Since my other shitpost thread got autosaged can we have a mech

>>30071202
this has to be a bait thread, really. a mech thread on /k/ you have to be either an idiot or baiting. i'll bite. the only weapons that a mech could carry to reliably kill a tank would be AT missiles, which it wont be able to carry much of because of the mechs insane ground pressure. which is another reason why a mech will never perform well in rought terrain. plus you can't really armour mechs.

File: 1461354877062.jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

There is no point in trying to build mechs, when they're inferior in mobility, armour, firepower, logistics and survivability when compared to traditional armoured vehicles.

Just look at that picture. How the fuck does that thing move efficiently? What fuels it? How does it withstand even light artillery with hydraulic cables out in the open? That thing would be nothing but target practice for MBTs.

>>30071262
It's like 75% mechs are cooler than tanks
and 25% bait
I'm not saying mech vs tank in a straight up fight, I specifically said a mech slightly larger than an infantry soldier but not stupidly large like a tank. There are infantry portable weapons that can take out tanks and jets. A mech smaller than a tank but bigger and stronger than an infantry man could kill a tank from an advantages position which it could reach easier than a tank albeit possibly not as fast. But a tank would move fast enough into the kill zone where as logistically a mech would be moved more strategically to ambush.
A mech might not be as heavily armored as a tank but it could effectively be heavily armored enough to defeat infantry that can't stop a tank and even if they could they'd have to be really lucky.

File: draken-saab_35_2.jpg (84KB, 1024x723px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1024x723px

>Mechs

1000% Cancer.

dat swedish army emblem tho, it looks cool.

>>30071504
what your describing is not a mech, it is a large powered suit or exoskeleton which does have many uses primarily to act as a heavy infantry

>>30071305
Tank would move into kill zone mech set up fast and not notice it until it's getting pummeled. Shooting first is better than trying to figure out where you're getting shot from.
Mech in picture is just my typical mech thread pic.

>>30071560
No it's not. If it's big enough for you to pilot it, it's a mech. People come in here with some battletech shit once in a while and post Mech Warrior Online when they enlarged the scale heights of the mech, they're typically much more compact. I'm not talking about gigantic mechs or exoskeletons.
An exoskeleton is just a steampunk armored knight suit. I'm talking about a robot with a human in it giving it commands to some extent, it's like a walking tank, except better because it's smaller and has a lot of firepower.

>>30071305
Actually tracked vehicles are awful in cross terrain capability. They could only work if they are literally tank sized. Humans could pass larger obstacles than tank (1-meter wall, 30% slope? ha ha ha ) been 5 times smaller.

>>30071580
and were back to the argument where mechs are super inefficient in all regards, want something lighter then a tank with a solid punch that infinitely better then a mech, a armoured car? and light tank?

>>30071570
>in this very specific situation the mech would kill the tank but still would be inferior to the tank and couldn't beat it otherwise
Just shut up.

>>30071608
I told you, it's not mech vs. tank. That's almost like infantry vs. tank. It's totally different things. Mech just happens to be like a tank while doing other things better.
Some of those things are killing tanks in the right situation. A tank can nearly never shoot downward at another tank it has to go head on at the strongest part of armor, or at the rear if it gets really lucky. A mech has a lot better chance at shooting downward or at the rear even though it's slower and has less chance of moving into that position from it's own mobility abilities.

>>30071651
>mech vs. tank
Explicitly*
I mean implicitly.
A mech is potentially more useful.

>>30071651
>Mech just happens to be like a tank while doing other things better.
Except it's not. It has inferior armor, relies on legs for mobility and is a massive fucking target.

>>30071661
>massive fucking target.
For what? Everything is a massive target for air, except a mech has a better chance at shooting back than a tank because it has a potentially more modular weapon loadout.
If tanks are after it, obviously they're going to be making the move, it's not a tank vs tank battle where the mech is sitting out in the open in the middle of some desert. If there is terrain around like trees a tank is going to lose a lot of it's movement that a mech could get through easier. If there is anywhere to aim downward mech can get there tank really can't, if mechs know tanks have to go through some passage restricted by mountains mech can potentially scale it and shoot downward at a funnel tank has to go through, how high can it raise it's guns?
Artillery targeting mech isn't going to be less effective than infantry because parts can be replaced on a mech and the guy inside is going to be waiting to get back into the fight or just not really damaged enough by shrapnel if it was far enough away to compromise it.

File: 1462624981636.jpg (1MB, 2000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1250px

>>30071706
>Everything is a massive target for air
No they're not. Ever heard of camouflage? I know American's cant into it because of eternal air superiority, but it's an actual thing. Multispectral IR-reflecting camo nets.
'
>If there is terrain around like trees a tank is going to lose a lot of it's movement that a mech could get through easier
Do fucking tell me how a mech moves easier through forests than a tank.

>>30071769
>No they're not. Ever heard of camouflage? I know American's cant into it because of eternal air superiority, but it's an actual thing. Multispectral IR-reflecting camo nets.
I'm sure that's much more difficult to spot than something smaller
>/s

>Do fucking tell me how a mech moves easier through forests than a tank.
Right a tank can just ram through a tree and not cause any ecological problems leaving a massive trail easily observed by the air and taking YEARS to replace compared to a large literal foot print that can step around it a lot easier.

File: nlaw-ny.png (2MB, 1636x922px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1636x922px

>>30071706
>if mechs know tanks have to go through some passage restricted by mountains mech can potentially scale it and shoot downward at a funnel tank has to go through
And so can infantry. All without the problems of a massive walking deathtrap.

>>30071858
>ecological problems
From fallen trees? Are you stupid? It's not a problem and who the fuck cares, it's war.

>literal foot print that can step around it a lot easier.
Step around? Are we talking about mechs so small they'd essentially be exosuits? Mechs unable to withstand even 12.7?

>>30071202
>can we have a mech vs. tank thread please?
YOU HAVE A WHOLE FUCKING BOARD DEDICATED TO MECHA CANCER
A WHOLE
FUCKING
BOARD

FUCK OFF

File: 1464010702290.jpg (170KB, 828x530px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 828x530px

>>30071904
/m/ seems to be almost purely dedicated to the eastern gundam style mechs and I, I much prefer the western stompy style of mechs, mechs may not be practical in slightest, but atleast they're rad

>>30072113
This, /m/ is just /a/ with Robots.

>>30071202
No. Buildings are sized for people, not for rules-lawyered mecha.

Humanoid mechs are unpractical, I understand that. But why should a non-bipedal mech be less effective than a tank? Legs are more maneuverable than tracks, with he correct size and software a legged mech could be faster, more agile and more practical than a conventional tank.

The only situation I can imagine a spider mech like that being superior to a tank is if you mounted a large cannon with armor penetrating shells and used it at very long ranges from elevated positions.

>>30072209
A multi-legged mech is going to be far more mechanically complex and need more maintenance. Assuming things like speed and maneuverability are equal, you're only going to gain an advantage in very specific terrain at the cost of far more downtime and manpower to keep it running. We have the technology to build a spider tank right now, there is just no need .

>>30072209
>Legs are more maneuverable than tracks,
Except no. Not until we can create biomechanical muscle tissue for those mechs. As long as it's dependent on hydraulics, it's going to be worse, with a massive largely logistical footprint and ridiculous maintenance requirements.

>>30072211
So why not just have a tank do the same?

>>30072113
>>30072138

And you can fuck right back there with this shit.

>>30072209
I think the problem would be cost and it's problem of having a high profile would only be solved by incredible awareness of what's going on around the tank.

I believe by the time we have the technology to make such a thing feasible on the modern battlefield ground forces would become near irrelevant and everything would depend on air superiority, you'd just need infantry clearing and defending objectives as I can't imagine anything larger not getting immediately destroyed by high accuracy munitions from aircraft.

File: 1458500869349.webm (3MB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 900x506px

>mechs

>>30072256
>I can't imagine anything larger not getting immediately destroyed by high accuracy munitions from aircraft.
Laser-based APS and AA. They're already in existence.

File: soviet_spider_tank_by_johnsonting-d8jow98.jpg (2MB, 1500x897px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x897px

>>30072238
So, Anti-personal Urban warfare? That's really the only scenario I can think. Clear complex buildings.
>>30072243
True, you just gave me an idea and a new hobby

>>30071202
once we get mods you won't have access to shitpost this furiously

>>30072271
surely we've already developed something to protect missiles and such from lasers, hasn't our ability to destroy something always evolved faster than our ability to preserve it?

>>30072286
Railguns.

>>30072280
>Anti-personal Urban warfare?

Mountain warfare actually.

>>30072286
It's a tradeoff between range, size, and payload versus available countermeasures. It's one of the reasons why the USA is going for stealth AShM, it's easier to make it harder to detect the missile than to make it able to survive physical defenses.

>>30072265
Sauce?

File: goats12-Matador-SEO.jpg (197KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 550x413px

>>30072317
Makes sense; rough terrain, some legs are adapted for natural rock formations (Fucking Mountain Goats, how do they work?). But an air-strike would be fatal for a force like that, maybe they are not meant for an open battle

>>30071305
What's that camera-glassy thing in the tip of the barrel?

>>30072334
Muv Luv Schwarzmarken

>>30072334
Muvluv [insert unintelligible gelman word here]

File: sp7.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>30072265
>Flying mechs
>Not using vector thrust

File: sp4.png (15KB, 477x539px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 477x539px

>>30072284
Okay I lied about the cooler than tank vs. bait %. But people brought up jet packs now I just have more ammo. You're mods are helpless because infantry are the only real intended users of that.

>>30072421
Theywere, but the BV was too stronk

File: sp1.png (155KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 499x499px

>>30072455
Dude, no. Don't even go there. We clearly need the jetpacks for the mechs to fire downwards and get into the right place. Clearly those tanks >>30072265 are unrealistic and if the mechs don't have jetpacks they'll fall behind technologically and the terrorits will win. It's an arms race.
If you can find me one infantry man that says he doesn't want a jet pack we'll just end this thread here.

>>30072379
Laser system for combat excercise.

>>30072552
So that thing won't kill me, only annoy and make me blind?

>>30072569
No. It'll hit your laser receivers and let you know you just got blown to bits.

>>30071560
Powered armor is more practical than mechs. Given the right armaments they could taken on tanks and win.

>>30072413
DID YOU KNOW

That most of english is based on french and german?

NOW YOU KNOW!

>>30072618
isn't a lot of it also based on latin and greek?

>>30072629
We've got the latin by the way of french and greek by the way of latin. To say nothing of all the loan words english picks up.

It's the kind of language that follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them out and goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary. Considering how it's basically the bastard child of latin and german, that's not surprising.

>>30072578
>be me
>be in forest enjoying nature
>Touching the soft snow from the branches
>Drawing the rocks and forest in my notebook
>I really like moss
>See a kind of moss I really like and want to take to my terrarium
>Reach to my pocket
>Look for a small jar to keep the moss safe
>Take small tweezers
>Open jar
>Take a small piece
>I do not want to disturb nature too much
>Put the small jar in my backpack
>Look down
>There is a butterfly
>How can it survive winter?
>I reach for her
>I look at her closely
>"you just got blown to bits" it says
>Look in front of me
>A large mass of branches and foliage with a shinny bit moves away from me

>>30071202
In real life robotic walking is unreliable as a means of propulsion, walking robots struggle to maintain balance even in lab conditions, catastrophically trip on the smallest of obstacles and are just generally abysmal.

Mechs wouldn't actually have the advantages mechs have in fiction. They'd be slow, excessively complex, extremely expensive, top heavy death traps.

>>30072761
You wot m8?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczY
A tank couldn't get through that stuff without destroying it or getting stuck. A mech could navigate stuff much more easily.

>>30072804
>0:14
A pit filled with crocodiles

>>30072538
I know that this is bait, but it really did bother me that those mechs, who clearly can fly, just sat their hovering without firing back or moving upwards and forward to exploit a tank's relatively low vertical arc of fire.

File: Pansar.png (910KB, 1174x655px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 1174x655px

Because tanks are metal as fuck you queermo

>>30072243
>>30072211

or towed artillery. air transportable too!

>>30072884
It's a bad adaption of a VN. TSFs actually aren't meant to hover for extended periods of time, or even be stationary while in the air at all.

They're also not intended for conventional warfare, their specific purpose is fighting aliens.

File: Roy_Focker_Mac0.jpg (24KB, 400x326px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x326px

>>30071202

Robotech and specifically macross did mechs the best, mainly used as tanks and planes, but can turn into mechs for situational combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNa88lRh4E

>>30072804
>>30072818

>you will never get in an argument with your wife over blowing a chunk of your paycheck on toys to make your robot obstacle course more whimsical

>>30072940
I prefer VOTOMS heavily armed tin cans myself.

>>30072804
Their videos are impressive but their robots still eat shit like everyone else's at robotics contests.