[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

Tank VS Mecha

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 645
Thread images: 88

File: 10081018a.jpg (190KB, 990x990px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
10081018a.jpg
190KB, 990x990px
The great debate.
>>
I like mechas but there should be more tanks in anime.
>>
File: 1312541914175.jpg (65KB, 500x485px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1312541914175.jpg
65KB, 500x485px
Why not both?

Do you even Guntank?
>>
You might as well debate spear/pikemen vs knights. Because mechs of that size and caliber are supposed to be future techno knights.
>>
There is no debate.
Mecha are realistically impractical and overpowered in fiction.
>>
File: ????.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
????.jpg
57KB, 640x480px
RX-78-2 slices tanks like its nobody's business
and then the tops promptly fly away because zeon tanks are also jets
>>
>>112002893

Tank.
Tracks are easy to maintain and repair.
Legs like those, used in actual combat, would require retarded amount of calculation and gyroscopes that don't exist yet.
>>
Feasibility and realism? Tanks

Coolness factor? Mecha
>>
File: 1348555785331.jpg (189KB, 641x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1348555785331.jpg
189KB, 641x480px
>>112003091
>implying tanks could put a fight against a Zeong

Zeong have no legs by the way.
>>
from code geass we can say mecha >>>>>> tank. They had one fight with mecha vs old tech and the old tech got obliterated
>>
Tank, every day.
>>
Gunktank
All the benefits of a Mobile Suit, but none of the drawbacks (useless legs)
>>
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?
>>
>>112003091
Not yet but maybe soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs
>>
>>112003266
for the life of me all i can imagine is a gundum trying to catch up to other gundums with legs saying
>i lost these in the space war of 3273, life is rough
>>
File: 1349354810382.jpg (40KB, 200x200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1349354810382.jpg
40KB, 200x200px
Do you even Loto, OP?

Fucker have the best of both worlds.
>>
Tanks

I like to see them struggle before being crushed by a mecha. No offense, Igloofags.
>>
>>112002893
Tank is manned by Jesus Yamato and the one with the girly name

RX-78 by Kio Asuno

Who wins?
>>
>>112003574
Jesus can't do shit without his laser spamming robot.
>>
File: 1341930585569.jpg (96KB, 600x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1341930585569.jpg
96KB, 600x800px
>>112003574

>DRAGOON tank gun
>Dead waifus warhead

Kio doesn't stand a chance.
>>
>>112003091
>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.
>>
File: TimeForTonks.gif (3MB, 3950x610px)
TimeForTonks.gif
3MB, 3950x610px
>>112002893
Tanks, son, tanks...
>>
>>112002893
realistically, tanks. They're cheaper to mass produce, and mechs are highly impractical presently.

In anime however, mechs will always win.
>>
>>112002893
Mecha, anyone that say tank have shit taste.
>>
>>112003062
Actually giant mechs are realistically possible. We just do not fund it.
>>
>>112002959
This.
>>
>>112002893
>anime
mecha (rule of cool)
>real world
tank

>guntank
Is that like a tank with a gun?
>>
>>112004002
Your face is full of shit.
>>
>>112004036
>Actually i am speaking out of my ass.
>>
>>112003185
>mecha is cooler than tanks
Feats of engineering > children's toys.
>>
>>112002893
I deploy Hayato and R- Kai in the GUNTANK.

Your turn.
>>
Tank.

Using a giant robot to fight a tank is dumb.
>>
>>112003974
>In anime however, mechs will always win.

Watch Patlabor.
The second movie has a combat scene where mechs get obliterated by simple soviet tech tracked vehicles and infantry with RPGs.
>>
File: m gundam.jpg (2MB, 3744x2544px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m gundam.jpg
2MB, 3744x2544px
>>112002893
Do you have to ask?
>>
File: mstas.jpg (69KB, 750x451px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mstas.jpg
69KB, 750x451px
>>112004062
>Is that like a tank with a gun?

Kinda...
>>
>>112004036
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.
>>
>>112004151
I deploy Frau being fucked by Amuro in a Gundam.
>>
>>112004100
He said possible and not practical.
>>
File: 1345204503907.jpg (200KB, 928x497px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1345204503907.jpg
200KB, 928x497px
Tank is always the correct answer
>>
>>112004036
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.
>>
>>112002893
Mecha, tank a shit.
>>
>>112004218
I love armchair scientists and engineers. If you think mechs won't be used in future warfare, I just don't know what to tell you.
>>
File: 1400492935052.jpg (138KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1400492935052.jpg
138KB, 1280x720px
>>112003574
>Kio Asuno
gundam age's greatest mistake, well after this of course
>>
>>112003046
>mechs
>future techno knights
pls
>>
>>112004298
For what reason would they be used?
>>
I like both
>>
>>112004298
You just described yourself.

But please, humor us and tell us of the magnificent advantages of having a top heavy tall weapons platform.
>>
How about a compromise? A mecha that can transform into a tank?
>>
>>112004251
>Tank is always the correct answer

To get trashed in.

Mech>Attack Jet>Tank
>>
>>112004282
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.
>>
>>112004384
>bbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>>
>>112004384
FYI, those things are outdated these days and are being out-phased.
>>
>>112004298
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.
>>
>>112004384
>A-10

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.
>>
Only fags can ride these rainbow painted mecha shit
>>
>>112004412
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.
>>
>>112004494
>implying mechs have to be huge
>implying they have to be piloted
>>
File: 1397202937992.jpg (12KB, 212x240px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1397202937992.jpg
12KB, 212x240px
>>112004494
>actual scientist

You forgot to tip your fedora anon
>>
>>112004412
>Everything is inefficient at first.
>Any technology starts off needlessly impaired and terrible inefficient, then it evolves past those problems.
[citation needed]
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.
>>
File: fairlions.png (110KB, 290x400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fairlions.png
110KB, 290x400px
>implying you wouldnt pilot this over a tank
>>
>>112004580
If they aren't huge and don't have a pilot inside then it's not really a mech anymore, now is it?
>>
>>112004412
>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.
>>
>>112004542
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.
>>
>>112004580
A mecha per definition is manned and has humanoid shape. Otherwise it isn't a mecha.
>>
>>112004671
If it's gonna be in space, why have legs?
>>
>>112004671
Why would you want a humanoid form when operating in space?
>>
>>112004626

Looks kind of retarded.

What's with all the extra useless fins?
>>
File: m356.jpg (103KB, 440x400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m356.jpg
103KB, 440x400px
>>112004627
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.
>>
File: Bandkanon_1.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Bandkanon_1.jpg
1MB, 1600x1200px
>>112004197
>take low-budget tank
>slap huge-ass gun on it
>add autoloader

Tac-nukes optional.
>>
>>112004626
I would, but only for a chance to have it hump a tank with its barrel between its legs.
>>
>>112004715
Kcyilia pls go
>>
>>112004412
>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.
>>
>>112004036

Mechas will exist, but will most likely be used in construction than anything else.
>>
>>112004784
>Bandkanon

Glorious Sweden!
>>
File: betas.jpg (247KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
betas.jpg
247KB, 1920x1080px
>drive tank
>see this
>what do?
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.
>>
>>112004907
Defending the homeland from Ze Russian, two active fighter jets at a time!
>>
>>112004755
What you just posted picture of is large and has a pilot in it.
Do you know what a mech is?
>>
File: ZhukMech.jpg (66KB, 1000x643px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ZhukMech.jpg
66KB, 1000x643px
>>112004755
>>
File: ultrasaurus.jpg (71KB, 439x394px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ultrasaurus.jpg
71KB, 439x394px
>human mechs
>not animal mechs
shiggy diggy anons
>>
Next huge weapon I expect is a hivemind AI-controlled cloud of hovercraft drones.
Imagine a swarm of some 500 dog sized beasts going through the area.
>>
>>112004919
send a cute girl so they go back to their caves and post on /r9k/ about it
>>
>>112004755

That's just a tank with legs.
Flimsy legs.
With a wide and tall base.

That thing will get trashed the instant it shows its ugly head.
>>
>>112004444
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.
>>
>>112004964
BEAST WAAAAARSSSS
>>
>>112004610
>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.
>>
>>112004979
scrin pls go and stay go
>>
File: mobius1.jpg (73KB, 1323x391px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mobius1.jpg
73KB, 1323x391px
planes>tanks>mechs
>>
>>112004494
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.
>>
File: 1386891495778.png (72KB, 296x240px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1386891495778.png
72KB, 296x240px
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.
>>
>>112004919
Use my superior velocity over mechs and movement capabilities to retreat.
>>
>>112004877
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.
>>
>>112005036
acecombat assault horizon > acecombat 5 & 6 combined
>>
File: 1343021869671.jpg (53KB, 489x400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1343021869671.jpg
53KB, 489x400px
>>112005023
Gee anon, I didn't see you tips your fedora yet.
>>
>>112004979
Just imagine a swarm of a militarized version of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bA3wp9h3abI#t=57
>>
File: 1226490724_photo.jpg (66KB, 345x391px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1226490724_photo.jpg
66KB, 345x391px
>>112004950
>>112004755
>>
>>112005003
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...
>>
>>112005110
>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.
>>
>>112005133
That's because you were too fast with yours.
>>
>>112005000
Can tanks jump over ruins and large wreckage? I don't think so.
>>
>>112004627
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
>>
>>112005049
A machine as complicated as a mech would be pretty difficult to maintain in a combat environment that isn't a sterile room.
>>112005126
Funny man.
>>
>>112005196
Stop feeding the troll. You don't need to respond just because he does.
>>
>>112005200
No, that's what CAS is for.
>>
>>112005155
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).
>>
>>112004494
>Mecha
>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.
>>
>>112004189
>No Zakrello funnels

Shit MA, would not pilot/10
>>
>>112005155

It still can carry a fuckload of AT missiles, though. Even if his BRAAAAAAAP! gun is no longer the shit, he can still rekt tanks gud. Which is his main shtick.
>>
>>112005046
Edgy has already been used for more than a decade as colloquial term to describe someone who thinks that they're cool or trying hard to appear cool.
>>
>>112005110
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.
>>
>>112005200

Spider mechs or quadruped (horse) mechs are way superior the fucking chicken legs mechs.
>>
File: spider mech.jpg (392KB, 1600x1070px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
spider mech.jpg
392KB, 1600x1070px
>>112005152
>>
File: char.jpg (424KB, 960x540px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
char.jpg
424KB, 960x540px
>>112005261
>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
>>
>>112005202
Why female?
>>
>>112005200
Tank can just drive through that crap or blow it up
>>
>>112005200
>Can tanks jump over ruins and large wreckage?

Have you played Metal Slug or Blaster Master?
>>
>>112005264
See >>112005281.

Lurk more newfag.
>>
>>112005281
No it hasn't.
>>
>>112002893
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.
>>
>>112005271
>It still can carry a fuckload of AT missiles

Holy shit! Nobody else can do that!
Except, you know, multiple other multi purpose aircraft and even infantry.
>>
File: fff_fm5_wanzer_02.jpg (144KB, 1085x996px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fff_fm5_wanzer_02.jpg
144KB, 1085x996px
>>112005287
>>112005323
The glorious mech future is soon.
>>
>>112004777
>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
>>
File: Takemikazuchi.jpg (77KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Takemikazuchi.jpg
77KB, 1280x720px
Mecha (which are bipedal) will never be practical.

Something like pic related is far more likely.
>>
>>112004957
put tracks on it
>suddenly it becomes ten times as cheap
>far easier to maintain and repair
>faster on 95% of terrain
>lower silhouette
>less exposed mobility parts
>lighter
>lower weight pressure
>can be made smaller since no need for ridiculously power requirements to drive legs
>extended operational range
>etc
>etc

Mechs are only good for fantasy settings.
>>
>>112005200
>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
>>
I'm currently studying in robotics and biotechnology in one of the most prestigious universities in the world in order to make ma dream a real thing: Create real Evangelion
>>
>>112005281
Not really, edgy refers to when somebody tried too hard to do something offensive or "on the edge" of what was acceptable.
>>
>>112005405
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.
>>
>>112005406
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.
>>
>>112005286
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.
>>
>>112005375
Try harder, samefag.
>>
>>112005465
>put tracks on it
>suddenly becomes largely restricted and forced into one role
>>
>>112005126
I've only played Assault Horizon because >Mustard race and I can still tell you're full of shit.
Fucking Akula and his rear firing fucking missiles.
>>
>>112005348
Because cute.
>>
No one remembers Odessa? Feds tried it with the Type 61 and got stomped by Zakus. Mby in a ambush situation, but in open ground conflict, mecha every time.
>>
>>112005555
>Has legs
>It now has magically attained multiple roles

Such as?
>>
>>112005155
While the Gau-8 can't land killing blows on modern tanks it can still immobilize/incapacitate them. Anything short of that level of armor will get shredded.
>>
>>112005582
If we go by that intro video for MS IGLOO then you should also remember space ships doing multi-G turns and landing crafts pulling even harder stunts.
>>
>>112005615
see
>>112005517
>>112005049
>>112005499
>>
>>112005323
The more movable parts you have, the more units you are going to lose.
>>
>>112005531
Samefagging is when you reply to your own post pretending to be someone else. Linking to your own post is something else and not looked down upon.
>>
>>112005348

Because females are weaker and cute? Power armor would allow the hiring of cuter females in most physically demanding jobs.
>>
>>112005517
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.
>>
>>112005569
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.
>>
>>112005281
>colloquial term to describe someone who thinks that they're cool or trying hard to appear cool.

No, that's being a tryhard faggot, faggot.
>>
>>112005508
>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.
>>
>>112005258
Close Air Support, or Combat Armor Suit?
Because one of those is a mech.
>>
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.
>>
>>112005531
See >>112005676.

Lurk more newfag before you continue with your dipshitting.
>>
File: 20.jpg (601KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20.jpg
601KB, 1536x1024px
>>112005348
>>
>>112005662
Not talking about Igloo, but in the books and other anime that depict tanks, even the zeon ones, unless they have surprise and numbers, the MS's have to much of an advantage.
>>
File: f15 (2).jpg (921KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f15 (2).jpg
921KB, 1920x1200px
>>112005738
Close Air Support.
>>
>>112005202
>Muh GITS future
>>
>>112005323

I don't understand, what could a mech do that carpet bombing from drones can't accomplish?
>>
>>112005669
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.
>>112005679
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.
>>
>>112005569
>Fucking Akula and his rear firing fucking missiles.
git gud son
>>
>>112005414
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.
>>
>>112005499
You want helicopters, son.
>>
>>112005517
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?
>>112005049
>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.
>>112005499
Yet again, change the turret and you have a multirole vehicle.

>>112005669
What now?
>>
>>112005481
>robotics
>biotechnology
>even in the same general spectrum of scientific discovery
Anon, it's past your bedtime.
>>
>>112005809
Given situations where carpet bombing would destroy things you didn't intend to destroy. Collateral damage, asymmetrical warfare and stuff. Also

>drones
>carpet bombing
>>
>>112005809
By this logic why not just nuke entire countries? Why not carpet bomb everything? Why not just obliterate Gaza off the map?

That is a terrible argument.
>>
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.
>>
>>112005904
Yeah why not?
>>
>>112005691
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.
>>
>>112005904
>Why not just obliterate Gaza off the map?
They're working on it, anon.
>>
>>112003574
I want to fuck Kio.
>>
>>112005947
We tried that with the F-35.
>>
>>112005884
The armament of a vehicle doesn't define it's role and capabilities solely. Fighter jets and humvees can both use guided missiles, that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
>>
>>112005904
Rolling Thunder was a good idea.
>>
>>112005737
>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.
>>
>>112005947
Bridgelayers and mine flails, if you want some esoteric engineer corps stuff...
>>
>>112005049
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.
>>
>>112002893
Tank unless the machine in question is at least NEXT tier.
>>
>>112005691
Yeah man. Why have smart phones when PCs exist? Why have skype when phones exist? Why have 2-in-one hair wash when conditioner and shampoo exists?

I could go on forever.
>>
>>112005810
If I were designing power armor, my target demographic would be prepubescent girls.
>>
>>112006004
>Plane uses AA missiles
>Then it uses AT missiles
Hurr, it's not a multi role craft.
>>
>>112005963
Area bombing in the form of gradual and consistent bombardment with "precision" artillery and air strikes.

What will the jews think of next?
>>
>>112005990
That didn't really cut budget, at all...
>>
>>112005963
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.
>>
>>112005947
>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.
>>
WHERE IS YOUR GOD DOWN MECHAFAGS
>>
File: kuratas-robot-3.jpg (54KB, 550x423px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
kuratas-robot-3.jpg
54KB, 550x423px
>>112005854
>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
>>
>>112006096
Yup.
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
>>
File: drillzilla.jpg (5KB, 200x118px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
drillzilla.jpg
5KB, 200x118px
>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.
>>
>>112005822
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.
>>
>>112005906
What a stupid idea. Do you really need to be told why there's no tank out there designed to be super tall so they can plink tank top armor?
>>
>>112006125
Isn't a neutron bomb the best choice for that?
>>
>>112006174
That looks retarded even for a tank.
>>
>>112006125
>because it destroys more
It destroys everything.
There's no point in helping people if you destroy everything.
>>
>>112006125
>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.
>>
>>112006056
What are you trying to say?
>>
>>112004919
Do you even BHAAAAAANEBLAAAAAAADEEEE!!!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1biHKEJB-lc
>>
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.
>>
What do you guys think about hovertanks?
Will they ever be a thing?
>>
>>112006260
I don't think you've been following this conversation.
>>
>>112006190
Wait, are you listing falsehoods and fallacies or something? I don't understand.
>>
>>112006185
We robocop now.
>>
>>112006324
Not really man.
>>
>>112006185
this still has wheels
>>
File: buh.jpg (98KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
buh.jpg
98KB, 1920x1080px
>>112003474
>No offense, Igloofags
Fuck that whole episode, tanks have no business going that fast.
>>
>>112006185
You do know that the gun on it is an airsoft gun and its "armor" is some light plastic that is thinly distributed all around for the looks?
>>
>>112006185
Oh, it has a pair of mini guns.
That's it? A fucking pair of mini guns? That looks like a fucking toy for fuck sake.
>>
>>112006365
The only thing more inefficient than a mech is a mech with a neutrino cannon.
>>
File: 1335555119519.jpg (109KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1335555119519.jpg
109KB, 1024x576px
>>112006185
You now notice it has a pole stuck up its ass just so it can stand up.
>>
I liked AC V designs more, That extra armor in the legs made it seemed that they where prepped to counter the weakness
>>
Tanks. Because:

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.
>>
>>112006214
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.


>>112006196
ECM jammer.
Failing that, go in and out of DFM repeatedly, it breaks the lock every time.
>>
>>112006080
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.
>>
>>112006415
It's a prototype. It still needs a reasonable budget and proper materials.
>>
>>112006446
Mechs are not inefficient, though I guess you could make an argument for large bipedal mechs being inefficient but it would be rather weak.

Mechs = multipurpose
Tanks = one job
>>
File: tank vs mech.jpg (97KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tank vs mech.jpg
97KB, 1024x768px
>>
>>112006056
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.
>>
>>112005810
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.
>>
>>112006321
Probably not as an MBT, Maybe as an advancement of landing craft we already have for swampy terrain.
>>
>>112004352
Construction
>>
>>112006174
>No Railgun upgrade
>Not posting the MARV
I am disappoint Anon.
>>
>>112006548
>Mechs = multipurpose
Running, jumping, breakdancing, going to the shops
>Tanks = one job
Killing the fuck out of your enemy
>>
File: gundam-statue-1.jpg (61KB, 520x694px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
gundam-statue-1.jpg
61KB, 520x694px
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.
>>
>>112006548
>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.
>>
>>112006539
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.
>>
>>112006464
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?
>>
>>112006569
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.
>>
>>112006548
>tanks
>one job

I can list a few uses for a tank in home improvement and garbage disposal, actually.

Demolition tanks, coming to a TV near you.
>>
File: 44174931.png (758KB, 900x506px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
44174931.png
758KB, 900x506px
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.
>>
>>112006419
>That looks like a fucking toy for fuck sake.
It is literally a toy for rich people
>>
>>112006562
The Mech is probably faster and can out maneuver the Tank, how fast are hippos again
>>
>>112006548
Please, do list the multiple roles a Mech can do.
>>
>>112006699
Why do that when you could just make better tanks? Just keep pumping out better and better tanks until everything is a tank.
>>
>>112006592
While the plot isn't, that setting is the one from the movie The Substitutes, or whatever its English name is.
>>
>>112006548
>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.
>>
>>112006733
Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuratas

1Million dollars for a platform that couldnt deflect a 9mm bullet and is armed with dual BB miniguns.
Any takers?
>>
>>112006751
>Though they are bulky animals, hippopotamuses can gallop at 30 km/h (19 mph) on land but normally trot.
>>
>>112006751
Faster than you.
>>
>>112005904
>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.
>>
>>112006671
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?
>>
>>112006592
Isn't half of that just Surrogate
>>
>>112006659
Just as a side note, a mech that can walk on a rainforest wont be able to walk in a desert so easily, it will sink in the sand.
>>
>>112006464
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.
>>
>>112006699
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.
>>
>>112006699
PCs caught on because there was no cheaper and more efficient alternative.
>>
>>112006766
they can combine
they can transform
they have hands with 5 fingers that can grab things
they can jump
they can fly
they shoot lasers
they dont exist
>>
>>112006659
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.
>>
>>112006773
You are so right. Why find another form of transportation when you could just keep breeding better and better horses?
>>
>>112006829
Who is why you use neutron bombs.
>>
>>112006699
>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.
>>
>>112006690
The nazis were kind of desperate for a Superwaffe.
When V1 and V2 didn't work out, they went kind of crazy.
>>
>>112004919
Beta? No problem. Take a GAU-8 and mount it on a fucking big tank. You won't need to run.
>>
>>112006932
>not using antimatter bombs
>>
>>112005351
>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 is the most autistic discussion happening on /a/ right now.

That's a goddamn feat.
>>
>>112006348
Criteria of tanks is mutable.

If you're comparing, compare all of them vs mecha.
>>
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.
Stop it.
>>
>>112006920
>so they can do all the shit you would do with your hands on a larger scale
Such as? Disarm larger mines, pull larger triggers?
>>
Reminder that mechas are heartless cruel machines and tanks are innocent lovable friends.
>>
>>112006751
Faster than a regular human. Why do you thing niggers evolved to be so fast?
>>
>>112006775

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.
>>
>>112002893
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 are cool because they're completely fucking fictional and nonsensical.

Tanks are far more efficient at doing the exact same job.
>>
>>112007010
>There is no debate.
>Stop it.
And when we outfit the first combat soldier in power armor?
>>
File: neuesbild6j.jpg (471KB, 750x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
neuesbild6j.jpg
471KB, 750x600px
>>112006174
Still loved this thing more
>>
>>112006592
That reminded me of The Gamer actually.
Man, that was one shit movie.
>>
>>112007010
>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.
>>
File: 1336929534285.jpg (47KB, 640x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1336929534285.jpg
47KB, 640x480px
>>112006641
I'm not even going to bother refuting
>mechs should into space
because it's just that retarded.
>>
>>112006731
>Mechs have the mobility,
Except they don't.
Straight territory?
Tanks win.
Marshes?
Mecha are not even going to reach the other side.
Hills?
Tanks win.
Forests?
The mecha are fucked.
>>
>>112006843
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.

>>112007085
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?
>>
>>112006731
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.
>>
>>112003821
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.
>>
>>112007085
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?
>>
>>112007118

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.
>>
File: 1339882861617.jpg (42KB, 640x360px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1339882861617.jpg
42KB, 640x360px
>>112007054
You are wrong.
>>
>>112006731
>Mechs have the mobility
No they don't.

They only do in fiction because natural laws don't exist there. And that's why they're great.
>>
>>112007118
>he uses "real" and "super" unironically
>>
>>112007065
>Retisentment

Derp, meant Resentiment by Hanazawa Kengo. I always get that name wrong.
>>
>>112007241
>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.
>>
File: 1336946223102.png (208KB, 449x561px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1336946223102.png
208KB, 449x561px
>>112007004
So wait, you actually think everything you wrote there is actually correct?
>>
>>112007099
HELL YEAH!

Cues Imperial March
>>
>>112007241
a mech isn't either the best option for space warfare, it's in fact, one of the worst.
>>
>>112007053
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
>>
>>112003821
>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.
>>
>>112004218
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.
>>
Tanks are good in real life, mechas aren't. Mecha are interesting in anime, tanks aren't. We done here?
>>
>>112006920
>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.
>>
>>112007380
You could just use the tech they used to make them to make tanks better.
>>
>>112007267
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.
>>
File: 1359517390183.png (176KB, 393x393px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1359517390183.png
176KB, 393x393px
>>112007241
Cry moar. I can smell your butthurt from here.
>>
File: 156046.png (2KB, 80x80px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
156046.png
2KB, 80x80px
>>112006830
Biggest self-proppelled gun.
>>
>>112007380
I don't understand why they have triggers in Gundam, because there is a plug in the hand that provides power to beam weapons that would easily be use to fire the weapon
>>
>>112007241
>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
>>
>>112007233
>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.
>>
>>112007380
If you have MGS magical cyborg muscle, sure they work. With any real materials the vulnerability of the legs isn't worth the extra height.
>>
>>112007241
Drones and aircraft are already obsoletizing tanks. It'll be a while before light vehicles and infantry are rendered cost-ineffective by tech advanced though.
>>
>>112006973
Antimatter bomb destroy structures.

Neutron bombs destroy most organic matter, and leave no radiation behind.
>>
>>112007445
Still impractical if used otherwise. Added that this thing is supposed to be a frontline tank.
>>
>>112007380
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.
>>
>>112007454
Autonomous combat support mechs are a reality, they just carry stuff. Automated weapons platforms are in development as well but I'd hardly call is a mecha
>>
>>112007053
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.
>>
>>112007447
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?
>>
>>112007241
>Are you going to put wings on your tank?
It'd be better than sticking spindly limbs on my plane.
>>
>>112007395
>>112007233
>>112007080
At least pretend to care that you're not as obvious as fuck.
>>
>>112007342
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.
>>
>>112007442
>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.
>>
>>112006731
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).
>>
>>112005155
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.
>>
File: 1337579735416.jpg (41KB, 439x399px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1337579735416.jpg
41KB, 439x399px
>>112007556
Yeah, maybe in your /m/ thread where rigorous design study doesn't exist.
>>
>>112002893
Easy, mecha. Tanks are for fags.
>>
>>112007395
>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.
>>
>>112007584
>You just couldn't buy those from Germany anymore
And you wouldn't happen to be German yourself, would you, calling tungsten carbide "wolframcarbid"?
>>
>>112002893
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.
>>
>>112007503
Anti-matter bomb destroys literally everything, and burns the rest with highly energetic radiation.
I'm not so sure how neutron bombs work.
>>
>>112007538
Baby steps, anon.

Besides, automated weapons platforms still qualify as mechs.
>>
>>112007395
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.
>>
File: 1367053018660.png (217KB, 500x276px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1367053018660.png
217KB, 500x276px
>>112007582
Dodging TOWs.
>>
File: big-dog-snow.jpg (144KB, 895x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
big-dog-snow.jpg
144KB, 895x600px
>>112007561
Agreed. Bipedal will never work.
>>
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.
>>
>>112007655
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."
>>
>>112007556
That sounds like a retard.
Also mechs have one of the worst shapes in the world to survive re-entry if necessary.
>>
>>112007561
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.
>>
File: 1371792863327.jpg (155KB, 1198x805px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1371792863327.jpg
155KB, 1198x805px
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
>>
>>112007253
>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.
>>
>>112005615
>>112005465
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.
>>
Jets > Tanks > Orbital Space Cannons > Mechs.
All right in the world.
>>
>>112007185
>Except they don't.
>Straight territory?
>Tanks win.
>Marshes?
>Mecha are not even going to reach the other side.
>Hills?
>Tanks win.
>Forests?
>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.
>>
>>112007655
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.
>>
>>112007561
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.
>>
>>112005737
You know that planes even fighter jets usualy slow down to sub sonic speeds when engaging combat.
>>
>>112007199
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
>>
>>112007698
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
>>
>>112007698
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.
>>
>>112007727
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.
>>
>>112007735
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.
>>
>>112007768
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.
>>
>>112007745
Oh god its the retarded deathball idea again. Are you the same guy from a month or so ago?
>>
File: 1380928.png (326KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1380928.png
326KB, 1280x720px
>>112007765
Orbital Kinetic Bombardment
>>
>>112007541
Construction is the only somewhat plausible argument I've seen so far, and that's just because I don't know ass about the subject.
>>
Have a mech that can easily dig holes and drill around underground.

Bury everyone in tanks alive with my mech's digging abilities.
>>
>>112007849
and a nuke beats them all
>>
>>112004889
Mechas already exist, it just isn't bipedal, and its nothing more than a very expensive toy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuratas
>>
>>112007199
>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.
>>
>>112005809
>I just draw discussion to complete other way so I can push my stupid opinions
>>
>>112007883
>Advent Rising flashback
>"They throw...rocks"
>Cue fuckhuge meteor bombardment
so long Earth
>>
>>112007719
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
>>
>>112002893
Tanks don't have air conditioning.

My mech has heat rays.

Make everyone in the tank get heat strokes and faint.
>>
>>112007838
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).
>>
>>112004671
>space warfare
i sure hope future humanity won't be this retarded
>>
>>112007672
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco
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.
>>
File: VOTOM.jpg (38KB, 300x386px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
VOTOM.jpg
38KB, 300x386px
>All these posts
>No VOTOMs
>>
>>112006458
>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.
>>
>>112004494
>>112004298
>>112004218
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
>>
>>112007942
I like that BT is that ridiculous though.

It makes for the greatest after-action stories.
>>
>>112007942

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.
>>
>>112007849
You are so right, anon. A PC beats a smart phone in power and a car beats a truck at mobility and resource efficiency. That's why smart phones and trucks do not exist.
>>
>>112007976
>sweet-fighting
Zwee-fighting. Fucking autocorrect
>>
File: 1392311535852.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1392311535852.png
2MB, 1920x1080px
>>112007883
>>
>>112007638

>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.
>>
>>112007541
>Moving big shit around.
Cranes, construction vehicles, etc that won't keel over like a mech.

>Switching weapons quickly and easily.
Not relevant

>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.
>>
>>112008077
A tank will fix that, don't worry.
>>
>>112007873
So you are saying that a compact ship with less outer hull to be shot at is inferior compared to...?
>>
>>112007493
>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.
>>
>>112008123
You're right. We should make combat cranes and tractors.

Are you retarded?
>>
>>112007554
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.
>>
>>112007735
And carry what payload? An infantryman's/
>>
File: 1404706654307.jpg (46KB, 515x472px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404706654307.jpg
46KB, 515x472px
>>112007883
>orbital
>not deep space kinetic bombardment
gotta get them asteroids somewhere
>>
>>112008061
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.
>>
>>112008017
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
>>
>>112008017
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
>>
>>112008017
>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.
>>
>>112006731
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.
>>
>>112007886
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.
>>
>>112008017
Please, we're discussing real world physics here.
>>
>Future of warfare will have no use for tanks or 18-meter tall robots with lazer rifles

Why even argue, hover drones will eliminate the need for both
>>
>>112008143
I mostly agree with you, but...
>endurance

Remind me again how many tankerloads of fuel an M1A1 consumes in a single day of continuous operation?
>>
>>112007768
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.
>>
>>112007493
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.
>>
>>112008143
TBH tanks nowadays are basically infantry support. I doubt we'll ever again see the kind of tank warfare we had in Kursk or in the North African theater of WW2.
>>
>>112008191
>asteroids
>not dropping 30ft long tungsten girders on buildings at supersonic speeds
>>
>>112005517
>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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grille_(artillery)

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.
>>
>>112008196
You're right. That's why cars don't exist.
>>
>>112008017
That's not possible. It would tear its legs apart.
>>
>>112008286
To be fair the US has the logistical support to get away with it, plus the Abrams is built to chug just about anything as a fuel.
>>
>>112008286
Less than a Helicopter or a hoverdrone. At least it can go for more than an hour before refueling.
>>
>>112008005
museru
>>
>>112008101
>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.
>>
>>112008181
I don't see any reason not to have engineering vehicles attached to breakthrough formations to deal with obstacles and crossings. Y'know, like real life combat engineers
>>
>>112008262
it was just to illustrate the tanks and mechs working together, but thanks for the intel.
>>
File: ATST.jpg (612KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ATST.jpg
612KB, 1600x1200px
>>112002893
combine them and get a walking tank.
>>
>>112008196

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.
>>
>>112007631
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.
>>112007637
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.
>>
>>112008338
Cars exist because they're better at something. Mechs still aren't theoretically better than tanks at anything relevant.
>>
>>112008482
That's still a mech.
>>
File: 1373180055498.jpg (43KB, 522x303px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1373180055498.jpg
43KB, 522x303px
>>112008182
>Muh mecha-researching scientists, honest.
>Muh super fast and agile and impossible to hit mecha.
Oh Jesus, we got a live one here.
>>
>>112007241
what kind of power armor can block a fucking 120mm slug to the chest

even the sheer force of the projectile would send the guy in armor to the fucking moon
>>
>>112008338
Efficiency has never stopped anyone in the name of luxury.

Look at the Kuratas.
>>
>>112008482
Weak legs, big body, only two feet to spread the weight... That's a no.
>>
>>112007655
SO how will you apply artificial muscles on a tank in any sensible way?
>>
>>112002893
>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.
>>
>>112008522
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.
>>
>>112008482
Reminder that a bunch of teddy bears can take on an ATST and win.
>>
Why are realism and logic fags always gotta rain on the fun parade?
>>
>>112008286
>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.
>>
>>112008520
>Muh artificial muscles
It's always easy to tell who's a Battlemech fag who substitutes fluff for brains.
>>
>>112007454
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.
>>
>>112008606
By not using it on a tank because that's fucking stupid and you're stupid.
>>
File: Linear Tank big.jpg (392KB, 1024x742px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Linear Tank big.jpg
392KB, 1024x742px
>>112002893

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?
>>
>>112004412
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 .
>>
>>112008683

Hey now. As a Battletech fag, I take offence that you think we're all as retarded as that retard.
>>
>>112008491
>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.
>>112008653
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
Maybe.
>>
>>112008320
>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.

>>112008653
>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.
>>
>>112008606
Fuel bladder, kevlar-like ballistics padding, fuck if I know.

COULD BE SOME OF THE RUBBER MATERIALS, I GUESS.
>>
File: 1351357655143.jpg (53KB, 350x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1351357655143.jpg
53KB, 350x300px
>>112008491
>They are still figuring out how to make it more efficient in that front.
Wheels + legs a best
>>
>>112008653
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
>>
>>112007642
They are basicaly H bombs, that are designed in a way to cause most of the radiation being emitted as neutron particle radiation.
>>
>>112008798
Forgot my link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMDaNhTTi8
>>
>>112007241
What the fuck are you going to need wings for in space?
>>
>>112008606
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.
>>
>>112008662
The fun parade wins in the end, because realism and logic hasn't stopped anime from including mecha.
>>
>>112008286
>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?
>>
File: m5_cromo_low_racer.jpg (72KB, 591x264px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m5_cromo_low_racer.jpg
72KB, 591x264px
>>112008606
>What is bicycle?
>>
>>112008835

Probably infantrymen in armoured exoskeletons, also. Pretty sure DARPA's still throwing money at that.
>>
>>112008520
>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.
NO U.
>>
>>112008606
How can you apply muscle contraction to propel something without making it a biped, anon?
Think now.
>>
>>112008292
You realize that depening on the strenght of the mechs legs it could still move in a marsh even if slowed down.
>>
>>112008793
>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.
>>
>>112008662
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.
>>
>>112008653
>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.
>>
>>112008864
Stop engaging him, he's a moron
>>
File: 1407622020817.jpg (253KB, 736x545px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407622020817.jpg
253KB, 736x545px
>butbut mechs can fly
The answer to all your problems
>>
>>112008662
Because normalfags can't separate reality from fiction and have to think of everything in terms of what they know to exist because they have zero imagination whatsoever.
>>
>>112008911
>gundams riding bikes
That mental image alone made this thread worth it for me.
>>
>>112008757

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.
>>
>>112008491
>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.
>>
>>112009030
>canadian army
>>
>>112005752
samefag
>>
>>112008998
Can still move /= move faster than tracks.
>>
>>112007267
>>112007210
>>112007185
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.
>>
>>112009075
And building construction.
Either way, you can get around it only for so much, at least now.
Good thing we can.
>>
>>112009075
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.
>>
>>112009003
>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.
>>
>>112009059
I'll even concede that mech suits inside massive tanks or battleships, loading shells and turning huge cranks would make more sense than mech suits running around.
>>
>>112008951
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
>>
>>112008998
As can tanks with some degree of efficiency.

Have you ever tried walking through deep mud? It would be like that but exponentially worse because of physics
>>
File: 109.jpg (63KB, 940x401px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
109.jpg
63KB, 940x401px
>>112008599
better?
>>
>>112008757
>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.
>>
>>112009172
But this fiction could easily become reality, and is already being researched.
>>
>>112009059
BIKER MECHS FROM MARS.
>>
>>112008999
> 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.
>>
>>112009112
>owns an anime body pillow
>lives in his parents basement
>thinks he can make fun of anyone
keep on truckin kid
>>
>>112009192

Iunno. It'd seem to be the way the US military's been going for the last, uh. Forty years or so.

Price of outfitting a single dude has been going up and up and up since 'Nam.
>>
>>112008357
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.
>>
>>112009246
I am truly scared by the almighty and fearsome canadian army.
>>
File: GeschützDora2.jpg (1MB, 3018x1118px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
GeschützDora2.jpg
1MB, 3018x1118px
Railguns. The non-electrical ones.

This is what Rail Wars should've been about.
>>
>>112009045
Unbeatable terror machine of hellfire 3000.
Not even spiral energy could take this one down.
>>
>>112009172
>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.
>>
>>112009112
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).
>>
>>112009201
>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
>>
>>112008999
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.
>>
>>112008999
>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.
>>
>>112009297
>non electrical railgun
What? That is one of the stupidest statements in this thread, and that's saying something.
>>
>>112009045
Give it a double (single-axial) main rotor and install electronic warfare equipment on the tail instead of the tail rotor, and we're done.
>>
>>112009172
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?
>>
>>112008784
>>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.
>>
>>112009367

No. They're actually a thing. It's an artillery gun on a train.
>>
File: 1386862688161.png (10KB, 555x198px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1386862688161.png
10KB, 555x198px
>>112009201
>Square-cube law stops mattering once you get big enough.
>>
>>112009336
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.
>>
>>112008017
>thinking 30 tons of mech moving at 300km/h would be even remotely nimble.
You have no concept of physics. You need to stop.
>>
>Making a biped mech when you could make a quadruped.
>Making walking mech at all when you could put treads on it or make it fly.
>>
>>112009367
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.
>>
>>112009367
That pic is actually called a rail gun.
It's a fuck-huge canon on tracks.
>>
>>112005743
>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"

>>112005768
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.
>>