ITT: Tanks getting BTFO

>>14831182
Without plot armor wouldn't be enough with a tank shooting the mecha in the knee to defeat it?

Usually the only advantage of the mecha is that they are inmune to every bullet and missile that traditional war machines throw to them while their beam lasers whipe out entire units.

But ift they use they same bullets and armor mecha are pretty much fucked

>>14831224
Without plot armor wouldn't be enough with a RPG shooting the tank in the back to defeat it?
Usually the only advantage of the tank is that they should be immune to every bullet and missile that average towelhead can throw at them, while their proper use can wipe out entire units.
But if anything use the same bullets and armor, tanks are pretty much fucked.

File: barbatos.gif (1MB, 371x209px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 371x209px

>>14831224
>hitting something this fast

File: TCHAC.jpg (141KB, 345x452px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 345x452px

>>14831182
D E L E T
DIS

>>14831224
One of the reasons why the Type 61 tank couldn't BTFO Zakus effectively was that the barrel didn't angle up high enough to target the leg joints.

File: FSS Book IV -74.jpg (657KB, 1093x1499px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 1093x1499px

>>14831182

File: 1437392896718.jpg (44KB, 500x465px)

44KB, 500x465px

>>14831544
You made that up.

>>14831182

>tanks exist
>mechs dont

mech fags btfo

File: Dugger down-and-out.png (427KB, 640x482px)

427KB, 640x482px

>>14831182
>he says as he posts a WebM wherein, in context, the setting not only contains no legged combat mecha but is also defeated by a stationary crane in an impromptu situation.

Fucking disgraceful. I'll bet you haven't even watched Venus Wars.

>>>14831224
That's silly reasoning and you sound like you haven't watched enough mecha anime in general. You're making a medley of sweeping assumptions that vary on a setting to setting, robot to robot, and situational basis. You can kick a man's knee, but that doesn't mean he'll kneel. Kick it hard enough, yeah, sure, but who says it's going to be that easy or that he's going to let that happen?


In any case every one of you nignogs is completely missing the point of all mecha; to look cool. It doesn't matter if the tanks die, it doesn't mater if the mecha die, and it doesn't matter how. Tanks can defeat mecha, mecha can defeat tanks, sometimes settings have one outclass the other, other times they don't. In the end it means jack shit and you shouldn't be thinking about it if you're trying to enjoy what you're watching.

If every mecha show obeyed "lol square cube law" or "lol knees" we'd have far less and far less entertaining mecha shows. Similarly, if we had no mecha shows that -did- obey these laws, there'd be no variety.

Maybe if you lot actually watched some more shows you'd find things you liked or maybe learn to loosen up but instead here sits the umpteenth tanks v. mecha thread where we go over that yes, mecha cannot exist, no they are not defeated in-setting by X for YZ reasons.

>>14831544
Another reason is that Gundam is a mecha franchise, therefore robot>all, especially mook tanks.

>>14831182
>/k/Bait: The Thread

File: 1449361908953.gif (3MB, 252x195px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 252x195px

>>14831382
>he actually saves tumblr gifs of shit Gundams

>>14831182
Which tank is fighting which robot? Who's driving the tank? Are they part of a unit or operating on their own? So many variables but stuff like a Hammer's Slammers M2 Ursa would perform well against most military-esque robots, for instance and stuff like Bolo units would wipe the floor with pretty much anything that couldn't conquer or defend an entire planet on its own.

But it's a stupid argument because as >>14832607 says it literally doesn't matter because it's fiction and dependent entirely on creating excitement and showing off cool stuff.

File: where is your tank god now.jpg (154KB, 946x509px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 946x509px

>>14831182

File: 1447040987095.jpg (182KB, 1200x900px)

182KB, 1200x900px

wtf i hate tanks now

>muh knees

Tracks, especially the road wheels, are just as much of a weakspot as knees are. In fact I would say they are much worse. Tanks throw their tracks all the time over seemingly nothing. I've never seen a mech have its lower leg just fall off.

File: skipping leg day.jpg (418KB, 650x1154px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 650x1154px

>>14832694
>I've never seen a mech have its lower leg just fall off.
Probably because mecha aren't real, and their mechanical reliability is entirely artificial, cooked up by the writers for whatever the story demands.

>>14831182
Feels like it's always tanks and not jets or whatever.

File: devils avocado.png (142KB, 555x564px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 555x564px

>>14831182
>>He seriously believes a tank could defeat a mech

Considering the fact that only tanks actually exist, he's right.

>>14831182
>Hurr tonk a shit
>NO U
>100% /k/eks butthurt guarantee

Gee, thanks for wrecking this board even further anon.
i wonder who actually behind this thread?

>>14832918
false flagging /k/ poster

Tanks (and helicopters) can fuck you up in the Front Mission universe if you're not careful.

>>14832974

Do you ever go up against jet aircraft in any of the Front Mission games?

>>14832607
If it can't even beat a fucking crane then why would it be able to beat something that could actually move?

File: wfesfvb.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

/k/ here mecha are cool fuck you

>>14832979

I heard that you do so in 2.

This kind of thread seems like good thread, I should make a similar one at /his/ or /tg/.
>He seriously believes a ballista could defeat a dragon

>>14831182
What about tank mechs? Or mech tanks?

>>14831224
Tanks work on land but what about in space where most of the big important battles take place?

>>14833414
Weaponized Soyuz shuttles. They've worked fine for 50 years after all.

File: space shuttle gunner.jpg (439KB, 1200x1500px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1200x1500px

>>14833414

File: F44A Crab Gunner.jpg (43KB, 301x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 301x400px

>>14832999
Context nigger.

>>14833405
Gotcha covered.

Why does Yas hate Venus War and Crusher Joe movies? Does he have shit taste?

>>14832999
>If it can't even beat a fucking crane
cranes beat godzilla too
dont underestimate cranes

File: tumblr_ml3bllmeA41s5oxc0o1_1280.jpg (120KB, 976x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 976x600px

>>14833405
It would be kawaii uguuu~

>>14833653
What were the advantages of a crab gunner over a regular tank?
Seriously, it just seems like it's a regular tank making itself a bigger target with that high profile. You could probably turn those legs into treads.

File: interceptorGemini.jpg (278KB, 1113x709px)

278KB, 1113x709px

>>14833443
I see your Soyuz capsule and raise you Satellite Interceptor Gemini.
I'd have posted the USAF Orion battleship proposal, but frankly that's cheating.

File: fuck.....gif (3MB, 252x194px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 252x194px

>>14832635
the abridged version

>>14833032
I wouldn't be able to shit with my cat shitting at the same time.
What if we lock eyes?

>>14835116
staring contest

File: shermech_by_flyingdebris.jpg (121KB, 800x882px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x882px

how about both?

>>14834739
It can jump, duck, shuffle, shimmy, stomp, and can self-right if toppled whist still carrying the same armaments as a tank or humanoid Combat Armor.
If nothing else it looks cool.

>>14835553
>he didn't read the thread

File: nigger.png (410KB, 423x573px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 423x573px

>>14831182
>it's a bait thread
>300000+ images and replies submitted, click here to view

>>14835616
/m/ has always fallen for bait extremely easily. This is nothing new. However, this thread mainly seems to comprise of people saying that OP's assertion, and the existence of assertions one way or the other of OP's view, is dumb in and of itself, which I'm okay with.

>>14834259
Dunno about Crusher Joe, but I think VW was implied to have a production cycle so troubled it made him eventually loathe it for years to come.

>>14835616
We all know it's bait. We just don't have anything better to do with our lives.

>>14835616
A "bait thread"? I just thought the idea was to post webms of tanks getting fucked up. The opening statement just reads like a bit of banter to spice it up a bit, but somehow it turned into a giant whirlpool of autism

>>14835933
Well, nothing about it seems troubled to me. Its pretty awesome.

File: cavalier-king-charles-spaniel-cute-picture[1].jpg (35KB, 640x422px)

35KB, 640x422px

>>14835669
/m/ is cute in a dumb puppy way

File: best guntank.jpg (325KB, 990x745px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 990x745px

>>14832607
Thread over. Post tanks/mechs

>>14835077
>abridged
>exact same length
You don't know what that word means, do you?

>>14837542
50 year old post but you should watch Giant Gorg

>>14835077
Ambush is the tactic of a weaker force.

>>14839827
Anything to come up to the top is what matters at the end.

File: 1448924439798.jpg (30KB, 466x292px)

30KB, 466x292px

>>14831224
>plot armor
>gasaraki_youtube_comment.jpg

Let me make this clear - it is humans who don it, not the disposable robotic vehicles.

>>14839934
But the question was what's stronger. MS beat tanks unless they can ambush them.

>>14832694
What is this obsession with knees, anyway? They only have one axis of movement and a very small range even with that. It's the hips and ankles you want to be concerned about.

>>14839827
it defeated the US in the Vietnam War.

>>14841184
No

>>14841184
Nah, the US lost because they had to fight a political war. If you tie your own forces down with extra regulations because you're afraid of starting WW III with either the USSR or China then there's no way you're going to win.

>>14841304
And when the NVA did go one on one with the US, they lost almost all the time.

>>14841304
>>14841315
it's not about winning rounds of combat in a war of attrition -- it's about delaying the loss until the internal structure of the aggressor breaks down, that's how guerilla warfare allowed for the US loss in Vietnam.

>>14841354
Right, but ambushes did not cause the US to lose.

File: [a4e]Metal_Skin_Panic_Madox-01[divx5.1.1].webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>14842187

File: file.png (1MB, 1600x900px)

1MB, 1600x900px

Don't mind me...just rendering both useless with superior firepower and speed

>>14842225
Stop, your comparing apples to oranges.

>>14842225
My god the KA52 is a sexy machine

File: [a4e]Metal_Skin_Panic_Madox-01[divx5.1.1]_1.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>14842200

File: Comanche.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>14842225
bitch please

File: vf-19s-battroid.gif (108KB, 644x900px)

108KB, 644x900px

>>14842225
>One of the Helicopter's natural enemies is /m/
Try harder /k/

>>14842225
This is the helicopter where you had to turn the whole helicopter around to where you wanted your cannon aimed at, right?

File: dukakis_tank_2_c.jpg (127KB, 1160x629px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1160x629px

Tanks are more versatile

File: desert abrams.jpg (2MB, 2790x1860px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2790x1860px

>>14842297
Yes

>>14833414
What good are legs in space?

File: [a4e]Metal_Skin_Panic_Madox-01[divx5.1.1].webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>14842225

File: Edmond_Du_Clos_2.png (410KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1280x800px

>>14831182
>He seriously believes a tank could defeat a mech

It could.

>>14842225
No I'm pretty sure copters are one of the few airborne things a tank and a mech could take out provided you equipped them right.

File: HughesM320cannon.webm (475KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1280x720px

>>14842320
Why is the pilot getting that close in the first place, when they should be lobbing fire at the mech from a few kilometers away?

>>14842319
In Gundam the legs and arms and other limbs are controlled using a system called AMBAC to balance and stabilize the mobile suit as it drifts in zero G

>>14842297
Faster, better armed, better protected, harder to hit, tanks may be all of these things, but versatile?
Can a tank dig a trench, build a base or fortification, carry out a controlled and precise demolition, climb a cliff, load and unload heavy cargo quickly without assistance, pick up and use a discarded weapon, take a prisoner? There is more to war than just shooting at something until it dies.

>>14842319
They do more good than tracks, at least. There are a lot of situations where you can push off a wall, instead of wasting precious reaction mass

>>14842328
Attack helicopters are the bane of tanks.

File: Tunguska.jpg (877KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 1600x1068px

>>14842842
Greetings comrades, are we of shooting down annoying flies?

>>14843661
That's not a tank.

>>14843661
Tank chassis alone does not a tank make.

File: superinazumakick.gif (955KB, 490x240px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 490x240px

>>14842319
Kicking, obviously.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_j3WrFx-J4
This is some lucky shot

>>14845036
Every jackass and their goat has a fucking MANPAD over there, how is it lucky?

>>14845049
Not manpad.

>>14845068
What was it

File: S-60-57mm-hatzerim-1.jpg (246KB, 1245x753px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1245x753px

>>14845074
Looks like picrelated.

File: DM-SD-98-03384.jpg (1004KB, 2578x1624px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 2578x1624px

>>14842809
>Can a tank dig a trench, build a base or fortification

The Abrams' bulldozer does a pretty good job of making earthworks, actually. If you need to dig in and there's little natural cover around, damn right I'd like to have a tank to help me make fighting positions.

>carry out a controlled and precise demolition
Define "controlled and precise." Sure, if you're bringing in the armor, the mission probably has a wide berth in regards to collateral damage, but if you need to, say, breach a compound wall, the Abrams has canister rounds which do a pretty good job of that.

>climb a cliff, load and unload heavy cargo quickly without assistance, pick up and use a discarded weapon
True, but now we're getting into the "combined arms" part of the military math. A tank doesn't NEED to do that, because there are other units (infantry) which do that. There is no Swiss Army knife in regards to modern combat, and that's actually desirable because it forces your enemy to prepare against the full spectrum rather than allow them to focus on countering a single thing.

>take a prisoner
Tanks are actually pretty damn proficient at this. Just ask the Iraqis, who could hardly surrender to American tanks fast enough during both Gulf Wars.

>There is more to war than just shooting at something until it dies.
Indeed. Logistics are more important than whose guns are bigger or whose vehicles are faster. And, in any context where both tanks and mechs are sharing the battlefield--where one can assume that mechs are "the new hotness"--they are going to be inferior, logistically speaking. They are going to require more specialized support units, are going to suffer more frequent maintenance downtime (what Guderian calls the "teething phase"), and are going to be more difficult to produce en masse compared to an established technology like traditional tracked armor.

TL;DR: Yeah, I'd agree with tanks being more versatile overall.

>>14842809
why would you be able to pick up a discarded weapon, if i was going to design a multi million dollar giant advanced fighting vehicle which could swap out weapon attachments, id make damn sure those attachments had some kind of failsafe so that only my machine could use them. The last thing youd want is the enemy potentially walking away with one of your weapons.

File: 1448060263608.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

Can bipedals even compete with this level of stabilization?

File: 1299966027367.jpg (177KB, 900x1275px)

177KB, 900x1275px

>>14846831
(not that anon but) It's easy to say "more versatile" than something that we have not dared to define. (gun on legs ? limbed utility vehicle ? mobile AAA unit ? self-propelled artillery ?)

The closest we are getting to a mechs for now are exoskeleton, they are all-around extension for Logistic crew and hopefully all infantry due to their potential to increase strength.
It is only a matter of time then semantics before an exoskeleton become a "mech" (roughly as in it is considered a vehicle rather than worn equipment)

If we suppose Exoskeleton are made and improved up to Mech, it would stand to reason that they have unique ability not available/suitable for other unit.

To take your examples, putting the bulldozer plate on a Tank could be a Mech's job, so you don't need to reposition the tank to put it on.

>build a base or fortification
All current methods and choice for fortification are limited by wheels and track limitation. Putting heavy equipment where they can't be reach by anything but flying vehicle would be great (and said copter are limited in range and weight)
An hypothetical 360° walker could do that sort of job, while even being armed.

>Defining "controlled and precise"
If a Tank can blow a building out, a Mech can move a path for human that aren't several ton of metal. And as Tank mobility is quite overrated an hypothetical mech could move debris into a hole so a "difficult path even for tank" become "easy as hell"

> Logistic
As much I would love to crown Mech as the ultimate logistic unit, we can't forget unit pure combat spec and combat synergy. And on the matter a hypothetical 2/4legs 2arms 6-8m tall mechs with a carry weight of say 4 tons actually have strong arguments. If you are in a position to shoot first, you can win even without tanking.

It would be preposterous to say mech will replace tank, but it take ignorance of how crazy military evolution went to dismiss Mech as an omnipresent versatile unit

File: kek.jpg (43KB, 486x409px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 486x409px

>>14831953

File: m1802.jpg (85KB, 925x615px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 925x615px

>>14846912
Of course, even bipedal walker could if we dared (and could) make one.
Remember that Tank stabilization is hard because tank track are made of a dozen independent suspensions.
The Stabilization was hard because you do not have an exact vector for how the tank hull will interact with the ground and how much the ground/shock absorber will give back at any given time so the feedback loop must be very tight.

For a hypothetical mech, you only have data for one or a few legs and because you are not moving through "Friction" but by launching the mechmass and absorbing it down, the actual interaction is with air (so no resistance).

Aside, current tank design don't care to control its moment of inertia as much as lessen its effect. So where a Tank "absorb" a 150mm recoil, a Mech can purposely imbalance itself so a recoil work for him.

File: 11024710_937900402907620_7498011803051272877_n.jpg (85KB, 960x668px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x668px

>>14842187
>>14842200
>>14842243

>expects tanks to do well in dense urban environments
>Righto then

Wish there was more gifs of tanks killing mechs

File: 43523654.jpg (20KB, 300x436px)

20KB, 300x436px

>>14846912
>>14842261
HOLY SHIT.

>>14842261
>some sort of American ded project

>>14846970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkeR9IWkJKE

>>14831182

/r/ that webm from stargazer where a tank beats a ginn with pure skill and tactics

>>14847092
Yeah, what happened to the Comanche?

>>14847140
Same thing that happened to that crazy german caseless ammo assault rifle - the cold war ended, nobody needed that shit just to kill Hajis.

>>14847148

Evidently its stealth features were bupkiss, as well. You can make the fuselage all angular and coat it in RAM, but that doesn't change the fact that you've got a big-ass radar-reflecting halo above your aircraft at all times.

File: 1401681505969.jpg (34KB, 799x406px)

34KB, 799x406px

>>14847140
> Yeah, what happened to the Comanche?
Drone happened
It became obvious that keeping an helicopter hidden would be counter-productive. Drones that were already in the work would do the same recon mission, could be made more stealthy, and would be much, much cheaper to produce and replace.

...if only the F-35 could have been cancelled as well
incoming Pierre Sprey

File: pierre sprey jurassic park F-35.jpg (1MB, 1915x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x1788px

>>14847212
The F-35 is fine.
Give it 30 years and people will defend the F-35 to the death while shittalking whatever 6th gen project that's in the works.

File: F-104G 1987 PM.jpg (195KB, 1757x978px)

195KB, 1757x978px

>>14847420
That pict is about how amazing it is that a 5th gen fighter could eventually survive a 4Gen fighters with a pilot who time-traveled from the cold war. All despite said 5th gen being horribly bad at everything he is supposed to be as a 5th gen.

Go back in time, get rid of the VTOL fan thereby reducing its cost, its R&D time by 70% and making it better at every task and then you'll have a point. Barely any allied country needed the VTOL, Lockheed PR would have managed to sell it to the Britain even if it needed to launch from a submarine missile tube.

You could give 30years to the F-104 nobody will keep pretend it was ever a good plane.

that counter rant was fun to write, we should make an art of this

>>14847511
>That pict is about how amazing it is that a 5th gen fighter could eventually survive a 4Gen fighters with a pilot who time-traveled from the cold war. All despite said 5th gen being horribly bad at everything he is supposed to be as a 5th gen.
If you're gonna be a retard, at least do it with better fucking english skills, Paco.
>You could give 30years to the F-104 nobody will keep pretend it was ever a good plane.
The F-104 was a perfectly fine interceptor that poorly trained pilots couldn't handle. Clarence Johnson got input directly from fighter pilots in the 50's about what they though an ideal high speed interceptor needed, and the result was the Starfighter. Its not the planes fault that it got utilized poorly.

>>14847212
It wasn't drones. It was the fact that the Army no longer felt that they could justify the costs of a stealthy scout helicopter and that the Kiowa fleet was good enough for the job.


>>14847511
The Starfighter was a great for what it was designed to do. It's not the plane's fault people used a high altitude interceptor as a low speed strike aircraft.

>>14847420
>f15
>gun runner

Oh no, the Eagle doesn't give you the pleasure of a personal death. It STARES AT YOU UNTIL YOU DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH.

AND THEN STRAFES YOU WITH GUNFIRE.

>>14842225
Every day til you like it

https://a.pomf.cat/zeoyif.webm

File: WP_20140713_22_46_22_Pro (2000x1125).jpg (205KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x900px

>>14832677
>Bolo
Worth considering is also fact that later models, if I remember ritght, post mark XXX, actually fight against what is described as "walkers". Thou those aren't Gundams, more like Empire of Man Titans, en masse.
And Bolo usually solo whole planetary invasions on their own. Let's be honest here, using them as measuring stick is stupid, as nothing in realm of real robots can compete. Maybe something like Macross and it's dimension eater warhead - but then again, Bolo come with multilayered energy shield and anti spaceship capability up to geostationary orbit - and routinely massacre anything that jump over the horizon.
>>14832696
Are we discussing IRL legged mecha? If so, then thing like Dog series from Boston Dynamics could be designed to run on three legs when one is, say blown of. And since appendages are by design semi modular and self contained, why not make them carry spare legs and allow for field repairs? There are robots capable of that already as well.
>>14832979
Happens in Armored Core as well.
>>14833358
Which kind of dragon, how big is ballista, what kind of enviroment, is any bait used, is dragon using magic to shield itself, is any sort of "magical" metal used as bolts head, how many people are involved. Etc., ad nauseam.
Too many variables for simple answer.
>>14833405
Oh, always.
>>14833414
Recoil powered flight. For bigger systems, Orion drive with nuclear ordnance.
>>14834797
Why? We could use Pluto powered landing shuttles with it.
>>14839827
Intelligent one you mean.

>>14848933
>If so, then thing like Dog series from Boston Dynamics could be designed to run on three legs when one is, say blown of.
I've never seen a video of this.
You got a source?

File: 3289.jpg (126KB, 732x548px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 732x548px

>>14840276
To be fair, in UC, development of anything that isn't MS, MA or IFV seems to have stopped altogether. BESPA experimented with some stuff but in the end nobody fielded tank with all cool toys MS have had.
Thou in that setting, mobile suits are simply superior weapons platform - while specialized designs, as MA prove from time to time, tend to be better at any given task, multirole fighting machine is MS.
>>14842187
That's powered armor, basically better infantry. Which has been proven capable of killing any other force on the battlefields.
>>14842319
Close combat, propellant storage, AMBAC. And dead weight obviously.
>>14844661
Tanks tend to move in packs, with combined forces as support.
>>14848935
>could be designed

>>14848964
Let's be honest here though. UC Gundam, if it wasn't about showing off cool robots, would logically have warfare primarily conducted by teams of newtypes on board small carrier ships using funnels and drones instead of mobile suits.

>>14848964
>pic
Gunhead had an interesting design like HAWKS from Flag.
Too bad apart from lookalike in Armored Core, we will never get a full fledged series around them.

File: 14votoms01.jpg (80KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x574px

> That's powered armor, basically better infantry. Which has been proven capable of killing any other force on the battlefields.

Powered armor / Exoskeleton are only tech & semantics away from being vehicle you know.
They become mechs as soon as only the skills of the pilot is needed rather than his strength or body.

As for "capable of killing any other force", excuse me but you ain't fighting warship with AT troops.
If future soldier ended-up mostly in Exoskeleton because its the only way to carry sophisticated "versus everything" weapons (or navigate the terrain). We would refer to them as mechanized unit not infantry.

File: Gunboy-wilbur-notes.jpg (80KB, 621x480px)

80KB, 621x480px

>>14848971
UC's justification for MS is mostly that AMBAC (using electrical power from a minovsky reactor) plus thermonuclear thrust (also thanks to the reactor) lets a heavy MS somehow outperform smaller, lighter hardware.

I'd love to see some analysis of how much difference AMBAC actually would make. Clearly you could improve on the Zaku but I'm not sure if you would end up with something more like a Wilbur or a Ball.

>>14848964
>anks tend to move in packs, with combined forces as support.
Which why all this *teleports behind u* bullshit mecha pull would be stupid, because a more agile element of said combined forces would be able to counter that. Tanks never operate alone, ever.

>>14848991
>I'd love to see some analysis of how much difference AMBAC actually would make

AMBAC is meant to mirror an astronaut's ability to use his arms and legs to orient himself in freefall.

There's a reason astronaut's don't normally depend on their limbs for attitude control - they fucking suck. The one advantage they might have is that they don't require reaction mass like thrusters - but AMBAC's performance would realistically be so terrible that it would always be better to have thrusters, just like it's always better for an astronaut to have thrusters rather than moving his arms and legs. And flywheels allow for re-orientation without use the reaction mass while also not suffering from the limited effectiveness of limbs.

Post-OYW UC tries to make up for this by adding more "limbs" to mobile suits (wing and tail binders), but it still doesn't change the fact that it's completely idiotic to use a bunch of flapping limbs instead of a set of thrusters and/or flywheels.

>>14842319

It's not that terrible actually. You can use them for AMBAC and you can put thrusters and fuel in the legs to stop them from being dead weight.

File: 11210919906_83e8603b75_o.jpg (3MB, 5412x7216px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5412x7216px

>>14849018
You are very wrong, the canadarms was built for the express purpose of being better than using a tugs to push around mass (and avoiding damage from thruster output)
The ISS itself already has it's own form of AMBAC as its massive solar panel can be used to rotate it around.

>but AMBAC's performance would realistically be so terrible that it would always be better to have thrusters

You'll need to back that claim, Astronaut "ambac" is shitty because they are puny human wearing a barely-flexible spacecraft, build a robot for this sake with basic inboard computer and you avoid all the problems of gyro's Gimbals lock and their speed limitation (you'll turn faster using AMBAC than gyro)

It is also worth noting that if Astronaut seat "thrusters" are small and compact tech, a "MS" use nuclear-thrusters that are (visually) heavier and harder to place around a "space-fighter"
So if a MS can maneuver & aim faster, needing less thrusters, carrying more armor & gun and survive the destruction of a legs. Then the fictional AMBAC logic stand full force.

The only "realistically" that stand is that Gundam obviously choose their robot design "to look cool" even when non-humanoid non-Zeonic design would look more logical.

>>14835553
I don't know why, but...

I find this hot.

>>14848971
Either that or Gundam X-like drone mechs.

>>14849066
The only thing in this post that's vaguely accurate is the idea that that ISS can use the rotation of its solar panels for attitude control.

Too bad that has more similarities to flywheels than robot arms and legs.

Too bad the station's gyros and thrusters are better for attitude control.

Too bad the problem with AMBAC is that a limb has a limited range of motion compared to a flywheel or gyro that can continually rotate.

The science in Gundam is shit, get over it.

>>14848984
This. Especially when you start thinking of things like long-term pressurised life support and a decent power source, it's hard to imagine human strength making any worthwhile contribution to the suit's physical movement.

You probably don't even want to think about how much advantage a proper balls-deep cyborg would have

>>14849926
The limb has a limited range of motion but a much bigger mass. Being as it doesn't have to turn so much for the same motion, it can probably react much faster, at least for those movements which are within it's range. Limbs can also pull in or out to increase or decrease the moment of inertia, which can enhance the effect of whatever attitude jets or gyros you already have to make them faster or more precise.

>>14849926
Agreed that limbs on humanoid MS are less effective than dedicated systems. But those appendages are multi purpose - manipulators, weapon turrets, additional armor for core system (we have seen suit using limbs to shield center of mass), storage compartment that can be jettisoned when needed.

And, as in Victory, why limit movement to human-possible range?

>>14831182
fuck off tankrager
Tanks are delicate girls

File: spacesquid_vs_spaceshuttle[1].jpg (35KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x300px

So basically what we need is some sort of mecha space squid

>>14851980
Assuming real world limitations and technology levels? Cones. Armored, turreted cones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjWEGlot35Y

File: MetalGearSolidVThe-Phantom-Pain.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

So why not something like a Walker Gear then?

File: delete this.gif (1017KB, 500x268px)

1017KB, 500x268px

How to trigger everyone ITT

>>14854306
Shows how much you know, military and police Labors are basically glorified armored cars with legs

>>14846970
>Getting this bent out of shape because of a Japanese cartoon.

>>14857522
They're still mecha

>>14842187
>>14842200
>>14842243

I'm sorry to say that, as cool as these scenes are, they actually don't apply to the traditional tank vs mech discussion.

That mech, aside from potentially in wingspan, is clearly smaller than the tank. It is, effectively, rocket pack powered armor. It performs most of its kills using infantry tactics.

Tanks have ALWAYS been vulnerable to infantry. That's why solitary tanks running around without escort are not a thing in real combat zones. Dudes with guns can swarm them, and the turret on the tank can't track close range targets fast enough to deal with enemies that close.

A normal dude with an anti-tank rocket launcher and a satchel charge would have performed only slightly worse against the tanks in those gifs than the power armor did.

>>14842386

Which weirdly puts Gundam at a lower tech level than even NASA in the 70s was, because we don't need a complicated AMBAC system that requires all that extra mass in order to perform that level of reorientation.

Granted, I don't think any Gundam show has ever accurately portrayed newtonian physics, so whatever. Mobile suits and their scenery hang in place in space all the goddamn time.

>>14860123
The dude with the rocket and the satchel charges wouldn't have done as well for a number of reasons. Number one being that they wouldn't be able to move nearly as fast as the mecha.

>>14860148

Yeah, but in their terrain that most just impacts attack doctrine. Less hit and run, more traps. It would be a slower kill rate by far, but none of the kills we see require weapons that are not man-portable.

>>14860148
Would it really matter if they couldn't go as fast if they're smaller, quieter, and basically far harder to detect?
Especially if its in an urban scenario where there's a billion places to hide, and the distances aren't that big in the first place.
Plus, motorcycles, ATV's and such exist, and are probably quite cheaper than a mecha.

>>14841184
>defeated

Fuck off we left because we licked their ass so hard we felt bad and decided to leave them alone. Saying US lost Nam is like saying a jock that just shoved a nerd in a locker lost cause he walked away afterwards BITCH!

>>14860435

Wew lad

>>14860128
Igloo had MS drifting but that's more because 3D-CGI offers better control for subtle things like that compared to 2D animation.

>>14860092
And they in no way are meant to combat tanks head on, your point sir? Besides those are fucking RPGs from guerrillas on foot not tank rounds so your whole point is invalid

File: CanadaHand1.jpg (30KB, 1000x570px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1000x570px

>>14860128
If you are the anon who pretend that the ISS's gyroscope are good enough to disprove AMBAC see >>14849066. The ISS already use AMBAC, for MS it is just an extremely advanced form of thrust vectoring.

> I don't think any Gundam show has ever accurately portrayed newtonian physics, so whatever. Mobile suits and their scenery hang in place in space all the goddamn time.
I hate it but you are right. At least gundam UC try to make some effort.

>>14860651
tank rounds have even greater kinetic force or explosive potential than RPG rounds

/K/ ON SUICIDE WATCH

>It's a manchildren that think real life combat works like anime thread.

>>14842261
>that strafing
Armored Core players would be proud.