Mech vs Tank

1 mech = roughly the cost of 10 tanks
10 tanks > 1 mech

>This is a troll
>A tank should by all accounts completely fuck a mech, all while being lighter, smaller, less complex, cheaper, and more stable.
>This thread is now finished.

>>34226419

Tanks are obviously better because they can carry a reasonable amount of armor without turning into a submarine on dry land. They also contain more volume for a given surface area, ensuring that they will always have more armor for the same tonnage.

Even if we came up with a durable, reliable, and efficient way to power "mechs" they'd be extremely limited in size and applications because feet have inherently higher ground pressure than tracks.

What even is your question?

>>34226475
B-bu mecha can dodge and fly!

>>34226419
All the advantages of mobility a mech could hope to have are on an attack helicopter. All the advantages of armor and firepower are on a tank.

Mech is a mix of both, but does neither them well.

>>34226486
Solidified question hmm. Considering all disadvantages of the mech, let's assume that the suddenly a weeaboo is responsible for defense of your country. He comes to you and says

>Anon design a working mech for us. Something that would be viable for military

Is this possible? Of course i'm thinking armor here. There is Combat Mule in design with it's own niche. But it is not really a combat vehicle and it's not manned.

The only place I could see a mech performing better than a tank would be in rough mountainous terrain like parts of afghanistan where tanks are limited to roads. Possibly really thick forest or jungle too.

>>34226503
Mech can carry it's own AA (tank cant) and can hold ground (helo cant)

File: 1439094676724.gif (59KB, 434x492px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 434x492px

>>34226419

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

>>34226419
Consider this;

For all the cool factor that mecha has in your pic, there is absolutely no way it won't be bent over by a single shot from that 120mm smoothbore pointed right at it.

>>34226588
>>34226503
>>34226475
I know tanks are better. It is stated in the first post.

But is it possible to find a viable niche for a mech if one is forced to do so?

>>34226565
>Mech can carry it's own AA
How

>(tank cant)
Why?

>>34226518
No. Armored weapons platforms like tanks are going to be vastly superior and less terrain-inhibited.

Flying weapons platforms like helicopters are going to be infinitely more maneuverable and able to carry more firepower.

You have to consider that we're just now making headway with human-sized exoskeletons. How would it even be remotely feasible to have a 15-20 foot tall mech, with room for a pilot, that could complete combat tasks?

The only middle-ground I can think of would be something like a quadrapedal system with treads for "feet" on each of it's four "legs" - this would allow for some serious movement over terrain, as well as weapons loadouts.

But then power becomes an issue. No one's willing to shove a nuclear reactor in to something that's going to be directly shot at. And you can't just leave it tethered, it's range would be useless. Solar wouldn't work effectively, because the number of servos and motors would drain any kind of on-unit batteries in a matter of minutes.

it would, at best, be a semi-movable artillery piece, that moved vaguely faster\easier than a truck pulling a howitzer. which means it wouldn't be terribly cost effective

File: atm-09-sc.jpg (37KB, 259x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 259x400px

The most practical mecha are mobile heavy weapons platforms.

Deploying one won't stop a tank. Deploying a platoon at once, however...

As much as I am a battletech nerd tanks will always have the advantage of cost, armor per ton, ground pressure, treads being being easier to protect than legs, and the fact that a mech can't take advantage of cover as well as a tank just due to sheer height.

However, I do think that very small mechs may have some (niche) application in the future. Instead of 2 or 3 story behemoths, think of an operator laying forward motorcycle style in an armored shell with legs and mounted heavier weapons like a minigun with a shit load of ammo, or basically anything you could mount to a truck or LAV and maybe some rocket pods and a lmg for close infantry defence. A mech not more than 12ft tall with the ability to crouch as low as a tank and that can fit in a parking space/back of a helo. Use them for direct infantry support in urban combat or rough terrain like mountains. Basically a step between powered armor and an IFV.

>>34226635
>mobile heavy weapons platforms.

Like IFV?

File: 110848bi6fbhd6dyvg68f0.jpg (147KB, 980x735px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 980x735px

>>34226565
>can carry it's own AA (tank cant)

File: 110847qhj9p0m4abbyp433.jpg (133KB, 980x1093px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 980x1093px

>>34226565
>own AA (tank cant)

>>34226618
Maybe in the future when better technology is developed but at the current state of things and given almost all of Earth's terrain there really isn't any viable reason to use a mech. Too high up it'll be awkward and easy to trip, as well as being a giant bullseye for helis and planes. Too low and then there really isn't a reason to use one over a tank which would most likely be more durable and powerful in general. The problem though lies in the fact that there isn't much middle ground. The way I could see a potential mech being remotely effective is something like a spider tank that can climb up the sides of cliffs and buildings if they're intact enough, and even then that's still a niche probability considering we have helicopters.

>>34226565
>(Tank can't)

File: images (1).jpg (10KB, 277x182px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 277x182px

>>34226565
>Tank cant

I'm sorry what can't the tank do again?

File: IMG_3055.jpg (74KB, 771x378px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 771x378px

>>34226565
>and can hold ground (helo cant)

File: d0b0d180d0bcd0b8d18f-23.jpg (98KB, 800x563px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x563px

>>34226565

Also if
>(Tank cant)
The other tanks can

>>34226621
Because then it would be a SPAAG not a tank

File: 20467565753_5b0121c605_z.jpg (117KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x360px

>>34226654
One pilot/gunner. High maximum speed with a low center of gravity.

You don't need to get fancy with jet boosts and neutron bombs, Just make them insertable by air, and send them in en masse.

File: 8c17909fc8148dd71f1d6e37c55aa3f3.jpg (103KB, 736x920px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 736x920px

Oh yah and
>>34226565
>and can hold ground (helo cant)

File: Logikoma.jpg (139KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x576px

>>34226695
In one of the Ghost in the shell movies they had four legged robots with armor plates. These robots were able to create mobile cover due to wheels and mobile legs. This design was interesting in my opinion. Sticking a human inside to pilot might be tricky though. Still it's currently more viable than A.I. As far as mechs go I think that this design might be viable as urban protective vehicle against small arms fire.

>>34226644
To add to this, the mini mech isn't supposed to go toe to toe with armor. Maybe put a tow missile on it to have something, but mainly I think tiny mechs make sense as a direct infantry attachment to bring truck/IFV firepower organically with the grunts. This of course assumes you can come up with a crazy power supply that has the light weight to stay in the design parameters and the endurance to stay useful to the grunts.

File: mi-8-DFST8503727.jpg (50KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x424px

>>34226565
>can hold ground (helo cant)

File: russian-mil-mi-28-havoc-anti-armor-attack-helicopter-export-iraq-india-pakistan-turkey-egypt-syria-jorden-missiles-atgm-rocket-pod-percision-11.jpg (101KB, 1024x643px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x643px

>>34226565
>(helo cant)
(Fun fact: this helicopter can carry and fire A2A missiles and antiradiation missiles as well!)

>>34226765
But again that's still a niche situation. Police have a good amount of armored vehicles and at that point you're pretty much getting the paramilitary involved. If they could say move with the squad autonomously then they might be more valuable. Plus I wouldn't really use GITS as a good example, they have advanced cybernetics spread like candy and a good part of the world is either nuked or in disarray.

File: Savage_in_HK.jpg (42KB, 300x303px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x303px

Even if you have some applied phlebotinum that makes mecha not completely retarded, minovsky particles, energy shields etc, it would still make more sense to apply those to a tank than it would to build mecha. Even the more realistic mecha like Full Metal Panic's Arm Slaves that are 8-10 meters tall, diesel or jet turbine powered and some having active camouflage that allow one to be parked on a city street corner without the mundanes noticing are still going to be more maintenance-intensive and have less armor, firepower and mobility than a tank.
Really there is no niche for such a thing in combat, though an upscaled powered exoskeleton could come in handy as an engineering vehicle.

>>34226792
>>34226782
>>34226764
Holding ground for hours is different than holding it for days, though.

Now, I grant you, the heli can fly, and is easier to resupply.
But any kind of mini-mech is gonna be far more fuel efficient by not being airborne.

>>34226804
I know it's really too high-techy device to be reasonable. Use is also very niche. But since ballistic shields are heavy and not really that practical i tought about something that carries it instead. Also when it comes to force that can give large sums of money for a device for a specific situation police of developed countries comes to mind. Military is about being practical. Police in 1st world is about public safety even at big expense.

>>34226831
If holding for days use a tank.

>>34226831
>gonna be far more fuel efficient

And this matters to any first world country why again?

File: ded cr2.jpg (39KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x450px

>>34226419
>mechs can fly
>mechs can go underwater
>mechs can walk so they're essentially better infantry
>insane mobility
>jack of all trades and master of all
Mechs will revolutionize warfare and replace the navy, ground forces and air forces.

>>34226868
Because wars are primarily a competition in logistics you inbred fuckwit.

>>34226848
I was talking more about the paramilitary, like SWAT and FBI. Obviously your random joe police officer won't have much need for an armored vehicle (or at least I hope to god). Mechs just aren't a very practical thing regardless of the circumstances. Maybe in the next centuries it'll change, but I doubt that.

>>34226746
>One pilot/gunner
2 man IFV?

>High maximum speed with a low center of gravity.
Wheels IFVs are faster and have lower center of gravity.

>>34226733
>implying you can't have AA as a top gun

>>34226885
>mechs can walk so they're essentially better infantry

nigger are you mentally handicapped? What makes infantry good isn't the fact they walk, it's the fact they're small, highly mobile in tight places, numerous, and stealthy. A mech is none of those.

>>34226885

>mechs can sink into the ground

ftfy

>>34226886
Woah woah there buddy. Calm down on the edge, school's almost out for ya. Be excited, you're going to high school next year.

In all serious though, look at the Abrams. It's a fucking fuel hog yet it does the job just fine. This isn't World War II anymore.

File: no one knows i have 10 markovs up my ass.jpg (155KB, 701x1140px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 701x1140px

>>34226885
>mechs can walk so they're essentially better infantry

Mechs and exoskeletons are two different things.

>>34226419
One thing mechs can do that tanks can't is fire over low buildings etc. Not arguing for their superiority though

>>34226911
Well, I'm essentially advocating a 1-man IFV integrating maneuvering wheels. So we're splitting hairs at this point,

Whether it's a mech or not is secondary.

File: Ferret-armoured-car.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>34226831
>But any kind of mini-mech is gonna be far more fuel efficient by not being airborne.

You know what'd be more fuel efficient than something with legs?

Something roughly the same size with wheels.

File: KSTAM.jpg (15KB, 656x252px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 656x252px

>>34226968

I remember seeing an older anime where a platoon of mechs got completely obliterated by a few well concealed traditional tanks. ANyone remember it?

File: How its made.jpg (41KB, 415x252px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 415x252px

My father was a master mechanic, he imparted some very wise words to me once. He asked me what the most important part of the car was, I don't remember my answer but it was wrong.

He explained to me that the most important part of most machines is step 1. And step one for a car is the wheels. You need wheels no matter what, the wheels HAVE to work. You can push a car with no engine down the road but you cant push one without wheels.

The step one for mechs, the mechanical leg is so ridiculously goddamn complicated that there are 20 thousand gifs of government robots trying to walk but instead bouncing themselves off the floor. You have chosen an EXTREMELY POOR step 1

Disable the treads and tank becomes artillery

Disable the legs and mech becomes worthless dogshit

File: 336px-DVa-portrait.png (120KB, 336x350px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 336x350px

>>34226644
>think of an operator laying forward motorcycle style in an
Something like this then?

>>34227123
>ground pressure

>>34227123
Yeah but less bulky, gay, and trying to be a fighter jet. And no glass. External sensors and some kind of tank style armored periscope viewport. And smaller.

>>34226765
Tachikomas/Fuchikomas are explicitly tanks though and spider tanks in the series in general have wheels in the legs for speed while the legs themselves are used to traverse difficult terrain

>>34227216
anime and anime-inspired vidya don't feel ground pressure, silly

>>34227569
that's probably marginally closer to realistic than conventional leg-mechs, isn't it?

File: 903d6463944d9adf7ce757486d2919891434375049_full.jpg (50KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 560x560px

>>34227569
As do the Doggs I keep posting.

>>34227377
Museru

File: HAW 206.png (589KB, 1075x743px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1075x743px

>>34226419
>why not both

>>34226635
>>34226654

Fucking exactly, actually. Viable mecha look like this:

1. Take a suit of powered armor.
2. Scale it up as much as you can get away with.

You're retaining the advantages of an infantryman - i.e. not being a lumbering shit-box that only swings a gun around - without being so big that you run into the problem of NOT being a highly optimized shitbox designed ONLY to swing a big gun around.

Look at something like the Heavy Gear setting (which uses mecha similar in size to the VOTOMS that guy posted;) where pretty small mecha share a combined arms role with infantry, airpower, and of course, tanks. Pound for pound, a light tank is less nimble but will fuck up a mecha, and heavy tanks have absolutely no equal in the "firepower" category. A mecha fights a tank by hiding behind a big fucking rock and calling for an airstrike.

>>34226644
>treads being being easier to protect than legs

Not necessarily true - treads can be pretty damn delicate. Tankers can throw a track just by steering carelessly. Legs, however, are a shitshow with our conventional technology (mechanical actuators, etc.) To make "legs" work properly, you'd need to mimic the human body - i.e., bones and muscle. Which is how Battlemechs work, explicitly. Once you get huge artificial muscles ("myomers,") to replace the "actuators," a leg is a lot more robust than a track; all the crucial components are inside, under armor, and joined to a main support structure (the "bone,").

The other important thing is the control system - just like in Battletech, you'd need to use a neuralhelmet, that allows someone to control the machine as an extension of their own body, just by thinking. (This has already been done in a lab with monkeys, in fact.) This is also why you'd bother with a humanoid formfactor at all; so the unit can move and respond to operator input flexibly and swiftly, like a scaled-up infantryman.

Most importantly, neither of these technologies would matter much to tanks themselves, which are already perfectly optimized for the tech we already have on hand. They're also perfectly optimized for their current mission, which means you'd want to develop smaller mecha to bridge the gap between infantry units and IFVs.

>>34229931
>2. Scale it up as much as you can get away with.
But why? Even 50% larger than an infantryman is going to be too heavy and slow to get away with half the shit that VOTOMs or Heavy Gear get away with. It always seems like advocates for mechs are desperately trying to find a niche that doesn't practically exist IRL. If a mech cannot engage even an IFV without being perforated by an autocannon, why have a mech and not more infantry or an IFV?

>>34229996
>But why? Even 50% larger than an infantryman is going to be too heavy and slow

And you base this on what, your extensive engineering background, or a random feel you just pulled out of your ass?

Not that it matters anyways, because the operative word is "as far as you can get away with." If you can't get away with something much bigger than a powered suit, then you'll just build heavy powered suits geared towards carrying heavier weapons to support the squad, for instance.

Everything depends on your assumptions going into the discussion.

>It always seems like advocates for mechs are desperately trying to find a niche that doesn't practically exist IRL

God, you're a dumb cunt. I point out the EXACT fucking niche, and then you tell me there's no niche. The US army is literally field-testing a fucking powered exoskeleton to help soldiers carry more weight, equipment, weapons, etc., and here you're telling me that there's "no role." They spent a zillion dollars on that fucking robotic "mule" thing, and you're telling me "there's absolutely no role!" Jesus fucking *wept.*

>>34230045
>God, you're a dumb cunt. I point out the EXACT fucking niche, and then you tell me there's no niche.
Getting fucked up by literally everything infantry gets fucked up by, but being a bigger target? No need to throw a tizzy, aspie.
>The US army is literally field-testing a fucking powered exoskeleton to help soldiers carry more weight, equipment, weapons, etc., and here you're telling me that there's "no role."
Exoskeletons are just powered frames you wear that allow you to carry more stuff. They dont make you bigger and they aren't mechs. I didnt ask the roles of exoskeltons, I asked what the roles of this fantasy VOTOMs thing and you spazz out.
>They spent a zillion dollars on that fucking robotic "mule" thing
No larger than a man and they shitcanned it anyway.
Why are you getting so emotional?

>>34226635
Oh Jesus fucking Christ, now you want a platoon of them? Just get a fucking tank weeb

>>34229840
Is this a gundam

>>34230045
Exoskeletons aren't mechs

File: 1429735328337.png (248KB, 597x366px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 597x366px

>>34230114
>armored against small arms, mortars, grenades, other shrapnel
>not "my plate carrier stopped one hit but now I'm combat ineffective," literally "lel that tickles, have at thee bro"

I mean, it's this shit. Every time. Every fucking time, some stupid cunt throwing shade, willfully refusing to comprehend any argument put forth - in fact, why IS it an argument, instead of a discussion? Why is there ALWAYS some cunt in the room looking to make a fucking fight of it?

You. People like you. You were probably in the room the first time someone pitched the tank itself. I can just fucking hear you. "So its like a train, but it LAYS its own fucking TRACK ahead of it? And it's fucking huge, so it can get fucked up by everything infantry gets fucked up by, BUT IT'S A BIGGER TARGET? LOL you can kill it just by scaling up an infantry rifle!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzDfUKNwfGc

Every time. Every fucking time, there's some fuckass who demands every future assumption adhere to his own autistic insistence that he, and only he, knows the exact technological developments that the future will hold, and that anyone who disagrees must be autists themselves. AUTISM FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME!

I have to deal with fucks like you at work. Engineers, all of them. Who then turn to the engineer next to them, and have arguments just like this - 1000% sure that they're right, since they're an engineer, but that OTHER engineer is a gibbering retard fuck. And then I come home and you're waiting for me on the internet, too.

There's no fucking escape.

>>34230233
>armored against small arms, mortars, grenades, other shrapnel
Huh, like an IFV, or a tank?
>I mean, it's this shit. Every time. Every fucking time, some stupid cunt throwing shade, willfully refusing to comprehend any argument put forth - in fact, why IS it an argument, instead of a discussion? Why is there ALWAYS some cunt in the room looking to make a fucking fight of it?
I'm not (strictly) looking for a fight, I just asked what role it fills that isn't already filled exceptionally well by existing vehicles. But then you post all this.
>You. People like you. You were probably in the room the first time someone pitched the tank itself. I can just fucking hear you. "So its like a train, but it LAYS its own fucking TRACK ahead of it? And it's fucking huge, so it can get fucked up by everything infantry gets fucked up by, BUT IT'S A BIGGER TARGET? LOL you can kill it just by scaling up an infantry rifle!"
Oh eat shit. There was a clear and present need for a mobile armored wall that infantry could follow across no mans land. You still haven't been able to articulate a role for a mech that doesn't directly draw from anime.
>Every time. Every fucking time, there's some fuckass who demands every future assumption adhere to his own autistic insistence that he, and only he, knows the exact technological developments that the future will hold, and that anyone who disagrees must be autists themselves. AUTISM FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME!
Well I mean, look at what you've posted, objectively. Any nonpartisan passerby would immediately assume autism.
>I have to deal with fucks like you at work. Engineers, all of them. Who then turn to the engineer next to them, and have arguments just like this - 1000% sure that they're right, since they're an engineer, but that OTHER engineer is a gibbering retard fuck. And then I come home and you're waiting for me on the internet, too.
Huh, Dunning Kruger in action. "Everyone is a retard except me", right?

File: buki.jpg (90KB, 284x289px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 284x289px

>>34230233
>implying you work

WHERE IS KCQ

File: hXyS8Ab.png (1MB, 768x1093px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 768x1093px

>>34230233

>buttmad weeb refuses to accept being wrong
>gets mad being proven wrong by honest to god engineers

heh

>>34230233

And I'll bet five fucking dollars that before I'm done typing *this* post you'll post again to the tune of "S-S-SEE I WIN," having completely missed the point. You don't even begin to comprehend how MANY fucking factors feed into what the future will look like.

For starters - consider power. That's the big, fundamental thing - power. That exoskeleton the Army's testing? Hour of battery life. That robo-dog motherfucker? Ditched because it needs a small diesel generator that's louder than ur mum at night. Power determines fucking *everything.* And not just for "a mecha;" becuase the mecha doesn't exist in a vacuum - tanks will evolve as well as new technology debuts and that will affect "the mecha." For instance, if they crack fusion power *tomorrow,* and the fusion power requires a bulky reactor, but it allows for railguns that fucking stomp on conventional tank cannons and also shoot down ant-tank missiles, tanks will become 200% bigger, and nothing smaller is going to matter, because they still won't have a power source worth a fuck. We'll get Boloverse; with economies-of-scale applying to tanks that get bigger and bigger, kind of like the battleship era, but on land.

On the flip side, if the fusion power developed scales like shit but can be made very compact, then the wee mecha are the *only* things it can fit on.

Now take something far less fundamental. Say, missiles versus anti-missile defenses. Ten years ago it was all "hurf blurf tonk is ded" because a two-man AT team could shrek any tank with a single AT missile. Now everyone has an active anti-missile system on their tank (or is developing one) and cannons suddenly look a lot cooler and all the fags with gun-launched missiles are feeling like retards. And just apply this to fucking existing IFVs, don't even get into the goddman sci-fi robots - are IFVs doomed against tonk, or are they gonna get better missiles? Should we bring back APCs, or continue to build Bradleys?

>>34226885
>All the dream tech to make that happen
Sure we'll get there eventually but by that point we'll also have used that tech to fuck off into outer space and the real wars will be fought from orbit.

File: 1429415708369.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

>>34230369

This is why speculative/sci-fi fiction exists - to even begin to posit future developments, you need to commit to a coherent set of future assumptions, not just one or two. But someone who just wants to shitpost and sneer doesn't have to do that - they get to change their position, or change the assumptions (since there's so many plausible future routes for technological development,) and continue to greentext shitpost.

But it's not just here. It's on /k/, too. Every fucking F-35 troll thread, for starters. Every fucking "lol carriers are dead" thread. I'm amazed I haven't seen an "AWACS is shit and stupid" thread yet. You can't talk about anything with some autismo fag piling on because he wants to be "right" about something, like proving the status quo is the way it is, because things are the way they are.

This planet is doomed.

>>34230527
>This level of persecution complex and melodrama just because anime isn't real
This is your brain on /m/
Not even once, kids.

File: physicists.png (38KB, 358x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 358x540px

>>34230339

And this. This is exactly what engineers sound like. I have to listen to them every fucking day, and they all pull this same shit - they demonstrate a complete and utter inability to pull their heads out of their own specialization for five seconds. Like that old joke image showing a single airplane, as envisioned by each single design team - the structural team's got it carrying more struts than Jebs finest, the weapons team has half an ammo dump slung on it anywhere there's room to squeeze another pylon, the aerodynamics team has made a beautiful, fast, useless little arrow, the avionics team has a huge computer crammed into two little wings, etc. And you need *all* of the motherfuckers to somehow work together and figure out a puzzle where changing just *one* input also changes the required inputs everywhere else, which change everything else, etc. Which tends to mean you need someone in charge of them all who understands them enough to follow along, but then has to force them to sit down in the same room and act like fucking ADULTS.

Nothing makes me want to suck-start a fucking shotgun more than engineers. It's a fucking miracle that Ugg ever got that fucking funny stick away from Bugg long enough to go club a fucking ibex with it and give him some user feedback for model 2.0, I swear to FUCK.

>>34226419
t. Peripheryfag too poor for even a Locust

Enjoy your buyers remorse when my pirate band brings our dropship to your planet.

File: 1453489842568.jpg (21KB, 206x206px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 206x206px

>>34230337
>implying
>planefag
>engineer
>job
>paid

>>34230233
That's a beautiful post but mechs are still dumb.

>>34230337
He's too busy sperging out about politics on Spacebattles

>>34230597
>Nothing makes me want to suck-start a fucking shotgun more than engineers.
>Being so assmad to consider suicide, simply because people with expertise on a subject dont take your half-baked amateur musings seriously
>But its them who are the assholes
You just cannot make this stuff up.

File: 1443325148514.jpg (84KB, 593x539px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 593x539px

>>34230620
>>34230632
n-no bully

>>34230640

Assmad?

Ass? Mad?

You have no fucking clue. You can't even begin to understand. Because Engineers? They don't greentext. They don't just "play the negative" to provoke a response, then expend the minimal memearrow effort to try and keep the shitshow rolling. This matters, to them. It's core to their being. They are Right. That's what they build their self-image around, is Being Right. They are lord and master, presiding over the Court of Logic, like Q in his silly fucking hat as he's being a total douchebag to Picard, and everyone must win an augment against him, on his own terms, before he will tolerate them as a human, and term #1 is "I am always right."

Now imagine teams. TEAMS of people like this. Who are constantly backstabbing each other, until another team comes into the room, and suddenly they stop infighting to form a united front against the *worse* infidels. Imagine all of the Middle East, in one fucking conference room.

Assmad? Suicide?

Motherfucker. Summer fucking child. You have no FUCKING idea.

>>34230705
I like to imagine that at least once, all of them put aside their differences and worked together to mock you mercilessly for thinking mecha are a viable technology.

File: 1495663725633.png (847KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 1280x720px

>>34230705
let it all out anon, don't let us stop you

>>34230045
>If you can't get away with something much bigger than a powered suit, then you'll just build heavy powered suits geared towards carrying heavier weapons to support the squad, for instance.

So Starship Troopers?

>>34230724
>mecha

We've been trying to get a motherfucking stator out the door for three months.

A *stator.*

THREE. MONTHS.

and you want to talk to me

about

mecha.

I swear to god, if I showed them the opening post of this thread, and left a box of knives in the middle of the table, and locked the conference room door on my way out, the world would be a better place within a half-hour.

>>34226644
>>34226770
I agree with you in that the only real role for anything resembling a mech would need to be small and designed for infantry combat in an urban environment. Specifically, I could see a need for a highly mobile platform carrying weapons too heavy for infantry to carry (thing .50BMG or mk 19) in an urban environment so utterly fucked that tanks and current armored vehicles can't maneuver.

Think Hong Kong given the Stalingrad treatment, with so much debris on the streets that vehicles are just going to get stuck and become targets. Add to that modern AA sticking out of every nook and cranny and helicopters are a no go. So all you're left with is infantry scrambling around in the ruins with their only fire support being arty. Suddenly some two or four legged mechanical monstrosity with an M2 and/or mk 19 mounted on it gives the squad it's supporting incredible fire superiority.

Even then some joker with whatever the future iteration of the RPG will be can still effectively counter this hypothetical mech just the same as infantry currently can fuck up armor in an urban setting. But I guess at least then you're forcing the adversary to lug around anti-armor weapons where previously they only needed to fight infantry.

That's the best case scenario I can think of where anything resembling a mech would find a role. Mind you why the hell we'd still be fighting in a major metropolitan area that's already been effectively destroyed to the point of being traversable to nothing but things with legs is another question entirely.

>>34226966
FO4 Power Armour, if they could find an energy source to move one, would be pretty sweet in real life.

>>34226977
You'd be retarded. There's a reason why most armored vehicles have gravitated towards at least three crewmembers- a dedicated driver, a dedicated gunner, and a dedicated commander. The crew workflow is far superior.

>>34230811
FO4 Power Armor but with lore friendly power source be cool. Then again I don't know how to do cold fusion yet.

>>34230766
could also work in very rough terrain like mountains too

>>34230766
one thing you're forgetting
>cities
>important
>2016+1
Cities are no longer manufacturing hubs or qualify as counter force targets. They also are not self sufficient.

IE cut hongkong off from the sea and bomb the shit out of the connecting highways and rail lines and you might as well have nuked them due to the level of death that will unfold. As for taking the city itself
>why
unless you're colonizing and unless there is oil or factories to claim and utilize, losing tens of thousands of soldiers to take a small city from the enemy only to have a bunch of the enemy's civilians to take care of is a losing prospect. It's a mini version of the problem with modern warfare against 3rd world shitholes. no objectives, no spoils.

>>34231215
I would argue that mountains are too long range a combat environment for mechs. At long range you're dealing with ATGMs and a lack of concealment from fire support spotters. As has been discussed elsewhere in this thread you're going to have serious issues armoring mechs as well as tanks, so you're going to have to deal with already existant missiles designed to kill things far better armored. After that then you have to deal with air and fire support, and with even present day precision guided bombs and artillery no mech is going to have the maneuverability to evade that.

>>34231306
I'll absolutely concede this point. There is no strategic value in taking a city that has been destroyed to the point I previous Perhaps as cities get bigger and we start seeing cities with such astronomically high populations that we have to bring industry and food production into them just to overcome logistical challenges, we'll see a return to cities as viable occupation target for wars. Of course, then you have to take into consideration that if someone's turned your mega city of tens of millions to rubble, things have probably escalated to nuclear exchanges anyway.

File: GeckoArt.png (501KB, 560x923px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 560x923px

>>34230766
MGS4's Gekkos seem to cover that point entirely. They serve as very mobile crew serve weapons without the crew and size of a small four-wheeled vehicle, are resilient enough to require anti-armor assets, and serve as large pack mules for accompanying infantry.

The regenerative/self-healing legs, intimidating animal noises, and robotic tentacles are an entirely different matter.

MGS4 also hit another issue I think should be the first step in revolutionizing infantry. Instead of something like FO4 armor, give them something like Old Snake's power suit. Prioritize helping the soldier maintain his body temperature in a hostile environment and regulate it when shit hits the fan in a fire fight. It'd be so much better keeping that body core at a good temp when he's in 100 F weather and god knows what because the LT wanted it.

File: H4_Scorpion_top_view.png (433KB, 800x537px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 800x537px

>>34226631
>quadrapedal system with treads for feet
Hm

>>34226635
1 platoon of mech
10 platoons of tank.

Gee I wonder which would win

File: 1486474080058.gif (177KB, 716x535px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 716x535px

Whatever tiny niche you could possibly find for a mech could just be filled with power armoured troops.

File: IMG_5561.jpg (71KB, 730x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 730x400px

>>34226631
Umm we actually made plans for a tank powered by a nuclear reactor in the 50-60s along with a bomber and cruise missile

>>34229986
Tankers can throw a track just by steering carelessly.

A person can break their leg (or more likely, sprain their ankle) just by walking carelessly. Did you know that in the USA, more people die to tripping on even level ground than are killed with long arms of all kinds (rifles, shotguns, etc.)?

And a broken robot leg is a fuckload harder to fix than a thrown tread.

>>34233116
Leaving aside that better materials for building durable legs and joints would also be applied to tracks.

>>34232178
I'm not arguing in favor of mechs, but the Scorpion is a terrible tank.

File: scorpion tanks.png (273KB, 752x364px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 752x364px

>>34229986
>The other important thing is the control system - just like in Battletech, you'd need to use a neuralhelmet, that allows someone to control the machine as an extension of their own body, just by thinking. (This has already been done in a lab with monkeys, in fact.) This is also why you'd bother with a humanoid formfactor at all; so the unit can move and respond to operator input flexibly and swiftly, like a scaled-up infantryman.

The experiment with the monkey in the lab wasn't a monkey controlling an anamatronic monkey robot. It was controlling a mouse cursor on a screen. Neuroplasticity means the brain can get used to all sorts of abstracted inputs and outputs. A simple electrode grid hooked to a camera and jammed in the visual cortex can give some semblance of sight to the completely blind. a mouse's brain hooked into a little robot can drive around and avoid obstacles.

There's no evidence that a neural interface would be any easier to use if it were controlling a human shaped machine. What we do know is that it's pretty easy to get animal brains to control a mouse cursors and little cars.

>>34230045
And you base this on what, your extensive engineering background, or a random feel you just pulled out of your ass?

I'd imagine he probably is referring to doors. Infantry that can't go indoors isn't nearly as useful as infantry that can.

>>34230762
How many stators are in a mecha, anon? :^)

>>34234461
I like how it's about five times bigger than the bongistani scorpion light tank, yet still has a 90mm gun.

>>34233762

Tanks don't throw tracks because of the materials not being durable enough. Track-throwing is just a fundamental limitation of tracked vehicles. You can make a track perfectly invincible to all forms of attack and it would still throw if you drove the tank carelessly.

>>34235837
Obviously we should take autists and socipath infants and put their brains into vats hooked to tanks, so their learned neural pathways are all tank-related

>they don't relate to humans emotionally
>they have no qualms with killing
>they follow orders/rules when raised that way from birth
>they focus on the mission

My logic is undeniable.

>>34230045
Exoskeletons aren't mechs!

>>34230369
All of you insisting that a nuclear reactor is the solution are fucking stupid, there is a reason that yhe Zumwalt doesnt use a reactor, and thats because a turbine engine can make more power faster than nuke reactors.

>>34230233
>failed engineering classes
>dropped out
>mad