Why is /k/ against the idea of combat mechs?

>>31766704

What's the benefit over just having a tank?

>>31766704
Stupid idea, fun to watch.

>>31766704
Because they're largely impractical and won't make sense until we have a very compelling reason for them. Hell, in Gundam, mobile suits only exist because of Minovsky particles killed things like guided missiles. They act more like fighter jets on an aircraft carrier than outright giant robots that exist because we want them to, anyway.

This is coming from someone that's wanted combat mechs to be real his entire life, btw.

>>31766704
because impractical.
If anything exoskeletons will be the next thing at least in the support staff.

File: 6214620458_43e27770fc_b.jpg (343KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1024x577px

>>31766704
Why do you want a tank that can be tripped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4b-haPATmI

>>31766704
>tfw mobile suits will never be real
>you will never pilot your dream mobile suit

>>31766704
Because i dont want chairforce fags gloating how they pilot a fucking mech suit all over /k/

File: image.jpg (358KB, 781x1101px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 781x1101px

>>31767011
>I'll never remove Zentradi scum in the space tomcat

Even /m/ thinks that this question is stupid

File: 1443270719313.jpg (92KB, 714x592px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 714x592px

>>31766704

File: gallery_12176_640_174300.jpg (122KB, 939x1200px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 939x1200px

>>31767041
REMOVE ZENDRADI

The only plausible benefits to having a combat mech over a tank would be maneuverability and the ability to change loadouts depending on the mission and mid-mission, other than that, just seems impractical and would cost a fortune to develop, think the f-35 program on steroids.

>>31767876
>change loadouts

but regular tanks can just be re-armed with different rounds.

File: AC.jpg (803KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 1920x1200px

>>31766704
Because /k/ is stupid.

OP, I'm an officially certified Anime Engineer, and I can tell you for a fact that Anime Physics are far superior to normal physics. Anime Physics gives you much wider tolerances when designing a combat machine, allowing the Anime Engineer to devise mechas that can pull off stunts and dish out damage in ways that a tank operator couldn't even dream of. Anyone on /k/ who thinks that tanks are better than mecha needs to go back to school, retake Anime Physics 101, and then come back and admit to being a total dumbass.

The battlefield that a mech would surpass a tank on has yet to come into existance. A mech might have more tactical application assaulting a massive space station than a T90. But I am by no means an expert on imaginary battles.

>>31768230
>Mecha more effective than a T90 when attacking a space station
>Not firing the tank a the station, while the tank itself is firing at the station

>>31766704
Because you have your own fucking board about it and you still keep coming here to shitpost with impunity.

>>>/m/

>>31766704
ground pressure, tbqh

File: macross-frontier-09-klan-klan-michel-childhood-friends.jpg (190KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1280x720px

>>31767041
At least in that case the enemy is giant people and the Battloids/Veritechs are acting as force multipliers to at least match capability.

why would you make a tank with joints?

>>31766704
Because we live in reality, where physics and gravity exists.

Because every week we have this thread, and every week its the same arguments about how a hundred ton 50 ft machine will "just dodge incoming missiles like in Gundam" and will be able to hang off the sides of buildings and dance around tanks like a ballerina, and how if you think that that's just a tad implausible then you're a technophobe Luddite that would have been saying tanks are useless if you were around 100 years ago. The same shit every time, it just gets tired after a while.

File: Macro=Macross.jpg (114KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 720x405px

>>31767041
>you'll never have a space gaintess waifu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LP2AOIvWE4

File: macross-frontier klan and Michael.jpg (642KB, 1280x2120px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1280x2120px

>>31769913

>>31766704

> Visual signature
> speed nightmare
> stability nightmare
> unstable and vulnerable weak spots (hit the leg, out of commission)
> ammunition storage- you'd be limited to two big rounds and a bunch of .50 in fancy space belts

Tanks have bigger guns, more space for practical shit, can get faster, and more well protected, can go over more terrain, ammo for days, multiple-man ready for multiple critical positions like radio, commander, gunner, driver....

This is a guy who still dreams about having a Ymir-stlye mech with Atlas's cannons.

File: vf-1-fastpack-internals.gif (897KB, 1700x1000px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 1700x1000px

>>31767041
Sure feels bad man.

File: Wiesel.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>31766900
I like how the crew in the vehicles intentionally dont aim and yell out to not shoot to hit but to suppress and saturate the area.

How typical of anime shows that have conventional military vehicles but they fail to hit gigantic humanoid targets.

Or even 10 meter tall and 8 meter wide aliens

>>31766704
>it's a /k/ talks about why we don't have combat mechs/metal gear episode
Can we go back to talking about making an underground civilization of mole people again?

>>31768278
>Not having a massive mech suit with a shoulder mounted cannon
>Not having that cannon shoot t90s that shoot at space stations and other mechs
>Not having a 25 magazine of t90s

It's almost like you just want to lose

>>31766704
>Mech walking across open battle field.
>Putting something on the ground at the front that costs more than a air superiority fighter
>Some guy that cost a fraction in life insurance payouts with a MPAT sitting a few kilometers away wrecks its day.
>It steps on a mine that cost a few hundred rubles to make
>A JADAM would blow its leg off and the thing probably wouldn't even know its coming.

In real life when some one makes a new amazing weapon some one always comes along with a way to kill it.

It's like a tank but taller, heavier, and slower. The only thing they could possibly, maybe be better at is climbing steep terrain. For every other task a tank is lighter, cheaper, faster, simpler.

File: battltech kickstarter.jpg (182KB, 680x612px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 680x612px

>>31766704
I'll never be in a recon unit consisting of just Atlas and Awesome mechs

Will never see Mechwarrior 5 as it was meant to be (later turned into Mechwarrior:Online)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEjoRQ0Cg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiVUhL3gAc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qZvYwmgCHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9hxU864Fg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLBj8IyVN0

>I even have my kickstarter jacket too

>>31769913
>>31769971
She's a big girl

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

I found promotional material for some modern composite armor the other day and it listed mass for surface area covered.

I decided to roughly calculate how heavy it would be if you armored a raven battlemech. To cover it 100% at a little better than stanag 3 it required 9300 kg of composite armor.

It would still leave you with 10,000-25,000 kg for equipment, structure and additional armor. The legs actually seem an advantage, they can be very heavily armored for minimal weight due to their small surface area.

The only thing I can't work out is the actuators, nothing you can buy already is up to the job. I think I know how they could be made but it would be too costly for a small company.

>>31766704
Because they make my Mosin even more obsolete and give the government even more power

>>31772133
>It's like a tank but taller, heavier, and slower. The only thing they could possibly, maybe be better at is climbing steep terrain. For every other task a tank is lighter, cheaper, faster, simpler.

What if it was on another planet that mining companies warred over using bipedal mechs because the surface is too scarred and rocky for tanks to operate?

File: 1302196902940.jpg (654KB, 1731x1232px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1731x1232px

>implying I wouldn't want a Scopedog

>>31773082
They'd trip over and fall every 3 paces.

Power armor and cybernetics are the future of war OP, at least until our technology is so advanced that we can make our shit look like whatever we want. We'll see Iron Mans and Adam Jensens long before we see Gundams.

File: wpid-DSC_37771.jpg (356KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x819px

>>31766704
Mechs will only ever be worth it if....

>Super extremely mobile
>Lightweight yet extremely tough gundamium alloy level armor is developed.
>Near endless power supply
>Near endless run time
>Has flight
>Can propel self into space
>Can fight underwater
>Hyper advanced weapons system
>Hyper advanced targeting system
>Most extreme senor dampening systems
>Or fucking outright cloaking ability
>Somehow Justify needing a football field tall lazer swinging robot for combat to the military.
>Somehow skips like 10 generations of RnD to get to a late stage model
If all the above is checked, then this weapon will dominate the battlefield


Pic related, the most bad assed mech of all time.
Basically This is what mechs would need to jump to to be considered viable
(Besides all of that late stage "Timewarp" gundam bullshit, this is what the most advanced mech / weapon in the world would look like )

>>31772317
>that jacket
that's actually pretty cool

File: Shin_Getter_1_Profile_shot.jpg (96KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1440x1080px

>>31773452
>the most bad assed mech of all time.

False.

File: teknoman.jpg (113KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x819px

>>31773538
wrong

File: 20101218024146[1].jpg (799KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 2560x1920px

best MBT replacement mech coming through.

>>31773452
Fun fact: All of the advances that would make a mech more viable ALSO apply to tanks...

File: bw_ilue_040622-393.jpg (92KB, 641x427px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 641x427px

>>31773082
In that case it may be a viable weapon, but in order to function, it would need to be no taller than 8 feet, have only a dinky little autocannon and maybe an ATGM style weapon while having weakspot-riddled armour that is barely resilient to 7.62 rounds. And then it would be restricted to that extremely mountainous terrain because when on flat ground, it would be outclassed in every way to even pic related

File: A129-Mangusta_btgsanmarco.jpg (156KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x853px

The only way I see it happening is if they get an attack helicopter and change the rotors for legs. But then it'd be slower, weaker and more expensive than an MBT

>>31772078

Handwavium basically means that long distance guidance and BVR/Standoff are impossible in Gundam.

You are right though, sticking a ton of amped up SMAWs in a treeline and assfucking the first gundam you see would be easy to do.

In a world with current tech and no guidance or BVR, infantry would rule.

>>31773552
Always thought Wolverines werr cool as fuck, it's a pity they didn't put a coax on the Titans in game

File: 031975630425.jpg (326KB, 460x615px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 460x615px

has anyone asked/resolved this question yet:
Lets say we had the technology to produce an atypical anime mech right now.

Would we even have the means to power it long enough for conventional warfare? How much would it eat through? nuclear energy perhaps?
so many questions.

File: 1342286504916.jpg (521KB, 1600x1141px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1600x1141px

>>31766704
>Why is /k/ against the idea of combat mechs?

I love the machines, I hate the fact that the mecha genre, when combined with a military setting, becomes a wish-fulfillment power fantasy for the Japanese to redress their utter humiliation against the US during WWII.

Mecha are usually shown as decimating whole conventional armies because they run on plot armour and, when piloted by teenagers, on Hitler Youth "willpower is everything, forget logistics" nutjobbery.

Few mecha universes pull it off properly by making mecha have authentic limitations such as fragility, limited fuel and ammunition, and huge situational awareness requirements.

Muv Luv comes to mind, which has the additional hilarity of mecha replacing fighter jets, and mirroring or repurposing real life quirks like development process and hiccups.

>pic related: the A-10 Thunderbolt

>>31773713
>nuclear energy perhaps?
yes but very different from an nuke engine as seen on a sub or the like. you'd want something like photovoltaic cells that are powered by radiation of nuke fuel instead of sub tier steam turbine.

>>31773452
Epyon ftw!

>>31773726

Even though I thought the source material was absolutely dogshit, the mechsuits used in Avatar I thought were pretty well suited for the job. They were lightly armored to protect the pilot, not too large, optimized for scouting and recon missions through dense jungle, with an armament to keep large fauna at bay.

I think mechsuits would serve ONLY in a limited recon and support role in a jungle environment. That's it. That's their only use ever. Any other climate and there is no reason to not bring a tank or AFV.

File: 1392834196597.jpg (131KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1920x1080px

>>31769971
>Arrested for doing anything with the micro version of her
What is it illegal to fuck short petite girls in Japan?

File: tallgeese.jpg (740KB, 1181x839px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1181x839px

>>31773452
>>31773538
>>31773542
You are all wrong.

>>31773787
Zechs pls kys.

t. Heero

File: Gundam is going to shoot you in the face.png (865KB, 1196x900px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1196x900px

>>31773787
>>31773726
>>31773713
No matter how much I might like some other designs, I will never love any of them more than I do the original.

RX-78-2 forever.

File: Kornet-D.jpg (93KB, 1280x750px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x750px

because large humanoid objects like mechs will absolutely get raped in direct contact with tanks.

They do not have sufficient armor to resist anytihng near a tank's cannon, and probably not even an IFV's 25 or 30 milimeter, let alone 40 or upcoming 57mm autocannons.

In order to resist these weapons, they would need to have excessice amounts of armor, which comes with excessive weight.
Considering the size of such mechs, if they wanted to actually resist meaningful levels of enemy fire, they'd be somewhere in the 200 ton range, which is NOT IDEAL by any stretch of the imagination.

Therefore they would be confined to small, unarmored recon roles, or ambush roles due to good mobility provided by their bipedal layout.

Except doing the same can be achieved by progress in exoskeleton technology backed up by existing wheeled vehicles such as the Tigr or Humvee or whatever.

>TL:DR Mechs are stupid and everyone who thinks they are good is retarded and knows nothing about how battle works.

>>31773781
It's that her micronized form looks like a child, and he'd get mistaken for a pedophile. Really, Klan is just in exercise in seeing how many fetishes you can cram into one character.

>>31773820
If he were to have a child with her, would she have to be in her giant form when giving birth or the micro one? Also would the baby be giant size or micro size?

>>31773816
>They do not have sufficient armor to resist anytihng near a tank's cannon, and probably not even an IFV's 25 or 30 milimeter, let alone 40 or upcoming 57mm autocannons.

I shat bricks when they were removing the "armor" plating on the chest of Gypsy Danger in Pacific Rim. It could have been penetrated by old ass RPG-7s easily.

File: gouf.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>31773798
Gouf was cooler.

>>31773827
My Macross Fu is pretty weak. I know there are half zentraedi, but I don't know anything about the pregnancies that produce said halfbreeds. I am also unsure if half zentrans can switch between human and giant size as their zentraedi parent can.

>>31766704
Unless we reach mechanical and engineering perfection, it won't happen. What happens when something breaks? I doubt I can just call AAA to tow it back and get the alternator replaced.

File: k-bot.jpg (89KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x667px

>>31773844
>Unless we reach mechanical and engineering perfection, it won't happen. What happens when something breaks? I doubt I can just call AAA to tow it back and get the alternator replaced.
Depends on the design, a 20 or 30 ton biped might have advantages over tracked AFVs, you're probably more likely to get detracked than a properly designed robot fail. A biped can hop around and traverse things a tracked vehicle can't.

All the work is getting the actuators designed. Hydraulics aren't up to the job and have reliability issues. The most likely option would be high temperature superconductor wire electric motors combined with extreme reduction ratios like 2000:1

There's quite a few technologies suited to this that haven't been used much yet, for example there's magnetic reduction gears that have no wear parts and slip rather than break when exposed to more torque than they can handle.

>>31766730
What Mechwarrior tought me. Battlemechs have higher mobility (wade through bogs and rivers, climb mountains, walk across through forests...), can jump over obstacles a tank cannot pass, can carry more armament (a Mad Cat carries weapons that are the equivalent of five or six tanks), are more versatile and modulable.

>>31768792
They're also built using loste- I mean protoculture.

>>31773988
>can jump over obstacles a tank cannot pass
that's pretty much the only thing
but... any atv with a missile launcher can rekt your mechs just like they can flank and kill tanks and they cost barely anything compared to mechs and easier to hide.
a platoon of vbl-s would kill your stupid mech unless they find it on open flats and the mech has an autocannon to dispose of them in one burst. but missiles can easily have 3-5km range and an ambush is easy to do and the vbl platoon would have heavy machinegun and infantry support actually capable infantry unit while the mech still needs supporting infantry.

>>31769994
Bull, I totally designed a 55T battlemech with handheld weapons. Then again, it was using TSM, and was installed with composite structure and commercial armor to get the feel right. And then I tripled missile damage while forcing them to take IOS launchers.

File: 1350847052894.png (1MB, 1977x2044px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1977x2044px

Mechs from Muv Luv can replace both tanks and aircraft.

the way i see mechs role is not as anti-tank or tank replacement.
i think they should be spaags that can get to difficult terrain fast. for a spaag armor is mostly decoration and against infantry but they can still wreck havoc on lightly armored targets and god have mercy on the tank they can flank.

basically i would give armor to up against 20mm autocannon for mechs tops and shitloads of autocannons and missiles to act as solid air defense systems and also as a replacement to attack helos against ground targets they can ambush.

it's heavily dependent on terrain if they would do any better than a tunguska.

>>31774019
Battlemechs have much more advanced sensors than tanks and they can shoot them down with LRM's long before having visual contact. The battlemech's laser and gauss weapons have much more range than tank guns. In the Mechwarrior franchise tank guns are more of a nuisance due to the mechs' advanced armor. The battlemech has also a much better arc of fire compared to tanks who cannot elevate or lower their main gun enough.

>>31774047
and of course they would need to be able to lower their profile when ambushing or hiding (kneel/sit) and they would need shittons of smoke/chaff, eras and active kill systems against rpgs and missiles.

>>31774050
>Battlemechs have much more advanced sensors than tanks
that's not realistic and you know it. the rest of your rant is even more so unrealistic. traditional spgs have both gun elevation and firepower to take out your mech easily enough. you can apply the same armor and sensors and guns to tracks that you could to mechs any day.

>>31773988
Try again, this time without mechwarrior physics.

If we had materials that let a mech have good armour without weighing hundreds of tons we could just build a better tank using them.

As it stands you have something that is more complicated, more fragile, less mobile, less heavily armed and less armoured than a tank while costing an order of magnitude more if you are lucky.

>>31774067
Most battlemechs are actually about as dense by volume as styrofoam for their size/weight ratio. They should really be closer to half their canon heights, which means single level heights, peffect for hiding in even moderate urban terrain until you hit heavy/assault classes. And mw also uses the minovsky rule since ecm/eccm is so advanced all fighting is done at visual range. If primitive shit is used iirc, alt rules are there to triple or qudruple the ranges on everything.

>>31774068
>>31774081
giant mechs versus armored companies (comparable cost and firepower) are just putting all your eggs in the same basket

>>31774093
No, its not 'comparable'.

Mechs would cost vastly more for the same level of firepower while being far more fragile. Realistic mechs would not be able to carry the same size of gun as a tank either.

>>31773713
Then we would use that technology to make tanks even faster and stronger

>>31773781
There no age of consent in Japan, only height of consent.

File: bolo 1.jpg-original.jpg (135KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1400x700px

Seems like the tech required to make mechs even somewhat viable would be better utilized creating Bolos or similar.

File: deathwing3compact.jpg (582KB, 1920x1517px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1920x1517px

Kind of pointless.

>>31766746
... Zhane?

File: vlcsnap-1169045[1].jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>31773841
Michael is actually part Zentran, and doesn't ever go giant.

You can tell by the ears.

File: 2369828_1327155744473.12res_280_375[1].jpg (19KB, 280x375px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x375px

>>31774136
Another example from Lucky Star: Konata's mom was so young-looking her dad nearly got arrested a few times while they were dating.

>>31774271
so we're missing out on hot giant-on-giant sexytimes

btw hows the new series?

>>31773831
Norris Packard's Gouf Custom was badass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4kEuNfbTWc

File: 1411319436025.jpg (880KB, 1369x2000px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1369x2000px

>>31767041

Don't remind me..

>>31774295
Huh, there's a new series.

File: 1368817006115.jpg (257KB, 1435x1046px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1435x1046px

>>31774295
>>31774323

Pretty fucking bad from what I have gleaned. I guess the second season is a total wash.

File: MechTank.jpg (47KB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x337px

>>31766704

Because they don't let the tanks have any fun. I'd like it if they were going with the "tanks going out of style" thing, tankers were at least given time to romanticize a-la the prior transition from cavalry to tanks, fighting defiantly to the end as they watch their world and era be steadily overtaken by impersonal youngsters in their machines; youth who would know nothing about working together as a crew to make four bodies into one, or the comradeship that would entail.

>>31774136
>is height of consent based on overall height, or relative height. Would too really short people be ok, or would a really tall guy and average girl still get in trouble?

>>31774376
green text wasn't intentional

File: 6ed2b1c889c2e0fe2f434b65c5b93778.jpg (56KB, 564x570px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 564x570px

>>31766799

Even though I'm firmly on side tank, tanks actually can be tripped with a heavy-enough wire.

Even though it is commonly thought the rhombus shape of the mark series is an outdated design, the tanks were designed that way to make them impervious to wire, which is something modern "box" and "wedge" shaped hulls lack.

>>31768278
>not having a mech mounted with detachable tanks to be launched at the enemy

>>31774362
Man that thing is tall as fuck. Easy as hell to spot for an rpg team.

>>31774396

I guess that's to do with changing threats on the battlefield. There have been much more efficient anti-tank weapons than wires strung across roads since the 1930s.

Modern tanks are designed to protect against contemporary threads like ATGMs and IEDs. And with more powerful engines than their WW1 counterparts, they could probably overcome wire through brute force, these days.

>>31766704

>Inb4 taking the bait this hard

1) in your Chinese cartoon gif what cannon is on that mechs shoulder? How can it instakill that first tank, but the tank needs that fuckhuge cannon? So I suppose that the mech would have to have a cannon as big as a tanks to actually be able to kill a tank. That would make it absurdly top heavy and unstable.

2) armor means weight, weight means it needs stronger components to move it. So you either have a mech that is very light but small caliber bullets would punch through it (like modern humanoid robots) or it would need to be a hulking behemoth with gigantic hydraulic pistons moving it. The problem is that such a vehicle would be a lumbering thing. Tanks can move 45 MPH on the road, a mech would be vastly slower.

3) the ground pressure on a mechs foot would be gigantic. A machine heavy enough to take even a 30 or 40 mm shot, let alone a 120 mm discarding sabot wouldn't have feet that acted as feet, it would have feet that acted as steam shovels. Literally the only argument, THE ONLY ONE of a legged walker is that it could transverse terrain a normal tank couldn't. Except on any sort of grade on any sort of natural earth it would just dig away and never actually climb anything. If the mech COULD run like the one in your gif the ground pressure spike would be enough to smash concrete, let alone be able to run on any sort of earth. It's first step would be like those videos of fat men jumping off plastic chairs, equal and opposite reactions mean it would just jam it's leg right into the ground without ever moving the upper body due to inertia.

They are a stupid idea. There is admittedly some merit to a BIG DOG type thing, totally unarmored robot on the weight scales of a human that can carry baggage. But something armored and armed to even withstand .50 caliber would just act like a fucking jackhammer to the ground.

>>31773828
A. It was made to fight giant monsters, so anti armor concerns were moot and B. I shat myself when they said "Solid iron hull, no alloys" Because nothing is better for an ocean going combat robot than the most rustable material prone to shattering from impact forces.

>>31774104
fragility is a relative term.
mechs are usually imagined very resilient to abuse, while modern ifvs and stuff that could kill them are like eggshells with a rocket launcher, but if they can hie from the mech then the mech is the "fragile" one.

File: Tower Giant.jpg (132KB, 532x718px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 532x718px

Best mech design of all time.

File: Breadnought.png (482KB, 912x496px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 912x496px

>>31774606

>>31774117
someone should make a game like armored warfare that has tanks tds ifvs apcs and mechs...
make the mechs use "real" guns and armor and we would quickly figure out at what terrain features and tactics mechs posses superior quality to any traditional armor.
my only issue with aw and the likes is the unrealistic scale of the map and the distances involved in engagement. it's basically all toe-to-toe dogfighting. the light armor performs way better from a distance and rush tactics work less and less if you increase the range.

>>31774171
Yes?

File: 800px-Schrek.jpg (98KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x450px

>>31773988
>What Mechwarrior tought me. Battlemechs have higher mobility (wade through bogs and rivers, climb mountains, walk across through forests...), can jump over obstacles a tank cannot pass

1) If you make the piloting check

>>31773988
>can carry more armament (a Mad Cat carries weapons that are the equivalent of five or six tanks)

>>31774050
>In the Mechwarrior franchise tank guns are more of a nuisance due to the mechs' advanced armor.

Schrek tank says hi
Ontos tanks have several variants that either have 50+ LRM missles or 8 eight medium lasers
Don't forget that they have reduced vehicle size and the armor values are generally higher per ton of armor, they have fewer actuators, no need for the complex gyro, and the weight savings goes to heatsinks.....in rules combat vehicles can fire every round and not worry about heat. Using Solaris VII rules a turn / fire can be as short as 2.5 - 10 seconds.

Even in the Battletech universe tanks can bring the pain.

>>31774630
>someone should make a game like armored warfare that has tanks tds ifvs apcs and mechs...
>make the mechs use "real" guns and armor and we would quickly figure out at what terrain features and tactics mechs posses superior quality to any traditional armor.
AFVs in AW play similar to how lightweight mechs would. Remember an actual AFV has 3 crew, and 2 of them have poor visibility. A proper crew would have a hard time communicating to move like AFV players in AW do.

>>31766704
Because /k/ assumes you're either talking about gundams or they legit think technology will never advance to a point where we can even make small ones of any type or form.

>>31774777
i still think mechs could be good light armor killers. the ability to fire from awkward angles unexpected places and quickly riddle light armor with bullets from ambush would give them an edge in a game like that.
most armor can't fire well down from a ridge unless it exposes way too much from itself or gets into a shitty position. a mech could easily.
>>31774781
technology is already advanced enough there is no motivation.

>>31774781
t. retard

>>31774858
People like you would have us still living innacave banging rocks together rather than as we are today.

>>31774887

Not him but do you understand the retardation of thinking that mechs would ever be more that a small niche piece of equipment. Any advancement in technology that makes mechs more feasible equally applies to tracked vehicles which are inherently better than a mech in all situations where armored vehicles are used.

>>31774936
>Any advancement in technology that makes mechs more feasible equally applies to tracked vehicles which are inherently better than a mech in all situations where armored vehicles are used.
artificial muscle and bipedal locomotion technology is relevant to tanks now?

>>31774936
You do realize as things become more advanced they usually become more capable and useful right?

You just found a way to strengthen the motors and joints by %37? Sweet! Upgrade it all and either keep it the same beyond that for improved speed and mobility or go with moar dakka. Maybe it's strong enough that you can use it for heavy industry roles too now.

Every advancement adds more.

I swear to god, if they could most of /k/ would hack their legs off in favor of having treads grafted to their stumps then claim it was better while they get blocked by an otherwise easily climbable barrier.

File: 128348568.png (1MB, 785x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 785x1080px

The Dra-C seems like it could be viable in a space combat theater.

>>31775073
it's not that, but control technology and computing gone a long way lately. it's still barely enough for bipedal locomotion but it's not advanced enough to get military applications. remember both wheels and threads were used by agriculture long before military vehicles were made on them. in fact military just used existing motor vehicles before tanks and self propelled artillery.

they had an obvious advantage in mobility from experience we have no experience with walkers. if there is a good platform with known pros and cons there is no hard thing to find military applications for them.

and the late couple of decades were all about air superiority. so unless the mechs can do something about that they are not even relevant in research. hard to imagine why would legs do much better or any better than treads in aa role tho. once you figure that out it's gonna be a smooth ride.

>>31775112
also let's not forget not so long ago railways were thought to be the epitome of military transportation. railways seemed to make all other transportation method obsolete and lacking in speed and capacity.
hitler changed that for good.
then airplanes and helos seemed to change it again.
what will be the next revolution? most likely not walkers.

>>31773618
What is this and what makes it bad? Heard germans make ok stuff

>>31766704
>I'll just lay this piece of cable across this narrow street/forest path/literally any choke point
>The mech falls down and because of it's massive weight and size kills the entire crew.

>Oh look! A giant mech. I'll shoot this 60 year old RPG into its knee and knock it out instantly.

There's a reason most animals are quadrupedal. It is far more stable. Beyond that, there's no conceivable benefit to be gained by building a mech. Not only would the mechanical challenge be immense to design a functional one, there would be nothing to be gained over current platforms.

The mech, no matter how it is constructed, will have inherent offensive and defensive handicaps. Tanks have 1 really big piece for mobility, their treads, and there has been innovations for nearly a century in ways to protect these treads. Nonetheless, their treads still get routinely knocked out. Now with a mech you'd need to design systems to defend every single joint in the entire system. The knee, the hip, the ankle, etc. If any one of those systems go down it's a mobility kill. You also have to fit a reasonably sized weapon on to it. Due to the shape of the system, good luck mounting anything larger than a 40mm GMG. A crew serviced weapon like a 105mm would be impossible to fit inside and the recoil would almost be guaranteed to blow it on it's ass. Essentially, every single part of this machine would be a design nightmare to make it even minimally functional against even light infantry fire or a armed truck. That doesn't even begin to cover the maintenance nightmare it would be to take care of a machine like that. No matter what environment you were in you'll have to constantly be changing out pieces to accommodate rust, general wear and tear, and lubrication. The amount of lubrication you would need to field an army of these things would probably be more than the amount the entire planet produces in a decade.

>>31774957
Artifical muscle would be completely relevant. It's not like as if bicycles don't exist. But once you start thinking about mecha on bicycles you start thinking about why they're so much better and how to optimize them, and then end up with tanks.

>>31774604
>usually imagined

So? That's retarded. A mech will never be more robust than a tracked box, its just an inherent problem with the idea.

>>31775155
It's not that they have problems - they're just cheap, simple, weak and tiny, so if something can't outclass that, you're in trouble.

>>31766704
Because if the technology is there to make mechs highly maneuverable then the technology exists to make tanks even more maneuverable

>>31775226
But lets say you do manage to build this thing, what role will it fill? Due to it's thin armour and shape it can't be an MBT or fight them. It can't hold infantry so it can't be an APC. It probably couldn't even take on an APC 1-1 so it's not even a good front line vehicle. The only niche it could fill would be as a vehicle sent behind enemy lines for oper8ing. Even then, its not very good. It's huge, it's probably noisy,and it requires at least a crew of people to maintain it. Really, what benefit would a mech have even over an old school Recoil less Rifle mounted Jeep? There's just no conceivable purpose for a mech.

What about mechs used purely first urban warfare in theatres with no tanks?

Make it with extremely mine/explosion resistant feet and impervious to small arms and anti-tank.

Other than automated anti-vehicle and anti-personnel weapons.
It uses its weight to act as a base for a "breaching drill" that is pretty much used to make holes in buildings, bunkers, etc and then flood it with drones.


Alternatively, what about a massive lumbering mech loaded with CIWS, anti air missiles, sensors, and general area denial/defense. It's purpose is purely to act as a mobile Forward Base and host to dozens of drones and anti tank missiles.

File: 1468625716352.jpg (448KB, 2048x1560px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 2048x1560px

>>31773065
myomer+endosteel joints my dude

>>31775255
>Artifical muscle would be completely relevant.
to tanks? nah. think again.
>A mech will never be more robust than a tracked box, its just an inherent problem with the idea.
you just pulled that out of your ass tho. not only you don't have any proof but also no way to verify your opinion.

my point tho is even if mechas are indeed tough cookies they would still under-perform multiple armor working in concert. just as 2-3 ifvs can take apart any mbt no matter how tough if they can flank it.

>>31775281
>impervious to anti-tank

How? It will not even be able to resist .50 cal with how much surface area you have to protect. And its legs will be extremely vulnerable.

And the other idea is even more pointless, you could do the exact same thing with a few trucks and spend several hundred million less.

>>31773713

Traveller Game in the 80s
Attempt by aerospace engineering firm to design and build powered armor for individual soldier/astronaut to counter high tech invaders. Find out battery life less than 15 minutes.... I suggest selling to SWAT/HRT/SF

Trucks idling outside standoff area Green light flashes, armored cops/SF slam into building. No need for endurance either you win or lose in less than 5 minutes.

>>31775298
>It will not even be able to resist .50 cal with how much surface area you have to protect.
this meme must really die mechs would hardly have more exposed surface when fighting as they should than tanks.

>>31774449
It's a LOSAT style missile launcher afaik. It's pretty lightweight compared to a gun obviously.

>>31773769
They were merely machines to carry larger than man portable weapons thru very rugged terrain... they made sense.

File: Lucrezia Noin Immobile.jpg (248KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 2000x2000px

>>31775288
Respect the Robot

[y/n]

>>31775296
No, I did not. Or are you really going to sit here and claim something with multiple vital joints you cannot effective armour is not inherently more fragile than a tracked vehicle?

A pothole, a fallen bike, a wire across the road or a grenade to the leg will all topple a mech. Its also going to ALWAYS have less armour than a tank of the same mass while having lighter weaponry and being far more complicated. Stop desperately defending a non viable concept because you think its cool.

>>31775281
>Impervious to anti-tank
Literally just get a strong cable or chain. When a column of them coming walking through, the cable will knock at least one of them down. Once the front one is knocked out, blow the IEDs. Because of their shape, the IEDs will be super effective and will blow them over, killing everyone inside. You've now knocked out lets say 3 of the 4 in the column. The rear man is totally disoriented due to the lack of situational awareness the system could provide. You and your brave band of durkhas/wolverines/Cykas then fire a half dozen RPGs into it's knees. The mech falls over and everyone either dies or is killed when ahkmed/bubba/yegheny throws a grenade into the cockpit. Roll credits.

>>31775323
You think the entire frontage of a humanoid is the same as the frontal area of an MBT? Its not a meme, you are just offended by the laws of physics.

A mech has a higher surface area and more vulnerable points, its just a bad combination.

>>31775279
Construction somehow maybe

>>31775348
>No, I did not. Or are you really going to sit here and claim something with multiple vital joints you cannot effective armour is not inherently more fragile than a tracked vehicle?
if we learned anything from the history of armour is that you are talking nonsense here

>>31775359
the entire frontage exposed to enemy fire would be less than most mbts frontal armor unless the mbt is in hulldown.
why ever would mechs stand out on the open field for mbts to shoot them in the dick. it's not like soldiers (or even tanks) do this nowadays.

Mechs will probably be confined to a load bearing role for the military. Flat surfaces, warehouses, military bases, hangars, and roads will be the only thing mechs can be used for. Mechs would be a nightmare to properly armor, and you always will have the issue of 2 legs that are extremely vulnerable. There's nothing much that a mech can do that an IFV or tank can't.

>>31775384
I'm not sure I follow the logic behind this. Are you saying you'll only armor the head because the rest is behind cover or something?

>>31775358
So then they build a unit that can't be as easily taken down by wires. Maybe they attach wire sensing sensors to it so that the wire cutter built into the crotch can now eliminate the threat.
Now you and abdul/cletus/goran have to come up with a new plan. I know! You can just load a truck with bricks and drive it right into it's feet. Or you could push a pallet full of bricks off the roof of a building. Really any heavy object dropped onto it/into it will knock it out. There is no way a mech could ever function as a military instrument.

>>31766704
Something along the line of Power armor or exoskeletons are alot more realistic then a combat mech

they would have to big/high profile a large heat signature and they would most likely be slow and clumsy, also they would be alot harder to armor with a shitload of weak points

>>31775112
Remember that a horse can go places no tracked vehicle could hope to without being helicoptered in simply because it walks.

Personally I'd love to be able to march weaponry right up a mountain slowly and without being so obvious as a bunch of choppers hauling shit up. Rig a 6-8 legged spider-like platform for modular use allowing you to attach howitzers, CIWS, 30mm cannons, chaparral mounts, maybe go with some MIM-23s if you want. Then purpose build a command walker with radar and comms out the ass to accompany them and serve as the outpost central hub until something more permanent can be put together. Basically have a walker force that can just show up and work as an arty base or SAM site through incredibly rough terrain. Rig up one more as cargo and mess and you're set.

I'd also much rather have a spider tank with wheeled legs in an urban or otherwise heavily cluttered setting. Lot of stuff you can do with legs. Most importantly moving sideways without needing to turn at all and raising and lowering to use environmental cover. Wheeled legs allows you to walk or roll so you retain speed and get further mobility. Extra legs means redundancy. A tank loses one tread and it's game over for moving, a spider can lose 4 legs and still move quite well.

Really all you have to do to find uses is be creative instead of stubborn. The first tanks sucked, the first planes sucked, the first warships sucked. The first of just about everything sucked. But with advancement and refining look at where we are now with all these things. You can't win the game if you don't play to begin with.

>>31775430

>The first tanks sucked, the first planes sucked, the first warships sucked.

All of those platforms showed their potential immediately.

>>31773988
Ignoring the fact that you're a freeborn inner sphere scum for a moment, tanks are canonically the mainstay of armed ground forces in the battletech universe, and battlemechs serve more of a heavy cavalry purpose.

>>31775404
head and shoulders must be the most heavily armored upper chest and back is good with medium armor light armor for the rest only against heavy machine guns.
pilots will only expose the most armored parts normally. if surprised and flanked what armored vehicle will not get rekt? there is none.

>>31773692
not advanced enough of a game, would have screwed game mechanizes made it company of command and conquer then

>>31775466
this, mechs posses no obvious advantage over treads and supporting helos outside wargaming on purpose built terrain a tank company would not even go into given a choice.

>>31775466
And people often thought they were stupid ideas until they went on to work.

We have not really even made a mech of any sort yet to try and you've already decided it sucks at everything forever and should never be made because you think they're dumb.

>>31775477
With that armor scheme the mech is fixed in position the moment it comes under fire as any movement will leave it vulnerable. Tanks are vulnerable in the flanks, but they are fully protected from any attack in any circumstance from the front, which is where the majority of most hits will occur. This is not an equal comparison.

File: 1453064877658.jpg (472KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1280x720px

>>31774038
But they are powered by handwavium.

Have you never wondered how it would be if they applied that on conventional vehicles?
[spoiler]They would be unstoppable and kill all the BETA[/spoiler]

>>31775530
>Tanks, planes, warships
>Stupid ideas until they on to work.
You have got to be kidding me. They were considered great ideas long before the engines to power them even existed.

>>31775549
There was that scene where the ruskies tried to hold the BETA off with a fuckload of tanks. Spoiler: the BETA ate some borscht that day.

>>31775569
Every major idea has a fuckload of detractors dude. The thing is if the ones who thought it was a great idea listened to those detractors none of it would have been made or even attempted.

>>31775547
not really unless it was a shitty position.
you absolutely don't play wargames?
just back off after shooting change position and rinse and repeat or go for a long flank.
work the terrain and shit.

>>31775547
>but they are fully protected from any attack in any circumstance from the front
that's not even true tho no mbt is immune to frontal fire from other mbts today and mostly never was.

>>31775600
That's nice, but saying that an incredibly small minorities unreasonably hates something is not the same thing. Can you think of any reason any reasonable soldier of any era anywhere would complain about
- a flying man
- an armored wagon (outside of obvious terrain problems)
- putting weapons on a ship

>>31775609
How are you going to back off when moving instantly reveals your unprotected frontal chest? How is being unable to advance while under fire not a problem? How is walking backwards then forwards again like a see-saw going to solve anything?

>>31775613
Fully protected meaning that they don't leave any part of the front hull unprotected, unlike your armor proposal.

>>31775689
>How are you going to back off when moving instantly reveals your unprotected frontal chest?
are you willfully this retarded? it doesn't expose shit when you move back you get full cover.
>How is being unable to advance while under fire not a problem?
you first kill things or saturate the view with smoke then advance i see no issues.
>Fully protected meaning that they don't leave any part of the front hull unprotected, unlike your armor proposal.
don't see the significant difference between anything penning lower glacies or the turret ring compared to have no armor on lower glacies.

File: T-80 is a lie.png (4MB, 3352x1727px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3352x1727px

>>31775582
Reminder that there was no sign of soviet tactics being played in total eclipse.

Kinda like this>>31766900

No sign of real world tactics being used but completely made up ones and rule of cool.

You should also be aware that the tanks in total eclipse when falling back, firing with the BETA in view where physically not aiming at the BETA but looking into the sky.

If they used soviet tactics then we would see fuckton of anti tank guns being placed far up in the beach with some tanks and even artillery guns for direct fire support. They would NOT drive all their tanks up close to the BETA since that is the most stupidest shit ever you could do.

They also used T-64BV's and use the same 3d model in schwarzesmarken.

>>31775706
Try again, but this time with real life involved.

>>31766730
Tanks suck at fighting in built up areas such as cities, mountain ranges and dense forests. In cities, a tank has to expose at least 70% of itself when engaging a target around the corner of a building in order to establish a direct line of fire with a target, whereas a 7 meters tall humanoid mecha only exposes 15-20%. In a mountain range, tanks are limited to traversing surfaces that are relatively level horizontally else they will tip over, which is why the Afghans are kicking our asses there since the heavily mountainous country makes it difficult to deploy conventional armored forces. Mechs, on the other hand can climb the sides of rock faces the same way a rock climber would, using a winch cable as a safety line. In a dense forest the movement of a tank's turret is impeded by the trees surrounding it, whereas a mech can just lower its rifle and raise it when going from one side of a tree to another, just like infantry do.

As for how such a mech could be made, hydraulics and pneumatics are innefficient, as are servo motors. The best means of propulsion for mechas are carbon nanotube aerogel artificial muscles.
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2009/03/20-001.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l0FKK6y25Q
They posses a contraction rate of 1000x that of human muscle, are 200x stronger than steel cable, are as light as air and can operate at extreme temperatures.

Armoring the mecha will be a problem since it can't carry as much armor as an MBT to maintain high mobility, so they are a better replacement for medium or light tanks while the MBT will still reign supreme. That will change when the Electromagnetic Reactive Armor, armor that vaporizes incoming projectiles on contact with high voltage electricity becomes mainstream. The Brits already have a working prototype.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7rxBifd0cY
After that, those big bulky, heavy chobham armor plates can be replaced with lightweight metal plate armor.

>>31775645
>It'll never work, flying is impossible.
>What purpose does it serve, you can't even tell anyone what you saw until you land.
>It's canvas and sticks, a few men with rifles could bring it down.
>It can never match our artillery for destructive force, why bother?

>How will something so slow ever cross no man's land? The artillery would blow it to pieces before it even got halfway!
>Horses are faster and smaller targets and all I have to do with them is feed them and keep their hooves clean!
>This thing is unreliable as can be, probably break down right in the middle of that mess! What then?!

>What good comes from ramming our ship into theirs, it could sink us both!
>Why should we have all this explosive stuff onboard. What if it catches fire and sinks us? All it takes is one flaming arrow!

>>31766704
Awesome in theory, impossible in reality.

The amount of moving parts and joints and weak points and coordinating and powering a bi-pedal armored vehicle is insane. Not only is it impractical as hell it is also a massive waste of resources over a treaded or wheeled equivalent. The standing profile makes it a huge target with very easily targetable legs that will be immobilized by man portable weapons.

>>31775706
>are you willfully this retarded? it doesn't expose shit when you move back you get full cover.
So you some kind of awkward backwards shuffle? You don't even bother getting up to walk? How long are you planning on doing this? A couple days to get back out of range?
>you first kill things or saturate the view with smoke then advance i see no issues.
We got a tactical genius here folks!
>don't see the significant difference between anything penning lower glacies or the turret ring compared to have no armor on lower glacies.
Riddle me this. Why bother with armor at all then? Why does this not apply to your mech?

>>31773656
What about an attack chopper that can land in adverse terrain? Semi functioning legs just for landing and some maneuvering. Kind of like a giant bird with guns that it could use on land...

>>31766704
Because it's a stupid idea.

File: Leo_exo_suit.jpg (33KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x453px

This is about the biggest I'd ever do for a bipedal. Much bigger than that is dumb as shit. While I'm not against spiders bipedals are problematic after they get past a certain height.

>>31775760
>Tanks are limited to traversing surfaces that are relatively level horizontally else they will tip over
No. Just no. Where does this idea even come from?
>Mechs, on the other hand can climb the sides of rock faces the same way a rock climber would, using a winch cable as a safety line.
Hahaha, what? Are you mechs made of styrofoam?
> In cities, a tank has to expose at least 70% of itself when engaging a target
>In a dense forest the movement of a tank's turret etc
Nothing an alternate turret design won't solve.

See, the problem with these sorts of arguments is that tanks aren't designed to solve these non-issues, but if they were, they will still solve them with no trouble.

>>31775784
>Why bother with armor at all then?
light armor is very successful lately at killing tanks they are only armored against infantry weapons. but armor + proper tactics is still effective that's why.

Why not have a mech, but with tanks for feet? Kinda like mech rollerblades?

File: KT-ST.png (55KB, 570x654px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 570x654px

A while back /k/ redesigned the AT-ST's head. Was really surprised the thread didn't get shitposted into oblivion. Figure it's relevant to the thread so here's what the end result was

>>31775859
Yes, yes, now explain why this isn't a problem for mechs but is for tanks.

File: size-square-cube-law.jpg (114KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1500x1125px

>>31774396
Not unless it's ridiculously think/strong now. Last time that worked tanks weighed about a much as a medium sized truck truck today. Anything capable of stopping a tank would involve power equipment and would be very visible see >>31774420

Pic related is why mechs will not work
Ground pressure on feet vs total mass.
Tanks are tracked for a reason.
Also your skeleton in a mech would have to be amazing material. >>31773065
I tried to do the math to figure out what forces would affect the ends of the arms and feet as it moved I got results of hundreds of G's. So unless it's going to be moving it what appears to be slow-mo it will have tremendous centrifugal forces acting on components. The end of it's "hands" for the purposes of discussion will moving close to exceeding the tensile strength of most materials. And then you have a have a loading mechanism and other equipment and explosives that can survive this.

>>31774781
Individual power armor I can see, anything past that your tech must be MAGIC. You have to get around fundamental physical laws. Any tech increase that would make mechs practical should also apply to tanks. And tanks have several positive attributes that mechs will not have by definition. They would be niche only equipment. For very rugged environments and low intensity only combat.
It would be likely to see that tech go into legged (hexapodale+) unarmored/lightly armored transport.
>>31775430
or Spider/Centipede Tanks That would probably be possible.

>>31775879
More like one autist with a CAD program randomly popping into a Star Wars thread.

>>31775906
you are indeed willfully retared anon.
proper tactics for mechs and tanks would be completely different. but neither of them should show any but the most heavily arrmored surface to the enemy that much is common.

>>31775776
>>It'll never work, flying is impossible.
Guess you have never seen birds
>>What purpose does it serve, you can't even tell anyone what you saw until you land.
Thats exactly how it worked when airplanes were first used for air recon. And it worked since it gave the commanders a view over the entier battlefield and could from that decide what to do.
>>It's canvas and sticks, a few men with rifles could bring it down.
Shooting something in the sky is not easy, even more when its high and relative fast. You need machine guns and large canons for shooting down planes. But rifles work for short ranges and slow targets which happend early in world war 1.
>>It can never match our artillery for destructive force, why bother?
Artillery dont have the range to reach cities which bombers can do (except paris gun). They also need someone to spot targets which aircrafts can do if they have some way to communicate to the ground or the enemy dont move that much (which is how it was in the western frontlines in world war 1)


>>How will something so slow ever cross no man's land? The artillery would blow it to pieces before it even got halfway!
Which is why it has armor. Tanks are vulnerable but anything else wont even get as far as tanks.
>>Horses are faster and smaller targets and all I have to do with them is feed them and keep their hooves clean!
Machine guns which tanks conveniently are armored against. Horses were useful in the far east since they were unable to build gigantic trenches and still did manouver warfare.

Tanks got serious development in the western front since they were one of the few working means that could break the stalemate and they proved themself to do that role. Even better when you did some kind of early form of combined arms warfare

Reliable engines are a problem but we got people working on that and no one is talking about ramming ships and if you got guns on your ship then it will outrange arrows.

>>31775879
Is it weighted in the back or something? Seems like it'd trip on its face really easily.

>>31775926
>Last time that worked tanks weighed about a much as a medium sized truck truck today.
I agree with everything else you said, but this is dumb. The tank in his pic is a Churchill. They weighed between 38 and 40 tons depending on the model. In what world is a 40 ton truck "medium sized"?

>>31773552

Nods artillery was its kryptonite though

>>31775973
So now apparently when moving your mech is now doing an army crawl. Are you even planning finish a war before your pilots die of old age? What is even the point of the legs? Explain how this armor scheme is equivalent to a tank's armor scheme.

You'll get exactly the same complaints if you were to talk about only armoring the turret frontal arc of a tank, only in your case you're claiming that doing so is also somehow equivalent to armoring the entire tank's frontal arc.

>>31775776
He said reasonable soldiers, anon, not balls-out IQ-single-digits soldiers.

>>31775978
All of these things are relatively easy excuses that you can expect from detractors of the time.

You do realize that up until the first flight and even a little afterwards people said manned flight was outright impossible right?

Old ships used rams. I guess I went farther back with that than you thought.

You basically missed just about all the points made and the point of the whole post. Just because someone doesn't like the idea doesn't mean it's not worth a shot. Worst case you never make any more than your prototypes because holy fuck they blow, best case they work great and become a major part of your forces once production gets enough ready and eventually changes how you fight for the better.

>>31776053
tanks use small ditches as cover mechs use small hills as cover same way infantry men use a barricade.

>>31776053
>You'll get exactly the same complaints if you were to talk about only armoring the turret frontal arc of a tank
lot's of tanks were made like that. and they did good. leo1 is one of the latest examples.

File: 1397004920045.jpg (24KB, 670x549px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 670x549px

>there are people who actually defend the idea of mechs
>on /k/

Why does everyone compare mechanical to walking tanks when they would do vastly different things.

Ps not even against mechanical but holy shit tanks would slaughter the, in open terain

>>31776078
>>31776093
Yes, it's a optimization measure for tanks designed to be used defensively.
In which case your mecha is meant to be used defensively. In which case a tank would be far better for that purpose. So what is the purpose of this armor scheme again?

>>31768278
The tank firing would reduce the impact of the tank itself. Unless you had the tank fire away from the target, increasing it's velocity.

>>31776074
>All of these things are relatively easy excuses that you can expect from detractors of the time.
They are not. They are stupid excuses.

>>31776074
>You do realize that up until the first flight and even a little afterwards people said manned flight was outright impossible right?
Nobody is saying mecha are impossible, just stupid.

>Blah blah blah
Yeah, cool story bro.

>>31775985
Please understand I stated the last time it worked. The Poles tried it on PZ IIIs and failed and those weighed 23 tons. Churchill tanks occasionally threw tracks from bushes. The picture is showing a crew member removing German signal wire from the tracks (popular IWM pic). As far I can tell that did not not stop that tank in combat. Though with the stories about Churchill's reliability It would be typical.
Medium trucks are 10,000 to 20,000 lbs. The largest tank stopped by cable I can remember is a PZ I which was around 6 tons. And the early tanks had terrible power to weight ratios by today's standards.

>>31776132
>In which case your mecha is meant to be used defensively.
that's not exactly true. you can use everything offensively that you can use defensively. just because something is not good at frontal assault doesn't mean it's defensive.
you tank is not one bit better anon, if it charges blindly over open terrain it will get rekt faster than you can say warhead.
tanks are an interesting breed they are both suited for advancing under fire and dug-in defense. but lately in both roles they are working out less and less because of the advancements in technology. when tanks were born artillery could never hit them today with guided shells it's damn possible. rocket technology was more like throwing shit around blindly than aimed fire. today almost all anti tank missiles are guided. tanks have it rough nowadays. they are far from the indestructible speeding bunkers you make them out to be.

so a mecha would not have it much more rough. same things that can kill it can kill a tank also. sans 30-40mm autocannons from the front which tanks (at least mbts are pretty much immune to)

>>31776181
You're acting as if people even 100 years ago were smart in comparison to today and you know what is said about hindsight.

Every damn thread is full of people saying it's impossible. And then occasionally when they think about it a little and realize most people are not actually supporting the idea of some full retard fuckhuge humanoid robot they usually shift to "stupid" because it doesn't have treads or whatever other stupid excuses they can come up with.

Arguing with /k/ on possible future tech is like arguing with mommies demand cock on why guns are not evil.

File: tn_1235245586270.jpg (8KB, 220x180px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x180px

>>31773988
>What Mechwarrior tought me.

>>31775926
I don't really get the need for arms on a mech anyway. Ignoring whether the legs would work or not why wouldn't they just have a turret on top?

>>31775787
That works for birds because they need to rest, cling to thin branches, and hop around to pick at worms.

Choppers just need to land and refuel.

>>31773082
Infantry and drones.

>>31776194
The cable stopped by tanks was tried a lot by partisans and Poles in defense. Usually only successful on the tanks if TC or other crew was out the hatches. The cable was kept high to decapitate drivers and crew on trucks and cars, not to stop the tanks.
Imagine what running into one of those cables would do.

>>31776220
You still haven't explained how this armor scheme is not inferior to a tank's armor scheme. The only reason you've given that actually works is to propose that armor is pointless, which is not only not true, but also voids your own argument.

>>31776221
>Arguing with /k/ on possible future tech
Arguing with autists that resort to "muh future magic tech" is pretty boring and it get stale after 100 threads.

You are kinda like the people that spoke of flying cars.

>>31776220
Then how would mechs be if even tanks get instantly rekt by ATGM? Worse?

>>31776221
It's really quite simple.

If you armor your mech, you're unacceptably slow and you sink into the ground.

If you put large guns on your mech, you get knocked over by recoil.

A fast mech would trip very easily on uneven terrain, especially since the design is inherently top heavy.

Legs would be extremely vulnerable both to mechanical failure and under fire because the complexity of the mechanism would offer little tolerance to damage.

The closest thing to a mech that would actually be viable is a powered exoskeleton, which is a completely different piece of equipment.

>>31767719
SIGIIIIIIIIIINT

>>31766900
japs are so fucking gay its not even funny anymore

File: tank-1.jpg (48KB, 450x332px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x332px

>>31775832
>No. Just no. Where does this idea even come from?
See pic.

>Hahaha, what? Are you mechs made of styrofoam?
Carbon nanotube aerogel muscle, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer endoskeleton wrapped in a "skin" made of buckypaper to protect the internal components from the elements. The armor is fitted over the skin like medieval plate armor.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/buckypaper
Unarmored it would weigh about 10 to 15 tons. The power source would be lightweight too, a hydrogen fuel cell coupled with a dozen car battery-sized nanotube-enhanced ultracapacitors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCIN0-rt2xw

>Nothing an alternate turret design won't solve.
What, like a corner shot for tanks? Wouldn't that greatly reduce the caliber of the gun that can be mounted on it?

>>31776281
armor is not pointless but you can't armor anything to be invincible so why try? things not toally armored are still useful why would mechs be the sole exception? i just don't understand your reasoning. armor is marginally useful against certain threats in certain situations. it's not the end all solution.
and you can armor mechs to the point where they don't suffer disadvantage compared to how armored tanks are if you use them properly behind cover.
it's not a hard concept really. you just have to let go off the silly notion that mechs are impossible or they can't be armored because it makes no sense.
the truth is mechs do not deliver enough for the added complexity and cost in most situations. but they are not only possible but very feasible. flying tanks are also possible and feasible they just don't deliver much to the table and have issues distinct to them and overall too expensive complicated and whatnot. that's why we don't have flying tanks.

>>31776284
>future=magic
Anon, why are you retarded?

>>31776221
Yeah, but nobody takes these people seriously, not even in circle jerking anti-mecha threads. They're basically strawmen tier and invoking them just to prove a non-existent point is pointless.

>>31776284
mechs on open terrain would be sitting ducks obviously. way worse off than tanks. but you would use mechs in hilly terrain woods or in the city. where cover for them is abundant.

>>31766704
I'm not against it. No reason for them now, yet though. Still, we have no fucking clue what the next war will bring.

>>31776221
epin strawman, 10/10
go back to your containment board you fucking mech fag

>>31776325
>Tank goes down a vertical wall, get stuck in a situation a WW1 tank won't have any problems with
>This proves tanks need level surfaces

>Light armor
>Can't be put on tanks also

>What, like a corner shot for tanks? Wouldn't that greatly reduce the caliber of the gun that can be mounted on it?
And mecha are exempt from this because?

>>31776366
>No reason for them now
is the key to it all.
they don't bring much to the table when you look at it. we shaped our world so that almost anything that matters is accessible by wheels.

>>31776325
>See pic
In that very same image, a mech would not be able to traverse that without falling over. Even if it could jump and land without losing balance, it would sink into the ground.

>Carbon nanotube
Great! Now we can make tanks lighter, faster, and more resistant, too!

>>31776385
lots of light tanks and ifs still designed and made all over the world prove the viability and effectiveness of light armor.

>>31776325
>technical buzzwords: the post

>>31776345
Almost all arguments for mechs are based on possible "future" tech that will solve all its problems. That is how all mech threads play out all the time.

Are you so retarded you dont know this?

>>31766704
>Tank goes down a vertical wall, get stuck in a situation a WW1 tank won't have any problems with
>>This proves tanks need level surfaces
No I am saying that tanks would have trouble traversing terrain that dips past a 45 degree angle in places. Mechs can climb such steep angles.
>Light armor
>Can't be put on tanks also
I didn't say it couldn't. Buckypaper would make a good replacement for Kevlar as a spall-liner but that's it.
>And mecha are exempt from this because?
The arms allow for better shock-absorbtion. This combined with a compressed air nozel on the back of the rifle to negate recoil would allow it to carry a caliber gun of up to 75mm by my estimates.

>>31776417
Better yet, those people completely ignore that with that same futuretech, traditional tanks or flying units would BTFO mechs in any situation.

File: 1453412780428.png (208KB, 361x691px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 361x691px

>>31773988
>10+ ton armored mech suit
>can jump over obstacles

>>31776417
none of my argument were about actual future tech tho. mechs are more than feasible and they wouldn't be ineffective either.
it's just that they are too expensive and too complicated to what they can deliver. they don't fill any holes in doctrine or capability they could be multirole ifv spaag tank destroyer (with missiles) but you could get the equivalent capability in wheels ten times over for the price of one.

>>31776417
We already have the basics for most of it you jackass, the problem is the stuff we have is generally not good enough today and thus requires further advancement in THE FUTURE. It's not magic future unobtainium bullshit, it's better, stronger, and more resilient versions of shit we have today.

Electric motors, power generation methods, battery systems, computers, walking programs, all sorts of stuff. We just need to improve it.

>>31776401
I fail to see how artificial muscles could be used to improve a tank or any other conventional vehicle in any meaningful way.

>>31776501
you could install a soft robotic arm that jerks the commander off if he is abusive to the crew.

>>31776501
Independently powered and suspended wheels instead of conventional axles. This would assist in negotiating uneven terrain.

>>31776339
All you're saying is that you can severely restrict the tactical viability of your mecha to make up for its shit armor scheme. Which is nice, but
A normal tank will be able to do the same, and then be able to do more.
A tank with the same armor scheme would still be better.

>>31776325
>several tons of mech walks off a ledge
>sinks into the ground because it's several tons of steel jumping off a fucking ledge
>alternatively it falls on its fucking face

>>31776530
Even if it falls on its face it can still get up on it's own unlike a tank, which would need outside assistance.

>>31776404
That seems to have been his point, if you can put light armour on a mech, you easily slap it on to a treaded vehicle recieve an even better protection to weight ratio.

>>31775926
I like how the large humanoid mechfags are ignoring your post.

>>31776404
Yes, but they're also cheap and light.
And a mech that weighed as much Weasel (for example) would have even less armour, almost none even. Large structural components would be armoured as well as being significantly heavy themselves.

With a light IFV/AFV/etc you just put as much if the important stuff as tou can in an armoured box, which is also the chassis.
It's far easier, far cheaper and more efficient.

>>31766704
The only reason for a Metal Gear in actual battle I could think of is as basically a giant version of a tank, simply there to support infantry. Bipeds would be a true nightmare to use because the weight wouldn't be spread out enough, and the mech would just sink into the ground. Really the only semi-realistic usage of a mech I could imagine is using Metal Gear Excelsus in a dry urban environment, supported by thousands of troops and able to launch cruise missiles for pinpoint strikes, and even that idea is extremely ludicrous.
Don't get me wrong, piloting a Metal Gear Ray is a wet dream, but in actual combat facing against dozens of tanks and thousands of soldiers, mechs don't stand a chance.

>>31776454
>up to 75mm
Without going into the other bullshit you posted, how do you expect to carry enough 75mm rounds for it to be worth having? Where will you out the autoloader for it?

>>31776454
>No I am saying that tanks would have trouble traversing terrain that dips past a 45 degree angle in places.
A basic google search will tell you most tanks have no trouble with 45 degree slopes. Frankly rotor craft would be far better, since the mech would have to extremely light to handle cliff climbing anyway.

>>31776548
So assuming the mech has fully functional arms that can bear most of its weight, falling like that will likely crush one if not both of said arms, so no, it couldn't pick itself up.

>>31776548
>get up on its own
>without arms or a conscious crew
Sure thing bud.

>>31776485
So future tech? Got it.

How do you solve the ground preasure problem? How large is your future mech gona be?

>>31775760
>Tanks suck at fighting in built up areas such as cities, mountain ranges and dense forests
Ok, but all you've done is take a tank and make it even taller and easier to hit.

>>31776253
Recoil would knock it over. Stretch out one arm and try to push it down by applying pressure to the elbow. It's pretty easy to resist, right? Now apply the same force to the wrist. It's now more or less impossible to hold your arm up.

Tanks have a low center of mass, so they can fire weapons with huge recoils and not flip. An M829A3 penetrator generates about 1500 kg*m/s. If you fired the same thing from 5 meters in the air, the torque would knock down just about anything. And the same applies to mechs firing from "arms". There's no way a bipedal mech could hope to fire a modern penetrator round without falling on its ass.

>>31776637
>>31776642
Hey now, let's be fair here, a mech would do better, but only because nobody needs to design a tank to cross that sort of terrain.

>>31776637
Actually due to the artificial muscles being aerogels it would need to be immersed in coolant to keep from melting the insides, so the endoskeleton is cushioned by a membrane filled with ethylene glycol. Also the control system can be programmed to automatically twist the mecha around to minimize damage to the arms much like how a cat rights itself in mid-fall and even without arms it can just do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPpBkPRBhM

>>31776674
Easier to hit in a wide-open space, yes. Not so much when you have plenty of equally all or taller objects around to act as cover.

>>31776530

Don't forget all the shit that would break on it.
There's a reason you don't see large animals doing king-kong style acrobatics bullshit in real life, and it's the same reason mecha isn't a plausible concept.
That reason is that even if it were physically possible for them to move with this kind of agility, the strain would absolutely demolish them structurally. You can't fucking scale indefinitely and expect things to behave the same way.
If you drop an ant or worm from 20x its length, it walks away without a scratch. If you do the same to a human, they're all kinds of fucked up. Do it with an elephant and it bursts like a tomato.
If a reasonably agile human drops down a ledge around 1-2 times their height, they're fine. Try that with a 30 ton mechsuit and you can say goodbye to half of its structural components.

>inb4 muh future supermaterials that defy physics

Call me when they exist outside of movies.

>>31776674
>Buh... buh.. muh anime said mechs wuh bettah!

Seriously, this. About the only terrain mechs could go that a tank couldn't would be up mountains with giant stairs. And it would require a ton of complex parts to keep balanced when moving. Parts that are going to cause a mech to break down more often than a tracked system.

>>31776718
>Easier to hit in a wide-open space, yes. Not so much when you have plenty of equally all or taller objects around to act as cover.
That's funny, I could had sworn tanks were shorter than mecha.

>>31776718
It's still going to sustain severe damage because of the square-cube law. Its own mass will be causing greater force to be applied against the machine. And if you start leaking coolant, then you're fucked. Also, note how the guy in the video uses his arms.

Also, you're making it seem as if you're saying mechs can use cover while tanks cannot.

>>31776750
Not that many parts, just software and sensors. Gyroscopes to detect orientation with the ground, pattern recognition software to recognize obstacles and adapt its movements to avoid or overcome them and a locomotion control system consisting of five computers, four of which each control a limb and one that directs them based on input from the cockpit controls. The pilot just tells the mech where to go, what to shoot and when to do it. The control system takes care of the rest.

>>31776789
>That's funny, I could had sworn tanks were shorter than mecha.
I was saying that height isn't the issue when it comes to those types of battlefield environments. Length and width is, and most tanks are too wide or long to effectively use cover while trying to establish a direct line of fire around the corner of a building with the main gun placed so far back.

>>31776803
I didn't say tanks can't use cover, I was saying it can't use it as effectively as mechs.

File: tumblr_n826qlhpPx1qdkeiao1_1280.jpg (163KB, 1258x644px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1258x644px

Why not just make spider tanks instead of fucking humanoid mechs

then again the only upside to this would be that it could traverse harsh terrain, it would be ridiculously slow compared to a tracked tank

>>31776855
That and bipedal mechs are more energy efficient in that gravity is doing half the work of propelling the mech forward. Basically human locomotion is a controlled fall with you leaning forward so gravity takes hold of you and then pushing against the ground as you fall to move forward.

>>31776844
>I was saying that height isn't the issue when it comes to those types of battlefield environments. Yeah but the issue isn't cover, or being unable to peek around corners, it's the fact that that the "cover" is full of RPGs. So having a bigger target walking down the street is worse, and having arms is useful, but not super useful.

>>31776844
So assuming the mech is armed with some sort of recoilless rifle to be able to shoot around corners, how does it reload, and how does it store any appreciable amount of ammunition? A rough schematic would be nice.

>>31776660
Spread out over multiple legs and not actually that big for the majority. The absolute biggest would be a cargo carrier big enough to haul one 30 foot shipping container. Next down would be the command vehicle which should be roughly stryker sized with 8 legs.

Body sizes ranging from humvee to stryker for combat purposed vehicles with suitably long legs to allow it to raise high, lower flat, and walk in a stable manner where applicable. Allow the legs to act double jointed so they can use an outer portion to give more surface area to the foot when needed. Legs have 3 segments.

These are not truly tanks and absolutely not meant to replace them at all. The best way to look at them would be scouts, SPGs, mobile AA, AFVs, tank destroyers, and self propelled mortar. They're not going to be super heavily armored but combat vehicles will still have enough to not get blown to hell by any hadji with an RPG-7 and non-combat vehicles should be able to take small arms fire. Legs should be rigged in such a way that they can be jettisoned if rendered inoperable during combat allowing non-damaged legs to pick up the slack. Joints should be well armored on all.

For the SPGs use a larger deployable clawed foot pad, rig it so the legs absorb some of the recoil. All have wheeled legs with solid tires instead of air filled allowing for fast movement or a solid grip when walking. Let the legs work to keep the main body stable and level instead of attempting to rely heavily on shocks.

>>31776718
You're basically designing an over-complicated piece of junk that might be a bit better than a tank in very specific terrain. And that's assuming it's on a day when the tank is not stuck in depot level maninance because there are so many parts that can and will break, and no one outside of the depot has the training or tools to fix it.

Meanwhile, a squad of tanks gets deployed by the op-force. All together, they cost the same to build, and most basic maintenance can be done in the field by the crew. Since there are four of them, they're more flexible than the single unit, and if they're not as good as a mech at a handful of tasks, they're as good or better at most. They can also fire larger weapons because their low center of mass won't send them flipping head over heels whenever they shoot.

The two forces meet in an urban environment. The mech surprises the tanks and kills one with that corner situation you love taking about so much. The rest fire on it. If they score a hit anywhere on the legs, it's disabled, and basically dead since it can't effectively aim its weapons sprawled on the ground. If the tanks take hits to the treads, they can still aim and fire. And if the three remaining tanks don't manage to kill the mech in the opening exchange, they can always have one or two pin it down while the rest flank it. There's that flexibility again.

File: 1454296083824.png (93KB, 216x249px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 216x249px

>>31776921
>The absolute biggest would be a cargo carrier
>should be roughly stryker sized with 8 legs
>Legs have 3 segments.
>They're not going to be super heavily armored
>Legs should be rigged in such a way that they can be jettisoned if rendered inoperable

>technical groundwork needed to build bipedal locomotion vehicles on par with whatever combat vehicle class they're supposed to replace isn't even done
>mecha fag anon already starts proclaiming his delusional ramblings about irrelevant technical details as if he's a renowned military engineer, despite never having finished middle school
you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about and hide it behind pointless bullshit talk about microscale details of a technological system that doesn't exist yet

fuck off back to /m/

>>31776844
You... aren't an engineer, are you?

The control system you just described is more code than exists in the F22 by an order of magnitude. Given the problems they had with that and the level of autonomy you're describing, the bugs would be insane.

As for not that many parts, yes that many parts. You need moving parts for every joint, the musculature (whatever aerogel/carbon nanotube BS your favorite pop-sci website told you about this month), those sensors you mentioned, wiring conduits, coolant systems, a power plant, power supply lines, redundant connections, and probably more that I can't think of right now.

A tank needs treads, bearings, a transmission, vision systems, and a power plant. They tend to be direct drive, so no need to pipe lots of power anywhere in particular. The systems are well understood and easy (relatively) to maintain.

>>31777003
>fuck off back to /m/
I dont think they want him.

>>31776907
>>31776907
Actually I envision not one mech but a group of them operating like an infantry fireteam with one acting as a rifleman, another acting as a grenadier, and another acting as an automatic rifleman. The rifleman carries a 75mm rifle that can be reloaded with ammo magazines it carries externally that are filled with APFSDS rounds made for that caliber. The grenadier carries the same thing but with an underslung modified mortar launcher. The automatic rifleman carries a modified GAU-8 Avenger gattling cannon with a belt fed from a backpack. The team leader sits in a command and control vehicle staffed by recon drone operators and gives the team orders based on the tactical information fed to them from the drones.

The automatic rifleman comes out from cover when the tanks are advancing and sidesteps while laying down suppressing fire. While the GAU-8's 30mm rounds can't score a catastrophic kill on a tank it can still score a firepower or mobility kill by turning its weaponry into Swiss cheese or tearing apart the treads. The tanks move back to avoid fire from the automatic rifleman while the rifleman and grenadier set up an ambush. They take out each tank with hit and run attacks with their team leader telling them where to go.

Also the only way to truly score a mobility kill on a mech is to remove ALL the limbs, like what King Arthur did to the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. One leg get's blown off it can hop around on one leg. It won't be as mobile but it can still get around. Both legs get blown off it can use its arms to crawl on its belly. Even with one arm it can still crawl around but it would have to abandon its weapon.

>>31777012
I will concede that it would be more complicated than a tank, but at least wouldn't be as ridiculously complicated as a mech that uses old-fashioned pneumatics/hydraulics and/or servomotors and the tactical advantages it provides in that type of terrain can't be ignored.

>>31776844
>control system consisting of five computers
gee, and here I thought a computer was capable of executing several tasks at once
turns out you need one for each task and thus leg you want to control
you must be a computer scientist, I mean how else are you supposed to come up with such truly enlightening revelations

File: 1466778118881.gif (492KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 320x240px

>>31777087
>One leg get's blown off it can hop around on one leg
nigga has watched too many MIT leg lab videos from the 90s

>>31777087
>Also the only way to truly score a mobility kill on a mech is to remove ALL the limbs, like what King Arthur did to the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. One leg get's blown off it can hop around on one leg
Oh my god, you're actually retarded.

I know it's a retarded idea as a weapon on a battlefield, but could Mechs be decent as an intimidation weapon versus riots?

File: 1467690122262.jpg (149KB, 492x368px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 492x368px

>>31777087
I have never seen anyone use the Black Knight from Monty python to defend the idea of realistic mechs, and I now feel dumber for having read it

>>31777003
>replace
Please stop using that damn word assuming my aim is to replace every last god damn thing.

>bitching about a cargo carrying version
Because you know, if you're setting up some sort of quick base using these it might be nice to have additional supplies.

>bitching about multiple legs
Stability, redundancy, your god damn ground pressure you keep bitching about as if it's suddenly going to sink through any fucking surface.

>bitching about 3 segments
That still allows it to god damn function without just going nuts.

>bitching about armor
What does heavily armoring something do? Adds weight, you're so damn concerned about the damn ground pressure it would seem you want reduces weight or somehow want it to use feet that are 100'x100' in size as if it's going to weigh 4 billion tons.

>bitching about getting rid of a busted part
If you get rid of a broken part that is hindering the machine by still being there yet not functioning the problem is gone and you have plenty of others that still god damn work.

>bipedal
When the fuck did I say ANY of them would be god damn bipedal. That's fucking retarded. Why do you retards assume it's always god damn bipedal?

How many god damn times do I have to tell you fuckers this relies on technological advancements on current technology to happen later down the fucking road? Jesus fucking christ.

>>31775776

> T. Pierre Spery

Literally nobody intelligent said those things. The British and French immediately grasped the potential of the tank and cranked them out by the hundreds in 1917.

If anything, they were too optimistic about the new technology. The Brits put too much faith in their early tanks and attacked without infantry, which failed badly and got lost them a bunch of tanks.

The Americans put too much faith in "The Bomber will always get through" and suffered horrendous bomber losses. later on, they put too much faith in radar guided missiles and lost a bunch of dogfights in Vietnam.

In military circles "it will never catch on" is less of a problem than "holy shit it will do everything, lets not spend money on anything else".

File: 1449093819619.gif (482KB, 250x210px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 250x210px

>>31777191
>missing the point this hard

>>31777088
>implying moving a leg is a single task
There are more processes involved in moving one leg than you think. The computer has to figure out exactly how much voltage for a given amount of time to apply to each muscle to move it in a specific way. By dividing up the control of each limb between computers it can do so more efficiently. Basically the pilot pushes the sticks forward. The main computer says, "Okay, the user wants to go forward. Legs one and two, figure our how to do that!" Leg one: "Okay contract front upper leg muscle and relax rear upper leg muscle. Contract rear lower leg muscle and relax front lower leg muscle," etc and leg two coordinates with leg one on how to move the other leg to accomplish forward locomotion.

It's supposed to mimic the concept of muscle memory, which is what allows you to perform actions without thinking about them due to the segregation between the central and secondary nervous system. When you pick up an object, your brain isn't the one figuring out how to do it but rather the nerves in your arm and hand remember how to do it from practicing as an infant. That's why people who suffer nerve damage in a limb sometimes can't use it as effectively as before without practice. I am simply applying the concept of biomimetics, the idea of designing robots and other mechanical devices after the inner workings of existing organisms.

>>31777237
Your point is that /k/ is a bunch of fucking retarded knuckle draggers when it comes to this subject. Nothing could satisfy you. I got that. I keep forgetting that /k/ also seems to hate railguns and lasers. Future stuff bad.

/k/ is great for a lot of things but this is not one of them.

>>31777251
>By dividing up the control of each limb between computers it can do so more efficiently
>the only way to achieve task parallelization is by using multiple computers
your knowledge of computers - and everything else about control systems for that matter - seems to be stuck somewere between the 80s and the early 90s

>>31777289
>muh spoopy anti-future contrarian boogeyman
fuck off to /m/ already
it's two clicks, even you should be able to do it

>>31777296
Okay how about not five but two. One for receiving input from the cockpit controls and using the data from all the gyroscopes and pattern recognition software to navigate the terrain in the mech's path while the second controls all the limbs and receives instructions from the first in order to figure out how to traverse said terrain.

>>31766704

because tanks exist and those work fine anyways

>>31777289
ohh sorry that people here don't have your anime vision installed

besides your second paragraph is completely wrong

>>31777343
with your in-depth computer knowledge i wonder how your retarded ass managed navigate to 4chan ...

>>31777343
you could write all of that stuff in MatLab Simulink+Image Processing and run it on an average multi core machine or server rack
computing power has stopped being a bottleneck for control system applications a long time ago
the only reason one would add multiple seperate computers to this is for the sake of having redundancy to fall back on in case of damage during combat

>>31777296
Playing devil's advocate, it could cut down on communication bandwidth, which is a major concern. Rather than a single bus that all components share or lots of direct connections from sensors to a central location, you have sub-processors that connect to local sensors and actuators. They crunch the numbers and send the analysis back to a primary control point. It cuts down on message traffic when using something like a CAM bus, and drops the total amount of wiring used otherwise. It's a surprisingly common practice. Heck, your computer actually has several CPUs in it: the core processor, GPUs, I/O cards, and other controllers.

On the other hand, electronics and communication lines are points of failure, and wouldn't even be needed on a tracked vehicle.

>>31777172
>rioters are not intimidated by multiwheel water- and teargas-throwers
>they'd totally panic when seeing a mech doing the exact same shit tho

File: Ha_ha_time_to_operate.gif (916KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 500x333px

>>31773831

Yes it was, even if I prefer Doms.

>>31775288
wow they really messed up on his head

>>31777440
>MatLab to write control code

Oh, hell no. You don't stick MatLab on an embedded system. Probably C or C++ with OpenCV or more likely a custom image processing library. It would be much faster, though the code would be more complicated that you seem to be implying. Autonomous controls is a really tough subject and I'd expect the recognition programs would probably feed into a neural net.

And see >>31777456 for a reason beyond redundancy to have multiple processors. Definitely possible to crunch all the data in one spot, but it might not be ideal.

>>31777289
I've had plenty of good discussions about railguns and lasers here, mostly in space threads which also tend to be pretty great once the thread has gotten past the obligatory "heat isn't a problem because space is cold" discussion.

Mech threads are such well trodden ground (AHAHAHA THE PUN) people are just tired of seeing the same terrible arguments for why mechs would somehow be good every week.

File: Gundam_v_tanks.gif (3MB, 252x194px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 252x194px

/thread

>>31777557
Let's be fair here, Zakus were built for space combat and the war ground to a slog earthside well before Guntanks/Guncannon/Gundam/GM units started coming into service.

>>31776583
nah that's not true necessarily.
have you actually done calcs?

>>31766704
Because they're not IRL and won't work IRL.

Why do we even have mecha threads anymore? They always end the same way, OP gets exposed for being a massive retarded fag who watches too much anime.

>>31777830
we could make them work easily enough if we ever felt the need.
i mean some fanboys in a garage can throw together mechs from scraps. real biped motion of course requires a little bit more than that. and current hydraulics altho fast enough for walking would probably lack the speed to make jumps and pneumaticcs are probably not nearly strong enough for this application.

>>31777814
Not him, but I did on another thread. The ratio of volume to armor works out heavily in the the tank's favor due to the really high surface area to volume ratio on a mech's limbs.

>>31777209
Problem is that mechfags get so buttblasted that they take their opponents arguments and simplify as much as possible they can like /v/ and apply it on other vehicles or weaponry and then act as if /k/ hates everything regardless if it is true or not.

>>31777814
You don't even need to do any calculation. Just simply comparing the shape of a mech to a tank will instantly reveal the answer.

File: téléchargement.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

Hey guys, i found the legs.

The best Mech design feasible would be, imho, a light reco vehicle around 6 tons. Effective anti-IED protection for the crew (high above the ground), light and agile

>>31778070
There isn't any IED protection there. Even if it did raise it higher than tracks or wheels (which is doubtful) they can just make bigger IEDs. And any troops inside would be bounced around to the point of injury.

>>31778070
So you're saying we should design the tool for IED immunity after the device people use when their legs are blown off by IED's?

>>31778111
That's the kind of idea i like

>>31778008
that's kinda stupid the way i see it you could just put a tank turret on a small neck and pelvis and two legs and it wouldn't have any more surface than a tanks body.

>>31777087
I don't usually resort to such childish tactics, but you should consider killing yourself.
Just fucking do it, end your life and stop taking up precious oxygen.

>>31778158
What happened to the torso? You can't make a mecha without a torso.

>>31778070
Problems:

That style of leg only works when supporting a human-scale weight. If you try to scale it up, it will buckle under its own mass. Square-cube law at work.

As for IED protection, sure, the blast may not reach the crew, but if it breaks a leg, then the cabin will topple to the ground, and injure the crew anyways.

>>31778289
sure you can, it's not like you need 4-5 man crew to pilot it mostly computerized single pilot turret and legs. it would have less surface overall than a tank. i mean you need artificial muscles and a very compact reactor and stuff.

>>31778297
>That style of leg only works when supporting a human-scale weight. If you try to scale it up, it will buckle under its own mass. Square-cube law at work.
now that's just stupid, i wish you would tell that to a t-rex face to face...

File: T_Rex_Leg_Bones.png (54KB, 590x950px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 590x950px

>>31778319
Very different from what you posted. Not to mention muscles.

>>31778319
....that's not how a T-Rex leg works....

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

3MB, 900x506px

>Implying flying mechas wouldn't be swatted by tanks that now have FCS good enough to shoot low flying choppers.
>Implying any mecha would be armored enough to withstand a full burst of autocannon fire let alone a 120mm or 125mm smooth bore cannon
>Implying armoring mechas wouldn't make them sink on soft ground or ruin roads
>Implying mechas can take vantage of a low profile and hull down positions
>Implying mechas wouldn't get BTFO by attack helicopters or attack jets
>Implying they have any real advantage over armored scout cars or wheeled IFVs

Also, personally my favorite mechs are from Heavy Gear. Not the Vidya but the tabletop game, they were small, lightly armored, packed what could be considered either a heavy machine gun like a Kord of a Deuce or a lightweight 20 or 30mm autocannon and a few missiles.

In HG both Gears and Striders would get stomped by tanks unless they had numerical advantage or the element of surprise with an ambush or the high ground.

Also most cities are cluttered environments, anything more than a 5m clearance would possibly have problems with:

>Loose debris
>Power lines
>abandoned cars and other vehicles
>Holes and broken pipelines
>Being higher than the average walls

>>31778310
Is it really a mecha if you put a tank turret on top of some chicken legs? If you're going to go that far why not put a tank turret on top of some treads instead? If you can pilot with one man, what's to stop a tank being designed around one man and consequentially being even smaller?

>>31778319

First, that's nowhere what a T-rex leg looks or works like.
Second, go read a book. Mechas are a manlet nip pipe dream and face the same physical limitations as giant animals (another manlet nip pipe dream, unsurprisingly).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/march6/tyrannowalk-36.html

>>31778399
That scene really missed an opportunity to put just one Shilka in there. Just one fucking Shilka. Is that too much to ask?

File: At-st_large_pic.jpg (294KB, 937x1379px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 937x1379px

>>31778435
>Is it really a mecha if you put a tank turret on top of some chicken legs?
really?

>>31778488
That's not a tank turret though. The blasters, in Star War terms, are basically 50 cal equivalents, so they have zero firepower in the Star Wars universe.

>>31778446
>and face the same physical limitations as giant animals
i don't think mechas face the same limitations as giant animals any more than jet fighters facing the same limitations as birds.

>>31778507
More like 20mm. They also have missiles.

>>31778507
yeah but you could actually put a tank turret there.
i don't have time to photoshop it for keks sake.

>>31778540
Alright, but still a tank would have less surface area, and be harder to spot.

>>31778617
a tank would not be smaller than a crouching mech and the mech does not need to have more surface area it's all dependent on design really.

mechs are very much feasible i don't get the fags that get prissy about them.

what i wouldn't say is mechs would be any better for any military than tanks and wheels. they would probably suck ass overall and not talking about the combat performance here. militaries like simple things. if something is complicated to repair and maintain military history shows it will be passed over even if superior in some way than a simpler solution.

no military uses the g11 for example. even tho in some ways it surpasses conventional firearms.

>>31775879
looks more useful then then the atst thing probably kill in star wars universe nice looking atgm

>>31778530

That's a shit comparison. Jet fighters don't gain thrust, take off or steer in the same way birds do. They're drastically different and that's the only reason they work.
Remember all the people who tried to fly by flapping huge wings strapped to their arms and failed? Remember that planes only started working when people abandoned the dumb concept of scaled-up birds?
Mecha is basically like scaling a falcon up 20x and making it out of metal and then expecting it to work in the same way as the original, be just as agile and not rip itself apart.
Making mecha work would require them to stop looking and moving like mecha (i.e. humanoid), just as making planes work required stopping them looking and moving like birds, except for a very, very vague resemblance.

>>31778685
Most of /k/ probably don't have problems with mecha in general, just humanoid ones, and attributing supernatural abilities to them. Even then, spider tanks would be extremely specialized and niche vehicles.

File: AH-1Z_lands_on_USS_Makin_Island_LHD-8.jpg (732KB, 3000x1994px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 3000x1994px

>>31773082
>What if it was on another planet that mining companies warred over using bipedal mechs because the surface is too scarred and rocky for tanks to operate?

What if, anon? What the fuck if?

>>31778740
the way mechs walk will probably have nothing to do with how you walk anon rest assured.

>>31778774
no atmo, high gravity... i can see how flying would suck ass on that rock planet.

>>31778915
That just means fighting would take place in orbit, ground combat would be limited to short infantry assaults on mining facilities (done by hopper or deorbited) who then GTFO when the place is secure.

The high gravity would ensure only very little takes place on the surface outside of mining, both due to the specialised nature of equipment for that environment and the dV cost in landing and returning to orbit.

>>31773844
>Unless we reach mechanical and engineering perfection, it won't happen

Even then it won't happen. Any tech advance that makes mechs possible will also make tanks and helicopters even more awesome.

>>31778915
>>31778947
Thinking about this idea some more, firstly it's likely you wouldn't be mining a high gravity world (since the heavy metals would've sunk into the core), so the whole idea is laughable to start with.

Then there's the concept that a high gravity world would have no atmosphere, which is also stupid since the higher G would easily hold any atmo from being blown off, unless the place had fuck all magnetic field (even then it's dubious, Venus has barely any magnetic field but has a shitload of atmo).

And mechs would be even WORSE under higher gravity than tracks due to ground pressure, stress on joints etc.

File: AH-64D_Apache_Longbow.jpg (568KB, 2419x1892px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 2419x1892px

>>31778978

>>31778310
Say you need X volume to house all the things that make an effective armored vehicle. That includes crew space, power plant, locomotion, weapon(s), communications equipment, and sensors. You need to armor all this stuff. And the amount of armor you need is directly proportional to the surface area of the vehicle.

A tank is, basically, a rectangular prism. The tracks, its proportion system, can be armored with a curtain that doubles as armor to the body itself. The whole thing is fairly efficient, with an M1 Abrams having about two units of volume per unit of area.

The proportion system of any mech would not be able to be armored along with the main body. You basically have the same body of the tank to armor, plus the legs. And if you take a hit to the upper area, even if it doesn't penetrate it will knock a biped on its ass. If you go quadruped, well, it's that much more armor.

And before you go on about your mech idea being smaller because of computerized control and crap, remember you'll need exactly the same equipment as a tank built with similar technology.

Honestly, my problem with all the mech lovers is how they all go on about how X, Y, and Z technologies will make mechs so much better than tanks, then neglect to consider that tanks can be built with exactly the same carbon nanotubes and aerogel and unobtanium armor.

>>31774606
>Be attacking army
>Assaulting a castle with one of these
>It approaches the castle walls, smashes the outer perimeter with ease, and continues marching forward
>It slows to a halt
>Politely request a momentary cessation of hostilities with the castle commander so you can bring a team of oxen up and re-wind the machine

File: chopperwithlegs.jpg (23KB, 519x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 519x375px

>>31773656

>>31780111
>It's an abstract kind of FWUPPAFWUPPAFWUPPA