Do have battlemechs any real world advantage compared to tanks

No and no.

probably not. tanks fill that role already. but powered armor might, provided we get a breakthrough in energy density.

>>32452203
Might see usage in depots and storage areas.

>>32452236
We have forklifts for that.

>>32452203
Battlemechs really couldn't compete with tanks in their main role as heavily armored vehicles, so they really aren't in the same niche. Only role I imagine a battlemech might excel in would be a cannon armed fire support & anti-tank, but even then only in certain types of terrain.

If this mech have jump jets they can cross mountains, rivers, forest.

>>32452203
yes, once they figure out the technology to make mechwarriors

Only if they have active stabilization systems and shitloads of armor

>>32452203
> advantages

They aren't tanks

> disadvantages
...

>>32452203
No, asians just put so much effort into giant robots and mechs because they're easier to build than tentacle armed school girl traps. Asians are the height of degeneracy.

>>32452287
>but even then only in certain types of terrain.
so we might seem them climbing around in the hills of afghanistan

File: mech_requirements.jpg (241KB, 1200x901px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x901px

>>32452203
Okay, if we have the technology to make mechs viable, what superior warmachine would we create rather than mechs?

>>32452203

The concept of Battlemechs is utterly undermined by the sheer fact that no matter what they do, unless the supporting legs are several metres in circumference, they will not be able to withstand any sort of brute impact attack.

Your mech isn't much use to you when it's lying face down in the ground.

The popularised anime mechs, etc, all have legs that would be in the hundreds of tons, or just don't reflect real world damage properly.

So, no.

Also, tanks are already incredibly vulnerable to an AT team - Mechs, even more so due to their inherently fragile nature.

>>32452487
That one autismo picture. I wonder what people thought about talking to someone all the way around the world real time 300 years. Flying was probably wizardry too

>>32452470
Yeah, climbing is basically the only thing legs do better than wheels/tread

>>32452487
With all that tech? A tank that can offroad at 60mph and rocket jump over obstacles.

>>32452493
I wouldn't go that far. The mechs would have mobility at their advantage. Terrain passing would be much easier. You would have to get the jump on the mech, you could not necessarily predict it's path.

>>32452487
Megas, duh. Press the 'episode ends in five minutes' button and finish whatever war we're fighting in four.

>>32452203
>>32452210

/Thread

>>32452493
> What are hydrologics for 200 alex

>>32452487
legs inefficient only on a street i would say.
but in combat you maybe not have a street where the action is.
https://youtu.be/_HhwLE5tw-M

Realistically, the best the battlemech would be just barely bigger than human size.

Robotic legs to carry the weight and increase speed. Robotic arms to carry much heavier weaponry. Perhaps a brace stabalizer to handle recoil when firing retarder heavy weaponry. These mechs would be able to quadruple the load the average grunt could carry. Hell might even be able to put an anti-vehicle missile on each one.

>>32452500
It's a picture based on current facts. We don't have the tech to build mechs now or in the foreseeable future. Anything beyond 50 years is so totally unpredictable that it's not worth arguing over.

>>32452538
this is not a photoshop >>32452203
its a real life imaage

>>32452519
That might as well be a wheel.

>>32452520
Walking batteries, interchanable weapons platform near instantaneously, probably more silent than a tank if it has a magic engine but those would probably be in tanks too at that time, looks cooler, easier to transport en masse, easier to air drop, functional on land, in air, at Sea, and in S~P~A~C~E, smaller profile all around

>>32452203
They would be a great addition to any army, but not as a combat role, more for heavy lifting and such

>>32452538
It's a doodle on a napkin. The future is what we are arguing about though and mechs are the future

>>32452564
>The future is what we are arguing about though and mechs are the future
*According to anime

>>32452576
> ignoring OPs image because it blows his opinions about mechs the fuck out

>>32452582
What? Thats CG. Look into the guy who made the video its from, hes a CG artist that worked on the new Robocop and that's his latest portfolio piece. Just because its been making the rounds on various futurist blogs doesn't prove anything. Sorry man.

>>32452588
https://youtu.be/NCrBC_V92hY
the video is 'method 1' the picture is 'method 2'

>>32452582
All i see in op's pic is a clunky machine that needs to be plugged into a wall to work

Not to mention the fact that a rifle bullet on any of the servos would render it useless

>>32452554
Sorry, should have specified: we have the tech to build a mech that can perform anything remotely close to a tank now or in the foreseeable future. We can build mechs, they just don't do much of anything due to material strength and power limitation.

>>32452661
*we don't have the tech to build
derp

After reading the anons posts. I can't imagine any other roll for something like this than a glorified fork lift. (BTW forklifts already work great and are cheap) combat though???? Really? I mean look. Just automatically by nature, a humanoid robot even armored is inherently a fragile form. Legs and arms don't take to explosions or impact in general. I don't care how big and clunky u make em, the best most expensive highly developed humanoid mech armor will only be as good if not sub par to a treaded vehical that's decades old. A Soviet tank that's 50 years old would take a mine better than a super advanced expensive POS with legs and ankles

>>32452671
>A Soviet tank that's 50 years old would take a mine better than a super advanced expensive POS with legs and ankles

nope the tank would be blown up fully. the mech would loose only a leg

Ohhh good one yeah. So what good are either of em. I think anons point was you might as well have a 50 year old turd that broke. Just like a mech face down in the dirt

Mabey a sweet additional tool for labour.... but combat? Guys come one that's video game shit.

>>32452678
>nope the tank would be blown up fully. the mech would loose only a leg
Based on what? A mobility kill on a tank is still a fully functional pillbox, a mobility kill on a mech is scrap.

File: 800px-France_in_XXI_Century._War_plane.jpg (132KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 800x509px

Please see this illustration from around 1890-1900, predicting what air combat will be like in the year 2000.

*if* any form of articulated machine were to be used in the future - and there's no reason they would be adopted unless there's some truly unexpected technological change in the near future -then it will be a design so far removed from current popular ideas of "battlemechs" that the current pictures and designs will be as laughable as that 19th century french illustration is to our eyes.

File: 800px-France_in_XXI_Century._Air_battle.jpg (158KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 800x509px

>>32452736
or this one.
clearly, in the year 2000, we had a lot of air battleship dirgibles fighting naval dreadnoughts...

>>32452487
Heavily armored multi-rotor Helo gunship with mech arms.

Something that can withstand man portable anti air weapons. Arms would fold under for aerodynamics at high speed then could be used to pickup and transport equipment, live capture enemies, anchor into vertical faces or carry additional weapons or shields.

>>32452745
we did this allready 1914 in WW1

>>32452661
smaller mechs (similiar weight as modern mbts) don't really have problems with weight and material strength. giant mechs may have them, not as much as you think. ground pressure is also not a real problem for mechs of reasonable size. ground pressure only increases linearly with height. and humans are pretty light footed compared to say bikes. so even twenty times our ground pressure would not be an issue and that's a 40m tall robot of similar density. (you have to consider how a battleship made of 200mm steel has less density than a human before you talk shit about masses of giant structures)

>>32452755
>Using an armored gunship for transport
Generally a bad idea
>Using arms
Why not strops?
>live capture enemies
>carry additional weapons
>shields.
You cannot be serious.

>>32452755
kek

>>32452736
That's not half bad to be honest.

File: IMG_3311.jpg (100KB, 607x375px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 607x375px

>>32452789
Not saying it makes sense now. But after all the advancements needed for mechs it makes more sense than mechs. All the versatility of a mech but more mobile.
It can stay low to the ground, use its advanced stablization to maintain a neutral hover than crawl around with its arms allowing it to strafe and turn quickly
Grab on to the side of a skyscraper and offload troops directly into whichever floor you wanted.
Grab a car out of the middle of a convoy.
Punch a building.
All kinds of fun stuff

>>32452755

Just give legs to attack helicopters in general

Imagine an Apache but with legs like a huge, giant wasp

>>32453092
Also everyone always talks up power suits and puts down mechs.
Why don't we build an armored power suit for trained war elephants?
BAM! Quad legged mech

>>32453092

I am sexually attracted to that helicopter

>>32452203

Think of a tank as a means to mobilize a giant fucking Canon. A high traction, low center of gravity and wide platform makes a whole lot more sense.

Now imagine a mech with two legs caring a Canon the same length as a full size tank. Unless it has an ass/hips like you fatass mother its going to tip right the fuck over.

Plus the vertical profile on your mech is much taller than that of a tank. It would be more easily spotted and hit.

File: a95ceab611d1a1340aba3e6d3aab674e.jpg (316KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1920x1200px

>>32452203