So, what is a realistic or viable combat function for mecha in a military?
It's commonly agreed that between a mecha and a tank, the tank is always the better option due to the fact that decommissioned tanks can still be burrowed and used as turrets, something a mecha could never do. Plus it's a smaller target, and being on tracked wheels, tanks are just faster too.
The only benefit of a bipedal walker (or any legged vehicle) is terrain mobility. They have a easier time crossing non-flat territory, something a tank can't do.
So to that, I ask the question: what are the benefits of a mecha in a military. Clearly it would never replace the tank, but it could support it. Could it only be viable if flight capable? Like an evolution of the jet?
To that extent, modern war has changed,, it's no longer the massive mechanized warfare seen in WWII, so perhaps there could be a purpose there. What sort of combat setting would most benefit the mecha? And what kind of mecha design is most viable?
Is CnC with the GDI Titans and Wolverines more realistic? Or something more aerial like ZoE? Or maybe AC?
Power armor is a different story, that's definitely viable. But the larger bipedal mecha... the more I think of it, the more a tank-like design is best.
What are your thoughts /m/?
>So, what is a realistic or viable combat function for mecha in a military?
there isnt one you fucking retard, stop trying to make mecha "realistic" why are you so fucking autistic
just make cool giant robots shoot each other
>So, what is a realistic or viable combat function for mecha in a military?
There isn't one. And they generally aren't realistic or viable from an engineering standpoint either. Unless you want to say power armor = mecha, then in that case power armor will be able to enhance infantry performance.
Are variable fighters the most realistic mecha?
>But isn't a jet-like frame superior for exiting and entering atmosphere?
No. What does that have to do with space?
>Aren't arms useful for grabbing shit in space?
Manipulators are more efficient than human-like arms.
>Wouldn't it need propulsion?
Where did that even come from? Are you alright, anon?
High-MACS is the only realistic application of mecha i have truly seen. They essentially function as glorified anti-everything units, but specifically can eat armoured vehicles for breakfast, while being able to maintain battlefield superiority. They are moderately larger than a tank but compensate for frontal profile with excellent speed and manoeuvrability. Sort of like a high-bred tank helicopter. Their humanoid form is also well justified, the arms pull double duty of fast reloading the mech, and (due to the volatile nature of 150 mm rounds)provide an externally mounted precision turret that can get hit without damaging the pilot or machine's torso. The legs act also for ground traversing as well as huge shock absorbers for landing from a boosted glide.
we do you fucking retard, op's the dumbass trying to make it real for no reason
all of this is assuming battletech style walking tanks
how in gods name is a tracked wheel tank faster than your own fucking image
If we actually had the tech for it, variable fighters from macross would pretty much be god tier
There would either have to be ridiculous rules of engagement that required mechs and only mechs for mechs to ever be used in the military, ironically that means g-gundam has the most realistic "reason" for using mechs for geo-political gain. Other than if those rules were in place we'd always use tanks and fighter jets.
>The only benefit of a bipedal walker (or any legged vehicle) is terrain mobility. They have a easier time crossing non-flat territory, something a tank can't do.
Did you forget there is a thing called airplanes and drones? Did you also forget that mechanized infantry can take out armored vehicles with laser guided missiles from miles away? ISIS is doing this right now in Syria.
Nigga I am a fan of Gungriffon and the only semi-realistic weapons in Blaze are the spider tanks. (they could only fill a really small niche) The only problem with the spider tanks is that we don't have the technology to have a tank fight effectively with legs. In the long run you should be producing tanks with treads because it would be more cost efficient over the spider tanks.
>Because the best fiction is grounded in reality.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
The best fiction is one that can keep to its own consistent rules.
For all their worth, why mecha have to be military weapon?
I think of them as doing massive construction work in space and automated miners in asteroid belts since getting human mine there is very expensive.
To have mecha viabale , it needs to be an oveall allrounder for which we need
1. material for frame and body
2. energy source
3. control system with easy interface or control.
War in near-future will be about automated bots taking out specific targets. It's happening already. And most of the time it would be about setting a regime that would be friendly to superpowers in third world countries, which is already happening in a post-WW2 era.
Point is, what is more effiecient and bang of money will be kept being used in near-future until drastic inventions and discovery, or some major war or catastrophe .
The only reason I could see humanoid mecha becoming a thing in the real world is if 1:1 mocap shenanigans are used to operate machines in space, which in itself would only be for the purpose of easy training. Manual dexterity might be higher due to familiar body functions, operating complex machinery with the pilot at a safe distance for something like asteroid mining.
I can't see humanoid mecha being a thing on Earth though, and especially not without mocap control methods. Allowing the human brain to take over processing of balance alone would be an important step.
>The only reason I could see humanoid mecha becoming a thing in the real world is if 1:1 mocap shenanigans are used to operate machines in space
But even then they wouldn't have legs. At most, you would just mocap arms.
Too bad, this thread is bound to be flooded by troll and anon with no imagination.
Of course Mech can have a military use !
What do you think Exoskeleton are developed for ? And what do you think their evolution will be ?
An exoskeleton is limited by the human body so anything that goes beyond is bound to become a mechs by our standard, about that, a gunship with robot landing-gear would also count as a mech.
Things to know is that the military is desperate for armored vehicle that could hold mountain without toppling over any rock and slope, and tracked locomotion have drastic limitations on their own, things legs would overcome.
You don't even need a change in Warfare, we are already going toward a world where armor lost the race and the first to win is the first one to adapt. I the future our hope to keep MBT useful is anti-RPG defense, yet depending of how fragile those are, mobile-artillery with smart shell -guided to the meter- could be more useful than closing in with tank.
The only wish fulfillment I've seen is the wishful hope that reality never make your old fantasy look dulls, but in the end it doesn't matter if your metal samurai get replaced by more realistic looking metal soldier. SF is meant to explore the realm of possibility.
mocap would actually be pretty shitty, human are prone to errors, tripping and it would be wasteful to move your own body when the goal is to make the machine do it better.
The main obstacle toward mechs is the control computer capable of understanding the ground it walk on.
We already tried mocap, it will never work.
I dunno why but I always found this scene to be very plausible. Same with Gasaraki.
Mecha would be use for urban engagements where their shape, size, and general more nimble nature could help them out manuever tanks and more easily deal with infantry due to their arms and close combat.
Same logic could had been said against any new technology in support of preexisting tech.
The thing is if we do achieve that, it would rather simplfy our tools and mass produce a complete, single design instead of allocating different resources for different tools.
IT was the reason behind F-35 project, which didin't yied the results as expected.
Also, this >>13755674 >>13755709
>basing an aircafts performance on whether fucking India and Pakistan want one
I have to break it down for, shouldn't I?
Currently F-35 is on it's way to GM tier mass production and still in it's RX-78-2 prototype stage.
India and Pakistan may be butt of jokes on 4chan for being poo in loo meme and terrorist breeding ground, they hold key in geo-political shenanigans in south-east Asia.
In cold war Pakistan convieniently sided with USA while India despite being one of the founder of Non-alignment movement had grown closer to USSR. USA funded Pakistan either by it's selling it's aircraft or by funding splinter groups and insurgent to afghanistan during soviet invasion of the country and didin't gave a damm about that place and it's human right's violation until 9/11.
Well , that policy has been something that never changed for a long time. Even when genocide was going on in east-pakistan 1971, USA would rather send it's 7th fleet against India when she decided to intervene after a big refugee crisis than putting sanctions against Pakistan. It was USSR veto at security council that stopped the motion to prevent India to invade the country.
If you are able to bring a finished product that these two can not only buy but also helps you to further your agenda in the region against China, then I think ti would be a really good finished product.
I am not saying that F-35 project has failed and stopped. Things don't look good for now.
All I know about it is what other anon knows thorugh 4chan and articles about it. Nothing I know that could add here and even if I did if you consider it to be the case,I wouldn't be posting on a mecha forum of a taiwanese image board.
But it already has plenty of other customers.
Japan has bought 42 of them.
I really don't see what India or Pakistan has anything to do with how well the prgram is doing, which is waht your original post was about.
My logic was lowest common denominator, which I agree is a wrong one.
1st worlder getting new toy is not surprising though, they also secure foremost in the queue to get the upgrades.
You know the fact that F-35 has R&D program to make it closer to the original vision after billion doller expense.
> Exoskeletons will only see use as a piece of equipment for non combat roles like loading supplies, or as extremely specialized combat suits for SOF.
50, no 70% of what make an army win a war is non combat roles and logistic. With mechs you can do that AND have the most versatile weapon military could dream after exoskeleton because, well, for as anime as it look, yes a mechs can change its loadout without needing to return to the factory.
It's like a IFV with greater versatility than a gunship and the ability to hold a place.
As IFV go the Bradley's development was a clusterfuck (spamming the Pentagon Wars movie) but the things turned out to be more useful than the M1A1 Abram in all further conflict. Had it not been for new anti-RPG system (and lobbying) the next generation of tank would have been a glorious self-propelled artillery.
> But anon what about the performance ?
It's pretty much shit.
It's commercial success have much to do with hope of a new F-16 (which the F-35 isn't) and how Lockheed sold the F-104 (that horribly specialized plane that crash all the time)
And it's not just the performance as well as the features. It can't supercruise, can't carry enough weapon to do its job (some mission plan involve drone and C-130 carrying missile for him), carry a dead-weight fan when it can, it's IR sensor is 360° but geared for ground detection...etc
With the development cost of the F-35 they could have developed a cheaper and modern F-22, a new multirole F-16 (even Sprey recognized he was wrong to not want a radar on it) ...and a new A-10 (because. it. work !)
In some aspect the F-35 took the worst of F2P videogame : Sell an incomplete mess, then promise crowdfunding will turn a brick of lead into magnetic monopole Platinum.
Exactly right. If you build a universe that is completely unlike ours, then so long as the stories you tell follows the framework of that universe consistently you will probably build a good story.