules and exchanged at will even in battle
So you want a big fucking transportation vehicle to follow your mech around in battle now? That's not a waste of resources of all.
Mechs are no go but strength boosting exoskeletons actually have practical applications in like, firefighting and and construction. Maybe even Law enforcement so female police officers can better detain perps.
a future of cute cybernetic enhanced police women
The A10's gun isn't strictly about penetration, but overwhelming the structural integrity of the tank. Basically if it can't penetrate, it beats the thing to death (or the crew dies first).
>edgy teenager's fantasy.
Teenagers, maybe, but edgy? Retards like you need to stop misusing words like this. This is how words lose their meaning, believe it or not, deconstruction used to be a real thing too.
That's an advantage how? You can make 10 tanks for the cost of a single mech and then just airdrop the one with the capabilities you need.
Also, tanks are outdated but there's nothing stopping you from making a weapons platform with exchangeable weapons without making it bipedal.
>The A10's gun isn't strictly about penetration, but overwhelming the structural integrity of the tank. Basically if it can't penetrate, it beats the thing to death
I don't like this argument, it always goes straight to calling mecha impractical and unrealistic. They generally are, but when people are asked to describe why mecha are impractical and unrealistic they make a list of reasons why mecha aren't tanks. They'll explain how the more compact tank design can be enclosed with armor more easily and using fewer resources than on a humanoid shaped robot and so on. Comparing tanks and mecha like that assumes that tanks and mecha have to serve the same battlefield role.
Not a great example, but in the movie "Avatar" the humans have bipedal robots with big guns navigating the thick vegetation of the forest floor. This allows them to keep up with and support infantry in that environment. That's very situational, but it's something a tank can't do.
If you call mecha unrealistic because of the logistical limitations of powering and maintaining a machine like that, you'd be right if we were considering mecha using contemporary technology. More sufficient technology can't be ruled out in the future.
So anyway, yes, giant mecha the size of gundams make themselves too big a target with too great a resources commitment to be to be considered practical. That's obvious, but I don't think the concept of a war machine with legs is as inherently unrealistic if you broaden the definition of mecha.
The glorious mech future is soon.
>Also mechs have little to no space for weaponry.
Mechs in nearly any anime have various built-in weapon systems in their heads, arms, legs, torso, etc.
Have you just never watched any any all? even gundam
Mecha (which are bipedal) will never be practical.
Something like pic related is far more likely.
put tracks on it
>suddenly it becomes ten times as cheap
>far easier to maintain and repair
>faster on 95% of terrain
>less exposed mobility parts
>lower weight pressure
>can be made smaller since no need for ridiculously power requirements to drive legs
>extended operational range
Mechs are only good for fantasy settings.
>be French in 1939
>Germany invades Poland, France declares war on Germany 3 days later
>Get warned that germans will flank your defenisve Maginot line through the Belgian woods
>pfft, tanks can't go through those woods
>get flanked, get fucked
The beauty of mechs is that they can perform many different combat and support roles, while tanks just do their one job.
In an age where multi-purpose devices and machines rule over all else, mechs are looking more enticing than ever.
F-18s can't hit shit and F-16 pilots don't like going low enough to get a dead on hit. A-10's normally can take more brunt than either of those which helps handle small arms fire.
That's an advantage because a single model can be used in virtually all situations, only changing the modules it carries. Add that to what >>112005049 said and you have a single unit that will work on the rainforest, the desert or anywhere else.
Again, how the fuck is this an advantage? What's better, to have 1 unit that works everywhere but has to keep changing locations or to have 3 specialised units that work where they are. There aren't more than 10 tipes of environments anyway and tanks are 10 or more times cheaper.
And even if for some stupid reason you wanted 1 vehicle that works everywhere why make it have legs? Legs are stupid and inefficient.
Reverse missiles aren't new.
But 8 of them spiraling around like something ripped straight from Macross, that leaves quite an impression.
Shame the boss fight is not much more than a tour of DC, though.
>F/A18's can't hit shit
Nigger, its not the plane, its the type of missile that determines accuracy
>F-16's don't like going low
They don't need to, WW2 ended seventy years ago, there is no need to go low n' slow anymore when you can just hover at 30k feet raining AGM's on enemy positions.
Wouldn't a VTOL vehicle suffice?
Something along the lines of the F-35 with a mounted cannon akin to a attack helicopter.
I mean, looking at what people call mechs, the fundamental quality is the two (or more) legs.
But these legs imply you'll be on the ground, using diesel fuel and ground units are always susceptible to airstrikes.
If you gave them ways of VTOL, then suddenly the hideously heavy and not aerodynamic vehicle has to fly around using a different kind of fuel, jet fuel. That is impractical.
Space, no. The most versatile platform would be a literal ball.
There is no practical way to implement multi-role multi-function vehicles until smaller, more compact energy sources can be developed.
None of those explain anything, they jsut throw around places where a humanoid weapon platform would supposedly be more suitable. I for one would not put a mech in either space or a desert, and I see absolutely no reason why one would.
Power armour that cheap would sure as hell not be restricted to women just in order to create some kind of "equal" (read: role reversing and then some) work environment between men and women.
Have you ever though that in reality that space is all taken by armour/systems that the mech requires to function properly?
Magical joints, infinite ammo, non-existing sensors don't work in real life.
You do know that tanks can also have their turrets and armaments changed?
Rainforest? Why would you bring tanks to the territory of infantry and air cav? Let alone why would you bring in giant robots that couldn't see what they are stepping on.
Space? How the hell would a humanoid construct be superior to any other form of craft built specifically for space and on that matter, if the mech had rockets all around it, how would it walk anymore?
>In theory, a fully humanoid machine would be superior in terms of maneuverability and adaptability to various environments in which a tank would be next to useless (space, forests, etc). A tank has it's uses as a mobile artillery platform but a single mobile suit fulfills this role and more.
See above and i also add, tanks can fire beyond line of sight and over hills etc.
Yet again, change the turret and you have a multirole vehicle.
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
Though, if you have a setting with functional mechs and they stand reasonably tall over the height of a tank, there's the advantage of being able to plink that massive weak spot that is the top of the tank.
You know that fuckstupid gunplatform mech from the second half of Valvrave? The Ideal Blume? That thing's effectiveness is pretty much a product of how tall it is. The massive amount of firepower is pretty relevant too, but its height pretty much means anything below it is fucked due to armor thickness distributions.
How many specialized armored vehicles exist? We basically have the common tank, the urban armored vehicle and amphibian armored vehicles.
And having 1 model for all situations will cut on costs a lot, and that alone can win wars.
>Nigger, its not the plane, its the type of missile that determines accuracy
That's the point, the F-18 can't load the right munitions or the loaders are dumbasses.
And sometimes you do have to get lower than most pilots feel comfortable depending on the landscape. A-10's are good for that, F-16's aren't.
If you used the same budget to build both a tank and a mech, the tank would still win:
If the tank works normally, the mech ain't worth a shit.
If the mech works as intended, the tank probably had enough budget to have enough rocket engi news and CPU power to fly around faster than the .each (and more aerodynamically) and call in a satellite precision laser.
No they are not. They could have turned Gaza into a giant hole in the ground day 1 if they wanted to.
The point is the argument of just carpet bombing or nuking because it destroys more is retarded.
>implying that just because specialised tanks don't exist now we should use mehcs
Please, how many working mechs are in active service right now? Oh, that's right, fucking 0.
There's no way using bipedal weapons will cut costs, ever. They're expensive to make and super expensive to maintain, they have a ton of moving parts because they have to copy humanoid movement. You're looking at like 20 or more joints. A tank with a hydrogen powerplant and an electrical engine only has to worry about it's tracks.
>in reality that space is all taken by armour/systems that the mech requires to function properly
No because none of this shit exists in-- BUT WAIT IS DOES AND LOOK IT HAS ARM GUNS
On one hand I feel bad for Lockheed Martin for having to appease so many requests from the three branches
But then I'm angry at them for jewing themselves out as hard as possible
>tank and tank destroyer is interchange-able terms in WW2
>IFV/APC are different categories even though they fit the criteria of a tank in most definitions
>armored fighting vehicles with wheels are tanks like the striker
>half track tanks
>walking tanks like pic related are possible
>apache helicopter has thicker armor than most scout tanks of WW2, and I mean that in thickness and not materials used
>hypothetically armored transportation for VIP's like armored limousines are considered tanks by definition
So there you have it. Have fun.
I wouldn't mind the rear firing missiles so much, since he's the last boss and everything, except he's also TOTALLY UNKILLABLE until he decides to deliver all his cringeworthy lines.
You basically have to chase him around for a good fifteen minutes enduring him shittalking you and shooting misiles out of his ass, and you can't do jack shit about it because the game designers had to have their wanky set piece. That's just shitty design. It has nothing to do with shit.
>No they are not. They could have turned Gaza into a giant hole in the ground day 1 if they wanted to.
That they don't do it doesn't mean they don't want to. The problem is that they'd make an enemy of much of the world doing so, and then they'd be fucked.
Do you even BHAAAAAANEBLAAAAAAADEEEE!!!?
A mech with legs has to do all this predictive calculations with the terrain it is traversing
implying there are externally mounted sensors operating at full load to ensure the leg joints make the perfect step possible
This is hopelessly stupid.
>No offense, Igloofags
Fuck that whole episode, tanks have no business going that fast.
You now notice it has a pole stuck up its ass just so it can stand up.
1) Frontal armor. In battle, people are shooting at your front. Tanks have a very small frontal area which can be heavily armored. Mechas have very large, very high fronts. This is simply impossible because the amount of armor needed would make the thing impossibly heavy. Even if it was possible with some sort of as yet unknown ultra-light armor, one good direct hit from a tank would cause it to topple backwards.
2) Ground pressure. The tank spreads its weight over its tracks, but the mecha, which needs to be even heavier than a tank, has to manage with just two relatively small areas of ground contact, i.e. its feet. Therefore it will sink into anything that isn't rock or very, very hard ground.
3) Power. I've visited one of the world's foremost "mecha labs" in Turin. They have some great stuff, but it still needs twice its own weight in batteries to move (and that just for 30 minutes or so), and that is without any armor at all.
Irrelevant. It's fiction, not real life.
Also who needs taller tanks when you can just make the AT missile you fired a second ago strike from above for same effect? In a more archaic world we really would be building towering vehicles until some limit of engineering is hit, at which point we'd be shooting in steep ballistic arcs mortar style.
Failing that, go in and out of DFM repeatedly, it breaks the lock every time.
You doesn't seem to understand what I'm getting at conceptually. The platform a weapon is mounted on has as much to do with its role and capabilities as the weapon itself. Simply changing the turret mounted weapon on a tank doesn't drastically change its operational capabilities. Also, MBTs carry various types of ammunition for different roles, so changing the main gun on a tank isn't especially useful anyway.
That's a stupid comparison. If it cost 10 times as much to buy a 2-in one hair shampoo as it did to buy them seperately nobody would do it.
Also, skype is just better than a phone in every measurable way. It's cheper and more practical.
Versatility is only a good thing when you're not giving up efficiency for it. Mechs do exactly that.
Obviously power armor wouldn't just be restricted to women but it'd sure as fuck put them on even footing with men when physical strength is no longer a limiter.
I had this story idea about perfected realdolls that can be controlled from remote locations. 90% of the people on the streets are just remote controlled proxies and a lot of people become shut ins that hate how imperfect they look or are afraid of dying. Also there's no surefire way to tell peoples true gender and age anymore at first glance. Meanwhile law enforcement agencies are using models without strength limiters to combat and detain the emergence of psychic criminals that believe they're the master race and the world is their playground. The MC is an officer that uses his dead sisters proxy to combat psychics as well as deal with proxy related crimes.
I should get started on this, I think I have a winner.
Mobile suits were designed for use in space, which makes sense because just a Ball (the "ideal" sphere-with thrusters-space vehicle design) has limited mobility and little room for weaponry, whereas a mobile suit can land and shoot things as if it were an artillery gun, fight CQC style, and still hold things as a human would, all while keeping the maneuverability of the Ball by having small thrusters on the torso and limbs.
In space, a tank would be useless unless you mounted thrusters, in which it becomes a Ball with a large, impractical cannon.
>Mechs = multipurpose
But that's simply untrue. How is a mech multi-purpose? I've seen people talk about space and deserts and rainforests, but in no way has anyone explained why a mech would have any kind of advantage in those environments.
As well as a small power source that would be able to power it up.
But, when we get such a power source, guess who is going to win again?
Tanks, with smaller powerplant or better one of the same size as tanks currently have, you could either have more room for weapons/ammo and or power up systems and weapons you couldn't before.
All things considered, some war vehicles are designed just because they look cool.
None of the 5 or so gargantuan motorised artillery... platforms of the Nazis were found, right?
Any new technology is expensive, anon. Were you around for the first home computers? Those horribly inefficient and expensive giant boxes that required a room full of fans beating down on it?
It's no wonder PCs never caught on. I mean just look at how terrible the early models were. If only technology could improve in both cost and efficiency.
I feel like this is kind of an useless comparison, Mechs have the mobility, and tanks have the power, it's like different weapons, it depends on situation, if you have both working together it's like having a balanced squad, so why not see them working together and obliterate those individualists? A squad of Mechs? A squad of tanks? I say get them both.
>Implying that mechs aren't inneficient just because they're versatile
Holy fuck, no. You can be as multi-purpose as you want to, but a tank is just better in what it does, and so are bridge layers, repair drones, etc. For weapons it's better to be really good at one thing than kinda meh at everything. Specialisation is a good thing.
>By this logic why not just nuke entire countries?
Well, conventional bombs destroy everything. Nukes destroy everything and poison the soil with radiation ensuring fucking nothing will thrive there for thousands of years.
Yeah. Add to this better achievements in robotics are still required here in order to make the damn thing move fluently.
Also in the case of tanks, I heard Russia wants to make a large as fuck Baneblade-alike with a single large cannon.
But wouldn't that go into unpractical? Such enormous size?
Only two planes (the shittiest ones, if memory serves) even carry ECM and breaking out of DFM makes him stop his speeches. Whih means you have to do it again.
Anyway, I beat him after a couple of tries, even on Hard (whatever Hard was called, cba to look it up). The difficulty isn't the issue, the fact that it was shitty design is the issue. And AH had plenty of other errors besides that one fight.
I'm not even sure it should be in the same category as the other Ace Combat games. It felt more like a CoD clone IN THE AIR at times.
Bullshit argument. When the first computers were produced, microelectronics was in its infancy. The technology that would be needed for mechas is very mature (motors, batteries, etc.) and yet we don't don't make them. Because they are still totally impracticable.
The main thing I see in mechs is that they have hands, so they can do all the shit you would do with your hands on a larger scale.
So you standardize production to the point where they are less costly to make and then you can make smaller weapons systems/tools for them.
Granted thats assuming we reach a point where power/materials become a non-issue.
>early PCs were inefficient
Compared to what? The abacus? Early PCs were just better at what they did than any other solution, even though they're shit by modern standards. Nothing else could crack the Enigma code.
Making a mech with 20 joints will never be cheaper to make and repair than a simpler and more elegant solution. The problem with mechs is that you're starting with the result(I want a humanoid weapon) and trying to engineer your way out of it.
>Tank can just drive through that crap or blow it up
Oddly enough tanks have to be very careful to avoid throwing track or damaging track. They are also due to their weight more limited in mobility that lighter units which don't need to worry about things like bridge weight hills sliding, or sinking in the ground when stopped and bottoming out on their hull. (nearly as much)
Now, on the right ground tanks are fucking devastating and are able to perform lighting fast assaults. In the same way that a cavalry charge could scatter unformed units and strike terror, having 20 tanks crest a hill at 70km/hr shooting explosive rounds and letting lose with machine guns tends to put some fear into even well trained troops.
The speed and violence of a mechanized assault with tanks and APCs with LAV in support is one of the most impressive actions humans have every undertaken.
While in Afghanistan with Leopard 1 and 2s the Taliban figured that our tanks top speed was the top speed of the tank pushing the mine rollers or around 25km/hr. In one op the Taliban thought they were going to retreat on dirt bikes across the desert after doing whatever it was they were doing. Nothing in the world puts the terror into a human like trying to race away on a dirt bike when 3 Leopard 2 MBT clocking in at 68,000kg accelerate to 105km/hr to give chase before opening fire on the move.
I'm not positive by I think that's the land speed record for a L2A6M. Even diesel tanks like to burn JP-8 when they can get it.
This entire thread is stupid.
Mechs exist in fiction under circumstances wildly different from our reality, and yet we're holding them to our reality's standards like they were intended to answer every question ever about how such nonsense could work.
There is no debate.
Reminder that mechas are heartless cruel machines and tanks are innocent lovable friends.
I've never heard of it though I hope it isn't exactly the same. It fucking sucks when the Simpsons beat you to the punch. My only real inspiration for trans humanist stuff is Nihei's works like Blame and Retisentment. I've never even watched GitS though I am aware of it.
If the mecha actually worked well it is estimated that they would be superior as they can also pack a punch with their guns, but their agility would make it hard for a tank to hit.
imagine a person running from side to side at 300km/h.
Actually scientist already developed artificial muscles made from Titanfibers, replacing the average humans muscles with those he would be capable of running at 300km/h and still win easily against any sports car as he could do really fast small turns, better reaction time and everything.
We do not see those in practical use yet as they still only can hold out 1000 contractions.
>Mechs exist in fiction under circumstances wildly different from our reality, and yet we're holding them to our reality's standards like they were intended to answer every question ever about how such nonsense could work.
That's because the whole point of the "real robot" as opposed to the "super robot" genre is to have mechas that are beliavable in the real world.
I'm not even going to bother refuting
>mechs should into space
because it's just that retarded.
No, he still goes through his speeches.
Just flit in and out every time he tries to light you up, trust me it'll carry you through.
Look man, war tech is fucking weird.
We shouldn't be spewing theorycraft bullshit until we've got the tech to test it all out with.
That said, I subscribe to how Battletech rolls: a lot of shit can wreck a Battlemech. But with how valued that firepower is, few fucks can be given. I mean, what else is gonna pack that much firepower in a mobile package?
What mobility? Modern tanks are pretty fast bro. The energy requirements for a mech to "outmaneuver" a modern tank are so ridiculous that any power source sufficient for that purpose could probably be installed in said tank to make it fucking fly.
Scientist are actually researching combat mechs because they bring in huge advantages over tanks like great and fast manoeuvrability.
Making it impossible for a normal tank to hit them while they are on the move.
The problem with tankfags is they can't get over the thought that war is going to stay the same way forever. While they may think tanks are superior with current technology, what happens when power armor soldiers come along, eat the shells and tosses the fucking tank?
What happens in space combat? Are you going to put wings on your tanks?
Not him but there are still circumstances which allow for mecha to be superior to tanks in those settings, which is the important thing to remember. What are those circumstances? Who knows. Usually its mobility or space.
We just kinda take their word on it a lot of the time. In Code Geass it was made pretty clear considering how mobile the Knightmare Frame was in comparison.
>what happens when power armor soldiers come along, eat the shells and tosses the fucking tank
Then the power armour soldiers tosses the mechs with much more ease since they have a higher center of gravity.
So wait, you actually think everything you wrote there is actually correct?
Yeah the trigger thing always bothered me, why not just have it connect wirelessly with the hand.
What about Gekko they seemed practical as fuck
>Even if they did, why would you want to make your vehicles intentionally unstable?
WELL IT WORKED WITH AIRPLANES.
HAVE YOU SEEN HOW ANNOYING AN OLD PROPELLER PLANE HANDLES? SHIT WON'T UNSTICK ITSELF FROM THE FORWARD VECTOR.
You people are literally the retarded ones as you think of mecha as just huge humans with human speeds or the shit from star wars.
THe shit is researched in RL because a human shaped mech up to 10m height would be near impossible to hit with a tank, despite the size.
>The main thing I see in mechs is that they have hands
That's actually a disadvantage.
It's lots of tiny little joints that can break oh so easily and is less precise than if you just had a proper plug for the weapon to settle into.
Yes they do. A bipedal or quadleg mech could be able to maneuver over many things that cockblock tanks, especially war wreckage. You are under the impression that mechs would walk to every battlefield on foot, aren't you?
Tanks were slow when first created, extremely slow. Then technology advanced.
It happens with every new technology, and you'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't happen with mechs.
Cry moar. I can smell your butthurt from here.
>what happens when power armor soldiers come along, eat the shells and tosses the fucking tank?
The problem with your example is that you believe that tanks wouldnt have higher destructive capabilities and that a powerarmor would be enough to not get harmed by tanks
>Scientist are actually researching combat mechs
No, they are researching exoskeletons for infantry troops. Very different animal because it has no armor and no weapons systems. It's just to enhance the strength and mobility of a human.
Gekko is like a factory-produced combat animal, all things considered. It's this weird sort of autonomous IFV that can exist thanks to the MGSverse's advancements in both AI and artificial musculature, permitting a compact, "smart" combat weapon that isn't so fuckhuge as to present engineering problems beyond the technology necessary to realize it.
Moving big shit around.
Switching weapons quickly and easily.
Acting as impromptu cranes for other assets dig trenches, lay tank traps, etc.
After wartime they can be seamlessly retasked to construction, and then back again.
its much more satisfying, if you dont have triggers, you might as well not have fingers, and if you dont have fingers, well then your just ruining the fun, you want a zeong you bitch?
That is not true. We had a physicsfag the other day explaining how a humanoid shape would be great for space combat, what with the thrusters being placed where they are for maneuverability in the zero-g environment.
>A bipedal or quadleg mech
Let me stop you there. Two total different things. Bipedal is bullshit and will never happen, but when you look at quadrupedal systems like Big Dog, you can see that they have tremendous potential at least for logistics and maybe search and rescue.
In mobility I meant the jumping, the climbing and the easiness at evading things (not projectiles obviously) but slower things like TOWs and such, and while they do this the tanks offer fire support (in a scenario where they work together).
Or you could stop being a cheap ass and start to use wolframcarbid rounds like everyone did before WWI.
You just couldn't buy those from Germany anymore in WWI and the US stayed with Uranium ones since it was cheaper than WC ones.
Yeah, maybe in your /m/ thread where rigorous design study doesn't exist.
>Near impossible to hit
Even if that statement wasn't the height of retardation, as whatever else a mech may be it will never be faster or more manuevrable than an equiavalent era tank, a single hit would be all a mech could take because of both less armor than said equivalent tank and simple physics dictating that it would fall down as soon as it got a single hit in its top half.
This is such a retarded thread.
Tanks suck at reversing much less turning the turrent in the opposite direction quickly enough.
A walking, jumping mech can easily get behind a tank and destroy it in its blind spot.
Alternative, imagine yourself as Mario in your tank and treat Tanks like Goombas and Stomp the Shit out of Tanks.
Without some drastic, drastic advances in materials science (which could be applied to tanks), mecha that move at "human" speeds proportionate to their size would tear their joints and stress points apart.
Shit wouldn't be kung fu robots man. Even the stuff in Pacific Rim was way faster than it had any right to be.
People keep saying mecha is 'impractica', but I think it can be plenty practical in non-war-time labor or even during war where you need something for heavy labor where you can pick up heavy things and do intricate movements with it that you can't do with a tank.
PacRim had its priorities straight though. Looking cool > drowning the viewer in any more than the basic amounts of SCIENCE needed to get them to accept "yes, they fight using giant robots."
Actually reverse-joint bipedal machines are already being researched because they can jump many times their own height in the air, leaping over almost any sort of obstacle that tanks could only dream of.
Too lazy to read if anyone has already said this, but tanks have a really low profile compared to a mecha.
In war, not get struck is just as important as striking
>mechs are superior to tanks in space
Yeah, and? An ball with omnidirectional weapons beats both. Besides, space is so fucking large you'll almost never get into a battle. It's not like you can blockade a harbour or something. You people just don't understand how fucking HUGE space is.
Are you realy that retarded.
Look at current heavy load workmachines.
Most of them use tracks, but there are areas where they simply cannot be used as tracks make them useless.
Geuss what they build for those cases machines with 4 legs as they can work in any even the most difficult areas.
>Except they don't.
>Mecha are not even going to reach the other side.
>The mecha are fucked.
In the slightly rolling hills that are a tanks best ground, it's an even mix and really comes down to recon and the tactical ability of the commanders.
In Marshes a tank isn't even going to go near it, unless it has a road and then it's just setting it's self up for ambushing. You might or might not be able to get a legged vehicle to move through it, but that depends on composition of the marsh, vehicle weight, size and power.
Forests really come down to the mech size. If it's small enough to get around trees then it has mobility while a tank is stuck having to try and knock over trees or more like move around on small roads it doesn't really fit on. If your forests are more like boreal forests, then you have short trees that block vision AND marsh like conditions.
Tanks can push into a tree line, but that's about their limit. They are too wide to get between trees and it's just not viable to try and knock over every tree in the woods to get around.
Actually, it's impossible for mecha anything like humans at all. Locomotion is dependent on gravity pulling you down after your legs raise your center of gravity. The taller you are, the less agile proportionally you become. In reality, a Gundam taking a step would have to wait several seconds before it can even take another step, unless it does a billion baby shuffles per second.
Bipedal can definitely work. You just need a very strong internal gyro and balancing system. There already are bipedals being developed as well. And as long and scientists wants to try emulating a human/animal, they will always try. Especially in the home environment where you need a humanoid robot, not some 4 legged or wheeled robots.
Saying future tech is 'impossible' by judging it based on current tech is absurd.
Actually, tanks can often pack more firepower cheaply (BV/C-bill).
Mechs are more mobile over rough terrain, spread the damage out over multiple location, and don't have the same motive-crit vulnerability. Or their inferno vulnerabilit
i think without a neurual or spinal uplink to the suit to give it smoother movements, it wouldnt be much diffirent from a tank, when we can do acrobatic shit its ready for war, early mech wouldnt have the maneuverability to make it much better then standard armor
I'm pretty sure even Patlabor is now walking down the road of "pfft, giant robots? man what the fuck were we thinking? No one gives a fuck about Labors anymore..."
Once a niche no longer exists, it's gone. Look at the battleship for example. A majestic piece of naval firepower, rendered irrelevant in a day and age where you can deliver precision ordinance off of carrier birds, littoral combat vehicles, and other assorted combined arms shit.
Mecha don't usually survive re-entry even in fiction, they normally need some sort of bullshit magic particle or more believable separate vehicle
That or the just become an aircraft and re-enter as the space shuttle did.
And what exactly is the point? We have helicopters you know. A tanks beats a mech on the ground, a heli beats it at speed, manoeuvrability and ground coverage, and a jet beats it in the skies.
So, best case scenario is with a mecha barely larger than a human in power armor.
In which case you aren't going to be comparing them to tanks because they aren't going to have even a fraction of a tank's firepower.
>That said, I subscribe to how Battletech rolls: a lot of shit can wreck a Battlemech. But with how valued that firepower is, few fucks can be given. I mean, what else is gonna pack that much firepower in a mobile package?
The people that wrote for battletech have created some very stupid limits on stuff like weapon power and range. Even using the in game rules you can build some very nasty tanks.
BTech is bad not because of the tactics used or the world rules they use, but because all the numbers or hugely off.
It's hard to take it seriously when it's just so wrong.
Oh yeah I'm not complaining because making an entertaining sequence is far more important for a movie than satisfying sperglords. However, more than a few people in this thread seem to think that the hand-to-hand sweet-fighting ninja bullshit you see in animu is possible without the mecha shaking itself into pieces, literally
Plenty do though. But it's mostly because they use a future metal/plastics that can survive it. Or some assume a different shape (which is why a transforming robot could actually be a functional design).
oh, right, sorry for that then, still, it could do more then a tank because of the arms and such, and the tank would have better guns and such. that's what I meant.
>Frontal armor. In battle, people are shooting at your front. Tanks have a very small frontal area which can be heavily armored. Mechas have very large, very high fronts. This is simply impossible because the amount of armor needed would make the thing impossibly heavy. Even if it was possible with some sort of as yet unknown ultra-light armor, one good direct hit from a tank would cause it to topple backwards
Well the thing is scale wise the mech would be so fast on its feet that the tank would be unable to hit.
Imagine a mech moving at 300km/h, but moving like a human, some side steps or jumps here and there or any other unpredictable movement all while moving at that speed.
Which fucking tank do you think could hit that.
the only reason i can imagine mechs being used for is in police force or handling intra-national insurgencies and the like. a tank or a vehicle can be surrounded and overrun, and is only useful if it has infantry around it, so something resembling a mecha could be viable. but as long as the enemy has anti-tank weaponry or even something like 20mm guns, they would be kinda useless. still, mechas are just too complex to be a really good substitute for either infantry or an armored vehicle
that's my uneducated opinion anyway
They've actually outright said that the ranges are fucktarded in the interests of not having to rent a warehouse in order to have enough room to play. They're set at a tenth what they should be, I believe.
>Tanks suck at reversing
>Turning the turret
WTF am I reading?
Leaving aside the inherently stupid propositions that vehicle combat will be occurring at a distance of ten meters as opposed to a couple of kilometers and jumping would be a factor, or that a tank sized mech could jump without shattering its legs, a modern tank takes all of five seconds to traverse the turret about-face. Reversing is basically instantaneous, and depending on the transmission may not impose any gearing penalty at all.
And that isn't even the limit. Tanks with turrets capable of traversing at 60 degrees per second (three second about-face) have been built in the past. The biggest limitation is that too fast a traverse will disorient the crew, which still applied to a pilots.
>Moving big shit around.
Cranes, construction vehicles, etc that won't keel over like a mech.
>Switching weapons quickly and easily.
>Acting as impromptu cranes for other assets dig trenches, lay tank traps, etc.
So, like a shittier engineering vehicle. Don't forget that many tanks have tools for self-entrenching
>After wartime they can be seamlessly retasked to construction, and then back again.
Congratulations on all the billions you spent on glorified, tippy bulldozers.
>Drones and aircraft are already obsoletizing tanks.
Hardly. The tank has a lot of advantages over air power, not limited to endurance, accuracy, protective armor, force projection to control enemy movement, and faster support times to other ground elements.
What I'm waiting for is the first tank that will launch a drone like BB of old and their sea plane spotters.
Air power works best as a combined arms force with infantry, armor and mechanized units.
Did I ever imply those were not my posts.
Oh, wait I didn't, it was you that implied it.
Matter of fact stands it is about manoeuvrability and tanks fall utterly behind in that regard.
>not deep space kinetic bombardment
gotta get them asteroids somewhere
Wouldn't the truck actually be more efficient?
Whether a 4x4 or 18 wheeler, they're meant to carry heavy loads as opposed to the average sedan seated at half capacity. Plus the latter truck runs off of diesel which is a more efficient system than ICE.
Yeah because with the sensors, reaction time and all the motors/engines running at peak to allow quickfire movement, a tank won't have to fire a shot because the pilot will faceplant the mech into a fucking mountain
a tank that is equipped with a 20mm or a 40mm gun??? a 50 cal could probably do some damage too, depending on its size
what is a mech moving at 300km/h supposed to do anyway? go fast? it certainly can't fire at that speed, and if it moves in close enough to attack something, it'll have to stop in which case it will get lit up
>mech moving at 300km/g
>using bipedal motion
No. If you have a powerplant strong enough to do that then you might as well put it on a normal weapons platform and not a mech.
You people know that inertia applies to mechs too, right? 1 200 ton mech can't change direction any faster than a 200 ton tank with a comparable powerplant.
I think TSFs from Muvluv are a poor representation of true mechas to compare with tanks, considering that they are more aircraft with legs than actual mecha. They move around more with their jets than their legs.
It basically runs on the assumption that we won't have more specialized equipment in the future.
We already have machines that can automate skyscraper deconstruction and ones that can 3d print concrete homes/buildings up to 3 stories. Its only a matter of time before we have a machine that can build skyscrapers in any dimensions.
Mechs would basically end up as heavy lifters for raw materials and there is no reason to have them not be autonomous at that point.
Mechs will have an almost universally worse ground pressure in marshes. Anything a tank can do in soft ground, a mech will do worse
Yes, as has been discussed, power armor could have interesting applications.
Airborne assets lack the staying capability of an on-site vehicle.
The MBT is the culmination of a fast few decades of tank design resulting in the realization that instead of a bunch of weight classes, a single agile tank with a versatile cannon can pull off a pretty decent ground-based destroyer routine.
>implying you can't do this with a tank
You realize the chassis is separate from the carriage, right?
You can mass produce the chassis, and build specialized carriages to fill different roles.
Shit, they've been doing that with tanks since WWII.
Case in point:
Same chassis. Different carriages. One was a main battle tank. One was a tank destroyer. One was a self-propelled artillery gun.
And don't even get me started on all the shit they made out of the M4.
So that's not an advantage for mecha at all. That's something that's been done with tanks for the past 75 years.
>And that isn't even the limit. Tanks with turrets capable of traversing at 60 degrees per second (three second about-face) have been built in the past.
Leopard 2 has to do a full rotation in less than 9s or else it's a turret fault and something is wrong with the turret drive.
With a commanders independent sight the gunner can engage one target while the command picks out the next one, then can have the turret snap to the new target at full speed. The hunter killer sight is likely the biggest improvement in tank lethality and combat power that's been put on a tank in the last 25 years.
Automobiles actually can be very tough to use on uneven or wild terrain. They are still figuring out how to make it more efficient in that front. A walking mech will likely have an easier time of it considering you don't have to worry as much about traction or even terrain.
You should look into the development of artificial muscles.
If applied they would always be faster than a tank.
Now die in a fire for actually thinking you know anything.
By the way did I even say they would be equaly armored?
No obviously not, but as long as they are on the move there would be no reason to.
Also we know from the last "wars" the US fought how precise those precision weapons actually are.
Problem with that? Point stands that the US continued the use of Uranium shell despite WC having become available again after the wars.
Worse the US government learned about the side effects of Uranium shells and that it even aplied to their own men, but they continued to use it.
>Muh mecha-researching scientists, honest.
>Muh super fast and agile and impossible to hit mecha.
Oh Jesus, we got a live one here.
>The great debate.
A debate implies the people involved have half a fucking clue. You're just a bunch of animu faggots don't know simple physics or tactics.
Thank you for keeping this shit off of /k/ for once.
But mechs are better than tanks at several things which we have been discussing in detail in this thread if you have been paying attention.
Besides, tanks are slowly being phased out anyway.
10 years from now, the debate will be mechs vs drones or mechs vs. power armor, or possibly even combat mechs vs utility mechs.
Why are realism and logic fags always gotta rain on the fun parade?
>Remind me again how many tankerloads of fuel an M1A1 consumes in a single day of continuous operation?
Depends. Between a lot and none. A tank can sit in location and pick our targets to watch or fire one for days on end, only needing to run the APU to keep the electronics running. Or it can burn it's full load up in a 400 to 600km dash and be out of go go juice until resupply. You would need to cycle many aircraft over and over to have 24hr coverage. Or a single tank with a 4 man crew, sleeping in shifts. Also you need runways and airports for aircraft. All tanks need is fuel, ammo food and water and they can operate almost anywhere.
Artificial muscles, look around for this stuff.
It is in research all over the world for military and non military usage.
There are even existing prototypes whose only still existing disadvantage is wear down.
Of course Tanks are reserved for seasoned veterans and professional adult soldiers. Mechas are only reserved for young teenagers < age of 16.
Wheres the plot in professional adult soldiers who rid of space Nazis for Earth in boring ol tanks?
Large mechs have a major problem to deal with.
And the problem is the fucking square cube law.
Good luck dealing with this, anon.
Sure, maybe there's a possibility of efficient platform with some artificial muscles, but large mechs are inefficient so far.
Plus big target profile makes it easier to hit it.
Weapons are tools, and they're made to do specific jobs, even if they were created "just cause it explodes".
If it doesn't do the job properly or there's a better, cheaper, efficient alternative, there's no point in wasting money on it.
Unless wasting money is your primary goal, that is .
>A walking mech will likely have an easier time of it considering you don't have to worry as much about traction or even terrain
A walking mech is much more vulnerable to uneven terrain because it applies more weight to a smaller area and is thus more prone to destabilizing the terrain, its higher center of gravity means it'll be more prone to falling over, and it has to do a shit-ton of calculations constantly while depending on external sensors.
All of those arguments have been bashed to hell and back, though.
>ten years from now, this completely nonviable combat platform which no-one actually puts money into researching will have replaced tanks
>tanks nowadays are basically infantry support
That's not true at all.
The only reason it might seem that way is because there hasn't been a major conflict in recent history between two armies with extensive tank capabilities.
The last major tank conflict was the Six-Day War. And tanks in that war were NOT infantry support. They filled a direct fire role, meaning that the tanks were on the front lines, and the infantry was there to support them.
>Besides, tanks are slowly being phased out anyway.
Utter bullshit. The next generation of main battle tanks are being developed right now.
Japan introduced the Type 10 into service two years ago, and the US is currently in development of the M1A3.
OLD tanks are being phased out, but only to make room for the NEW tanks.
>They are still figuring out how to make it more efficient in that front.
Wheels + legs a best
how can you say mechs are better than tanks in things when mechs literally do not exist in the world
i personally subscribe to the belief that the future in combat will be a bunch of UAVs flying around and artillery fire coming from 150km away to glass the area
Artificial muscles aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking metallurgy, shearing force, etc. Without a drastically lighter while also stronger metal than we currently use, anything that can go 300km/h to a stop like that idiot claimed will shear itself to pieces. Much less reverse direction like happens so often in zwee fighting mecha shows.
>Remind me again how many tankerloads of fuel an M1A1 consumes in a single day of continuous operation?
Far less than a fucking weaboo space suit.
Legs are a very inefficient means of locomotion. Why do you think bicycles were invented?
>You should look into the development of artificial muscles.
You should look into square cube law
>If applied they would always be faster than a tank.
That's why bicycles are so much faster than motorcycles. Good point.
>Now die in a fire for actually thinking you know anything.
>Utter bullshit. The next generation of main battle tanks are being developed right now.
>Japan introduced the Type 10 into service two years ago, and the US is currently in development of the M1A3.
>OLD tanks are being phased out, but only to make room for the NEW tanks.
Are you willfully ignorant, or..? Everyone knows tanks are being used less and less in warfare. We simply don't need them as much as we used to.
But the thread was made for the purpose of having this debate. If you prefer one over the other then there's absolutely no reason to change your mind because of anything said here, since we're discussing 3DPD.
>Besides, tanks are slowly being phased out anyway.
Canada was going to phase out it's tanks, and replace them with LAV and TOW armed LAVs for anti armor work.
Then they went to Afghanistan, then they scrambled to get their tanks in theater, then ordered 24 brand new tanks from the German and in the end ordered a full replacement for all their older tanks with new ones.
And just a few years earlier they were sure that their tanks were going to be phased out and replaced with lighter units and drones and shit.
>butbut mechs can fly
The answer to all your problems
To be fair, the square cube law can be gotten around with advances in materials science. It's only really a hard limit in biology.
This is why we have gigantic flying aircraft, but are not constantly beset by Rocs.
>A walking mech will likely have an easier time of it considering you don't have to worry as much about traction or even terrain.
I think you mean to say a walking mech would be a nightmare in uneven terrain because it would have to constantly worry about traction and terrain or else it would fucking fall over.
His pic has TSFs which have trhust vectorable jet/rocket engines slapped on the ass to fly NOE at up to 800kph which I guess is what he meant by mobility.
Don't see why they couldn't use VTOL gunships with the same engines instead though.
And how many of these aircrafts are flapping their wings?
My point is that with your mech moving its parts like a human bean it's going to share the problems that a real human being would have with its movements and with stress applied to its individual parts.
>But the thread was made for the purpose of having this debate
The thread is meant to argue concepts, not reality vs fiction, which is a retarded debate in any subject which is why you should all feel bad about it.
who cares about pvt johnny dingus from kentucky enough to give him power armor? with the price of one power armor, one can probably train and equip more soldiers.
i doubt the basic grunt will ever carry anything beyond mundane body armor to combat, unless there is a huge overabundance of resources or they make armored power armor really cheap somehow. maybe special forces or bomb defusal folk will carry that stuff.
i'm no genius though, just thinking about the thing from a non-anime viewpoint
>Large mechs have a major problem to deal with.
>And the problem is the fucking square cube law.
That's true but only up to a size in which case it stops mattering. Once you start pushing past the giant mecha and start getting into the man shaped space battleship the shape starts to matter less.
However, I agree that overall power armor sized mechs are likely to be the most viable military mech for a long time.
> We simply don't need them as much as we used to.
No. We simply haven't come across a conflict that requires a large ground invasion (i.e WW2)
Drones are good for times like now, where you just have to bomb the terrorists form altitude, but when you have ground force invading your country with possible jamming and intercepting tools drones aren't as effective.
They actually already developed muscles that would allow a normal human such movement.
Real world problem is that the muscles wear down to fast, they live only through 1000 work cycles, contractions.
This stuff is in no way impossible.
Hell it is just a question of how the priorities are set.
For example look up project pluto and have a look at a discarded military project and its theorethical capabilites.
Railguns. The non-electrical ones.
This is what Rail Wars should've been about.
>Implying any mecha thread ostensibly created for that purpose wouldn't instantly evolve into shitflinging the instant some retard claims mecha are superior or a preferred option.
Well yeah, the Canadian army having unrealistic expectations and then being smacked in the face with a big fat dick (it doesn't get much realer than that) was kind of the point and why it's relevant in this discussion of mechs vs. tanks (and whether they're being outphased or not).
>That's true but only up to a size in which case it stops mattering.
You clearly don't understand the square cube law. Below a certain size it doesn't matter, upwards it matters infinitely. You don't have a clue and you should seriously just stop
That's because the purposes of waging war have changed , and is not an indictment on the efficiency of tanks.
In the event of some sort of military action between actual world powers (and not world power vs former-2nd-world/3rd-world shithole tanks will damn well see relevance.
>Everyone knows tanks are being used less and less in warfare.
That's because tanks are so advanced that they can accomplish their job in weeks. Remember how quickly the United States invaded Iraq? That war took, what, weeks? In big part because of the American armored superiority and their ability to storm Iraqi forces with overwhelming firepower and mobility. It was like Desert Storm all over again, except worse because Desert Storm already happened once before and Iraq never got a chance to rebuild their tanks.
One reason you're seeing them less is because there hasn't been a major conflict between tank-wielding nations since the Six-Days War. And in that conflict, tanks were everything. The superiority of Israeli tanks is what won that war.
>We simply don't need them as much as we used to.
Every army will ALWAYS need something to provide heavy direct fire. Tanks fill that role. Give them a target or a direction, and let 'em rip. The reason you don't see them in occupation campaigns is because there's no target and no direction. But in order to establish an occupation campaign, you need the tanks to establish control. Then the infantry takes over and holds the area.
Saying we don't need tanks is like saying we don't need direct fire in a modern military. Which is, quite frankly, a pretty retarded thing to say.
Okay. So what is there to argue about conceptually? The concept of the mech is a humanoid-shaped weapon platform, the concept of the tank is a tank-formed weapon platform. Now what? Do we debate their artistic merit or something?
>>A walking mech will likely have an easier time of it considering you don't have to worry as much about traction or even terrain
>A walking mech is much more vulnerable to uneven terrain because it applies more weight to a smaller area and is thus more prone to destabilizing the terrain, its higher center of gravity means it'll be more prone to falling over, and it has to do a shit-ton of calculations constantly while depending on external sensors.
Oh no those calculations, it's almost as if we don't have highly efficient tiny 'difference engines' to do them for us.
And the claim that a mech is going to destabilize the terrain is goofy. Yeah in some ground they might leave foot prints but if the mech is overall lower mass it's at less risk of causing a hill or slope to collapse. Other than that a lower ground pressure but higher total weight doesn't mean much of anything.
>Square-cube law stops mattering once you get big enough.
You're one of the few tankfags who understand this. War changes. Tanks won't be used forever, and even the near future is looking grim for them. The next step is power armor and more UAVs, and after that who knows? Maybe even mechs.
Technically a railway gun, but I'm sure they were called railguns (guns on rails, duh) nack in teh day before the current meaning of railgun.
>The most versatile platform would be a literal ball.
That's wrong on a variety of levels but mostly entirely misunderstanding the meaning of the word "versatile"
UC outright acknowledges the Type 61 was an outdated piece of shit, Zeon has literally no idea what they're doing building tanks, and the EFF goes with giant robots just because they're losing to them. At the same time the Zeon aquatic forces got wrecked by submarine fleets once they reorganized and the ground Zakus were fighter fodder in North America, for which they built some mostly ineffective anti-air Zakus.
IGLOO even has Zeon build a big tank with MS technology that slaps Zaku shit.
The humanoid form offers no benefits to space other than ambac, and you don't need a humanoid shape for that. Space warfare is projected to be fought with ships sniping each other over thousands of km anyways.
Mechs, especially humanoid ones, tend to be impractical for a number of reasons. The arms? They would have to be made up of numerous servos and engines for all the joints, all of which would be in use just to raise the arm and fire the weapon. To what purpose when you could just install a turret that does the same thing with less parts and less movement needed. You also don't need a five fingered hand which would be overly complicated.
The legs? A two legged design is unstable and a terrible firing platform. Not to mention they would require numerous joints that the assuredly VERY heavy weight is all resting on, meaning they'd be under constant heavy stress while moving. If you need legs, something like a 4 legged design would be a lot more stable. Yes, they could technically go over certain terrain a tank can't, but for those situations you'd usually just bring in some sort of air support anyways.
Legged vehicles would also be slower than something with treads or wheels too. Tanks are surprisingly fast. You wouldn't want to have a vehicle that can't keep up with your other vehicles either. So your mech would most likely need some sort of transport mode with something like treads anyways just to keep up.
The size would also be a problem. You do not want something much large as a military vehicle. The bigger something is, the easier it becomes to hit.
These are just a few of the reasons why mechs are impractical for warfare, usually coming down to the fact taht the human form is impractical for it, which is why we support it with machines. Making a giant human form doesn't solve anything and just creates new issues.
I love mechs, I really do, but they do not make for practical weapons.
>What the fuck are you going to need wings for in space?
Attachment points for engines to apply rotational forces using less reaction mass due to the greater torque.
But it was a kind of stupid comment.
You know, I've been thinking, what if some shapeshifter like Alex Mercer existed and he was stuck, say, in low orbit, with limited resources for breathing.
How would he propel himself back home?
No, is it even possible to have a purely organic, living device that can act as an efficient space propulsion?
I've been having this thought about pulsed energy projectile, using ablation of your own craft/body with resulting small plasma explosions as weak propulsion, but I already forgot it.
still, there is a difference between giving a soldier gear that costs less than 20k (http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct/04/cost-equip-us-soldier-17500-please/), and giving him a suit that probably costs more than a million dollars, has lots of moving parts that can break, requires training to use and maintain, and probably still gets disabled when it gets hit by anything bigger than .50 cal.
i just don't see how they would be practical
Those are 2 different thins you dumb shit.
If you like trains so much why don't you go throw yourself under one, faggot?
>You should look into square cube law
I know this, that is why mechs are only making sense up to a size of roughly 10m
>That's why bicycles are so much faster than motorcycles. Good point.
Does the person propeling the bycicle have artificial muscles made of titanium fibers?
Tank would still have to deal with heavier armor, much larger contact surface and ground friction, and lack the manoeuvrability.
So yes the tank would lose every time in a race.
A bycicles mechanics will surely work well on a >40t tank.
It is like you lack any ability for actually thinking about the situation.
>if the mech is overall lower mass it's at less risk of causing a hill or slope to collapse
x mass over large area destabilized terrain less than x mass over small area. A mech of the same weight as a tank will distribute its weight over a much smaller area, meaning it will upset the terrain much easier, and then it has to correctly calculate the terrain WHILE it collapses and continuously adjust its weight distribution on all the many joints in an instance in order to remain upright, and even if you can do all of this it would only work if all its external sensors were working flawlessly.
Oh I don't think it'll be SUPER ARMOURED POWERSUIT bullshit straight away, no. But they're already testing powered exoskeletons to increase carrying capacity and shit. And once you've got that down and are getting into improving efficiency, why not strap more armour on it? Helps with survival, can still go indoors. Less of OUR BOYS COMIN' HOME IN BODYBAGS, which tends to upset the voting public.
[spolier]Unless the mech is an Atlas Battlemech.[/spoiler]
That shit be scary, brah
>As can tanks with some degree of efficiency.
Tanks have flat bottoms once they sink to the depth of the bottom of the hull they have no tractive force because the weight is on the hull rather than tracks. Tanks get stuck in the mud if it's deeper than their ground clearance, or if they sink the front end in and start pushing dirt.
Wheeled vehicles tend to do better in mud due to their normally higher clearance. But in a marsh with 50 or more feet of mud and sludge it doesn't matter what you have, wheels, tracks or legs your fucked.
You mean tranforming pushing force into mechanical rotation? Yeah you're right, that totally wouldn't work on heavy vehicles, what were we thinking? It's not like that's exactly how steam powered trains work or anything.
Do you really think that when they made musclkes of titanium fiber several times stronger than any living organisms muscle they didn't think about this.
Obviously this is part of the research.
>The whole point was it is stupid to argue against mechs not being able to do one thing as well as a tank when they are multipurpose.
Not him, but being multi purpose and not being able to do as well as things made for that purpose is a problem. Why built a machine that's inferior at everything when you can build one that's actually good as a specific purpose? Especially when the mech is almost guaranteed to use more resources to build and is more complicated overall?