>>32146369
in airsoft? it's kinda like cheating.
Doesn't look like it'd handle an RPG very well.
IT COULD BE VIABLE IN YOUR ASSHOLE YOU FUCKING NIGGER
>>32146369
>bait.jpg
>>32146369
Maybe for intimidation, but whatever else it could do a tank could do better.
Though a giant mech on the battlefield would be damn cool.
>>32146974
>>32146908
>>32146635
>>32146872
it has hands so it could aim the guns quickly unlike a tank turret which has turning speed
Mount some miniguns on it and hide it behind a false wall, have it programed to pop out and fuck shit up if an alarm goes off. There is no way this could go badly.
>>32148543
That's assuming that the servo Motors are made out of fucking Magic
Jesus, we have this thread like three times a week. Or more
> RPG 7 to any limb contact point
> IED
> API
> APHE
> Fucking paint bomb
> Glue trap???
> Holy shit, the hydrolics are exposed, so a mobility kill can be done with a .223 or 7.62anything
> Tires
My god I could go on forever. Does it have a human pilot?
Only viable when we invent/discover gundanium, and can get mobility like the unicorn or Code Geass robots. Even then, there will likely be better weapons.
What's far more likely are chappie/ Elysium robots...
Real life isn't anime.
>>32146369
NOT WITH TINY ASS WHEELS.
And they should be airless, like the "tweel" concept.
If it moves fast enough it will be immune to modern tanks and RPGs.
>>32146930
Tone it down sparky
No need to be that... Whatever it is.
>>32146369
If it was somewhere between 5 and 7 feet tall and was strong enough to warrant a gorrilion dollars per unit.
>>32146369
>bait.jpg
>begins a slow clap for the rest of the thread.
>>32146369
It's about as sturdy as a movie prop. A viable battle robot starts looking like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng
>>32148643
>Real life isn't anime.
Woah there buddy. It's okay to put the man down, but let's not get carried away.
>>32148643
>>32146369
No, but neighborhood watch is definitely interested
>>32146369
Literally why?
So many far easier and deadlier designs
>arms
>bait.jpg
Yeah I can see that.
>>32146369
>could this be viable in the battle field
>>32146974
it would be fair for police enforcers against mobs or shit
>>32146369
It has no place on the battlefield, its for home defense only obviously.
>Thermal optics
>High-powered magnification and target identification
>looks pretty okay-ishly armored, probably has some form of APS to defeat man-portable ATGMs
>reasonably quick, not too many servos, uses a mechanical actuator to provide locomotion instead of relying on hydraulics
>able to mount heavy weapons with plenty of ammunition
>sheer intimidation factor
>fukken siccc voice modulator familie
>complete cockpit protection from small arms
>looks easily protected against IEDs due to amazing ground-cockpit ground clearance
If your military wasn't too worried about looking like a literal evil empire, with enough funding and developing a solid engine for it, it MIGHT not be completely retarded.
>>32148643
Even if all these problems are resolved, imagine how fucking top heavy it must be. Millions of dollars of military engineering defeated by a steep fucking incline.
>>32148643
Not defending the mongoloid jap bait contraption, but all the points you brought up would also defeat most non-MBTs, at the very least having mobility and mission kills save the small arms.
>>32153222
A forklift would rape that thing in combat. I have personally done some crazy things in a fork lift and the thought of sumo wrestling a janky mech with one excites me.
>>32155772
>can't even go down a flight of fucking stairs
>>32153222
Better than farm tractors.
>>32155772
>Taller and most visable than a tank
>Easier to spot and aim
>looks easily protected against IEDs due to amazing ground-cockpit ground clearance
nigger what
>>32155908
Same principle as the MRAP, divert the blast using a shaped lower hull, dispersing the explosive force up and away from the cockpit. More ground clearance, less force hitting the plate, right? Isn't that why the new armored trucks are so high up from the ground, or is that just for maneuvering in tough terrain?
>>32146369
only if everything was paved and you don't mind moving slower than a walking person
>>32155926
So what do you do about being twice as visible and a bigger target in general for things like RPGs?...
>>32148594
This makes sense to me as a one time use only. But what a time it would be.
>>32146369
Not with those tires
>>32156149
Stick to cities for urban enforcement? It's a tool for cities, it stays in cities, applying superior dakka with a height advantage over fallen debris.
Fuck man, I don't know, it just looked fucking cool.
>>32146369
>people falling for bait.jpg
>>32148543
>>32155772
>people defending bait.jpg
that baiting technique is pretty advanced I would give you that.
>spend 6 gorrillion shekels on lockheed-Martin oppressorbot-9000 all terrain weapons platform with integrated future soldier HUD and seat warmer upgrade package (with Corinthian leather seats and extra cup holder thrown in because you are a valued repeat customer)
>still get blown up by a crazed zealot squatting in a cave with either a Soviet Era RPG or a bunch of landmines and bombs hooked up to a boost mobile cellphone
>>32156290
Is there some unwritten code where RPGs are not to be used in urban environments? Because I haven't heard of it.
>>32146369
Whatever happened to the US vs JP mech melee battle?
>>32155801
No MBT I know of has critical parts exposed for shit like that, or wheels that would get stuck in a glue trap.
>>32146369
>Shopping cart castor wheel catches in sewer grate
>Army of mechs defeated by sewer grate
It's gonna need a bigger gun. Those little cannons aren't going to dent anything.
>>32146369
Better question; will the cost of MAKING it viable on the battlefield be worth it over just buying a fucking tank?
>>32157664
Better question: how is that in any way more viable than any existing weapon system?
>>32157664
it dont cost a million dollars already?
to be honest, even if you pimp it up to one hundred million dollars, will still be super cheap compared to f-35/zumwalt/mexico wall standards
>>32146369
No.
Any limbs destroyed majorly effects its combat prowess, and its heavily exposed near the small wheels which are a problem for harsh terrain, and weather, along with even small explosive attacks...
Hard suites would do better.
Best question: why not replace tanks with dedicated atgm vehicles?
>>32157794
If you don't have a tank what do you need an antitank guided missile for?
>>32157825
other dedicatd atgm vehicles