The only viable mech

>>34084695
>it's another mechs > tanks thread

>>34084695
Yeah it sure would be handy to have mechs for all those elaborate static fortifications that have been used in wars over the past 30 years

>>34084695
Yeah, all those scary static fortifications that we CAN'T oblitera by any other means, uh ?

Seriously fuck off. Mechs are cool but, with our current technology at least, it's not viable.

File: walking_harvester_large.jpg (3MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2250px

>>34084803
The PDF i posted explains how static fortifications are still viable under current and future technology, So don't write fortifications off as some foot note for history.

>>34084839
The PDF talks about those other means of dealing with fortifications and the issue posed with that if faced with a competent enemy.
A mech as I envisioned it in the first post is completely possible, Only the environment that justifies its existence has yet to be.

>>34084989
>old shit from 91
at least if your idea wasn't fucking mechs, i would be up for a talk. But how many threads we had about mechs ?

You can't carry more armore and firepower than a tank at equivalent weight. Or it will be fucking shitty.

File: GnHVVQM.jpg (192KB, 977x700px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 977x700px

>>34085073
>old shit from 91
Not an argument, What has changed between 91' and now to render it obsolete?

>at least if your idea wasn't fucking mechs, i would be up for a talk. But how many threads we had about mechs ?
A lot of threads on mechs ultimately boil down to "What niche does a mech fulfill" which I claim is assaulting fortifications, Maybe other stuff depending on terrain.

>You can't carry more armore and firepower than a tank at equivalent weight. Or it will be fucking shitty.
You can if you are willing to make design sacrifices like using a fixed gun with no elevation or traverse and design limitations like low speed.

File: 1479819331600.jpg (48KB, 841x627px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 841x627px

I know the topic of mechs/walking tanks has been done to death but I wouldn't make a thread if I didn't think I had something to add to the discussion.
Unless I haven't lurked enough to see this exact same argument, I'm pretty sure that claiming mechs would be good for assaulting fortifications is a fresh argument.

>Fortifications will not return so your point is moot.
>"The lack of very heavy artillery such as the siege weapons of World War I and II means that strongly constructed fortification will have to be reduced by air attacks. And this can be an advantage for a force which can provide adequate air defense over its fortifications. Hardened air defense in prepared fortications which can reduce the accuracy of air attacks would reduce the need for air superiority by the defender. As demonstrated during the OPERATION DESERT STORM percislon guided munitions can have a devastating effect on a target that can be pinpointed and has little or no air defense. However, if their is an adequate air defense system which is hardened and protected by retractable launchers with hardened fiber optic communications from disperesed and hidden acquisition sites, the efficiency of these air deliver munitions will not be nearly as effective. Even with our complete air supremacy, the simple field fortifications and expedient protection techniques of the Iraqis required many thousands of 25 sorties to reduce. And even then, there was not total destruction of the fortifications. If the Iraqis had been able to stand and fight, the fortifications remaining would have still caused the infliction of many casualt!es and s'ved the attacter-. Obviously fortifications can not make up for surrendering the air completely to the enemy, but with fixed permanent fortifications, which employ available technology appropriately. it is possible to offset an attackers air force with hardened air defense sites. This must be possible or the Navy's aircraft carriers will not survive the next war."

File: gorchak1.jpg (8KB, 304x166px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 304x166px

>>34086939
Modern technology can be used to enhance the ability of fortifications to
allow economy of force. The use of forts as an economy of force measure can
be made more effective by the use of robotics. With current sensor
technology combined with robotics a small number of well protected
technicians could defend relatively large defensive sectors. These type of
fortifications would be limited only by cost. (Which was one of the
downfalls of the Maginot Line.) Richard Simpkins wrote in Rac I IMo t 5rift:
Finally, I have put down some markers on robotics and static
unmanned systems in land warfare, contrasting that
technology's limited value for mobile systems with its great
promise for static ones.

The use of remotely contolled fully automated fortifications will certainly
only be available to those with the technological infrassructure to support
and maintain it. But as the performance of the high-tech weapons during
DESERT STORM showed they can and do work.

Chris Bellamy wrote in Tla
Future 21 Lan Warfare:The trend, certainly in developed countries, will be to exploit
technology to multiply the capabilities of human being and
save manpower. Artificial intelligence, particularly robotics,
will be used to fulfil mechanical or arithmetical
functions.

Both Bellamy and Simpkins see advances in technology not only increasing
the advantages of the offense but also of the defense.
Some of these new technologies could provide an advantage to fixed
permanent fortifications before they can be developed for mobile systems.
In particular, direct energy weapons (lasers, radio frequency weapons, high
powered microwaves, and particle beams) may prove a technology useful only
in these type of defenses until technological breakthroughs are discovered.
Not having the limits imposed by the weight restrictions of a mobile system,
fixed permanent fortifications can overcome the the size and weight
limitations of the power sources required for a successful direct energy
weapon.

File: mud2.jpg (23KB, 448x298px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 448x298px

>>34084695
>the ability to navigate truly extreme terrain

>mecha stands still over mud for 30 minutes
>sinks

>>34084695
static defenses can't run from bombs and missiles
the fuck you are smoking?

>>34087985
>sinks to ankles and then goes on

>>34087996
alternatively mechas carry giant snowshoes on their back that they can deploy when traversing treacherous terrain and keep better speed on it than even treads.

>>34088005
>mech warrior rolled a 4
>skids!
>PSR, mech warrior rolls a 5
>Falls!
>5 damage to HD
>mech warrior takes damage, rolls 6
>loses consciousness!

File: 1478136810054.jpg (53KB, 489x379px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 489x379px

>>34087985
>>34087996
Mud and snow can be dealt with by giving the mech shoes if the feet aren't naturally big enough. When dealing with fortifications it's usually steep inclines and uneven terrain which determines where ground forces move. Conventional manmade AT obstacles wouldn't pose a threat to a mech to migh higher ground clearance.


>>34087987
Read the PDF in OP. >>34086939
A network of remotely operated AA positions in soft and hard positions massively reduces the effectiveness of precision and saturation bombing.

>>34088030
>Getting a mech with 8 legs and a top speed of 8 mph to skid.
A mech pilot couldn't do that by accident.

>>34088074
>A network of remotely operated AA positions in soft and hard positions massively reduces the effectiveness of precision and saturation bombing.
in ww2 that is, not today

>>34088074
>Conventional manmade AT obstacles wouldn't pose a threat to a mech to migh higher ground clearance.
yeah but the last time dragon teeth was tried it was defeated by bulldozers. tanks have bulldozer blades nowadays takes a a little time to put some dirt over obstacles like that a whole whooping 2 hours.

File: k_driving.jpg (61KB, 538x599px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 538x599px

>>34088074
What is it with israeli tankers?

File: nadolb-5.gif (16KB, 372x240px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 372x240px

>>34088084
Actually it's more true today than in WW2 due to drone technology inherently benefiting static systems more than mobile systems.
A remotely operated network of soft, medium, and hard AA missile platforms would be impossible to wipe out quickly, As the soft targets prevent you from precision bombing everything and the hard targets make saturation bombing futile.

>>34088084
>a whole whooping 2 hours
If it actually takes THAT long to cross undefended dragon's teeth then I say the defenders have gained a huge advantage.
Nevertheless AT obstacles come in many forms and have proven invaluable time and time again in nearly every conflict.

>>34088161
>a whole whooping 2 hours
>If it actually takes THAT long to cross undefended dragon's teeth then I say the defenders have gained a huge advantage.
You just said the low speed of a mech wouldn't be a disadvantage for how it will be used.

According to you, the advantage of a mech over a tank is its ability to attack from or maneuver around a position the enemy wouldn't expect.

What you're proposing is a self propelled gun that can go more places than a tank at the cost of speed. Please give me an example of this position a mech could utilise.

>>34084839
>Mechs are cool but, with our current technology at least, it's not viable.

THIS IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE AMERICA TODAY.
DO YOU THINK MR KENNEDY, AFTER FUCKING PRIME MARILYN JUST POLITELY ASKED HIS GENERALS HOW VIABLE WOULD BE TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON?

NO, HE DEMANDED IT. CAUSE IT WOULD LOOK FUCKING SICK, THE OLD GLORY ON THE FUCKING MOON.

IT DIDN'T MATTER WE HAD NOT THE TECH NECESARY. IT DIDN'T MATTER THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE BEATING US IN THE SPACE RACE LIKE A ETHIOPIAN RUNNER AGAINST A BABY.

IT ALL GOES TO DUMPING MONEY AND GREASE ELBOW. OF COURSE YOU CAN SAY "BUT-BUT IT'S POINTLESS, THE TOWELHEADS DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER THAN A SHITTY 40 YEARS OLD TECHNICAL" FUCKING CHICKEN SHIT TALK.

>>34088303
Did you read OP's pdf? In it the author states that one of the reasons France lost WWII is because they used too much money and resources on something they didn't need.

I won't bother reading the PDF, just your 3 arguments because you proposed a new niche where they could be used, but you still use the same shit arguments.

Basically you're saying that we somehow now have all this sci fi tech to make mechs. You do realize that all of the bullshit handwaving you do for the mech, the same tech can be used for tanks, drones, aircraft and maybe even infantry.
So instead of creating a subpar mech platform, and all the costs that come along with the research, production and to the fielding of them, you can just use a combined arms approach to defeat the emplacement.

>>34088161
>If it actually takes THAT long to cross undefended dragon's teeth then I say the defenders have gained a huge advantage.
for an army on march 2 hours is nothing.

File: Dsc09344b.jpg (86KB, 774x518px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 774x518px

>>34088243
I was questioning that it took 2 hours for a modern tank to cross undefended dragon's teeth, I wasn't saying that it would take a mech 2 hours to cross undefended dragon's teeth.

>>34088292
>According to you, the advantage of a mech over a tank is its ability to attack from or maneuver around a position the enemy wouldn't expect.
Only in regards to attacking static defenses or playing a defensive role.

>What you're proposing is a self propelled gun that can go more places than a tank at the cost of speed. Please give me an example of this position a mech could utilise
Well I'm not sure if I can give you a specific position because it really does hinge on the environment the fortifications are built in.
Maybe Golan Heights where an anti-tank ditch and mine fields funneled syrian tanks into long ranged fire from the israelis?

Crossing the ditch with lots of firepower would have made opening the way for conventional tanks easier.
Mechs would probably be safer with mine detonations and probably trigger less of them due to area coverage.

In a completely flat environment the mech would lose that mobility advantage, BUT because the design philosophy of the mech is armor and firepower it would still pose a massive threat to any conventional tank.
>Pic is Ouvrage Hackenberg.

File: 1398505415848.jpg (403KB, 1336x1024px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1336x1024px

>>34088338
Funny thing is that the Maginot line cost less than the French Navy which people forget even existed in WW2.

>>34088391
>I won't bother reading the PDF, just your 3 arguments because you proposed a new niche where they could be used, but you still use the same shit arguments.
The PDF has nothing to due with mechs It's a purely about fortifications and their future, nothing to do with mechs.
>Basically you're saying that we somehow now have all this sci fi tech to make mechs. You do realize that all of the bullshit handwaving you do for the mech, the same tech can be used for tanks, drones, aircraft and maybe even infantry.
What am I handwaving here?
Nothing I have said involves technology we don't already have nor have I made outlandish claims about the performance of a mechs specifically or in general.
>So instead of creating a subpar mech platform, and all the costs that come along with the research, production and to the fielding of them, you can just use a combined arms approach to defeat the emplacement.
The PDF talks about static fortifications potential to become highly resistant to conventional approaches of combined arms from a greater foe.
A more conventional approach to a siege tank like the T28/T95 in OP works for sure, But I argued that the quirks of legs make it mostly superior for this type of specialised vehicle.

>>34088398
Is that a counter argument? I'm honestly not sure because that response applies to both the defender and attacker.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (183KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1920x1080px

>>34084695
Yes and no.
Mechs would be a good towing system for support weaponry like mortars or AA that cant be moved by person to areas like mountains that no tracked solution would reach.
Tanks are a stupid idea. Legs may offer redundancy but not efficiency. You cant armour your tank at the end because your load capacity will suffer too much but if you just pump out these things carrying heavy weapons and munitions that would do just as well and be a lot cheaper at the end.

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

89KB, 1000x667px

I expect a mech would look something like this. You could build it now but military doesn't like funding new things these days.

>>34088475
>Is that a counter argument? I'm honestly not sure because that response applies to both the defender and attacker.
it's true for both, a 2 hour stop is nothing for an army as the defenders couldn't re-position shit in 2 hours out of their forces.

>>34088480
>Mechs would be a good towing system for support weaponry like mortars or AA that cant be moved by person to areas like mountains that no tracked solution would reach.
we are not in the fucking medieval times dude, chinooks will put artillery anywhere it can be put faster.

>>34088475
>quirks of legs
Why not just upscale the current tanks so they can pass through the ditches? Or why not make super ressistant MRAPS and slap a giant gun on them? Why not make higher flying drones with bunker busters? Or maybe personal rocket launchers with thermobaric warheads? Hell, why not just send in uparmored helicopters?
Because all of your arguments boil down that a walker will be able to traverse the non specific terrain around and to the static emplacement. But that is the least of the problems. The walker still has to survive and fire upon the emplacements without getting destroyed. The technology used in this process, like ultra small power source, recoiless guns, reliable aiming system, material weight reduction and an upgrade in defensive properties, etc, can all be applied to the current combined arms approach.

>>34088515
>chinooks will put artillery anywhere it can be put faster

Yeah, towed guns. And not anything bigger than a M777 at that.

>>34088523
you seem to think the energy requirement for a walker is somehow magically greater than for treads. it has to do the same work to move the same mass really.

>>34088532
if i remember correctly they can carry lavs or strykers even. if not just slap some better engines in them for the fraction of r&d costs.

File: 1495922230543.jpg (95KB, 811x908px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 811x908px

>>34084764
I come to enjoy those threads.
I guess they worn me out and won me by insistence

>>34088534
That's not true. Legs require more energy to move than wheels.

File: 1370509143606.jpg (193KB, 640x850px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x850px

>>34088506
you could google a anime mech or at least try to draw better... but yeah, I get the idea

>>34085219
>Changed since 91...
Hmm, how about an SM6 guided to terminal by a high flying F-35 unseen, using passive sensors?

Took literally 6ms to think of that
>no anagrams intended...

>>34084695
On two legs is too difficult to balance and too easily taken out by shooting one of the knees.
It would have to be multiple legged, the 6 legged crawler tanks from star wars seem like a good start, especially with their climbing ability

File: 1379731960570.jpg (69KB, 914x621px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 914x621px

This is how the perfect war machine looks like. you may not like it, but it what peak performance looks like

>>34088581
I am disgusted yet intrigued

>>34088074
>Getting a mech with 8 legs and a top speed of 8 mph to skid.

N-NANI?!

>>34088591
try not jizz all over the screen while I deliver this bad boy weapon list
Armaments
Beam Recorder
The Beargguy's most unique ranged beam weaponry, the beam recorder is stored on the left side of the knapsack and handheld when in use. To use the beam recorder, the suit has to hold the weapon and 'blow' with its mouth, this will release a beam shot from the other end of the weapon.
6-tube Missile Launcher
Each arm of the suit is mounted with a 6-tube missile launcher. The missile launchers are similar to that used by the Acguy.
Mega Particle Cannon (Eye) & Mega Particle Cannon (Arm)
The Beargguy has three Mega Particle Cannons, one in the right paw and one in each eye. The Mega Particle Cannon (Arm) is the same weapon as that used by the Acguy. The suit can fire successive shots from the cannons due to the unique water cooling system used in the Acguy series.
Missile
Besides firing missiles from its forearm, the suit can also fire six more missiles from its Knapsack Unit.
Special Equipment & Features
Extendable Arm
Beargguy retains the Acguy's extendable arms for striking down enemy mobile suits.
Knapsack Unit
The Knapsack Unit is a special backpack developed for the Beargguy, it resembles a schoolgirl's backpack. The unit stores six missiles, and can hold the beam recorder on the left side.

File: lobstermechmadeinchina.jpg (30KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 636x358px

>>34088506
The chinese have the right idea wit their walking tank.

>>34088523
When I say quirks i mean features inherent that are neither an advantages or drawbacks, Like not needing gun elevation and traverse mechanisms because the legs can do that.

Making a tank bigger just so it can cross obstacles isn't really a good tradeoff for the tank.
I don't understand how an MRAPS with a big gun competes with a normal tank here.
It's incredibly inefficient to attack A network of remotely operated defenses in soft, medium, and hard fortifications purely by the air as explained by the PDF in OP.
I don't think helicopters have a good track record of taking or avoiding AA fire.

My argument also includes the possibility that a mech could be better armored and/or gunned for its weight, speed, and size due to the elimination of gun traverse and elevation mechanisms and their required dead space. Oh hey that also makes using an auto loading mechanism far simpler, another interesting quirk of legs.

>>34088568
The PDF specifically talks about precision guided weapons which existed in 91' and how they don't pose a problem for fortifications.

>>34088591
also check this sick stats
>Classification
>Custom Amphibious Mobile Suit
>Model Number
>GPB-04B
>Official Name
>Beargguy AKA 2pur3forth1sw0rlD
>Overall Height
>20 m
>Base Weight
>100.0 t
>Armor Material
>Polystyrene Plastic


yeah, you read it right, Polystyrene Plastic armor.
you can be jelly now, Merkava.

https://youtu.be/NUUuaIDL6lQ?t=74

>>34088613
The PDF specifically talks about precision guided weapons which existed in 91' and how they don't pose a problem for fortifications.

Sorry, I was talking about hitting your Mech with something it had no idea about before it died.

>>34088613
>The chinese have the right idea
Why would you trust the chinese's idea on anything?
They have pretty much zero real world combat experiance and the PLA is full of pants on head retarded concepts that are going to go over terribly if things ever get hot for them.
for example:
>traditional light tanks
>flamethrowers, not just for defoliation but ACTUAL COMBAT like it's still the fucking 60's
>an all in one style OICW system (to be fair the worst koreans fell for this meme too but damn the PLA seems to really be getting into it)
and many more.
Honestly, this crab tank retardation is super in character for them.

>>34088617
Splash it in petrol, instant highschooler"s napalm.
>Must be islamic in origin.

File: 1479039063595.jpg (92KB, 700x637px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 700x637px

>>34088655
Then how would any other ground vehicle not have the problem of getting hit by undetected guided munitions?

>>34088673
I don't trust the chinese it's just that from all the images I see of mechs or walking tanks are a bit fantastic except for this one chinese mockup.
It's nowhere near perfect let alone optimal but it's definitely grounded in reality more than any other design I have seen.

>>34088125
It's the terrain of the Golan Hights. Sudden vertical drops everywhere

File: rei bulk.png (492KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 640x480px

>>34084695
Sounds like a good idea, your shipment of 13 year old pilots will be in shortly.

>>34088892
if at least they have legs on their tanks

>>34088549
downslope yes upslope no.

>>34088613
>elimination of gun traverse and elevation mechanisms and their required dead space
This is just embarassing. You do realize there are actual tank designs that do this?

>>34088613
Okay, let's take the chink walker as an example. And of course completely ignore the combined arms approach and just focus on something that can take out fortifications.
According to you, it's fully armored and can even survive mines. Now my question is, instead of cramming all kinds of technology inside to make it a safe and efficient walker (this is counting new research, factories and testing, etc ofc), why not just make it a tank?
I still haven't read the PDF, but if precision guided rockets are ineffective against this static position, then the mech is also not artillery but a direct fire weapon. Who gives a fuck about the gun elevation and traverse mechanisms, they don't have to be that sophisticated if the tank will just be basically duelling with fortifications at point blank range.
Now mines and trenches pose a danger to normal vehicles, but in this scenario we have materials that are strong enough to withstand mines and RPGS, flexible enough to allow the limbs movement and light enough that the mech can even stand up. Why can't we just slap that fancy material on threads or maybe design a new kind of wheel protection and make this an 8 wheeler.

>>34089142
>rei dummy plugs
>not Kaworus
I demand a goddamn refund

>>34089311
u gay, nigga?

File: 1479676964013.jpg (53KB, 309x299px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 309x299px

>>34089273
You should be embarrassed because I mentioned Stridsvagn in the OP, Which can't fire on the move or move perpendicular to its gun.
The Stridsvagn needs hydropneumatic suspension to aim the gun and dig in, The mech just uses its legs to aim as it crossed ditches and sidestepped around corners.

>>34089281
>According to you, it's fully armored and can even survive mines.
>Now mines and trenches pose a danger to normal vehicles, but in this scenario we have materials that are strong enough to withstand mines and RPGS, flexible enough to allow the limbs movement and light enough that the mech can even stand up.
A mech is safer facing mines not because some new advanced technology but because the explosion is happening further away from the body of the vehicle.

>why not just make it a tank?
A more conventional design would certainly be effective, But how much better does a platform have to be in a specialized role for it to be preferable over a more general purpose vehicle in that role?

>Who gives a fuck about the gun elevation and traverse mechanisms, they don't have to be that sophisticated if the tank will just be basically duelling with fortifications at point blank range.
I keep talking about the gun mechanisms because on convention tanks it heavily influences every other aspect of conventional tanks, From the space of the interior to the shape of the turret and overall size of the tank.
For the mech it makes up gunning and armoring easier as the mech doesn't need to sacrifice any characteristic like a Tank would have too for the same result.

>>34084803

Of course, like just about every time urban warfare happens.

File: 1376930153381.jpg (199KB, 2200x1650px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 2200x1650px

I feel the BF2142 mechs are the most practical mechs. Big, hulking walkers that aren't too over the top

The only viable design that fits OP's description is a lightly armoured turretless tank with four to six legs. A bipedal vehicle would lack the stability if your talking about terrain a tank can't cross.

File: b3c8ae4dd920237643d284bc1978c3fd.jpg (78KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x900px

>>34084695
>Second is the ability to utilize a completely fixed gun like the Stridsvagn 103 for no additional complexity or design compromises.
Besides the fucking legs?

>>34088613
>The PDF specifically talks about precision guided weapons which existed in 91' and how they don't pose a problem for fortifications
The PDF states that PGM threat is mitigated by proper compartmentalisation which means multiple hits will be required to destroy the target and by "hiding everything with dirt" so that the structure cannot be properly targeted.
PGMs in '91 were nowhere near the quality they are today, a single plane can drop multiple JDAMs in a single pass hitting multiple points in the fortification, and if the target location is unknown then a fuckslow mecha is not going to do much good either

File: GITS-Screenshots.jpg (52KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x506px

>>34091674
Bipedalism doesn't make any sense on combat vehicles because it will inherently be too tall, 3 legs will be the minimum so the mech can assume a sprawling posture.
IIRC the mechs in BF2142 weren't as good as the tanks.

Ghost in the Shell's spider tanks are close to what I think would work, But again they get a bit too fantastic in their designs to be realistic.
With the tank in the first film I would remove the articulation between the head and body, move the legs to the sides of the vehicle instead of below it, and mount a fixed big gun on the front glacis.

>>34091955
I think it would be heavily armored compared to other vehicles in its weight class if it wasn't unique.

>>34092103
Well.. Yeah...
The suspension and tracks require a fair bit of maintenance by their nature, So I don't think making the suspension hydropneumatically controlled just so you can use a fixed gun would make it easier.
If the legs on a mech can be completely replaced as a whole unit using the other legs of the mech, Then even if the legs needed more maintenance it wouldn't take the vehicle out of action.

File: 600px-Qender_zjarri_diagram.svg.png (53KB, 600x204px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x204px

>>34092202
Compartmentalisation only matters for larger structures which would be few and far between, Additionally developments into ultra high performance concrete have proven effective vs bunker busters.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/us-working-to-nanotech-materials-for-harder-and-faster-weapons-to-defeat-400-meter-deep-bunkers.html
>The bomb (GBU-57A/B) can penetrate 200 feet of 5000 psi hardened concrete and is accurate enough for multiple hits on the same location to penetrate deeper targets or targets with even stronger concrete. One GBUJ-57A/B can only penetrate 8 meters of 10,000 psi rock or concrete. This could drop to 2 meters of 30,000 psi material.

In anycase the hard targets are just one piece of the drone defense puzzle, It's in conjunction with the medium and soft targets that makes it difficult to defeat purely from the air.
Enough hard targets to make carpet bombing ineffective, Too many soft targets to precision strike them all, Plenty of medium targets that fall in between.
Most of it camouflaged so even if you take your time and attack only from the air until you think you got it al.,

Some poor sap is going to have to slog through the contested ground sooner or later, Or why else would you even be attacking it in the first place?
Very slow tanks designed to fight fortifications exist like the T28/T95 or the Tortoise, Sure they never got to see combat but clearly there exists a need for a siege vehicles

>>34091084
>body further out
Yes certainly, but the spindly legs are still in contact with the mines. Granted the surface area is lower from below, but seeing how it's assaulting an entretched position those legs have to be sturdy enough to survive constant fire from rockets and shells.

>specific role
It has to be better by a huge margin, as it has to justify research, development and production costs, alongside various other costs like retraining, modifying the doctrine, compatibility with existing tactics and the ability to work with existing forces,...
We are not talking about just a new model of an existing design, but a whole new platform and role.

>mechanism
Basically you're saying the gun mechanism will be simpler/smaller as the mech configuration allows better movement/positioning, right?
But my point is the same. We are talking about a vehicle that will walk towards a bunker and start blasting it apart while withstanding hits and mines. Presumably this vehicle has a pretty sick power source/engine, armor that is extremely durable, but also lightweight and flexible and we have already decided that high speed is not needed.
Using all of this tech, why not just make a bigger turret instead of inventing mechs? Again, just uparmor and enlarge a tank destroyer or a self propelled gun or something.

>>34092244
>exchanging legs
Actually a good point, but still not justifiable.
This static position we are assaulting is either a lone outpost cut off or a massive fortification system (like the Maginot line). In both cases, if you don't have your supply train right behind you, you fucked up.Furthermore, I think it's safe to assume said position is only guarded by infantry and all the heavy equipment has to be airlifted to it. If it has roads or whatever, the fucked up terrain is negated. Just focus your assault on the road. Sure it's probably a chokepoint, but better than assaulting the killzones through fucked up terrain. Or hell, just establish air superiority in the surrounding area and starve them out. Unless they clear out their static defenses (like trenches and mines) they can't even attack you with heavy armor.

File: KEKyRGYIUZ8.jpg (227KB, 1356x1080px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1356x1080px

>>34092460
>Yes certainly, but the spindly legs are still in contact with the mines. Granted the surface area is lower from below, but seeing how it's assaulting an entretched position those legs have to be sturdy enough to survive constant fire from rockets and shells.
Most engagements with combat vehicles are determined by who shoots first and I would assume the same applies more so to static defenses which usually have the advantage.
Nevertheless I think legs only have to be resistant to light weapons because your redundancy is already so effective, Additionally robot legs can work when partly broken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-c17RKh3uE

>It has to be better by a huge margin, as it has to justify research, development and production costs, alongside various other costs like retraining, modifying the doctrine, compatibility with existing tactics and the ability to work with existing forces,... We are not talking about just a new model of an existing design, but a whole new platform and role.
Walking vehicle technology has been successfully developed around the world for decades, It's the precursor to the complexer but much more commercially useful powered exoskeleton.
I think training, tactic, and doctrine issues are going happen regardless of what is made to counter the done takeover of static defense.

>Basically you're saying the gun mechanism will be simpler/smaller as the mech configuration allows better movement/positioning, right?
No gun mechanism means a larger gun can be mounted in a smaller vehicle, Which makes adding additional armor easier weight and geometry wise.
Extreme mobility is also a major factor but so is the ability to maneuver the gun while moving which a treaded vehicle like STRV couldn't do.

>>34084695
>American troops were behind that fortification before T-28 could fire a shot.
>before T-28 could fire a shot.
>T-28

Why do stupid writers insist in putting in hyphens were they do not belong?

>>34092460
>But my point is the same. We are talking about a vehicle that will walk towards a bunker and start blasting it apart while withstanding hits and mines.
Kind of. The issue is with drone technology static defenses can be put pretty much anywhere to ambush you, So you have to be able to get anywhere to minimize at attacks on your tank from unexpected places.

>Presumably this vehicle has a pretty sick power source/engine, armor that is extremely durable, but also lightweight and flexible and we have already decided that high speed is not needed.
Everything I am talking about can be done with current technology, The political climate that makes drone fortification necessary which opens the niche of siege vehicles again just hasn't happened.

>Using all of this tech, why not just make a bigger turret instead of inventing mechs? Again, just uparmor and enlarge a tank destroyer or a self propelled gun or something.
Its inefficient to sacrifice the advantages treads offer you instead using the weakness of legs to maximize its strengths.

File: panzernest big.jpg (254KB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1280x832px

>>34092475
You're not really assaulting static positions as much as you are trying to ambush those positions while avoiding getting ambushed by other static positions.
It's a defense in depth over a large area, where a dispersed network of remotely operated static defenses in soft, medium, and hard forms designed to fight for a certain amount of time until it runs out of ammo or is destroyed. You don't seem to understand that these defenses are unmanned, They are operated by a few people far away leaving more people to do conventional field work.

Such a system is very hard to defeat purely from the air as it requires multiple strategies whereas the defenders only need 1 to contest them, The PDF talks about this specifically and how any nation in the future being threatened by a superior force will be incentivized to build drone defense systems.

>>34086939
so what you're saying is WWIII, presuming nukes are kept off the table, will see a heavily fortified environment lacking the complete air superiority necessary to bring a walking vehicle off the drawing board and into reality?

File: Gorchak universal pillbox.jpg (24KB, 320x377px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x377px

>>34093035
Well complete air superiority usually renders any ground vehicle helpless so the nations incentivised to build fortifications will be the ones facing superior forces. Basically yes, And even if nukes are used static ground drones are better off than any other branch of the military.

>>34084989
>static fortifications still viable[...]
That might be true, but that doesn't immediately validate mechs as a weapons platform.
No matter what you do, missiles are going to win in the long run.
This isn't even about tanks vs mechs at this point. Against a static fortification, there isn't anything better than a missile, or a lot of missiles, or a lot of missiles with ECM.

That PDF talks about massive fortifications--fortresses and bunkers, something mechs aren't going to be usable against. Assuming we're not fighting goatfuckers, whatever fixed defense systems they have are going to be longer range and heavier than what you can throw at them. Counter battery fire would render mechs immediately useless because they can't run away as fast as a tracked vehicle.

>>34093119
Going by Syria and Ukraine, both of which have seen substantial use of improvised fortifications, ATGM and drone directed artillery are the best counters right now. Both ATGMs and small drones are infantry portable as well, which is a substantial advantage.

Neither of those conflicts have seen effective air power as an option available to the combatants so its not exactly a perfect case study.

>>34093119
Not all fortifications are going to be hard targets that require the use of precision weapons, Saturation bombing will probably be more important for opening the way for ground troops.
You won't be able to effectively do either because they enemy will contest you heavily, So trying to PGM everything is probably going to play out like the Verdun where you think you cleared the field but really they're still there ready and waiting.

Why did the Americans and Brits think they needed assault tanks for the siegfried line?
Even though they didn't need them I bet patton would have been happy to have platoon or two T95s when he bashed his head on fort Driant.

>>34093174
It's unmanned "drone" fortifications which are the future, With current technology human being are the weakest part of fortifications.

File: 0110ukrainetrench01.jpg (2MB, 3500x2333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2333px

>>34093232
>unmanned "drone" fortifications

Not seeing that happening outside of Korea.

Who has the money to develop, purchase and deploy such systems and is going to be the aggressor nation? We might see some limited autonomous defenses on US FOBs but that is a far cry from an actual defensive line.

The budget is just not there for most nations.

The future of fortifications is mostly the same as the past: trenches and earthworks armed with light weapons.

File: panzernest news.jpg (161KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x682px

>>34093343
I think you're overestimating how much one has to invest to gain the benefits of a drone fortification, As the point of drone fortifications is to allow a small amount of men to monitor and defend a much larger area than possible with a conventional force. It can be as simple as some camouflaged mines, barriers, machineguns, ATGMs, and MANPADs on tripods with a camera operated by a man in a builtup field bunker.

I do agree that the political atmosphere to develop more invested defense networks does not exist, But the tech is there and it has brought the cost down significantly.

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

55KB, 570x654px

>>34088506
Results of trying to make a better AT-ST from a star wars thread a while back.

>>34088125
What the other anon said, sudden dropd everywhere. Look at the terrain in most pics of their wrecked tanks. Even your own pic shows the sudden drop. The Golan heights are a bad fucking place to tank and most people don't dare to train out there.
Before you blame the israeli incompetence, just imagine driving an atv out there where it's rocks and dirt and rocks and dirt and... oh fuck a hill. Add in the smaller viewport in a tank, maybe at night, it's a bitch and a half. I'm actually surprised they don't have a drone or even a camera on a stick to give an overhead view of the nearby terrain to prevent more of these accidents.

File: hqdefault.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>34084695
Your niche is invalid.
For your antifortification needs, I present you with the grid square removal system.
Rocket range of 20-50 miles.
180 miles with ATACMS missiles.
Your mech idea is best replaced by a bigger gun with longer range and it came out back in '83.

>>34094473
BUT MUH FORTS

>>34088475
To be fair the French navy may well as not have existed for all the good it did... gave the British some target practice and that's about it...

File: Do you not fear GRAD.webm (3MB, 1280x676px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x676px

>>34094473
MRL are literally the reason why field fortification are so important.

Look at Ukraine and the effectiveness of BM-21 Grad against Ukrainian Army troops out in the open compared to troops in trenches and dugouts. Hiding in a hole remains a effective method for not getting killed.

I feel like the assumption that air attacks will be delivered by manned planes is the real problem here... I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that we'd attack fortifications with uavs... stealthy, either radio controlled or possibly controlled with some kind of laser communications to make it a real bitch to detect... once you work the bugs out it'd be a shitload cheaper than a real plane, and you can have it flown by someone who never has to worry about the physical requirements of flight... it's come down to a battle of attrition... stockpiled uavs vs ground defense points...

>>34094622
From OP:
>So i'm reading this "Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War"
Field fortifications are excellent protection for the individual soldier or machine from artillery and direct fire.
Op's mech idea would also be ill suited to the task. It is also more prone to ambush by infantry because terrain that is impassable for a tank is the ideal place for infantry to be.

>>34094473
Anon, as much as it pains me to say this you can't just rocket everything to death. You can do a hell of a lot of damage but in the end you still need someone to clear out and hold what you just blew to shit.

>>34094725
Not if you have enough rockets.

If they reinhabit grid square... rocket them again, then rocket square they came from... rockets for everyone.

File: 1480941659674.jpg (2MB, 3000x2060px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2060px

>>34094677
In any case the static ground drone is going to be cheaper and perform better than a mobile one due to no weight limitations and a physical connections to power and communications.

>>34094714
>It is also more prone to ambush by infantry because terrain that is impassable for a tank is the ideal place for infantry to be.
That is literally the best place to send mechs because obviously you send some infantry with your mech!
If enemy tanks can't get there and the enemy doesn't have mechs then your mech supported foot soldiers will stomp them flat into the hillside.

>>34094725
Clearly you're just not missiling enough.

>>34094725
>>34094847
I specifically responded to OP's idea about a mech with the sole purpose of destroying fortifications. To go into further detail of strategy and tactics would be autistic. Then you guys bring up the points I intentionally left out. And voíla, autismo mode engaged.

Combined arms is the king of the battlefield, and your support mech is still a vulnerable target in an assault against entrenched infantry. Especially if they have antitank weapons. So artillery that is far away is still the better alternative.
>>34094842
You beat me to my own line. I like you.

>>34084695
The only way mechs are viable right now are small quadrupedal, autonomous, recon units.

>>34094921
You really ought to take the discussion just a wee bit less seriously anon, you seem a tad miffed. Have your crumpets been shuffled?

Anyways if you've got the money and resources to blow constantly shelling the same spot go for it, but eventually you're going to run out of shells/rockets, your arty will be hit by counter battery fire, or you'll need to actually take that point instead of blasting the snot out of it every few days.

You really REALLY need to look at WWI. Sure you can shell the fuck out of something, but you're not really doing shit until you push the lines. And yes, you will take casualties and things are vulnerable. You could charge in a bunch of really badass super tanks and still have plenty of risk. Acting as if it's bad because risks is stupid. There is ALWAYS a risk whatever you send will be killed, blown up, captured, disabled, or otherwise made useless to you. The real question is how you use it.

The option I would take over artillery is airstrikes. As much as artillery on it's own can do it really has a hard time measuring up to a full load of JDAMs and/or bunker busters followed by an immediate assault from a glorified cleanup crew being supported by a couple howitzers or a mortar crew.

File: 1460487660679.gif (3MB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x200px

>>34094921
>I specifically responded to OP's idea about a mech with the sole purpose of destroying fortifications. To go into further detail of strategy and tactics would be autistic. Then you guys bring up the points I intentionally left out. And voíla, autismo mode engaged.
Arguing that the niche mechs might fulfill will never exist isn't the same conversation about whether mechs would actually function in that niche.

>Combined arms is the king of the battlefield, and your support mech is still a vulnerable target in an assault against entrenched infantry. Especially if they have antitank weapons. So artillery that is far away is still the better alternative.
Why are you acting like mechs don't work with combined arms? Tanks are also vulnerable to infantry yet they fulfill an invaluable role, So why would that not apply to mechs as well?
Maybe an inversion might occur where we say "don't send infantry anywhere that mechs or tanks can't follow them", Because even if they have anti-tank/mech weapons they will be at a significant disadvantage to the infantry supported by armor any.

>>34092244
>The suspension and tracks require a fair bit of maintenance by their nature, So I don't think making the suspension hydropneumatically controlled just so you can use a fixed gun would make it easier.

No longer true. Band tracks such as Soucy make have superior wear life to metal tracks,and weigh less improving XC speed. Modern active suspension by Davis Technologies is proven and greatly increases XC speed while reducing weight and eliminating torsion bars, but the vehicles it was fitted to in testing had their programs cancelled for reasons unrelated to suspension.

>>34084695
Considering most robots can't even walk up stairs yet let's not get too far into Mech wet dreams

>>34095628
Ok sure but legs offer redundancy by numbers and function while damaged. The extra ground clearance makes navigating obstacles with a fixed barrel easier, Something the STRV had to approach with caution.

>>34095642
>Considering most robots can't even walk up stairs yet let's not get too far into Mech wet dreams
You know this only true for bipedal robots, Tetrapod robots are well developed technology now.

>>34084695
>The primary drawback of a walking vehicle is going to be its speed

Because legged animals are so slow right? It's not like you can put wheels/treads on the legs/feet to make it go as fast as any normal vehicle right?

>>34093119
>Counter battery fire would render mechs immediately useless because they can't run away as fast as a tracked vehicle.

Retard. You can't out run a shell traveling faster than the speed of sound. It's a moot point.

>>34095944
>Because legged animals are so slow right? It's not like you can put wheels/treads on the legs/feet to make it go as fast as any normal vehicle right?

Well now it's not a walking robot, but a motor vehicle with opposable trailing arms.

>>34096089
Lock wheels and you should be able to walk just fine.

File: Soviet_cavalry_tank_BT-7m.jpg (34KB, 484x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 484x331px

>>34095944
>>34096089
>>34096268
Putting POWERED wheels on the feet of the mech is the equivalent of the BT convertible tanks, Only useful if you have the paved roads to consistently exploit the speed increase.
Free rolling attachable wheels for mech feet will certainly exist because it's a more compact trailer for well built roads as reducing the need for a full size trailer speeds up deployment.

>>34096295
That depends on how well the legs account for terrain and the type of wheel. Good enough automatic control could potentially give a smooth ride on some nasty stuff while you can also walk through the really nasty or cramped terrain. The legs are basically your shocks but if your control system can make them raise and lower with the terrain you've got something special. Imagine a tank's road wheels going over a large speed bump but instead of torsion the legs are automatically doing the raising and lowering intentionally and avoiding excessive shock as well as keeping the main chassis at a uniform height while doing it. A robust off-road tire or even a fancy airless should allow for good mobility as well.

>>34093492
how is that not worse?

File: FALKEN Cockpit.jpg (236KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1920x1080px

>>34096351
No open windows, ground based version of the ace combat COFFIN system, better armoring for the pilots, bunch of sensors, onboard countermeasures, smaller head on target, and a few other goodies I can't remember off the top of my head.

The FALKEN in Ace Combat is en example of an aircraft using the COFFIN system. Full sphere view and full HUD on the entire viewing surface.

Really the AT-ST was a crappy design meant almost entirely for intimidating locals and putting down minor uprisings. With a redo of the goofy ass head section it could be a legit beast worthy of fear.

>>34096373
I think we also decided on interchangeable pods on the sides instead of the standard light gun and grenade launcher. Can carry short range SAMs, ATGMs, TOWs, that sort of shit.