Could mechs have a place in futurist wars or it's just fantasy

>>34726554
>that movie
you cant comprehend how badly i wanted the native women forced into brothels and the males converted to soylent blue

>>34726554
There's probably no place for them, maybe some specific circumstances, maybe.
Tires and tracks have way too many advantages for nearly any situation. One major thing is that tires/tracks are FAR less complex and going to have far less fragile failure points under fire.

File: red shoulder.jpg (45KB, 603x387px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 603x387px

>>34726554
Probably not.

Dont really think so.
>Dont fill any roles better than what we already have.
>Greater mechanical complexity for no meaningful gain
>Easier to kill than other vehicles, since its harder to more efficiently armor a vehicle than a tank, being literally an armored box on treads. Also, mobility kills are fatal for bipeds.
>Greater weight limitation, 20 tons spread across 2 treads or 8 wheels has far less ground pressure than spread across 2 feet
>Any technology that would make mechs worthwhile (lightweight armor and durable servos that would allow them to behave like ballerinas like in muh animes) would be even doubly useful for tanks. Think, airdropped Abrams.
All the same shit we've discussed to death.

>>34726581
>Tires and tracks have way too many advantages for nearly any situation. One major thing is that tires/tracks are FAR less complex and going to have far less fragile failure points under fire.
This.

What people don't seem to understand is that humans are have appendages only because our prime goal is survival. We are made to be self-reliant and able to move regardless of the terrain.

Machines on the other hand are not concerned with survival outside of combat nor are they self-reliant. Machines have very specialized roles and as such have no use for legged locomotion, they should use specialized forms of locomotion that are best suited for their role.

File: Dat exposed belly though.jpg (47KB, 294x336px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 294x336px

>>34726554
At best you can get exoskeletons. Anything larger/heavier can be done better with tires and tracks like >>34726581 said.

Not until we have the need for space warfare. Then you drop three guys on the outside of their vessel to fuck shit up.

>Mech destroys space ship.
>Pushes off towards planet swating and shooting fighters,
>Jump towards planet.
>Fall through atmosphere and make safe landing.

>>34726748
What this fella said.

Mechs IRL? No.

I say this as a old school Battletech fanboy.

The absolute best you'll get is heavy armoured infanty powersuits which can still fit through a normal doorway on a house (even if it is a squeeze) that can take a burst of 7.62 MG fire and survive. They would probably be quite heavily armed, with 7.62 MG's of their own, perhaps a .50 cal MG and maybe a 20mm 'battle rifle' scaled up. (obviously each trooper only gets one, not all of that on a single guy) I would also consider having them lug around large disposable AT launchers, much larger than a normal Grunt could carry. (Or should carry, dem knees.)

The whole point should be giving the infantry a tool to enhance their survivability and their lethality in environments where it is difficult to support them in other ways. Urban ops, dense terrain etc. In turn they would have to be supported by infantry themselves. They would be point men/door breachers and heavy weapons support.

Zone troopers from C&C 3 for example.

>>34726554
Could be used as a tool of fear to suppress aliens who are afraid of big things (like how most species work). If regular humans have managed to defeat their armies and occupy their nations they won't even think twice about rebelling if 'giant humans' (mechs) are walking around their cities are patrolling them.

Would make a really cool sci-fi war novel about piloting a mech in a setting like that.

File: Tehran_after.jpg (145KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1200x675px

>>34726554
Really hard to say.

I can imagine a role for light walker/mechs that are small enough to fit into tight alleyways and buildings.
Supplying infantry squads with heavy weapons that are usually mounted on vehicles.

I mean even smaller, than pic related. Just large enough to carry a .50cal or 20mm.

>>34727092
Even that would be better/more stable/take tighter turns on treads.

>>34727154

If that thing is required to go everywere infantry goes, legs are a must.
It is not supposed to be a tank or crappy EOD bot.

>>34727223
Why not have some power armored infantry from heavy weapons company tag along instead?

>>34726554
If technology somehow advances to the point where walking mechs have the same relative complexity as a wheel and axle or a tread system, than sure.

It's not gonna happen for a couple centuries though.

>>34726554
mechs are coming, but they won't be giant people.
that is the sad reality of it.

>>34726748
>tires and tracks
Climbing stairs?
Anyway the only real niche I see would be for some kind of smaller armored exoskeleton. I think it would be very useful for SWAT and other doorkickers. The pointman could be practically invulnerable to small arms fire.

File: Mwifycou.jpg (139KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1280x720px

>>34726581
Of course if mechas wouldn't jump over buildings or ride at car speed

What about it they needed the ability to climb? That is something tires & treads can't do.

>>34727725
They would air drop some light armored vehicles once the infantry has secured the location and they'll support it with artillery, helicopters, and airplanes.

>>34727725
Its just not a realistic expectation and is of questionable utility. For urban environments, most buildings aren't going to support a multi-ton (assuming this as if it is sub 1 ton, why aren't we just using an exoskeleton) vehicle hanging off of the masonry. As for mountainous environments, you're simply batter served with close air cover.

File: 20170513_195540.jpg (17KB, 132x132px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 132x132px

>>34727805
But what if you need something done right stat now?

Microgravity yes, otherwise no. In very low grav there's no way to use tracks/tires without accidentally lifting off. Over and over. Y'see the amount of downward thrust is negligible in Earth grav but it's still there, and will become noticeable in micrograv.

In 0g I think no method of locomotion is going to work except thrusters, but I ain't no space vehicle engineer so IDK.

>>34727842
Then the thread dies because everyone gave satisfactory answers, also if you need some thing and don't have it reasonably accesseble then you're doing it wrong. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

File: bc95b54c33016caabed82a583c8643b3--tau-warhammer-k.jpg (31KB, 475x485px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 475x485px

Best you'll ever see is shit akin to crisis suits.

>>34727092
While I agree with this niche, I think that if militaries see an urgent need to stuff 50s/20s into tight alleyways they'll just start producing tankettes. I think the closest thing we'll get to mechs is very heavy powered armor.

File: M2 Stinger.jpg (242KB, 1503x900px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1503x900px

A powered exoskeleton mated with an MG on a stabilized support arm ala the M56 Smartgun from Aliens and carrying a shit-ton of ammo could be useful especially if the MG were chambered in .338 LM, .50 BMG, 12.7x108mm etc. in places like Afghanistan where infantry-tier mobility but vehicle-mounted range and accuracy would be handy.
Would still be a rather niche setup though.

>>34726554
On a battlefield? No. In a rear work? Sure, military wants exoskeletons and stuff them since 60th. Logistics would be much simpler with such universal machines.

>>34726570
Yeah. The "hero" basically just doomed them all to death because humans can come back and orbital nuke their trees to hell.

File: spectral.jpg (384KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x960px

>>34727092
>>34727154
for an infantry support platform i feel like something like the four legged robots theyve been designing and that they ripped off for the meh movie spectral on netfix would be better

File: rpg teams.jpg (37KB, 400x264px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x264px

>>34726554
I am dyed in the wool old school Battletech fan and Army armor nerd. The problem is the RPG. In most configurations the RPG will penetrate 13 inches of RHA. Given current material technology, it would be hard to build a mech that could survive a single RPG and armored vehicles become RPG magnets in urban combat.

>>34726727
Hmmm and yet companies like Boston dynamics are all scrambling to make robots with legs

>>34726782
That's retarded. Why drop a robot on a vessel when you can drop a bomb

File: IMG_1898_wm.jpg (189KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1600x1200px

>>34729633
As pack mules and stand-ins for slapstick comedies.

>>34727270
Not big enough to mount 50s/20mm. A walker can aim around corners, step over barb wire or tank traps, and can also be used in a combat engineering role

>>34729492
Oh my god not this fucking retarded argument
>thing can be killed by cheaper thing
>therefore thing is obsolete

Mechs, no, power armor, yes. Cover the thing in plates of armor, give it a good sensor pack, and maybe give it some of those wizbang small raytheon missiles or something. I mean, at the very least a powered suit of armor would be really nice in the shit, even if you're still using a standard issue rifle.

>>34729633
>Boston dynamics are all scrambling to make robots with legs
Both Bigdog and LS3 were shitcanned nearly 3 years ago.

>>34727035
Zone troopers were the shit.

>>34729633
and by "scrambling" you mean "begging for DoD grants"

>>34729715
That's kinda misleading as Bigdog was replaced with successive generations of legged bots.

All downhill though. Bigdog a best.

File: robocop-ed209 versus stairs.jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>>34726554

No. To small to win a tank battle. Too big to enter buildings.

File: a laughing heero.jpg (38KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x364px

>>34729698
>thing is more expensive, complex, and requires an entirely different logistical chain and personnel training
>thing can be killed by cheaper thing
>thing doesn't really do anything that other, already existing things don't do themselves

File: epic_furry_gun_fight_by_neon_hyena-d6ctj74.jpg (124KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x694px

>>34726554
whew thought you said fursuit wars for a second you almost got me excited

in order for bipedal robots to be useful they need to do 1 thing above all other things. fit through a doorway. the ONLY good current use for a bipedal robot is to fight indoors, room to room.

>>34726554
As long as we put children in them

>>34729698
Have you been to any third world country? They have more RPGs than they do shoes. You're a retard if you don't think they're a consideration for any military vehicle.

File: Orangutan_ZN.jpg (141KB, 1920x1075px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1920x1075px

>>34726554
I could see them coming into play in more low g/zero g environments, where wheels and treads couldnt get any purchase on anything and a straight up flyer might bump into things too much or have to loiter too long and expend propellant constantly correcting itself. Armed variants could be used as possible shock troops in boarding actions or to latch onto an area out of gun LOS and siege the ship if destroying it isnt a possibility. Maybe fighting in space mines, factories or refineries.

>>34729708
Power armor is dumb anon. If you can make power armor than you could make a small portable weapon that doesn't have to carry the dead weight of a human around with it. Chances are by the time actual power armor that doesn't hinder the user hugely we'll be able to make autonomous/remote piloted weapons that can go where a human can, can carry more armor and weaponry, and won't put the life of a human at risk while still being nearly as combat capable as a human.

>>34729633
(Bi)pedal locomotion makes a fair deal of sense for things up to and roughly around rhe size of a human (because of the square cube law and all the other things mentioned already), when you expect the vehicle to operate in a space designed to work for legged locomotion (inside buildings for instance), or when you for whatever reason need to get across varied terrain at human scales. Because of that the robots that BD make some sense for what they are expected to do, however trying to scale that up does not make sense from nearly any angle.

>>34726584
>what should we we use for fuel
>fuck it i dunno nitroglycerin
I fucking love votoms

>>34726581
>>34726554
>>34726650
Mechs could outdo tanks in urban environments by a wide margin, and since urban combat is pretty much all that really matters nowadays, there's a possibility they'll actually be around in the future.

>>34732349
>Mechs could outdo tanks in urban environments by a wide margin,

No, don't stop there. Please elaborate on your well thought out opinion. Were all listening.

>>34732370
A humanoid figure carrying an autocannon peeking around the corner of a building beats a tank any day. Try turning the main turret without bumping into something.
Furthermore, a mech could aim directly above it to counterattack any ambushing infantry that may be waiting inside a tall building, unlike a tank with its limited vertical turret axis.
A mech could easily improvise in providing cover to its supporting infantry, such as pushing or leveraging a car from the ground and using it as a makeshift shield against incoming smallarms fire.
A mech could grab and raise supporting infantry to higher levels so they could enter a building from a window rather than the obvious front/back door. Same goes to helping them out of the building.
A mech could easily step over any sort of obstacle that would otherwise stop a tank without needing any support, such as Czech hedgehogs and the like.
All of this assuming said mech is properly design to fit in a urban environment.
Among other good examples.

>>34732416
>A mech could easily step over any sort of obstacle that would otherwise stop a tank without needing any support, such as Czech hedgehogs and the like.
Further examples also include obvious hidden AT mine spots and craters too deep for a tank to roll over.
Not to mention the psychological impact on the enemy when they see a giant fucking robot marching towards them, shaking the ground with every step.

>>34727223
Look up the FV101 it can go anywhere infantry can go.

>>34727035
>I say this as a old school Battletech fanboy.

>>34729492
>I am dyed in the wool old school Battletech fan and Army armor nerd.

So now you have to show your mech fan card before being allowed to criticize the idea of mechs?

>>34729698
It's more about building an expensive piece of technology that requires specialized training to use, that does not perform up to the standards of a current service ready piece of equipment. This isn't an argument that the Mech is obsolete because the RPG exists it is obsolete out of the box because we have things like the MBT which can take the hit from the RPG with little to no damage. In order to be viable the Mech will have to be able to travel faster than 45 MPH, at a range of over 270 miles, be able to take multiple impacts from 120mm APFSDS rounds, and carry armament equal to or in excess of the M256 or L30A1.

File: n523j4Myii1s2wio8o4_500.gif (907KB, 500x214px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 500x214px

>>34726554
The only benefit a bipedal warmachine would have is height and range of view, but an attack helicopter could do that job much better.

And you're stupid to think it would be any harder to shoot down a tall bipedal tank than a helicopter, hell, it would probably be even easier.

>>34732370
>>34732370
Assuming a similar volume of a modern tank, a mech would be just shy of 30 feet tall and weigh a ballpark of 80 tons or so. Assuming they have attained human level agility and similar proportion, this would give the mech roughly a 12 foot walking stride and somewhere near a 15 foot running stride. Top level runners usually have a pace of 180 strides per minute, giving us a running pace of 2,700 feet per minute. Roughly 30 miles an hour, not exactly making great time. Utilizing cover would be dificult for a machine standing three stories tall, however once in cover a mech would need to expose no critical systems besides the gun itself to fire. One huge upside to a mech often overlooked are hands. Being able to manipulate your surroundings in a way that isn't "run into it" can be a huge benefit, especially to logistics and heavy industry. While we may not see mechs in a combat role, they would excel at riot control, ambulance, and firefighting roles due mobility and strength, especially if scaled down to not much larger than man size. They would also be great at hauling, loading, and construction due to fine motor control, agility, and stability over varied terrain.

>>34732416

>I've seen too much Anime

Anon, Mechs would become vulnerable to man trapping, have a massive vertical cross section and be twice as vulnerable to land mines than tanks.

>>34732530

>No exposed critical systems

Legs? A tank throws a track, it's down but it's not out. It's still effective. Where's the heavy industry that needs an 30ft tall 80 tonnes mech? Sorry no not buying it, maybe if I watch anime all day, close my eyes and believe hard enough, sure.

>>34726554

You're probably looking at limited use akin to Ripley in Aliens using that "Power Loader" suit. It's pretty clear that you could improve on a fork lift (though you watch a guy who knows what he's doing with one and he's efficient as fuck).

Like everyone else said maybe powered armor/exoskeleton for individuals but not mechs in combat.

Giant weapons platform is just a giant target.

>>34732416
Not the guy you responded to but this is all power armor stuff desu. You're assuming all this human level flexibility and versatility that stops applying when you run up against the physics of the square cube law.

>>34732596
>man trapping
What, like netting/tripwire? Which it could easily get rid of if it's hands are equipped with something like a bolt cutter?
>massive vertical cross section
You're implying a mech would tank shit at will instead of taking cover behind a building, which is its main advantage in an urban environment. Don't pretend an MBT isn't a massive moving target either.
Point to a single argument in my posts that sounds like anime. All of the points I listed are valid reasons why it's suicide to roll a tank into an occupied city.
Just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it can't be, or has no reason to be done. The only thing we're lacking is the technology, which is developing just now to allow us proper prototypes.
Remember that engineering exists to make ideas come true.

>>34732620
Actually we do have proper materials and steels to make a light, yet resistant chassis. The advent of Livedrives also provide better torque and finnesse than the usual gear servos while being lighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0ZadoooI0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMsYXJfxvkc

>>34732641
Another video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K4xtUiHz7Y

>>34732349
>Mechs could outdo tanks in urban environments by a wide margin
Yeah, at falling through floors the second they walk into a normal home. In the unlikely case that a mech with all the features you describe below isn't as mobility restricted as any tank already.
>>34732416
>A mech could easily improvise in providing cover to its supporting infantry, such as pushing or leveraging a car from the ground and using it as a makeshift shield against incoming smallarms fire.
Thanks/APCs already provide cover themselves in many cases. And have protected guns on them.
>A mech could easily step over any sort of obstacle that would otherwise stop a tank without needing any support, such as Czech hedgehogs and the like.
questionable

>>34732641
One, that first video is clearly CGI. Two, no matter what materials and motors you use, the scale factor for a robust, versatile machine will favor smaller, not larger. Say a robot like in your first video existed, imagine it tipped over and needed to catch itself like a human would. All the powerful motors and lightweight construction in the world wouldn't prevent its arm from just shattering, assuming it were even quick enough to react. Imagine you gave it a weapon that scales with itself in the same way a human does: it would be completely incapable of controlling the damn thing and probably shake apart.

Tanks get away with being huge BECAUSE they're limited, and don't have to worry about supporting their weight in awkward ways like we do.

File: bastard_1_640.jpg (91KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x480px

>>34732129
my nigga.

>>34726554
An outright gundam or even mobile suit style mecha is very unlikely. Your pic related is very likely, though at the rate of automation we are headed toward, it might just be a more exotic killing machine resembling a wheeled snake, or spider by the time we finally hit mech suit primetime

>>34732641

Man trapping as in;

>Building shallow holes for the mech to fall down
>Collapsing things around the legs of the mech
>Larger toe clipper bombs
>Swing traps

Trip wires would be the end of mechs. So long as you can get it to fall over, it's not just going to snip it's self free. It's going to be on it's face or tangled up in some building as the baddies shoot RPG's at it.

It's an anime fantasy your caught up in, let it go.

>>34732687
>Tanks/ already provide cover themselves in many cases.
Not in enclosed areas such as cities and towns. The roles are reversed in those situations.
Also, APCs get destroyed on their own without actual fighting vehicles escorting them.
>Questionable
If that's not enough, a mech could just push it out of the way without having to slowly roll over it.

>>34732689
>One, that first video is clearly CGI
Talk about denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eRpNEpfQg
>imagine it tipped over and needed to catch itself like a human would
Given the one in the video is a prototype and a fully developed one would obviously be suited to either have its own gyroscopic balancing system or be able to sustain a fall, I imagine it would suffer no more than a tank getting stuck in a ditch too deep. How quickly can a tank react if it falls into a hole and gets the turret damaged?
You're assuming a mech would be spearheading in an operation and not being surrounded by/backing up infantry as it advances. Any sort of trap would be easily found and dealt with.
>it would be completely incapable of controlling the damn thing and probably shake apart.
Autocannons do have their own recoil dampening systems, you know.
>Tanks get away with being huge BECAUSE they're limited, and don't have to worry about supporting their weight in awkward ways like we do.
And yet they're being outclassed by every other form of combat, even infantry. Their only use nowadays is to break enemy lines while soaking up AT weaponry and maybe holding open territory.

>>34732740
>>34732740
>Building shallow holes for the mech to fall down
Shallow holes which can be stepped over? You know, like anyone with legs would do? Do you usually fall on your face when you walk over a hole?
>Collapsing things around the legs of the mech
>Tripwires
Walk over or push them out of the way, that's assuming a mech would be by itself and not being covered by infantry on the lookout for traps, which is a stupid scenario.
>Larger toe clipper bombs
What?
>let it go.
I remember when people used to say planes would never work either too, Anon.

>>34732770

Get your eyes checked

>>34732810
Yeah of course they'd lie about it and make the news countless times, even getting clients who're looking to buy it.
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=method+2+mech&oq=method+2+mech&aqs=chrome..69i57.3344j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You can pretend it's not real all you want, but it exists.

>>34732776

Toe clippers, you know, little mines designed to blow a soldiers foot or toes off. Like most man traps they are hard to see you know? Concealed. Here's one for you then, a 30ft mech, taller then most mud huts has just being spotted by a ATGM team a few Km's away...

What does it do now?

>>34732770
>Talk about denial.
But he >>34732689
is right, you know?
That Method2-thing is nothing but Special FX and CGI, made buy a guy who specializes in animating futuristic robots for movies and vydia.

>>34732740
>Trip wires would be the end of mechs.

Or they just stick wire cutters on them, like they did with tanks all the way back in WW1.

>>34726554
Mostly urban and orbital combat near space stations.

>>34732826
>Mines
Oh no, mines. Weaponry specifically designed to disable or destroy ground based vehicles of any kind, which effectiveness is highest when concealed, as it's always been its purpose. Whatever shall I do.
I guess I'll call EOD, like everyone else? Do you get rid of mines by rolling a tank over it?

>>34732827
>That Method2-thing is nothing but Special FX and CGI
Nice lack of proof.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a24512/korean-robot-sci-fi/

>there are people who still think mechs would be ever viable in warfare
>but muh future
No they won't. The only a thing a walking mech with arms would ever be good for is unloading supplies and even then its better to have it on treads or wheels

>>34727904
Strip out the heavier cartridges, just make it AP 7.62(x51 or x54R), it would be less than ideal to have to carry a meaningful load of HMG ammo. That said, that makes them a lot less capable. If it were me, I would load a four man team with two 60mm mortars. Having that mobile indirect-fire-support would be very useful, and a powered suit can still take cover in a building, and carry a standard rifle for personal protection.

Considering how many artillery duels we saw in Crimea, mobile mortar teams not forced to wait around for counter-battery fire would be a very powerful tool. Give the exo-skeleton a way to aim itself to an extent and you're golden.

>>34732770
>How quickly can a tank react if it falls into a hole and gets the turret damaged?
Not even close to equivalent situations because it has a weight center of gravity planted low and centered and travels inches off the ground. A tank falling into a hole is a problem between the ears. The other is a gangly mess of twiggy structures with its center of mass sitting high over two stilts. Humans are supposed to take falls, and slips, and trips, because these things come naturally out of our locomotive style. As you scale up a human-shaped structure, its ability to sustain these things inherently diminishes exponentially. All you're saying is "well it could be designed to sustain that" without really knowing what accomplishing that means. You might as well say "well, magic exists."

>You're assuming a mech would be spearheading in an operation and not being surrounded by/backing up infantry as it advances. Any sort of trap would be easily found and dealt with.
You're talking about it clambering over and navigating tough terrain. Humans locomotion is risky enough going in a straight line (see: any bipedal robot in existence, and also humans themselves), this machine would absolutely fall over itself under normal operation.

>Autocannons do have their own recoil dampening systems, you know.
Autocannons are also designed for vehicles that have a much greater relative allowance for weight and bulk. Good luck trying to cheat the square cube law when you also have to not only lug around but quickly traverse something that belongs on a turret, not weak, fancy sticks.

>And yet they're being outclassed by every other form of combat, even infantry.
This proposal doesn't really improve a single pitfall of tanks when you consider it rationally.

>>34732866

Tank goes over mine it throws a track. Mech looses a leg and topples over...

You only call EOD out if you've found a mine. If you don't.... Tanks have a much higher probability of survival over mechs. Because mechs are a compensation fantasy.

Anon you fell for a SFX's companies promo footage and now your all mad. Anon you've gotten internet cranky it's time to log off.

the future is about being smaller and more stealthy complimented by smarter unmanned weaponry.

>>34732770

>that video

Kek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmy-lwcsu78

>>34726554

Thanks for this thread op, so original. /k/ literally has never had a thread about mechs before nor do we have a thread about mechs like every day.

>>34732874
>"well it could be designed to sustain that" without really knowing what accomplishing that means.
Yes. You know the advancement of technology hasn't stagnated yet, right?
>might as well say "well, magic exists."
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If you showed a drone to people in the 1940's, they'd flip the fuck out. Your argument is that just because it hasn't been done yet, it means it can't be done, which is luddite talk.
>Humans locomotion is risky enough going in a straight line
You talk as if falling over was a fault exclusive to us. If it were true, we wouldn't have evolved into bipedal creatures, and any that walked on two legs would easily fall over while running away from pretadors and die.
>Autocannons are also designed for vehicles that have a much greater relative allowance for weight and bulk. Good luck trying to cheat the square cube law when you also have to not only lug around but quickly traverse something that belongs on a turret, not weak, fancy sticks.
We sure had a lot of luck translating planes into drones, guided missiles into crew-carriable ATGMs, and tank destroyers into tank destroyer AFVs. What's the problem here?

>>34732882
Anon, please. Even mudhut IEDs can annihilate a tank with the right amount of materials. Force always beats armor.

>>34727558
They already have stairbclimbing treaded bots that are 1000% more stable than two feet, given that they get much more surface area over 3-6 steps at a time.

>>34732882
A mech can still lift itself with its arms and crawl if it loses a leg you know, possibly even shoot while prone.

>>34727858
Zero G anime mechs make sense if they have to maneuver around in an obstacle field without thrusters.

What about fighting in "megacities"?

>>34732740
>Building shallow holes for the mech to fall down
Mech falls in, mech climbs out
>Collapsing things around the legs of the mech

Assuming the arms are free the mech can dig it's way out. Otherwise a tank could just as easily be buried under enough debris.

>Larger toe clipper bombs

Replace toe with tread.

>Swing Traps

Trip wires can be stepped over and you need an extra strong tripwire to hold back enough tension to hurt a mech. Using shaped charges makes it lethal to tanks instead.

See, the problem with this argument is that it can be equally applied to tanks. Moreover, it can be applied more to tanks because most tanks have poor belly armor. Anti-tank landmines are an old enemy of tanks.

A mech, on the other hand, has the pilot further off the ground. Explosive force weakens according to inverse square law so the pilot is expodentialy safer in a mech than in a tank.

>>34732986
first of all, scenarios like that would never happen and secondly regular armoured vehicles would still be better

>>34732976
Hands help if you've got mecha sized handholds.

>>34732954
It only works on the edges of those steps, mind, and needs a certain weight distribution to work right.

>>34732953
>Mechs don't need a rational path to success, I can just appeal to the progress of technology and physics will stop mattering at some point
WEW LAD. WEW. I'm the furthest thing from a luddite, I just don't resort to lazy reasoning to support my beliefs. If something doesn't have a clear build from A to B, some sort of rational progress curve to draw on, then making conclusions is erroneous and impossible.

>You talk as if falling over was a fault exclusive to us.
We are among the least stable form of locomotion you're going to find. Four legs are FAR more stable, which is why progress in the robotics of four legs is so much more advanced than that of two (seriously, bigdog was doing stuff years ago that the most advanced bipedal robots will not be doing for years, if that). And that's just at a nice, physically possible human scale.

I cannot stress enough that the bigger you get, the less you want to fall, or experience weight instability of any kind. Which sucks for mechs, because humans are never stable at any point in their gait.

>If it were true, we wouldn't have evolved into bipedal creatures
See the nice thing is we aren't two stories tall, so we get to enjoy the actual advantages of having two hands free while not becoming dead or crippled every time we fall over.

>We sure had a lot of luck translating planes into drones, guided missiles into crew-carriable ATGMs, and tank destroyers into tank destroyer AFVs. What's the problem here?
Now you're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. None of this has anything to do with the fact that a giant mech cannot support weaponry to scale with its size.

>>34732953
>>34733000

You guys are on another level of delusion. Which series have you both just finished watching?

>>34732416
tank
>killed by $1000000 mk48 or $100000 atgm
mech
>killed by $200 rpg or 0$ big rock

>>34727884
F O R T H E G R E A T E R G O O D

>>34733054
>No argument
K

>>34733054
Either explain or be branded a troll.

File: Metal_Gear_Solid_TPP_Pitch_Dark_Mission_15_3.jpg (315KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1920x1080px

>>34726554
not autistic huge anime mechas but maybe something small like a walker gear could work

>walking armor
>fast as fuck
>can mount missiles/minigun/flamethrower
>not a giant target

seems pretty viable 2bqh

>>34733100
>>34733138

I'm asking which mech based anime you have both just finished watching. I'm the troll? Me and the other anon are patiently trying to break it down to you, from an engineering stand point mechs are just why? And from a military stand point it's the same thing.Why? The arguments you bring to the table are based purely on a fantasy you'd expect to see in an anime.

You both have difficulty grasping reality.

>>34733181
>from an engineering stand point mechs are just why?

We've answered just about every argument you've had and you've failed to respond.

>And from a military stand point it's the same thing.Why?

Urban and orbital combat. Keep up man.

>I'm asking which mech based anime you have both just finished watching. I'm the troll?
How is this question relevant?

>>34733181
You have't really refuted any of them.

File: P-5000.jpg (33KB, 730x363px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 730x363px

>>34726554
I can definitely see them used for lugging stuff about in a logistics setting, and for shit like rearming warplanes. They would be great labor saving devices, and the military is definitely interested in them for that, as well as improving the load carrying ability of troops. But as a weapons platform, I remain doubtful: I unironically think the suits for avatar are the closest to the actual design evolution process that might result in armed mechs appearing on the battlefield: Taking a load carrying exoskeleton used for logistics purposes and adapting it to carry weaponry. Even then I am fairly doubtful they would have a place on the battlefield: In my mind they represent a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist.

>>34733200
>>34733204
Not that guy but >>34733039 here, you've yet to supply a single viable argument in any fashion, and now you're just crying about being insulted rather than continue. If you're not trolling, then it's time to stop, because you have nothing left.

>>34733200
>We've answered just about every argument you've had and you've failed to respond.

We have, we have tried to argue with the fantastical amounts of bullshit you have spewed. You have just ingored the facts and moved goal posts, then that other chuckle fuck joined in.

>Urban and orbital combat. Keep up man.

Done. Not arguing with a retard that can only move goal posts. Well done.

>>34733200
the refutation:
mechs
>high center of gravity
>much harder to armor
>harder to conceal behind cover
>can maybe carry a 20mm
>don't do anything tanks, apcs, or infantry don't do already
tanks:
>low center of gravity
>thick armor
>low height makes them easy to conceal behind cover
>can carry guns big enough to kill other tanks
you're retarded

File: landscape-1482874665-gettyimages-630567928.jpg (93KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 980x490px

>>34732866
>Nice lack of proof.
>posts article that has only that same YouTube viral video as source and claims that Vitaly Bulgarov worked with Boston Dynamics, which is simply a lie.
Vitaly Bulgarov never came near Boston Dynamics, they never heard of that guy.

That Method2 Robot is nothing that has not been around since the 1970s.
It is just some industrial servos slapped to some shiny metal with lots of CGI and image composing.

>>34728399
big dog has seen some use as far as i know. i have no idea what's going on with its weaponized counterpart, hellhound, though.

>>34729715
Yea now they have one that's even creepier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c

>>34733039
>WEW LAD. WEW. I'm the furthest thing from a luddite
No you airen't. You only reasoning is that walkers don't have a chance in military application even though you have no actual history of their combat effectiveness and robotics are still growing.
>Four legs are FAR more stable
I never denied the possibility of four legged mechs either. You're alsocompletely disregarding the existence of stabilizing systems.
>Now you're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. None of this has anything to do with the fact that a giant mech cannot support weaponry to scale with its size.
Explain how my examples of weaponry being refitted for smaller platforms isn't valid when it's precisely on point.

>>34733237
why not just make a smaller mech?

>>34733240
Still not seeing any proof.

>>34733237
>high center of gravity

Actually works in the mechs favor when moving around obstacles.

>much harder to armor

Doesn't need to out armor the opponent, it's designed to out maneuver the enemy.

>>harder to conceal behind cover

Legs can crouch. As a result a mech can find hull down positions more easily.

>can maybe carry a 20mm

And recoilless rifles scaled to 120mm

And missiles.

And doesn't the Apache carry a 30mm chain gun?

>don't do anything tanks, apcs, or infantry don't do already

Can an APC climb? Can a tank do combat engineering? Can infantry charge through barbed wire and MG fire?

No? Point refuted.

>low center of gravity
Which actually hurts it if the tank gets flipped over.

>thick armor
Except for the underside. Explosive force from below gets trapped between the treads and magnified. As a result it's very difficult to protect tanks from mines and IEDs

>low height makes them easy to conceal behind cover

If the cover is too high it also can't fire back. Tanks can only use a position for hull down under specific circumstances.

>can carry guns big enough to kill other tanks

Sometimes useful. Most tanks seem to be knocked out by air power these days so a BFG really isn't that big of an advantage.

>>34733240
Do you have any reason to believe that the METHOD2 was fake other than "Mechs are all fake"?

>>34733276
why

>>34726581
>We have jets that outperform tanks in every way. So let's use jets instead of tanks in literally every situation ever.
>We have boats that outperform tanks in every way. So let's use boats instead of tanks in literally every situation ever.
This is what you sound like -- hollow-headed.

Tires and tracks are a DISADVANTAGE to tanks, you know? They're the thing that get tanks stuck.

>>34733274
>No you airen't. You only reasoning is that walkers don't have a chance in military application even though you have no actual history of their combat effectiveness and robotics are still growing.
No, my reasoning is that your proposal lies outside the scale regime where bipedal locomotion enjoys a viable physical niche. Yours is "magic will fix it." That's not an argument.


>You're alsocompletely disregarding the existence of stabilizing systems.

You're just saying a word. You don't know what it entails at all. From your standpoint, saying "stabilizing system! self balancing!" is the same as saying "magic!" Humans have "stabilizing systems" more advanced than anything we can devise but we fall all the time. It's an inherent part of the way we're built and it's a tradeoff for flexibility and versatility. When you take away the ability to robustly react to falls and continue undeterred, you've reached the end of the viable case for human locomotion.

>I never denied the possibility of four legged mechs either.
You also never once brought it up. I did as a counterpoint to show the weaknesses of bipedal locomotion. Four+ legged mechs are a again a completely different physical regime so if you want to talk about those, why are you defending bipedals?

>Explain how my examples of weaponry being refitted for smaller platforms isn't valid when it's precisely on point.
Except the entire point from the beginning that you had wasn't that of a smaller platform. It was an equivalent platform. What I'm telling you is that an equivalent platform in the form of a bipedal mech would be severely hampered in capability compared to a vehicle.

>>34733237
>>harder to conceal behind cover
What the fuck? What's easier to conceal behind cover: Something that can change its profile at will, either standing up, sitting, or lying down -- or a giant fucking box with a fixed-length cannon?

Fucking hell you anti-mech assholes are retarded. Your brains don't work correctly.

>>34733344
>What I'm telling you is that an equivalent platform in the form of a bipedal mech would be severely hampered in capability compared to a vehicle.
Then why don't we field all our soldiers in wheelchairs, if wheels and treads are so superior to bipedal motion?

File: Standing_Alaskan_Coastal_Brown_bear.jpg (793KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1024x683px

>>34733344
>Four+ legged mechs are a again a completely different physical regime so if you want to talk about those, why are you defending bipedals?
You're really not as smart as you think you are.

>>34733361
Inherent in that statement was "equivalent to vehicle scale" (as the initial comparison was to tanks). If after all this time you still don't understand that I'm saying that different forms of locomotion have different scales where they're stronger/more viable, then I don't know what to tell you. You're too illiterate and simple for this conversation.

>>34733381
Yes anon. Bears stand up. They even walk! They're also not the size of tanks. Not sure what you're trying to prove, but I'm sure you think it's really clever.

>>34733383
>b-b-but equivalent to scale!!!!
No. Shit. Something that can alter its profile has an easier time finding cover than something that can't, even if the two are the exact same size, you idiot

>>34733412
Kill yourself you drooling fucking retard.

File: 1499413490621.jpg (28KB, 600x549px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x549px

>>34726554

>These threads
>Every time

>>34733400
Are you literally too stupid to understand the argument? What's keeping a biped mech from using quadraped locomotion at any given time, besides your limited brainpower?

>>34733419
>you drooling retard
I'm not the one implying that an articulate figure would have a harder time finding cover than a big-ass box that can only move in straight lines.

>>34733448
>tanks only move in straight lines
wew, you're pretty retarded

>>34733323
>Tires and tracks are a DISADVANTAGE to tanks, you know? They're the thing that get tanks stuck.
Yeah, and you know those skinny things things that mechs would use, called legs? With all that weight above them?
Yeah, those would get buried waist high even more easily than tires or tracks because they'd have a lot of ft/lbs per square inch compared to something with more surface area. They'd start sinking, then just make it worse trying to escape.

>>34726554
Oh goooooddddd, fucking idiots.

Tanks are better at their/mechas jobs than large mecha because of physics, and the only justifier for smaller lighter mecha would be very niche terrain that won't be fought over in future wars, like navigating the everglades, or humping fire support across the alps.

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

why are mechfags so autistic that even after people put forward legitimate arguments and reasons that mechs just simply wouldn't be suited for modern warfare they make stupid claims/arguments, pull facts out of their ass and claim anyone who disagrees with them to be wrong

>>34733458

Just walk away anon. You can't argue with retards, come, have a joint with me.

Then we will come back and play them at their own game.

>>34733333
checked, SIGINT has a point

>>34733428
You still haven't scratched the part where making a biped mech makes sense in the first place. Instead of making compromises, how about stick with a quadruped to begin with? At least that I could see a respectable use case for.

>>34733428
how will it shoot on the move if its arms are stuck pulling mobility duty?
will it have some kinda backpack gun that can't be used in biped mode?

>>34733448
>I'm not the one implying that an articulate figure would have a harder time finding cover than a big-ass box that can only move in straight lines.
None of you have any reason for believing that an "articulate figure" the size of a tank is even possible. Now you're just going straight to assuming it exists and is perfect, so why wouldn't it be better? Sure. Also I assume gandalf exists and he magics everybody.

File: 3552603-wallpaper-2921518.jpg (321KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1920x1080px

Only for bizzarely specific applications.

File: door.png (863KB, 727x633px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 727x633px

>>34733318
>Do you have any reason to believe that the METHOD2 was fake other than "Mechs are all fake"?

It is not "fake" as in non-existend.
Method 2 is just piece of animatronic. You can clearly tell that this thing cannot stabilze itself.
For example the leg movments are just canned and preprogrammed.
Some of the videos have been doctored with. Look at the door in the background at min 0:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0ZadoooI0

And it is quite telling that the armmovement, which seems indeed to be controlled by the operator, is never demonstrated while moving the legs.
The reason is that moving the arms shifts the center of gravity and introduces oscillation that could easily tip the whole thing over, since it cannot dynamically self stabilize like the Designs of Boston Dynamics do.

>>34733506
Yes, missile racks.

>>34733621
terrible ammo capacity compared to guns, useless in close quarters urban combat scenarios, issue of backblast in regards to working closely with allied soldiers, issue of collateral damage.
try again, please.

Make a mod for this in Arma 3, give it realistic armor values etc and see how useful it is. There's your answer.

>>34733607
still a good proof of concept. You can throw together the lower body stabilization by implimenting the system for the arms for the legs. Granted, this means the pilot is now suspended but the system becomes incredibly intuitive.

>>34733475
why are tankags so autistic that even after people put forward legitimate arguments and reasons that favor the feasibility of mechs in modern warfare they make stupid claims/arguments, pull facts out of their ass and claim anyone who disagrees with them to be wrong

File: aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA4OC80OTAvb3JpZ2luYWwvRFNDXzQ4NjYuanBn.jpg (75KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 660x440px

>>34733292
>>34732770

Dude, you are the one posting shit sources.

>Though Bulgarov wrote on his Instagram page that the ground shakes as the giant robot walks, the camera and nearby objects appear steady. The lab itself is also remarkably sleek and futuristic compared to academic labs in the United States and even industry labs like those of Boston Dynamics.

>"Robots are messy business," said Christian Hubicki, a postdoctoral robotics researcher at Georgia Tech who worked on the DURUS robot. "They get torn apart and put back together over and over, and transmission grease gets all over the place. Even the nice white floor is beautifully unscuffed [in these videos]. Never once during likely hundreds of hours of debugging the giant robot did it kick in a way that scratched it up?"

https://www.livescience.com/57296-giant-humanoid-robot-video-hoax.html

>>34733673
>still a good proof of concept.
for a disneyland ride, maybe

>>34733665
Irrelevant. Missile ranks would primarily be used for tanks or aircraft. If you were engaging lighter vehicles you could stand up.

That being said, there's no reason you can't support the mech on two legs and one arm.

>>34733607
>Mech will tip over lol
Ever heard of ball joints?

>>34733673
> You can throw together the lower body stabilization by implimenting the system for the arms for the legs.
Yeah, that's why we've had working bipedal robots since the 70s (which is how long we've had the system that controls the arms). Hm, wait a sec.

Go look up darpa challenge videos. The STATE OF THE ART for bipedal robotics is moving at sub-1mph and falling over because you forgot to not fall over.

>>34733677
Probably cleaned everything right before filming.

>>34733680
>for a disneyland ride, maybe
Exactly. Things like that korean bot could be seen in theme parks since the 1980.

>>34733707
No, but we do have powered exoskeletons for some time now. Primary limitation was battery life.

>>34733697
>Tanks and aircraft have missile racks, so mechs can't
Says fucking who? You? Give me a break.

>>34732416
>All of this assuming said mech is properly design to fit in a urban environment.
While assuming a tank that is not designed to fit an urban environment
Bravo.

>>34733697
>Hol up! Hol up! I gotta stand up!
>VVVRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>30 seconds later
>Pew pew!
>Oh right, my weaponry is grossly outmoded by virtue of relying on comparatively flimsy mount (or no mount at all), poor bulk and weight allowance, and poor support by my fucked up CoG.

>>34733710
Dude, have you ever seen a workshop?
This is how it should look if people were actually working there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c

>>34733699
Have you ever tried reading comprehension?

>>34733724
Try putting an MBT with a 120mm main gun in a city. See how much angle of freedom it has on anything that isn't an avenue.
Also, good luck shooting over buildings.

>>34733736
>What is taking your robot to a proper presentation/testing space outside of the workshop

>>34733721
>Dude, have you ever seen a workshop?
Let me clarify, the shoulder mounted missile launchers for a mech would be used against tanks and aircraft.

Mechs would preferably engage from a prepared hull down position using peakaboo tactics. Pop up, take a shot, duck back down. The arms would also make reloading the missile racks easier.

>>34733767
Oh ok, that makes sense.

>>34733719
I would hope it's fairly obvious, but: powered exoskeletons support the human frame. They don't move on their own unsupported. This makes them obviously much simpler, as our inherent and superior stabilizing characteristics define the characteristics of the system. Works great for something built around a human that is capable of working at a 1:1 scale with that human and giving them good environmental feedback. Put that human in a cockpit or outside the mech and things break down very quickly, not to mention the fact that giant mechs are still physically retarded.

>>34733743
What part of
>While assuming a tank that is not designed to fit an urban environment
is hard for you to understand?

>>34733803
If it doesn't have an MBT's main gun, then it's not a tank. It's either an APC or an AFV.

>>34733816
Cool story bro. Kinda desperate aren't you? The gun isn't even the problem here.

>>34733780
>They don't move on their own unsupporte

They basically do. In order to support the human body the exoskeleton it'self needs to be self supporting. The alternative is that the exoskeleton is putting the strain on the user and that defeats the purpose of an exoskeleton.

Exoskeletons might actually be viable in about 10-20 years the battery and servo tech is advancing rapidly, and that's the key thing limiting them-power supply and efficiency. They're working on next-gen rechargeable glass batteries that could have something like 10 times the energy density of a standard lithium ion battery, and new types of actuators that produce less heat and work more effidiently.

These two directions feed off of each other, as you gain both battery energy density and greater effideincy, your operating time increases by an order of magnitude. And further as this tech getsm ore developed technologies like carbon fibre, graphene, and nanotube-mesh armor will let you massively reduce the weight of the suit and its armor. Steel is awesome, but it's so fucking heavy, you're better off with panels of aramid/kevlar/nanotube mesh for armor you can quickly swap out as they get damaged, possibly reinforced in certain key areas with some steel.

An ideal exoskeleton would make a soldier at least 10 times more resistant to small arms fire, would increase running speed by 25-40 percent, be able to be used strenuously for a minimum of 6 hours and at more typical moderate levels for 10 or more, have battery swaps be doable with help in less than 3 minutes and alone in 6, and have batteries that could fully charge using specialized charging equipment in under an hour.

>>34733748
Sure. A guy of which no one in the field of robotcs ever heard off, suddenly has enough money to build MULTIPLE buildings, one just reserved for presentation.
He also magically acuired a team of koreans, despite being a no name forreigner.
And that this guy has a background as a CGI animator for scifi movies is also not suspicious at all.

That was sarcasm.

>>34733847
>They basically do. In order to support the human body the exoskeleton it'self needs to be self supporting.
Not in the same way that in independent structure like a mech or a robot has to self support. An exoskeleton relies on sensors around the human body to predict what the human is trying to do and support those movements. On their own they would not look very capable at all compared to a human.

>The alternative is that the exoskeleton is putting the strain on the user and that defeats the purpose of an exoskeleton.
No, quite the opposite. If an exoskeleton were not working with you 1:1 you would end up fighting it and fatiguing yourself.

>>34733851
We could plausibly field powered exoskeletons now but we'd be restricted to mechanized infantry doctrine. You'd NEED the APC to recharge the suits.

>>34733904
>Not in the same way that in independent structure like a mech or a robot has to self support. An exoskeleton relies on sensors around the human body to predict what the human is trying to do and support those movements. On their own they would not look very capable at all compared to a human.

And it's only this system that's required for a mech's control scheme.

>No, quite the opposite. If an exoskeleton were not working with you 1:1 you would end up fighting it and fatiguing yourself.

We seem to be arguing unrelated concepts. I was talking about the structure of the exoskeleton rather than it's control scheme. Theoretically, you could plug an exoskeleton into a computer and work it by remote without the user inside.

>>34733913
Or have the APC filled with extra batteries and charging slots for you to stick the used up ones in to charge up over time.

Now this is VERY speculative and a loooooooooooong way away if it ever happens, but there is work ongoing for aneutronic nuclear fusion, if that tech is ever miniaturized enough to fit in a large APC (and that is a big if,might be utterly impossible,might take a century) then you can start to get crazy and think about sticking a gigantic wireless charging antennae on the APC and have your battery get fully recharged just from being close to the apc, so you;d be at full capacity until you needed to break off and go fuck shit off.

>>34733935
>Theoretically, you could plug an exoskeleton into a computer and work it by remote without the user inside.
What I'm telling you is that if you did do that the results would not be what you would expect to see if you saw it supporting a human. With a modern exoskeleton a human can do all or most of the same movements they usually could, including running and jumping etc. Without a human, the exoskeleton cannot perform any of these things as all it's doing during this is supporting what the human wants it to do.

>And it's only this system that's required for a mech's control scheme.
As people keep pointing out to you, we've had 1:1 control capability (like the robot in those videos) for a very long time. Yet no, we still do not have the capability to implement good independent walking robots. You don't understand the problem, and it doesn't seem that you are smart enough to.

>>34733965
>Without a human, the exoskeleton cannot perform any of these things as all it's doing during this is supporting what the human wants it to do.

I can not make heads or tails of this sentence.

> Yet no, we still do not have the capability to implement good independent walking robots.

You don't have to. Just give the pilot time to get used to it and they'll compensate instinctively

>>34733965
>You don't understand the problem, and it doesn't seem that you are smart enough to.

He doesn't understand reality at all. He start's every single one of these threads and absolutely refuses to listen to reason. He just want's a circle jerk session with other mechfags

>>34734000
>everyone that disagrees with me is delusional
>everyone on my side of the argument's being 100% objective and reasonable

>>34733959
I recommend microturbines. Turbines scale well and have very high efficiencies for combustion engines. If you could shrink one down to the size of a beer can you could plausibly power the suit on that and capacitors.

>>34733992
>I can not make heads or tails of this sentence.
I don't know what to tell you 'cause I've told you the same thing in a few different ways already. All the exoskeleton is trying to do is support what the human inside is doing. It does not have capability of the fine grained control and minute corrections that humans use to locomote effectively.

Remotely operated robotics cannot effectively emulate what a piloted exoskeleton can do. I don't know why you believe it can. The technology in those robot videos you love so much is decades old. Why do you think it hasn't been applied to walking? It just doesn't work. You can go through the motions well enough for movie magic, but not effective locomotion. Even with charlatan tricks they barely make the thing look like it can lumber along at all, and even that is a complete lie.

>>34734095
While you have a point, the tech for walking robots is developing rapidly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

I think the problem with these two groups and viewpoints is that one group is looking at the issue from a conceptual point of view, and the other is approaching it from a practical point of view.

I mean, I think we can all recognize that conceptually, a fighting vehicle that can climb, manipulate its frame to adapt to cover, etc, would be advantageous

However, practically speaking, creating something that is capable of doing all those tasks would sacrifice a number of important properties for said fighting vehicle, stability, protection, etc.

But conceptually, I get how those other things are appealing

>>34734110
Absolutely the tech is progressing. My only issue was with the idea that we can apply what amounts to ancient movie trickery to locomotion and it would somehow work. The fact is there isn't an easy solution. Just emulating the movements of a human really only works when you have a perfect 1:1 scale connection, otherwise what is a very picky and unstable system breaks down easily. Software robotics like this is the only way we're ever going to have independent walking machines and it's not a short road. Asimo is 17 years old now and this still has at least as much in common with the locomotion of Asimo as a human.

>>34734095
Well, obviously current technology isn't there yet, but it isn't far-fetched for exoskeletons to acquire the capability for autonomous movement when it does become available. As for whether it would be desirable, well, that's a different matter entirely, and will be due to which side on the spectrum of ethics and responsibilty the military owning the exoskeleton would fall into.

File: 1393837101897.jpg (136KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x450px

>>34726570
>>34728136
Obligatory.

>>34735032
This is one of those movies where I felt the writers did a piss poor job of making it where the good guys won. He's right on everything, the natives had millennia after millennia to get into space yet they didn't. They still have bows and arrows, still use tribal medicine for their cancers and illnesses, and don't care for anything else. Realistically, yes, they would just nuke them from orbit, mine the resources, then chalk it up as "We tried everything to peacefully negotiate and after war was declared on us we had to retaliate" and no one in the rest of the galaxy would blink an eye because no one cared, or even knew, that the Na'vi existed in the first place. One reason I love the movie so much is because it makes me wonder that if life is somewhere out there, will it be as militaristic as human? What if we are actually the ones who would do the invading and taking of resources?

>>34735032
Quaritch did nothing wrong.

>>34736142
yes he did, he didnt give the natives smallpox blankets and firewater

>>34736164
Because it was a James Cameron movie, a small, admittedly desperate part of me wished when the humans left, they left behind boxes with the WY logo on them, filled with special peace eggs.

>>34729698
Hey kid, what exactly do you know about armored vehicles, RPGs, or combat? I know a lot about all three. Sort yourself out.

>>34733965
>>34733935
Trying to work out what you two are arguing about.
This started with the Unsupported part.

It seems the one that said it meant it to mean "no artificially generated or fly by wire movement", and the other interpreted it as "not physically supported by the operators' muscles and bones". And then two separate interpretations seemingly merged into one argument.

Any full body powered exoskeleton is going to be loadbearing. Putting the load of the exoskeleton on the operator defeats the purpose. This means it needs to be fully actuated. This also means that separate from the operator, you could actuate the entire exoskeleton and it could absolutely physically replicate any action the operator could perform inside of it.

You could put it in demonstration mode, in controlled conditions and have it perform squats, jumps, standing, walking and other actions that were hardcoded into it previously. What it might not be able to do is adapt in real time to perform those actions, as required and dynamically, in an uncontrolled environment.

That sum up both sides arguments?

>>34736387
Fuck, that would have made the movie 10x better.

Or even better than that.
Have the eggs in time delayed release boxes shallow buried in random spots all over the place.

>>34741485
I'd love it if he had done that, then said without a hint of irony that it was a metaphor for smallpox blankets and how the more advanced people always win these sorts of things.
Then without skipping a beat, plugs Aliens 2: Electric Xenoblues.

>>34732596
No exposed critical systems while firing "blind" from around a corner by sticking a gun with mounted camera around the edge of cover.

Heavy industry in relation to field expedient construction, emergency support, and expedient heavy lifting. 30 feet tall is about the size of a crane with more mobility. It may not have the lifting capacity, but it would have more utility due to higher precision. Imagine building housing Ina third world humanitarian aid scenario. Throw a mech on a flat bed in a seated position, could haul it close to where it's needed and hike the rest of the way in. Imagine how useful it would be clearing debris after an earthquake. Heavy industrial use would be hauling, lifting, holding, and positioning things heavier than a few people could lift.

>>34741681
The key here would be getting the mech to follow the pilot's normal movements. If you can translate natural movement to robot movement the delay between decision to action is much shorter.

>mechfags using videos from a concept art artist working for a literal who company whom with the dream of making a IRL james cameron style mech with no prior robotic achivements or experience since they are literal whos that no one have heard of before.

Why not use videos from fucking boston dynamics to prove your point?

>>34733154
I'd consider something like that more viable as an autonomous pack mule to carry a fire team's gear around, for offensive capabilities I think something like the warhound from Ghost Recon would be more viable.

>>34733553
Why not just make big sentry guns?

>>34726554
I think they have a place as engineers and logistics. But even then it's hard to see advantages to being legged. I'm imagining something like that old air-force tank with long arms that was built to handle nuclear bomber reactors. But in a role that puts those hands to use. Clearing debris, helping assemble bases and fortifications. affecting repairs without the need of a big slow crane. But that's it. Unless they're much smaller then they might be useful in battle.

File: 1490042430055.png (1MB, 1529x674px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1529x674px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAIGLOlB0tw

Mech with a guided mortar > tank

>>34735032
>>34735989
And they were perfectly happy with their culture and completely fulfilled spiritually.
They never needed, or even wanted that shit.

>>34744247
What about 16-17 feet tall?

>Robber barons and the like ruin Earth's biosphere and decimate world resources to the point where looting an alien planet of its fantasy resource is necessary for survival
>humans somehow the good guys if they'd have genocided the natives to get it
>"W-w-well, those aliens clearly don't deserve to live if they haven't gotten into space yet to counter their squandering of pandora's resources"
Or maybe next time don't live like morons and instead maintain sustainable industry so you don't have to get unobtainium in the first place. The edgy "Quaritch was right" fags are nothing more than welfare leeches who waste their allowance then resort to crime for more when they don't have enough money to live. Live within your means so you don't have to kill the only other intelligent life in the galaxy next time, idiots.

>>34744686
but then how can I spew epic warhammer40k references?

>>34744629
That might work. Small enough to take cover, but big enough to carry big guns.

File: FFbYSSZ.jpg (485KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 2560x1440px

>>34733154
>not autistic huge anime mechas
>post metal gear game

>>34744613
They were lucky they met a race as benevolent as humans then. Most SciFi 'bad guys' would have destroyed them outright.

>>34744776
BENIS
E
N
I
S

>>34744776
All the fucking control problems that thing had and it was only solved by a boy with magical Psychic powers .

mechs are impractical and too costly.
A 5$ rpg some sand nigger bought at his local bizarre would turn every anime robot posted itt thread to a scrap heap.
Stop trying to rationalize and apply children cartoons to real life you permavirgins

File: buscemi kid.jpg (90KB, 480x615px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 480x615px

>>34745126
>>>>bizarre

>what is reactive armor, spaced armor, or countermeasures
did you just forget that a well made tank can take multiple RPG hits and be OK? Do you think that this technology would somehow be impossible to apply to mechs? I agree mechs are probably not a good idea, but come on
also:
>bizarre
strange, unusual, weird
>bazaar
middle eastern market

>>34727884
>not getting MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor

File: LZNHUtN.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1080px

probably only see use as a glorified forklift

>>34727884
Get the fuck out with your Tau Bullshit. Tau is for closet Trekkies, so set your phaser to fuck off.

>>34745430
Well the prototype for it was a big bulky exosuit powered by a nuclear reactor

>>34745514
>40k fan complaining about Star Trek
This is the most 14 year old thing I've read all day.

>>34738561
No you don't.

>>34726554
Large bi pedal or even just legged monstrosities wouldn't make much sense. Given current infantry loads, a break through in energy storage alone would guarantee some sort of mech suit.

Not so much for the armor, but the ability to bring greater firepower with less risk of injury.

>>34744717
I figure about 7 ft for the legs and hips, 7 ft for the upper torso, and 3-4 ft for the head/periscope/sensor suite.

>>34744717
Was everyone in this thread considering military mechs to be 30 stories tall or something?

>>34745282
The reason tanks can survive hits is that they have heavy armour, yes this would be problematic to put on mech legs.

File: gundam-models-zaku-wallpaper-3.jpg (813KB, 3024x2146px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 3024x2146px

>>34726554

bumping with superior gundam animu

>>34748823
A 7 foot tall torso is not enough cabin space to house a power plant, hydraulic controllers, gearing, electronics package, and enough armor to be worth while. You wouldn't have the power for the damn thing to move. If it were unmanned and severely under armored, like being reliably penned by .308 levels of "armor", you may get something useful for rear line logistical use.

>>34749346
I considered a realistic scale with suitable "future tech" to be the same volume and density as an m1 Abrams, that is a 30 foot tall by 8 foot wide by 7 foot deep mech that weighs roughly 80 tons. Assuming human level agility this gave it a walking speed of 15 miles per hour, a running speed of 30 miles per hour and a full tilt sprint somewhere in the ball park of 45 to MAYBE 50

>>34733276
That's called Power Armor, and it *does* make sense, given that it is built around the limitation that is the human form.

If we had magic real-time unlimited-bandwidth unjammable communications, you wouldn't see anything humanoid at all; just a collection of treaded, wheeled, and flying U*Vs. But, we don't, and therefore having real people around who can exercise independent judgement and action is valuable. So, building something around the human frame makes sense, and as part of that, you have to deal with things like bipedal limitations (offset by the human ability to do things like balance instinctively).

Scaling that up to a mecha... just doesn't make any sense.

>>34752060
I figured it was enough for a car it would be enough for a mech.

We can strap a backpack on if needed.

File: Pandora Incident Report.jpg (421KB, 1277x827px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1277x827px

>>34735032
>>34726570
Oh boy

Liked the movie. Just thought they were buttering that Noble Savage toast a bit too tick. Like, you actually need a knife for this! Who eat a slab of butter right out of the pack like this?

File: januari1995_02_1920.jpg (472KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1920x1080px

>>34732416
>tank
>building
>tank and urban
There's your problem.

Mech and such is probably better suited for industrial shit. Which DOES mean they would show up on battlefields, if only because rebels fucking LOVE Cats and Deers and everything you can put a bucket shovel on.
I can see low-signature platforms being more widely used but they wouldn't be the sort the things to be really that important. Legs are just a whole lot of trouble all around so it's niche shit.

>>34732446

How about upstairs to get a better firing position?

Let's take an MBT and add 2 backhoe style arms to the sides.
The backhoes can move rubble, tear into buildings and assist with mobility by crawling/dragging the tank out of trenches or up difficult slopes.
Add cameras and 20mm auto cannon mounts to shoot around buildings.

Killtankdozer

>>34726554
Look at how they were used properly in that movie; as forklifts.
>>34732349
>much higher ground pressure
enjoy sinking in sand and mud and breaking up concrete/asphault with every step
>less ability to carry ammunition
>slower by fucking far
you think a mech can run at 60+ miles per hour?
>inability to armor joints
>taller in profile
they would be walking RPG mobility kills

File: dem mechs (fucking suck).jpg (75KB, 1896x916px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1896x916px

>>34732429
>Further examples also include obvious hidden AT mine spots and craters too deep for a tank to roll over.
if a fucking tank can't cross the terrain why would you think a robot with legs would be any better?
>Not to mention the psychological impact on the enemy when they see a giant fucking robot marching towards them
and immediately taking an RPG to it's front glacis plate. unless you're talking ridiculously large with anti missile netting/ablative armor

>>34732776
>you'll simply step over the 15ft deep hole covered in plywood and dirt at the only logical point for a mech to walk.
>AT mines are out in the open like in my fucking vidya and not buried

>>34753355
Swedes can't build that! They won't be able to build anything when Abdo is in charge!

>>34753783
You do know that 6 feet would be more than enough to stop a tank, right? Like 3-4 feet is generally enough to immobilize a tank.

More than that, a mech could at least try to use it's arms to dig it'self out but a tank's only option is for the crew to get out and dig.

>>34753812
Wouldn't a 15 ft hole also make it impossible for APCs and tanks to cross? Wouldn't a mech be the only thing capable of dealing with such a pit?

>>34753821
>your mech has to put down/abandon it's main armament so it can try to crawl out of a ditch

>>34753840
in both cases you'd just have combat engineers fucking take care of it. the idea of your gundam long jumping a trench (into a bunch of AT mines on the other side) is fucking retarded.

holy shit are mechfags the same fags starting MUH MODERN BATTLESHIP threads

>>34753840
digging a trench across an entire roadway versus digging a scaled up punji trap a few feet wide to make a mech topple when it steps through the plywood with it's ridiculous ground pressure.

speaking of ground pressure
>cracking asphalt with every step
>sinking up to your robo crotch in sand or mud

>>34753861
>your mech has to put down/abandon it's main armament so it can try to crawl out of a ditch

If the mech is still in combat it can use the ditch for cover. Because legs.

>in both cases you'd just have combat engineers fucking take care of it. the idea of your gundam long jumping a trench (into a bunch of AT mines on the other side) is fucking retarded.

Actually, arms on a mech would make it easier for combat engineers. Let's say you've got a 10 foot deep river to cross. Too deep for a tank but a mech could just jump right in and drag a chain of pontoons across. Bam,send the tanks across.

>>34753882
Exactly how big is this mech supposed to be?

>>34753726
>sinking in sand and mud
Use other leg to step out of sand/mud.
>Breaking concrete with every step
You underestimate the tensile strength of concrete.
>you think a mech can run at 60+ miles per hour?
Why would it need to run that fast in a city? If anything, its maneuverability would be be better than a tank when turning corners for cover. Hell, it could outflank a tank around buildings.

File: 1488134839524.jpg (134KB, 800x901px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x901px

>>34753882
>>34753783
See >>34749346
You can build a mech that isn't as tall as a building you know.

>>34754558
By the way, the titan in that pic is roughly 18 feet tall. Being generous and considering it to be 20 feet tall, it's only about 6 meters in height, not absurdly 10+m like some people here are thinking.

>>34744686
>mah green tech
>that projection

I can see the potential for a small infantry support platform or some type of ambush unit akin to a terror drone from RA2. RPGs still remain a large factor unfortunately. I'm still holding out for terror drones though.

File: 1497356204992.png (164KB, 700x354px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 700x354px

>Muh RPGs can kill mechs
Put a TROPHY defense system on it. What now?

File: nam.jpg (4MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3200x1800px

>>34754558
mah nigga

>>34755813
lay an ied somewhere and wait for a patrol

File: 1473204413435.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34755961
Just like it happens with tanks? IEDs can level buildings you know.

>>34756018
how much explosive was that?

>>34756352
Around a bag of fertilizer or two.

>>34755961
>>34756018
Actually, since the cockpit of a mech is higher off the ground and the underside isn't flat an IED would be less effective against a mech than a tank. Yes, you'd loose a leg but the cockpit and engine block are less likely to breach.

>>34757080
They would when you fell the fuck over.

>>34756018
is it possible to calculate what the blasts kill radius was?

>>34757410
5 Point Seatbelts. Falling over is an annoyance at best.

>>34757080
The pilot would be safer from crude blast IEDs. THe thinner skin would make it more vulnerable to EFPs, however.

I could see multi-legged vehicles as a futuristic MRAP. But bipedal wouldn't work, because then you topple over every time, and from 20' high that will be life-threatening for the passengers.

>>34757442
The pilot is somewhere in the torso so you're looking at more of a 10-15 foot drop. Basically, falling from a second story. Unpleasant but survivable.

Anyhow, you'd want a bipedal form if you were mimicing pilot movements. This gives you a lot of leeway with balance. Sure, you'd still fall over but with a mech you can stand up or crawl.

File: space-marine-wallpapers-9.jpg (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

Mechs? No.

Power Armor? Sure. Assuming we manage to figure out a power source small and powerful enough. Currently our robots have barely enough strength to carry their own batteries, let alone the dozens of pounds of gear your average soldier has to carry.

>>34726554
>is it just a fantasy?
yes

>>34758598
We're damned close though. Infact, we could probably field powered exoskeletons today.

Trick is to recharge them with APCs.

>>34759151
>We're damned close though. Infact, we could probably field powered exoskeletons today.

>Trick is to recharge them with APCs.

How effective do you think they'd be, really? Let's logic this out. If it's a combat exoskeleton, you'd need to armor it, increasing weight and bulk and possibly decreasing speed. Your soldiers are now bigger targets. Their range and endurance is decreased since their exoskeletons need to be charged periodically. Your soldiers have limited field utility. You need to charge it on your APC, decreasing the number of soldiers an APC can carry.

Build a new APC? Ok, so there goes another huge chunk of money. Now you're able to fit a whole squad in one vehicle, but it's a bigger target. Better armor up the APC, but now it uses more fuel and possibly goes slower. Now your soldiers can't react as rapidly to new threats and need a solid supply line.

Powered Armor will be real someday, but it won't be soon.

>>34760337
>armor

Why not go the other direction and maximize mobility and strength. That way you still get the heavier armaments, combined with the agility to get them into the best possible position on any given battlefield. It's a fact that armor just can't seem to keep up with weapons, why would we assume that the advent of powered exoframes will change this?

>>34760413
Yeaaah...That's not how they do it in real life. They want to replace our 5.56 rifles with higher calibers because guys with machine guns can out range them. They put a cannon on the Bradley because they had already up armored it and thought that the APC needed to be a tankette. High speed, low drag is only really a thing for special forces.

>>34733851
http://www.riserobotics.com/
source related. actuators designed to mimic human force

File: 1471101336832.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

>Mechs can get blown up by RPGs
Just use buildings as cover. Stepping in and out of cover is way faster than having to roll back and forth in a tank when you spot an incoming RPG.
Also, good luck firing an RPG with a 20mm cannon pinning you down.

File: 1490400827212.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

Mech infantry support and suppression.

>>34760337
>If it's a combat exoskeleton, you'd need to armor it,

Actually, you don't. It makes more sense to keep standard armor setups and use the extra carrying capacity for heavy weapons. You could have two man mortar teams instead of three or four men and not needing to break things down means you can set up quicker and more effectively. Stay in cover but still carry more firepower than the enemy.

The only exception are variants for storming fortifications. For that you want M60E6s and lots of grenades for every member. Armor for the torso is up to level IV ceramic plates while the limbs have level III dyneema panels The idea is that you can throw suppressing fire from all directions while kicking in the doors of an occupied building. A very shoot first, recon by hand grenade approach.

>>34760547
Actually, they switched to giving one squad member a M14.

>>34760959
How fresh is your intel? They were talking just a month or so ago about upgunning our military.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/army-to-gunmakers-show-us-new-762mm-service-rifle.html

They're also developing the .264 USA round as a universal service round. Not sure we need it, but we're working on it just in case.

>>34761029
Sounds like that advanced infantry rifle program that produced the SCAR.

"Are mechs practical?"
Answer these five questions:
>1. How much does it cost to develop the capability?
>2. What unique capabilities does it give you?
>3. What does the analysis of alternatives turn up?
>4. How often does it break?
>5. What happens when it breaks?

File: Hunter.jpg (18KB, 256x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 256x300px

>>34726554
Something like Heavy Gear isn't TOO farfetched, though they'd certainly be specialist units.

>>34760708
>Just use buildings as cover. Stepping in and out of cover is way faster than having to roll back and forth in a tank when you spot an incoming RPG.

That's not representative of the tactical difficulty of armor in urban warfare. This is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8

>>34760708
>Stepping in and out of cover is way faster than having to roll back and forth in a tank when you spot an incoming RPG.

Imagine being this retarded.

>>34761029
>.264 USA
why why why can't we just use .300blacked

>>34761580
iraqi's in charge of armour tactics is definitely not an accurate representative of the tactical difficulty of armor in urban warfare. looking into the invasion of iraq or more recently the shitstorm with israel would be more accurate.

>>34760337
wouldn't that make them ideal for SWAT teams? You need to stay operational for a short period of time, tech support is nearby and you can get back to your car to recharge the suit anytime you want.

>>34763132
Yeah, probably. Needs funding to happen. Military is the most likely source of funding and they won't fund something that's not going to be to their benefit.

Woud a mech be practical in non-combat roles? Construction, loading and such?

>>34763166
Fuck yes it would. Best part about this is that you can use it tethered to a generator and still be mission capable. If you want the most practical path to exo-suits and mechs, heavy industry and search and rescue are your most likely candidates. If the tech for batteries and generators isn't there you can develop the rest of the system around tethered power. When the rest of the tech gets there you can start work on untethered models.

>>34726554
I suspect that mechs are actually really useful, but only in the context of commercial frontier utility.
Imagine a machine more versatile than a bobcat (which are already incredibly versatile). You only need a handful of these and a bunch of accessories. You're a commercial op so you don't have access to all the latest newfangled milshit, but you do need protection from ``claim jumpers'' aka chink scum.
It just so happens that you also bought heavy weaponry that can be operated from a mech.

Basically, the only possible situation I would see mechs reliably being used in combat is to protect frontier settlements from jackasses.

>>34729492
Hmm, why they still produce bradleys then....

File: wolverine3.jpg (33KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x400px

> Two Gatling Guns
> Front protected to HMG rounds
> NBC protection
> Single Man Operation

Wolverines, its the solution.

Anything smaller is worthless, anything bigger is to bigger target.

Also, imagine mounting a mini MRLS system or flamethrowers, BAM you have a master piece.

>>34763206
>Wolverines, its the solution.

Tall standing bipedal mech with low mounted miniguns.

There's a reason why tanks have their guns mounted ON TOP, you fucking idiot.

File: aliens-ripley-geared-up.png (938KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 1024x576px

>>34763166
Cameron have predicted everything.

File: 3712933-couv_650.jpg (291KB, 922x1280px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 922x1280px

I always found this design good looking.

But not very practical.

>>34756018
That shockwave is awesome

File: image.jpg (626KB, 2560x800px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2560x800px

>you will never ever be a high tech knight in a neo-feudal society after the collapse of a star spanning civilisation fighting to serve your liege lord with the walking behemoths of fallen age

>>34763424
Good, I don't want to spend the majority of my life and probably get killed so some ponce can play at being lord god king of the known universe. I'll go work for Comstar, they get shit done.

>>34761581
Leg locomotion is more agile than treads dumbass.

>>34763178
>>34763244

In that case, why not strap some armor and weaponry on it. Military mech. It's primary purpose would still be construction and other non-combat roles but it could actually defend itself if the situation warrants it.

>>34763629
you have 50 kg of armor and weapons on it full time. It means it can carry and lift 50kg less decreasing it's efficiency. Most likely it will have a swappable gun arm that can be equipped if hostilities are likely.

>>34763743

Good enough. Replacable arms and an armor kit that can be attached/detached. Voilá, functioning combat mech.

>>34763743
Alternatively, give it a sidearm that can be quickly deployed. Something like a .50 AE smg mounted on the hip. Use rails or something to attach and detach the gun. It would make it more natural for the wearer to use while still having enough power to deal with most threats.

If the .50 AE smg is too dumb, something chambered in 5.56 could do the trick. It doesn't need to look like a conventional firearm, but it needs to be able to be reloaded by the wearer in his natural field of view.

File: atlastitan.jpg (10KB, 238x262px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 238x262px

Largest mech we will get is about the size of a mech from titanfall. They aren't to big (only about 20 feet tall a think), and have large feet to disperse weight. They also have a good bit of motor control when it comes to using their hands and such. They aren't as much of a walking tank that destroys armor, but more of a walking IFV. Their size makes them large enough to handle some heavy weapons fire but also fit into large rooms. They use smaller calibers like 40mm(largest), 20mm, 60mm and 30mm missiles. And even then, they haven't fully replaced tanks.

>>34753821
yeah absolutely true, if the pit is big enough to stop a mech it'd be big enough to stop a tank too, so it's a moot point