Real life mechs

>>14993700
You don't need to be embarrased when Boston Dynamics and the DARPA Robotic Challenge exists.

Kurata is literally an AT straight outta votoms. What did the Kurata guy do beforehand? 1/1 steel replica of a Scopedog
Its the coolest shit ever

>>14993700
>mecha
>existing
>ever

Get your head out of your ass. Regardless of whether the technology exists there will be no use for it close to anything we can speculate about. I'll bet you're a realfag too.

its not really the fact that they exist is what is embarrassing, its you look at the Japanese mech is very advanced and we are still focusing on a two pilot system. that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you have to wonder what would happen if both countries both worked together to build an entire product line of mechs. made up of advances made by both the kuratas and the Mk 2.

that is not very nice man, keep things civil and friendly please.

>>14993719
This coming from a namefag? On an anonymous Bhutanese rock stacking pavilion? Fucking faggot.

please stop whaling your stupid meaningless remarks to yourself because more than often these kinds of posts are more than likely made by a person that is very frustrated, not only by is sexual preference but also social life.

Now leave troll.

File: 1479957501520.png (58KB, 197x281px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 197x281px

>>14993727
>>14993730
Sure showed me with that ebin double non-reply.

Regardless of your incompetence I was being genuine when I first roughly said "there is no use talking about this".

I think I can safely say I've been on /m/ for a little while longer than you, and I can say right now that discussions like this have gone nowhere or to shit for a medley of reasons, not the least of which include people adding in their own odd speculation of how fictional technology can be made real or dumbasses arguing about why their particular brand of fiction is better than the other.
It's that or else it's the people with actual knowledge on these matters spelling out for the umpteenth time that no, there is no use for space fighters, power armor as depicted in fiction, walking mecha of various kinds, blah blah blah.

Now, personally, I don't care about that, because I appreciate mecha for being just that- as something fun that'll only really exist, for now, in our minds, and it's IMO all the better for it because it means that you can go crazy with it and do whatever you want. IRL however there is no means and no reason, so that's that.

OP's a fag as usual, etc etc.

I'm very much aware that you've been on longer than i have, i just started my first thread not even 20 min. ago, and I never intend my thread to become a place full of bullshit and fiction. no space fights, no giant f*cking animal robot things, and pretty much nothing from anime. not that I don't know or like anime. I came to 4chan to talk about something i really like and want to discuss and I'm being shown nothing but hostility.

And sorry for the double or even triple replies, i just want to keep this thread active and try to bring people that think like me together discuss things that in the knowledgeable zones of realistic thinking. and current technology, but i apologize that when you have to confront someone about thinking realistically or something like that. I just really enjoy this topic in a realistic standpoint.

File: 1480305936466.jpg (129KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 850x850px

>>14993758
Ever heard phrases like "newfags get out" or "lurk more" or anything to that effect? Or anything about how namefags are generally looked down upon?
>to """intend""" for a thread to become anything
You really are new around here.

Distaste for fiction? No space fights, animal robots, and anime? Shit taste too. I shouldn't have wasted my time yelling at you over the internet. Learn to fucking post.

>>14993700
>>14993713
>>14993719
>>14993727
>>14993730
>>14993758
>>14993765
Different anon here. I appreciate your intentions, and you sound like a decent guy. But I assure you, 4chan is one of the worst places to host a thread like this. In a politer tone, I can only say "lurk more", learn the flow of how this place works, then maybe try again at a later date and with a more board-appropriate context.

>>14993779
alright, i will thank you. don't find many people that are polite now a days so make the most of life.

OP did nothing wrong?
The fuck is going on in this thread

>>14993765
>real-life mechs
Why bother? We have tanks, attack helicopters and fighter-bombers.

File: 1479889040925.jpg (136KB, 392x495px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 392x495px

>>14993765
>mechs
>realistic

>>14993829

Because smaller mechs can fill an intermediary role between infantry and tanks, especially in urban environments where the design of a tank is less than optimal for dealing with tight corners, scaling buildings, getting underground, etc.

>>14993712
anything mechanical is mecha

>>14993712
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iZ0WuNvHr8

Now that we've got that dealt with, what kind of jobs could a mech do?

>>14994170
missile magnet

>>14994191
Arguably, so are tanks and APCs.

>>14993701
>DARPA Robotic Challenge
I don't know where you come from but this is embarrassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TaYhjpOfo

Also hilarious.

>>14993944
We had a thread about hinges once.

File: Hinges are m.jpg (132KB, 1140x1140px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1140x1140px

>>14994725
We should have another. Hinges are about as /m/ as it gets.

>>14994214
Tanks and APC's fill vital roles.

A mech doesn't.

File: DSC00074.jpg (833KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1600x1200px

submersible vehicles have a lot of cool stuff

File: Yes, Johnny is crying a lot.jpg (1MB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1331px

>>14994711

Don't set up a contest just to bully the robots.

>guys I want super serious productive discussion pls keep it civil and active no bully no meanie pls guys guys come on I don't even like anime robots because those are stupid and for kids pls serious discussion only

Take a chill pill and remind yourself where you are.
You are on a Mongolian salad dressing board.

File: From the creators of TMNT.jpg (205KB, 980x562px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 980x562px

>>14993700
vertical main battle tanks are not currently practical. MBT have yet to be technoligically phased out. anything you can think of is basically gonna be wrecked by drones wheeled/flying with ATGM.
If we did develop Mecha combat machines manned unmanned? how large? reactor based ones would be massive but why make it bipedal.
Mecha is impractical but they are dam fine fun.
< this was the worst. Alternative universe humans never went to ww1` didnt make the tank. I found the movie laughable

>>14993712
>there will be no use for it close to anything we can speculate about

We're already half way there to mecha fighting as a sport. That kickstarter showed there was demand for it. Get some scope dogs up and running and we'll see battoringu become a regular thing.

>>14993700
>OP asks to talk about real life mecha technologies
>shitposting over whether mecha are real or not
Do people even read OPs anymore, or do they just glance at the subject headline?

>>14994864
Because there is no real life mecha technology.

>>14994921
there's no mechanical technology? what the fuck am I reading?

>>14994949
If you mean "mecha" in Japanese sense, then there are tank, robotic and aerodynamic technologies.

>>14993857
Correct me if I'm wrong, but now it sounds like we're discussing powered suits, which are being researched currently as a viable means to improve or otherwise supplement ground infantry forces and logistics.

>>14993700

fuck real life mechs, power armor is where its at

File: 1479323110896.jpg (145KB, 393x397px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 393x397px

>>14994727

>>14993829
The mechs from Gasaraki actually hold a very valuable niche in warfare as set out by the show - they are pretty much the end all be all for urban combat, able to rappel buildings and traverse urban environs, while also carrying a very heavy payload, with different loadouts for different purposes.

It was created for persian gulf era warfare but it makes perfect sense even in the modern era. But that's one of the few examples of Bipedal mecha that make TOTAL SENSE.

File: AR-141219903.jpg (615KB, 3000x2101px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 3000x2101px

>>14998625
I doubt IRL buildings would take kindly to a mecha trying to lift it's entire weight from a grappling hook then stomping around on the roof

File: 1450122242231.jpg (3MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2250px

>>14993700
Real life mecha do exist. We just call them tanks.

>>14998668
...city buildings are pretty damn sturdy.
They're not exactly made out of balsa wood and plaster or whatever cheap florida housing is comprised of.

File: 1470030068375.gif (1MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x200px

>>14994711
>that one got owned opening a door
>one tried to twist a nozzle....owned.
>i'm gonna get outta this car! ...nope
>some just tank it standing up.

all these robots failing at life!

File: 1323439642595.jpg (2MB, 2327x1535px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2327x1535px

If real life walking mecha are ever made, I think the first practical ones would be 6 leg tank walkers. Moving with 6 legs is the easiest and most stable, that's why insects have 6 legs.
So it wouldn't require any complex balancing to work.

File: a235392b71c424e82ae05f5bf808c051.jpg (179KB, 736x1061px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 736x1061px

>>14996169
Dude, powered armor IS mech

Why do you think Deunan was considered /m/ girl of the month?

And Madox 01 is a fucking thing around here?

>>14998728
Hey, at least its fucking PROGRESS m8

Not sure if related but
>get a new job on a farm
>get to drive a tractor around, the kind with a scoop on it
>whenever I "pilot" this sumbitch switch strait to Amuromode
When will we get real construction mecha?

File: We could have had ATATs in the 60s.jpg (421KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1600x1200px

>>14998739
There's no need for 6 legs. 4 legs is far more practical. There is still not much of a need for complex balancing and with fewer legs it's mechanically simpler.

>>14999121
>literally taking construction equipment type hydraulic valves and cylinders and building them into the shape of a robot... thing and hoping for the best.

I suppose someone had to try it before we could know for sure that it wouldn't work.

File: ATAT Promotional Ad.jpg (234KB, 640x450px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 640x450px

>>14999138
Honestly, I've always been surprised at just how much they actually got to work. It's actually a pretty impressive machine. Complete bitch to operate though. Each arm and leg was controlled individually by the pilot's arms and legs. The controls were also fairly responsive. The operator could just as easily kick over a car as they could nudge aside a light bulb without breaking it. It's a pity that it could be outrun by a sloth and no one was able to drive it for more than 15 minutes before becoming fatigued (And this was in the 60s before the rise of modern Amerifat) .

>>14993857
dont worry power suits, and exo skeleton armor will replace the mechs

File: walking-tree-harvester.jpg (80KB, 468x370px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 468x370px

>>14999121
6 legs is still better than 4, even if it costs a little bit extra to put on two more legs. With 6 legs it means there will always be a tripod touching the ground while it's walking, which is even more stable than 4 legs standing still.

>>14994711
>Giant fighting robots: Soon
>Today
This

File: real-g-prototype-mega-size-walking-project-2015.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>mechs doesn't real, they said

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

This is were all that F-35 mystery cost overruns have been going.

>>14994803
Well that kinda made sense, in that AU, their experience was, Mechs curbstomping everything humanity could throw at them with a virus being the only thing that saved them, so there would be a design leaning towards mechs.

File: 1310949439390.jpg (193KB, 640x800px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x800px

>>14999121
This machine is a good example of what the real blockers is, it's not the strength or the power source. We've had industrial robot working in hell since forever.

The blocker is the auto-pilot software & the interface.
Auto-pilot because that's how little you can trust the user with, not even with 6 legs.
And the interface because there's occasion where you'll need the finest control (to avoid crushing things that the computer don't know shouldn't be walked upon)

Same goes for Exoskeleton.
We had the power source and actuator since forever, but it only became a things when we had control software that wouldn't tear off the user's arms.

>>15002044
I wish

>>14994711
Watch that on mute with this playing in the background
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ufVQIUEiYc
SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT

>>14999563
Power suit is mech anon, how do they replace themselves?

>>14994730
If you think an armored fire support that more surviveable than a singgle punny humans and can do more than KILLKILLKILL that will save your punny little tank ass in a dense battlefield where metalbox are shit at aren't fill a vital role then you should reeducate yourself.

> B-but you can do it with 5 times more infantry

If you like to sign up those many life insurance and veterancy benefits that was more expensive than investing on salvageable machines then sure.....

File: polish tank.jpg (96KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x426px

>>15004460
most of faggots of this board think that mechs means giant impractical Humanoid robots pilot by a kid or 15 year old.

File: Beautyandthethicc.jpg (1005KB, 1276x1729px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 1276x1729px

>>15004574
Yeah

I mean who'll need a 18 meters of glorified walking biplanes with angsty shotas when you have this full grown, 3 meters THICC metal babes.

File: 800px-Char_Renault_FT17_at_the_Invalides.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>15004574
Listening to typical anti-mech reasoning we wouldn't have tank, fighter plane, aircraft-carrier, helicopter, and attack copter.
You would also have some decree to prevent logistic team from getting any "costly toy" to help them like exoskeleton.

Go at the root of their logic and we would still be fireless cavemen.

File: Peace_Walker.jpg (491KB, 1120x769px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1120x769px

metal gears are the most likely mechs that could exist because it makes sense. being able to launch a nuke from any terrain like a jungle or mountains. thats so practical. especially today where war is all about ICBMs.

but even then metal gears would have loads of flaws. caterpillar tracks are the ultimate form of terrain locomotion. easier to make and defeats legs in every way.

Oh look the ESL retard wannabe engineer spic has returned. Your Mazinger is gonna be real one day Pablo, you just gotta believe.

>>15005173
REX only makes sense if you want a badass boss fight with a mechanical dinosaur.

The stealthy nuke railgun would be vastly more practical on a submarine, something that's actually stealthy and already has a onboard nuke reactor.

>>15005173
> metal gear
> likely
I really hope you are baiting. If so, good job. Got a (you) from me

Power suits will be a thing, a soldier with heavy guns for suppressive fire while the other grunts do their thing.
You wont see guys in powersuits running up to the enemy and kicking ass solo.
The logistics behind a powersuit would be really hard to maintain too.

>>15003858
Got you covered, creampie
http://www.youdubber.com/index.php?video=g0TaYhjpOfo&video_start=0&audio=3ufVQIUEiYc&audio_start=0

>>15005268
>REX only makes sense if you want a badass boss fight with a mechanical dinosaur.
Isn't that enough?

File: image.jpg (85KB, 584x593px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 584x593px

>>15005173
>caterpillar tracks are the ultimate form of terrain locomotion. easier to make and defeats legs in every way.

Yeah, no, fucking bullshit.

If you knew anything about vehicles you'd know tracks are far from a perfect form of locomotion.
They're used because they have good traction, low ground pressure, allow for turning in place, and are harder to break compared to tires, which makes them great for heavy vehicles.

I love me some tanks, i know a ton about them, I build models of them, and I've wasted way too much time playing them in War Thunder, but I'm not enough of a delusional, ignorant retard as to suggest they're a perfect form of land movement.

-They're much more vulnerable than an armored mechanical leg would be(it's possible to break tank tracks apart with some very well placed machine gun shots.)
-They can't change movement direction as quickly as legs can.
-Slower than wheels
-They're pretty huge horizontally, making them absolutely shit for urban, forest, and extremely rocky environments.
-They can't move up steep inclines
-Can't step over things
-Can't step on things
-Can't use AMBAC system with tanks
-If they drive the bottom of their hull onto something they're often immobilized(see that video of some dumbass in the 90s going on a rampage in a stolen M60 and getting stuck trying to cross the street.)
There's a reason tanks avoid mountains like the fucking plague and are meant to be used in fairly open, flat environments.

Tracks can generally go faster on flat ground than legs, but proper legs have the overwhelming advantages of all-terrain capabilities, reliability, armor, and maneuverability.

They also look cool
Tankfag get out reeeeeeee

>>15005268
>Oh look the ESL retard wannabe engineer spic has returned.

Better than some /k/ finest wiki warriors thought.

>m-muh square cube.....
>Impliying robots are made by the same bone-like carbon structure, not the superior titanium-steel alloy and shit.

Yeah, you're the real master enginer captain rednecks, as long as it keeps your autism appeased.

>>15008003
>>Impliying robots are made by the same bone-like carbon structure, not the superior titanium-steel alloy and shit.
>Yeah, you're the real master enginer captain rednecks, as long as it keeps your autism appeased.
Carbonated hydroxyapatite structures actually...
Carbon micro-structures actually would be one of your better bets for mecha construction over titanium-steel alloys, since titanium and iron are pretty heavy shit.

File: 1480827653862.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>15007720

File: chen WTC slap.png (177KB, 444x325px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 444x325px

>>15007720
>I play warthunder and bash together models
>so that means I'm an expert on tanks
yeah no, fuck off retard.
>-They're much more vulnerable than an armored mechanical leg would be(it's possible to break tank tracks apart with some very well placed machine gun shots.)
i have no words

>>15007720
>treads
>more vulnerable than legs
Legs have way more moving parts. All you need is a good shock.

>>15010236
Legs are also way more unstable than tracks.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2848x2144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2848x2144px

>>15010220
Pic related is several track links of an M1 Abrams, they consist of over a dozen pieces and the whole track assembly consists of hundreds, removing just a few of them will disconnect the track.
.50 BMG armor piercing ammunition can pierce most of an inch of steel
Fire an M2 browning or other HMG at the small parts, it's going to break after some good shots, the reason this doesn't happen is because it's fucking hard to shoot something that small.

My point was that tank tracks are unarmored, whereas mech legs could be almost completely covered in armor.
Tank tracks are almost always fucked if anything bigger than a machine gun hits them, and even fucking machine guns are technically capable of destroying them, mech legs could survive much more abuse.
Anti-material rounds exist for a reason.

Fuck off retarded chen poster

>>15010236
Unless we're talking some true bayformers tier bullshit I highly doubt they'd have many more moving parts than a tanks tracks, wheels, and engine.
A well designed mechanical limb would use as few parts as necessary, keeps costs down and reliability high.

>>15010238
Hence why you give the machine a fantastic computer that uses data from simple sensors on the mech to keep it balanced, in the rare scenario that it gets forced off it's feet, it can just stand itself back up, something traditional vehicles can't do.

>>15005268
>Your Mazinger is gonna be real one day Pablo, you just gotta believe.
Pablo hates Mazinger you newfag.
STOP GETTING MEMES FROM 2009 WRONG REEEE

Everytime this gibbering retard Gundam gonna be IRL ESL shitposts this thread on /k/ and /v/ he gets BTFO, yet he keeps coming back for more.

There is no point engaging with him, he will listen to no argument or reason and continues to pull his own facts and theories from his arse.

He is cancer, ignore this garbage thread and let it die.

>>15010782
>My point was that tank tracks are unarmored, whereas mech legs could be almost completely covered in armor.

You really have no idea what are you talking about aren't you?

A well place land mine can fuck up vehicle or mech

>>15011447
That's not an arguement you ignorant fuck, refute me if I'm so wrong.

>>15010782
The amount of armor needed to protect legs from something that would fuck up a tank track would also render a mech far heavier, and would completely defeat the so-called "main advantage" of a mech, their supposed mobility.

>>15013412
>The amount of armor needed to protect legs from something that would fuck up a tank track would also render a mech far heavier, and would completely defeat the so-called "main advantage" of a mech, their supposed mobility.
Yeah, honestly it'd just be easier to hot swap the whole damn leg...

>>15007720
>-They're pretty huge horizontally, making them absolutely shit for urban, forest, and extremely rocky environments.
So what about how mecha are fucking huge vertically?
At least tanks can hide behind walls and hills.

File: image.jpg (153KB, 850x426px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 850x426px

>>15013412
If the legs can hold up a cockpit with MBT-like armor, arms, weaponry, etc and move around effectively, they can probably take a few inches of armor on the legs to protect against most autocannons and reactive armor for anti tank weapons, or better yet use spaced armor for some nice thicc mecha thighs.

Mechanical legs strong enough to hold that much up are perfectly possible, just give it a good power source and give it wide feet for good ground pressure.
Making the mech heavier would likely hinder it's speed but speed isn't the mobility advantage mech's have over tanks, their advantage is the ability traverse environments too rough for a tracked vehicle and move through urban spaces too narrow for tanks.

>>15013640
If we're talking realistic mecha we're talking about machines between 10 to 30 feet tall, with 30 being about the maximum, and which likely have the ability to crouch.
That can hide behind multi-story buildings or larger hills standing pretty quick, and they can lay or sit comfortably behind smaller stuff.

>>15005173
>war is all about ICBMs
ICBMs have never been used in a war.

Unless of course you live in some parallel reality where there have either been no wars between 1959 and present day or where global thermonuclear war has happened.

>>15014160
>just give it a good power source
The kind of "power source" you're going to need to consistently move around limbs that heavy is going to consist of something like a gas turbine engine and the kind of hydraulic power plant that would make a nuclear submarine blush.

I mean you could try to use electric motors but good luck with that when you're slapping MBT level armor onto it.

No one ITT has provided a good enough reason to implement mechs into general military service, that'll justify the no doubt massive costs both in financial terms and in logistical terms.
Face it nerds, the closest you'll get is something like the TALOS program, a human sized lightly armored exoskeleton produced in small numbers for the secret squirrel high speed dudes.

>>15014810
>No one ITT has provided a good enough reason to implement mechs into general military service,
I see nothing about that in the OP. Mecha are real, youre argument isnt even relevant

>>15014810
Okay fuck millitary service then.
What's the financial feasibility of mecha combat as a sport?

File: image.jpg (125KB, 522x730px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 522x730px

>>15014966
Depends on how many people watch and support it.

In general make it really spectacular and badass and involve as much mecha destruction as possible without anyone getting hurt, if you do that it'll probably be fun to watch.

slap an inch or two of armor all they way around the cockpits to a few kuratas, keep the limbs mostly unprotected, then give them low caliber machine guns and tell them to fight until only one mech stands.

Pilots don't get hurt but you get to see mechs shoot the fuck out of each other and get destroyed, and it can by made interesting through various weapon types, shields, maybe allow a certain allowance of extra limb armor, neat arenas, etc.

Less abstracts rules that need to be explained like in normal sports, more explosions.
That'd probably get quite a few viewers.

If it has good viewership, sponsorships and merchandising, those'll pay for the mechs, which will get easier and cheaper to produce over time, and more complex and useful designs will be created.

I really wanna live in a world where this is a reality, I wanna be a professional mecha pilot.

>>15015052
>I really wanna live in a world where this is a reality, I wanna be a professional mecha pilot.
We all do, anon. We all do

File: 1276741243341.jpg (59KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x250px

>>15013412
Weight is a problem on Tank because they depend on the friction of the tracks to climb any obstacles, and those have to be wide to not get bogged down thereby reducing their traction

On the opposite a leg profit from weight, realistically it will never sunk much into the ground and walking is all about stepping over stuff
For that reason legs would also be the cheapest part to armor, when a leg is down, the power is only used to move the next legs forward which will only be a fraction of a mech weight
For a bipedal mech the same logic apply. Even a 100tons mech could still climb a slope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4QxzeyFihA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUC2CanBcLY

>>15014810
>No one ITT has provided a good enough reason to implement mechs into general military service, that'll justify the no doubt massive costs both in financial terms and in logistical terms

Let's say 8m tall at most, 30tons, maybe quadrupedal, maybe an exoskeleton made bigger to carry stuff too large for human arms.
- Combat engineering, better recon vehicle, extremely versatile combat vehicle, mobile artillery/AA for mountainous area where soldiers usually went on foot, because even tank can't do in
- Could it be killed by a attack chopper ? Sure, but chopper will risk even more and they cost vastly more than a mech would.
- Can it face tanks ? Without cover hell no ! but with cover & missiles tanks will be running against the clock before the tide of battle change again.
- In urban area any AT infantry trying to kill one would have to face first the infantry a mech is helping, then manage a kill on something that could shoot from behind building.

Last you wouldn't build a mecha out of gold, diamond and Swiss clockwork, it's mostly industrial grade piston, no different from an IFV and their suspension system. It's only costly because we lack the software & experience to do that.
(also you really won't need a turbine to power it)

>>15015052
(pic) I would watch that

Future techs, dude. You gotta keep believing.

>>15011447
He's not wrong. Tank tracks are by far the weakest part of a tank. If they were as tough as the rest of the tank, they wouldn't be disabled by homemade IEDs on the side of the road.

>>15015374
you say "homemade IED" as thought it was some cheap firecracker, and those big artillery round IEDs do more than just disable tracks

>>15015417
>you say "homemade IED" as thought it was some cheap firecracker
Because most pretty much are cheap firecrackers. Mudbombs don't make big ones that often since they're big and heavy to move around and bury, especially since military nowadays doesn't take any chances and blows the fuck out of any suspicious looking bundle of rocks or trash on the side of the road. It'd be just a waste of explosives.

Besides, MRAPs exist.

File: tmp_6290-cold-war-6-057-1214031520.jpg (4MB, 4236x3446px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4236x3446px

>>15010782
>My point was that tank tracks are unarmored, whereas mech legs could be almost completely covered in armor.

How can anyone be this retarded?

Also, moron you can have armour over the tracks, but seriously prove that you can provide more armor to a leg than what you can for a track.

Give me a study from a thinktank, university or military institute.

>>15015421
>Because most pretty much are cheap firecrackers

I'd love to see a citation on that.

>Mudbombs don't make big ones that often since they're big and heavy to move around and bury

They certainly do. How else you think they cripple tanks and MRAPs?

>>15015434
>but seriously prove that you can provide more armor to a leg than what you can for a track.
Reactive armor (slat armor), active protection systems (AMAP-ADS), and camouflage capabilities (ADAPTIV plates), all of which have near insignificant weigh increase in the vehicle they're mounted on.

>>15015445

I asked for a citation.

Not what you think.

>>15015440
>I'd love to see a citation on that.
The US has been working for years in reducing and outright banning the import or sale of fertilizer on pakistan and afghanistan (the most common material used in IEDs), and casualties involving them lowered significantly over the years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-afghanistan-ied-key-component-ammonium-nitrate-fertilizer-is-being-imported-from-pakistan/2012/08/18/60edeb16-e92e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html

Also, take a look at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-IED_equipment

It's pretty hard to hide a ~300lb IED and expect it to not be found these days.

>How else you think they cripple tanks and MRAPs?
Doesn't take a massive explosion to cripple a tank's tracks or an MRAP's wheel axis. MRAPs are sturdy were it counts.

File: ZBW-ADX00.jpg (810KB, 1400x1074px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 1400x1074px

>>15015434
> insult
> ignore point and other post >>15015153
> move the goalpost
That's why we don't get intelligent discussion here.

>>15015445
>Reactive armor (slat armor), active protection systems (AMAP-ADS)

You must be seriously retarded if you believe that you'd be able to get it to equivalency of composites.

Have you also considered the fact that you're armour will explode in several directions (one of which will be your other legs), as opposed with a tank.

And how much do you estimate that will weigh?

>>15015466

Again, that doesn't prove anything with regard to your "firecracker" remark.

They're not firecrackers. Neither did I say anything about the easy of hiding them.

>Doesn't take a massive explosion to cripple a tank's tracks or an MRAP's wheel axis. MRAPs are sturdy were it counts.

But yet you believe that legs are more resilient compared to them?

>>15015479

There's nothing in that post, you've taken something that meets a very particular set of requirements and have gone "yeah, because it works here, it should there".

>>15015497
>>15015153
Additional:

Look at all the assumptions you've made and then think age. For example, how can you say with any authority that the mech will be cheaper than a attack helicopter?

File: f.jpg (298KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1920x1080px

>>15015483
>Have you also considered the fact that you're armour will explode in several directions (one of which will be your other legs), as opposed with a tank.
Thanks for telling me you don't know what either of those defense measures are. What you're describing is reactive armor, which is not what I listed.

>And how much do you estimate that will weigh?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/09/14/exclusive-revolutionary-chameleon-tank-gets-invisible.html
>Adaptiv adds armor, can withstand ordnance and physical impact, consumes low power and is relatively light weight so it does not affect agility or movement. If a pixel is damaged, it can easily be removed and replaced.

>http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm
>Slat armor for a Stryker IFV weighs about 2300kg to cover the entire vehicle

>http://www.deagel.com/Ground-Vehicle-Countermeasures/AMAP-ADS_a002202001.aspx
>The system weighs between 150-500 kg

Granting a total of ~3 tons (considering ADAPTIV is light enough not to hinder mobility, as advertised)

>But yet you believe that legs are more resilient compared to them?
Legs don't need to walk on roads to get anywhere fast.

>>15015457
A Menzi Muck M545 can lift over 12 tons, and that's the weigh of an excavator for civillian use (probably not even the most advanced and expensive industrial stuff available), not a Howitzer, which is just over 4 tons of weigh.

Adding all available defense measures (3 tons) we can adapt to a walker vehicle, a 155 mm (4 tons) gun with, say, a storage of 60 M107 shells (~2.5 tons, more than an Abrams can carry), you get a total of ~9.7 tons total including a crew and a couple of M2 Brownings + ammo, with weigh to spare for some well distributed Chobham armor. Lighter than an Abrams.

All while considering we don't upgrade the legs to top tier industrial metal/pistons.

Also, good luck trying to get a hit on constantly moving legs from afar with AT weaponry from a distance where you won't be shot to shit by it.

>>15015571
Also, for all effects and purposes, mobility beats armor.

>>15015571
I choose missiles. Stryker armour is so shit it gets penetrated by HMGs, nevermind LAWs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byR9EfOTeZg

>>15015571
Not the anon you were replying to but:
>Adaptiv adds armor, can withstand ordnance and physical impact
The article doesn't say exactly what it can withstand. I doubt it can withstand much in the way of heavy ordnance due to it's weight and the fact that it's already only mounted on a tank.

The original scenario put forward was that a tank's tracks would be vulnerable to HMG fire but none of these systems would protect against sustained large caliber fire. AMAP-ADS is a directed energy countermeasure which I doubt could neutralize automatic fire. That's what traditional armor is for.

>A Menzi Muck M545 can lift over 12 tons
True, but a Menzi Muck M545 also weighs 12.3 metric tons. After armor and armament, I don't see how a mech under 30 tons is feasible. And at 30 tons the tank is going to be the more mobile platform anyways.

>>15015586
>Also, for all effects and purposes, mobility beats armor.
This is just completely false and dependant upon scenario. If mobility is always superior, why are there tanks at all instead of an army composed entirely of infantry?

>>15015571
different anon

do you have a power source that can produce enough or store enough energy for long enough periods of time to be used effectively? on you point about tracks, most tanks are in positions which mean their tracks shouldn't get blown off or hit, you can thank combined arms tactics for this. the Tracks are a very small target, and, contrary to popular belief, won't fail horribly when hit with a single round, as if you have gotten to the point where the enemy can hit you reliably with munitions capable of punching holes in the track, something has gone wrong.

On a side note, how much does that adaptive shit block physical impact? Because if you plan on armouring a mech with it, then shrapnel can fuck up its abilities to camouflage. Also tanks are accurate. Extremely accurate. Possibly accurate to be able to hit a target on legs large enough to contain a few crew, a gun, enough room to contain these, and all that armour listen, the target is probably going to end up the same size of a tank.

Do you plan on it having a turret? or a Fixed Gun? Elevation and Depression? How do you plan on the gun being loaded? Loader or autoloader? Firefighting abilities for the possibility of a fire? that adaptive may not be to much of a burden on weight comparatively to a 60-75 ton tank. Pistons are a lot more vulnerable to shrapnel than road-wheels and tracks.

>>15015571
>Thanks for telling me you don't know what either of those defense measures are. What you're describing is reactive armor, which is not what I listed.

1. AMAP-ADS is in fact a reactive measure.
2. Neither Slat or a ASP is a substitute steel or composites.

>Adaptiv adds armor, can withstand ordnance and physical impact, consumes low power and is relatively light weight so it does not affect agility or movement. If a pixel is damaged, it can easily be removed and replaced.

This is designed for an armoured vehicle, show me how you can implement this on a leg without it impacting on mobility. How are you supposed to cover the joints with this armour without impacting on it?

>Slat armor for a Stryker IFV weighs about 2300kg to cover the entire vehicle
Will you be spacing the legs in such a way that it allows to place a cage around each leg?

>Granting a total of ~3 tons (considering ADAPTIV is light enough not to hinder mobility, as advertised)

1. You're retarded. ADAPTIV is built on that platform type, you cannot be retarded enough to believe when they advertise that mobility is not impacted they include mechs.
2. You're retarded. ADAPTIV does not provide sufficient base armour within itself. It is design to slot on top of already pre-existing steel or composites.

>By contrast, he explained, "Adaptiv panels add to the armour on a fighting vehicle and consume relatively little power."

t. Pader Sjolund, Adaptiv project manager

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14788009

So far the only armour you have is your cage.

>Legs don't need to walk on roads to get anywhere fast.

That's not an answer. You're avoiding the question. You are asserting that your mech legs are resilient compared to V-Hulls/steel or composites for tanks or MRAPs.

Again, I've asked for a citation from a thinktank, university or military institute. You again completely ignore it. You're guesstimates don't mean anything.

1/2

>>15015642
>LAWs
That's what the slat armor is there for.

>>15015648
>The article doesn't say exactly what it can withstand.
Yes, ADAPTIV is not proper armor, it's a stealth coating apparatus to evade guided weaponry. As I said, slat armor, ADS and Chobham armor cover that need.

>none of these systems would protect against sustained large caliber fire.
As seen in the Gulf War, Chobham platings could resist high-caliber fire, and even weaponry like ATGWs. There were very few, if any, losses of coalition armored vehicles that used it.

>>15015648
>This is just completely false
It's not. Not getting hit is always better than sustaining damage. You can't destroy what you can't hit.

>why are there tanks at all instead of an army composed entirely of infantry?
Because tanks were originally used as both as means to push through fire and as psychological weapon back in WWI where everybody sat around in trenches waiting for one another to start an advance. They survived the test of time for being moving walls of metal that could break a defense line by shrugging off enemy fire.

Nowadays, tanks are merely used to occupy captured territory and provide anti-tank/anti-garrison support for troops, which are both already done by infantry anyway. As for effectiveness, the newest in AT technology and air superiority pretty much rendered tanks useless for anything else in the present day, just like battleships were rendered obsolete by long range anti-ship missiles and torpedoes in the past century.

>>15015571
>Adding all available defense measures (3 tons) we can adapt to a walker vehicle, a 155 mm (4 tons) gun with, say, a storage of 60 M107 shells (~2.5 tons, more than an Abrams can carry), you get a total of ~9.7 tons total including a crew and a couple of M2 Brownings + ammo, with weigh to spare for some well distributed Chobham armor. Lighter than an Abrams.

That's an extremely generous weight estimation. Bare in mind that the first two are considered lightweight MRAPs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(vehicle)
>17 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-33
>26 to 37 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
>16 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(armoured_fighting_vehicle)
>40 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrex
>25 tons

So how much will the engine weight? Sensors? What about the internal armour bunked for the ammo?

How much power does your engine have?

>All while considering we don't upgrade the legs to top tier industrial metal/pistons.

What is the lifting capacity of your pistons?

>Also, good luck trying to get a hit on constantly moving legs from afar with AT weaponry from a distance where you won't be shot to shit by it.

You seriously underestimate the speed and agility of missiles.

File: okc bombing.jpg (280KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1200x800px

>>15015466

>fertilizer bombs
>Cheap firecrackers

Cheap, yes, firecrackers, not so much.

>>15015674
>battleships were rendered obsolete by long range anti-ship missiles and torpedoes
>long range anti-ship missiles
>In WWII

Dear god, I'm crying right now. Thank you anon, I needed the laugh.

>>15015689
>In the past century = WWII alone
If you're laughing at your own reading comprehension, sure.

>>15015654
>do you have a power source that can produce enough or store enough energy for long enough periods of time to be used effectively?
Current technology still has a long way to go to power something like a mech, but perhaps something like this might be the answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

>combined arms tactics
Well yes, any armored vehicle can be effective with air/infantry backing it up. They're not sent alone all the time.

>Because if you plan on armouring a mech with it, then shrapnel can fuck up its abilities to camouflage
The trick is to only use it when planning an attack with the element of surprise on your side, a.k.a. striking first when the enemy doesn't expect you. Even if it is damaged, it's easily replaceable.

>Also tanks are accurate. Extremely accurate.
Against tanks and buildings. Tanks can't even weed out infantry or accurately hit fast attack vehicles. Still, a mech can be just as accurate as a tank, given both are at stationary positions before firing.

>Pistons are a lot more vulnerable to shrapnel than road-wheels and tracks.
Which would most certainly have armor covering them (not "glued" on them, but slightly separate as to not interfere with their movement.

>>15015674
>the newest in AT technology and air superiority pretty much rendered tanks useless for anything else in the present day

And these don't effect your mechs?

>>15015674
>That's what the slat armor is there for.

The slat is only 50% effective, it says right there in the Wikipedia page.

>Chobham armor cover that need.

Again, utterly retarded. Do you know how much Chobham weights? No, of course you don't.

Chobham is extremely heavy as composite armour goes. You will be seriously impacting mobility.

>Nowadays, tanks are merely used to occupy captured territory and provide anti-tank/anti-garrison support for troops, which are both already done by infantry anyway. As for effectiveness, the newest in AT technology and air superiority pretty much rendered tanks useless for anything else in the present day, just like battleships were rendered obsolete by long range anti-ship missiles and torpedoes in the past century.

Right, but somehow your weapon isn't the same as the tank.

File: 1461354877062.jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

>>15015674
>That's what the slat armor is there for.
Yeah, 50% chance of stopping an older rocket, no chance against stuff like NLAWs, Javelins, Spike missiles.
>it's a stealth coating apparatus to evade guided weaponry.
It's a stealth coating to fool FLIR, which will do nothing to fool radar, non IR optical and magnetic sensors.
>As seen in the Gulf War, Chobham platings could resist high-caliber fire, and even weaponry like ATGWs. There were very few, if any, losses of coalition armored vehicles that used it.
And you can't slap MBT level Chobham on a walking vehicle. Do you suppose those legs are going to support 50 tons of weight on them?

>It's not. Not getting hit is always better than sustaining damage. You can't destroy what you can't hit.
And a walking tank is not going to be mobile enough to avoid being hit.
>Nowadays, tanks are merely used to occupy captured territory and provide anti-tank/anti-garrison support for troops,
Stop talking about things you don't know anything about. MBT are used for all kinds of roles. Their armour is still extremely effective, their guns will rain hell on targets from two miles off, they're highly mobile and can traverse a forest faster than a man can run.
>the newest in AT technology and air superiority pretty much rendered tanks useless
No, they didn't. Anti-tank weaponry can be countered, spotted, intercepted, or simply suppressed with artillery or other fires. Air superiority is also not a certainty, cannot be everywhere at once, is vulnerable to anti-air, cannot see through multispectral camo nets and proper air cover. A tank is a lot cheaper than a modern fighter. A lot less vulnerable as well, considering it's not in the sky.

>>15015694
can you answer my questions about Elevation and Depression, gun traverse, and if you are going to use a human or autoloader?

File: 12312321.jpg (383KB, 2000x1332px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 2000x1332px

>>15015694
>when the enemy doesn't expect you
So pretty much never, outside of covert operations?
>Against tanks and buildings. Tanks can't even weed out infantry or accurately hit fast attack vehicles
Yes they can. Why are you talking about things you know absolutely nothing about?

>>15015694
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

Highly compact, but extremely heavy.

>Tanks can't even weed out infantry or accurately hit fast attack vehicles.

lolwut

>Still, a mech can be just as accurate as a tank, given both are at stationary positions before firing.

So your mech is only as accurate as a tank when it is stationary?

>Which would most certainly have armor covering them (not "glued" on them, but slightly separate as to not interfere with their movement.

You're retarded. You cannot armour it without it having an impact.

>>15015694
additionally, i forgot to add that Turkey, of which is using the Leopard 2,are using them to snipe targets from up to 5 MILES AWAY, not buildings either, Squads of infantry, because HE is a thing that exists.

The saddest part of this thread is even after everything is said, this delusional autist will continue to believe his mech design is viable and realistic.

>>15015657
AMAP-ADS doesn't blow shit off your vehicle, dumbass. If it damaged vehicles it was mounted on, barely anyboy would buy them.

>Neither Slat or a ASP is a substitute steel or composites.
Which is why I mentioned the actual fucking armor in my post.

>Will you be spacing the legs in such a way that it allows to place a cage around each leg?
Don't see how that wouldn't be fearsible.

>you cannot be retarded enough to believe when they advertise that mobility is not impacted they include mechs.
They will when a properly designed and efficient mech comes around, retardo. I'm explaining a concept of how it would work. I didn't say it exists yet.

>ADAPTIV does not provide sufficient base armour within itself. It is design to slot on top of already pre-existing steel or composites.
And? They'll just do exactly that, you idiot. Did you even read my post about the actual armor?

>That's not an answer
Have fun trying to predict where a walker will pass through in the middle of a desert with so much room to evade IED's, since it doesn't need to stick to commonly used roads.

>>15015696
They do, but that doesn't discredit a mech over a tank, since it can affect both equally.

>>15015718
>since it doesn't need to stick to commonly used roads.
Yeah, tanks don't either. Neither do tracked vehicles, with some limitations.

>>15015718
First off, you have avoided the questions about the actual armour, second off, that would be one fucked logistical chain.

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

2MB, 2790x1860px

>>15015718
>Have fun trying to predict where a walker will pass through in the middle of a desert with so much room to evade IED's, since it doesn't need to stick to commonly used roads.
gee i wonder what else can do that

>>15015720
>Neither do tracked vehicles
Wheeled vehicles*

>>15015718
>AMAP-ADS doesn't blow shit off your vehicle, dumbass. If it damaged vehicles it was mounted on, barely anyboy would buy them.

Yes, I mistook AMAP-ADS for traditional hardkill countermeasures which do use explosives and do damage other vehicles.

>Which is why I mentioned the actual fucking armor in my post.

How thick?

>Don't see how that wouldn't be fearsible.

You have to prove that it is feasible.

>They will when a properly designed and efficient mech comes around, retardo. I'm explaining a concept of how it would work. I didn't say it exists yet.

No, you're explaining your concept. Mechs will never been a thing. They offer (when realistic considered) very little capability for a lot of headache.

>And? They'll just do exactly that, you idiot. Did you even read my post about the actual armor?

What lathering Chobham all over it? The heaviest current deployed armour in the world?

>Have fun trying to predict where a walker will pass through in the middle of a desert with so much room to evade IED's, since it doesn't need to stick to commonly used roads.

What? Are you retarded? Are you suggesting that tanks and other armoured vichels cannot go through deserts? Or that deserts cannot be mined?

>>15015718
>Have fun trying to predict where a walker will pass through in the middle of a desert with so much room to evade IED's

This thread is a fucking goldmine
>be tank commander
>Sir, there's an IED in the road up ahead!
>Should we drive around it on the vast stretch of desert on either side?
>fuck
>if only you had a mech
>NO! Full speed ahead private!

>>15015747

It's M113 Gavin tier thinking.

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

38KB, 500x364px

>HURR /k/ dont kno nuffin
>thread gets linked
>"mecha will be real!" retard gets BTFO

File: 1394558659155.jpg (348KB, 1600x1078px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1600x1078px

>>15015742
>Mechs will never been a thing
As long as they require a human inside, sure. If they can be controlled from a distance and are used as drones, then maybe. As long as they've got superhuman artificial muscles and aren't too much larger than a human then they would have some serious uses. Especially in logistics.
They would never replace MBTs though, just fill their own niche. Though exosuits make a lot more sense.

>>15015752
We've got these same mechfags on /k/, really. Just put them in the same pile with the Gavinfag, gliderfag, battleshipfags, body armorfag and the rest of them.

File: 1451654750072.png (296KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 540x405px

>>15015756

That's what the /k/rew is for, BTFOing autists fanfiction dreams.

>>15015762
>They would never replace MBTs though, just fill their own niche. Though exosuits make a lot more sense.
Exactly, which is why the closest thing the US government has to a mecha program is the TALOS program and those robot pack mule things.

>>15015762

Yep, pretty much.

File: 640x24218.jpg (118KB, 640x264px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x264px

>>15015771
Mecha don't really make sense when you can build drones. They're cool, is all.

File: 1322594400961.jpg (80KB, 686x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 686x800px

>>15015648
(I'm the anon who brought Menzi first)
It depend of whatsort of mobility you need. Despite using it as an example, we real-mech folk rarely defend them "replacing" tank. But tracked &wheeled vehicle have strict limitations that the army would love to see alleviate.

A mech used for logistic/combat engineering purpose, not capable of lifting tank, but capable of lifting & powering the tools that can do anything. Would be more practical than a crane and dozen of specialized repair-truck.
The only reason we haven't built any yet is that the software requirement is more incredible than any of its physical ones.

A military mech is feasible under 30 tons if only because of semantic. The real question is what we should expect/ask out of it. I could take an industrial exoskeleton (of the cool future) that crossed the "mech limit", make a military variation and call it a day.
But a military mech with the firepower of an IFV is also feasible under 30 tons, the Menzi Muck is far to be the limit. Take : the 12tons lifting capability given, this number is high despite the Menzi arm being horribly shaped for lifting (it's suited to dig).

Mech will happen, we are only guessing what they'll look like and be used for.

>>15015654 +>>15015684 +>>15015694
> do you have a power source that can produce enough or store enough energy for long enough periods of time to be used effectively?
What about any engine in use on any IFV or tank ?
This shitty question is a though terminating cliché born from the double standard "trying to make real mech = trying to make a gundam"

You take the engine of an IFV and rather than propelling 8 separates wheels with incredible suspensions you'll be powering an hydraulic pump for more pistons. Only difference is the sensors and software you need to control theses.

>>15016284
>What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense.
Like always /k/ proves it have no idea what it's talking about and gets btfo at every turn.

File: Mi-24_Desert_Rescue.jpg (229KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1728x1152px

>>15016284
> making a plane without wing & less weapon

What the fuck would your "helicopter" do ? We can discuss for hours how much more complicated it would be, you'll be happy if it can even fly one hour for every 3 hours of maintenance.
It's only feature is the ability to be a sitting duck in the sky. We have AA cannon you know ?
So stop with your power fantasy, you'll never have a vertical figther-plane that can hide behind tree and drop enough bomb, fast enough to surprise any enemy.

Am I too late for the circlejerk?

>>15015052
>>15014966
This is literally the best outcome
We can become mecha pilots and blow shitup without actually risking our lives

When the fuck is Megas gonna fight the Kuratas?

File: 1468763443732.jpg (266KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1200x1200px

>>15016284
>>15016336
>>15016339
Just admit you were wrong.
Retarded MS paint comics arent arguments.

>>15016284
Christ, the sheer butthurt emanating from this image is delicious.
Needless to say the person who made it is retarded, considering literally all of those inventions (arrows, spears, planes, tanks, helicopters, and so on) were implemented amongst those who could afford it, except for mecha, because mecha are dumb.

>>15016386
>>15016382
>damage control
Pathetic, I expect more /k/ even /pol/ is better at arguing than you chucklefucks.

File: submarino-surcouf.jpg (101KB, 713x346px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 713x346px

>>15016284
> a slow ship
> without cannon
> It come pre-sunk

I give it to you the enemy will never see it coming
Why? because it's fucking retarded!!

That stupid concept could never stay underwater for long and its engines would literally asphyxiate the crew.
How are you even going to detect the enemy? Listening to it through the water? Be real!
Assuming you can get it floating at the right depth precisely, assuming you can calculate the enemy position without a tower, you'll still be stuck launching little replica of your own submarine with barely the strength or the explosives to pierce the armor of a battleship.

Any captain will be yawning looking at your slow-as-fuck projectile trail while your crew will be shitting themselves everyday at the idea of a fast Destroyer passing by and dropping cheap explosive on your ass.
Call me back when you can mount a cannon on it retard!

>>15016393
Okay, let's go through this shit.

>weight

you're going to have a hideous time holding anything of military value up on legs, which means that you have skimp on firepower or protection

>visibility

good luck going into prone the way an infantryman can, also good luck surviving modern ATGMs with the thermal signature of a small country and no armor because of said legs

>energy storage

An engine can apply torque directly to drive wheels. It can't do that with legs. The best case scenario is a fossil fuel engine hooked up to a generator, hooked up to a battery, hooked up to the legs. That or some bizarre marionette system. Either way, you're going to carry that weight, and you don't have the luxury to carry it on a suspension system.

>speed

I don't think there are a lot of things larger than humans that manage pedal locomotion in anything like a hurry

>competition

tanks, helicopters, and infantry fill a lot of niches very well

>>15016400
PROTIP: Early submarines actually used their deck guns because early torpedoes weren't that good.

And they usually fought surfaced for the same reason, plus fire control problems.

The submarine part developed initially as a way to get to merchant convoys and other soft targets without getting detected.

File: steel pushcars.jpg (36KB, 420x644px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 420x644px

>>15004922

You forget that innumerable ideas do actually turn out to be stupid.

>>15016400
>>15016339
The difference here being that both helicopters and submarines had widespread support amongst military leaders because they showed clear benefits to the tactics and structure of the armed forces.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 658x523px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 658x523px

>>15016381
>We can become mecha pilots and blow shitup without actually risking our lives

>Implying anyone will let us near the mechs without us becoming amazing master class esports gods after having put a million hours into the simulators

>Tfw real mecha are only going to be for a bunch of teenage Korean boys

>>15016469
>implying I won't build my own
I've got the development program roadmap laid out pretty good. Should only take me 15 years and 9 incremental testbeds. By year 3 I should have something with four legs capable of being ridden.

File: 10683706_759680460776928_8812923161084873998_o.jpg (445KB, 2048x1437px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 2048x1437px

>>15016284
This is the biggest defeat /k/ has ever known. They're not likely to recover from this. This is bigger than the brownie incident.They lost an argument against mechs of all thing via an MS paint comic and they're livid about it.

/k/ likes to play arm chair engineer and logistician but they really couldn't foresee such a eloquent and thorough rebuttal to their entire foundation. Using the logic of the day it is impossible to accurately speculate on the technological innovations of the future this has been true throughout history and it is as true today and in a simple MS paint comic this true has been laid out for all the see.

All we can say is /k/ was btfo, utterly defeated and is unlikely to ever live this down. Not since the days of Alexander has anyone been destroyed this completely with this little effort.

>>15016469
Just become rich anon.
You can build and sponsor your own mecha.
Go in as a young fighter taken off of the streets and fight your way up to the top in a rusty mecha that might not have the newest tech, but was made with a tonne of heart.

File: 1021199549.jpg (137KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1000x541px

>>15016284
> a floating airbase

I applaud the attempt to increase an airplane range but how can you believe it's a good idea?
If flying wasn't hard enough landing on a tilting boat would be insanely hard (if possible at all), it would have to be limited to very small planes with small bomb so they would spend their time going back to get more bombs (and more occasion to kill everybody landing).

Not to forget about the total lack of defense of such ships, since the deck is now an huge flat target for ground-based heavy bomber you can't have cannons on it.
The entire fleet would have to babysit those aircraft-carrier. It would be more efficient to hire suicidal pilot and asking them to crash on enemy ship with their bombs.

>>15016513
The better question is "does this do anything air to air refueling doesn't already do"

>>15016515
So we have air to air rearming all of the sudden as well? Didn't realize.

File: Pedipulator-002.jpg (60KB, 500x606px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x606px

>>15016475
> implying that sarcastic words on a paper don't have the power to shape the future of nations
> 2016

>>15016473
Too bad the funding will run out on day two.

>>15016554
Day two is cheap as fuck, don't know what kind of financial planning YOU do.

>>15016418
And yet there's still idiots who think that submarines have the potential to become superweapon capable of silently keeping entire country at bay with the threat of annihilating their cities at anytime from anywhere

>>15016430
Mech do have widespread support, every country work on robotic machines that can navigate alone. The difference is that the key technologies we need to research don't need to look like the expected product, so people with no technical knowledge misunderstand why it hasn't been done before.

It's like supporting the idea of self-guided missiles before we invented electronics.

>all these faggots going "durr mechs won't be real because not practical!!"

News flash morons it doesn't have to in order for it to become big and successful; they could be implemented in arena fighting/sport you know like Battlebots,Robot Wars, G Gundam etc. you know the stuff that old /m/ used to get hyped for?

File: 1298354276977.jpg (2MB, 1500x924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x924px

>>15016423
That they turned out stupid mean they've been considered and tested. That's pretty cheap for the possibility to discover an idea that could win a war.
If we listened to the anti-mech trolls we would never test anything different from how things are now.

Someday we should try a thread
> post /m/ ideas that are not walking machine but you think could change the world
or something

File: helicopter_cavalry_0.jpg (153KB, 678x1024px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 678x1024px

>>15016621

>Youu want mirrion dorrar?! Too bad! Here bomb! Fuck U!!

File: efe.jpg (65KB, 544x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 544x960px

Mechs are like Communism, never truly been tried before.

File: 1245594556743.jpg (1023KB, 1845x2785px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 1845x2785px

>>15016284
> Spying at other country from space

Woah calm down, do you have any idea how ridiculously costly it would be ?
Sure it's technically possible, we've just sent people in orbit, but have you looked at the cost just for 3 mans ?
It would take thousand of people, living up there for month to look at everything interesting in a country, since they are constantly turning around the planet it would need to be photo, very high quality photo taken with very big lens.
I guess you could take thousands of photos and send them back to Earth periodically but unless you can fly every weeks you'll rarely have fresh photo.

Really it's far too costly just for that kind of data and you can't bring weapons up there without starting a war.
The only reason to invest in gigantic space station would be for sport and cultural domination over the commies and they won't waste their budget on that

File: 1442330462315811.jpg (127KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 960x638px

Even jetpacks have more military credibility then piloted mecha

>>15016600
Like battlebots where all the cool and interesting designs get BTFO by boring but practical wedgebots?

Any mecha combat sport would be so extensively regulated it would make F1 look good.

>>15016793
>Fuck the ground
>Everything needs to fly

File: yeager shitposting.png (66KB, 835x369px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 835x369px

>>15016621
>one new vehicle wins wars
Oh hello Hitler, didn't know you posted on /m/.
How're those Me262's doing?

>>15016861
Have you never seen Gundam?

>>15016567
>It's like supporting the idea of self-guided missiles before we invented electronics.
I KNOW, JUST PUT A CAT AT THE CONTROLS!!!

>>15016882
Didn't happen there either.

File: 795b58020a693772d28c3849b50cac54.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>15016890
Or a Jap

>>15016914
No man, they literally put cats into early guided anti-ship bombs...
The idea was that the cat wouldn't want to land in the water, so they would direct the bomb to fall onto the boat.

Thing was, the cats just passed out due to the G forces, so they couldn't even guide the bomb, but trained Pigeons could.

File: 1480818937287.jpg (54KB, 501x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 501x600px

>>15016567
>It's like supporting the idea of self-guided missiles before we invented electronics.

While guided missiles weren't really around before electronics in the strictest sense, first generation guided missiles were pretty much a sensor (an IR sensor or a tuned directional radio antenna for semi-active radar homing) on a mechanically rotated mount, wired to a filter, wired to a pair of vacuum tube op amps with the other input to each op-amp wired to a pair of potentiometers whose output essentially encoded the sensor's current phase, and served to separate the X and Y component of the current sensor heading.. Then the output of each amplifier was fed to a pair of lowpass filters, and then to a pair of servomotors which moved the fins. Missiles were often tuned to overcorrect, to hopefully get it to lead the target to improve it's chances.

That's all the smarts there were to 'em, and it showed, with a ~10% hit percentage. Radar guided ones needed you to keep the target painted with your plane's radar all the way to the time of impact, and IR seeking missiles need to be fired with line of sight to the exhaust of your target, and there was a "lock on time" of sorts as IR sensors had to be cooled with some kind of cold gas or liquid nitrogen in order to work, and they often only had enough for one use, so if you didn't commit right then to firing, the missile would be useless for the rest of your flight.

A lot of people got killed, and it has so traumatized the US air force that I doubt they'll ever accept a manned fighter without a gun within my lifetime, even though missiles today are a hell of a lot more capable, with some six decades of advancements in electronics under their belt.

>Mfw the soviet's second ever guided air to air missile, the K-13/AA-2 was a direct copy of the sidewinder, which they were able to capture when one managed to get lodged into the side of one of their MIGs without exploding, and the pilot was able to fly back to base.

>>15017047
The F-35B doesn't have an internal gun.
But then again, the B variant is the one slated for the muhreen corp, not the USAF.

File: F-4Dwith15mini-guns.jpg (43KB, 747x422px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 747x422px

>>15017057

Correct. The Air force gets the F35A, which is the only F35 variant with an internal gun, as per their specific requirements. Even the navy's F35C, which isn't VTOL either, doesn't have an internal gun, though every version can mount a stealthy external gun pod.

Or like a dozen regular ones if you want to be silly.

The navy isn't as strict about having guns since they employed sidewinders instead of the air force's falcon missiles in the early stages of Vietnam, which could, with their top gun training meet or exceed a 10% hit percentage, as compared to the falcon, which managed to hit a grand total 5 targets in it's entire history.

File: dude missiles suck lmao.png (159KB, 689x512px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 689x512px

>>15017079
I sort of agree though, guns really aren't as necessary as they used to be.
Something like 95% of air to air kills since Vietnam have been with missiles.

File: 1466525390620.png (310KB, 986x551px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 986x551px

Stupid question, in chinese cartoons, mecha are frequently depicted as perfectly capable of destroying larger ships. Does this have a real-life analogue? Does a modern fighter plane have enough power to solo an aircraft carrier? What about smaller ships like destroyers or frigates? This is all assuming that the ships just sit there and tank all the hits without actively defending.

File: ASM_hornet.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15017154
Yes, fighter jets, and bombers can carry anti ship missiles.

>>15017164
woops, that webm isn't the one I wanted to post.
here's a youtube ad by my favorite defence corporation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY

File: 4031.jpg (88KB, 600x691px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x691px

>>15017079
>>15017091
>50G+ short range thrust vectoring HMD targeted A2A missiles
>IRL Itano circus and dogfighting in general is dead until we invent fold crystal powered G-force diffusors

File: AIM-9X.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>15017363
The AIM-9X is my all aspect waifu

File: Saturn_V_by_rf8voodoo.jpg (269KB, 900x1291px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 900x1291px

>>15016861
>Oh hello WWII german engineers, didn't know you posted on /m/.
>How're those Me262's doing?
Nice, they inspired the B2 stealth bomber dozen of years later, but I guess you can't win again 2 superpower with vastly greater production capacity.
Both of those superpower loved german engineer though, we got them to the moon. US Engineer tested a lot of crazy ass technology, can you believe those yankee made tanks float ?! You don't conquer the world with the weapon of the last war you know.

If only the fuhrer had not been an insane motherfucker.

File: Northrop_N-1M_Udvar-Hazy.jpg (428KB, 1920x1114px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1920x1114px

>>15017154
>Does this have a real-life analogue? Does a modern fighter plane have enough power to solo an aircraft carrier? What about smaller ships like destroyers or frigates? This is all assuming that the ships just sit there and tank all the hits without actively defending.

Yeah, more or less. Ships aren't armored these days, and mostly rely on other defenses. an aircraft carrier could probably withstand all the damage caused by a single fighter's payload unless it took some particularly unlucky hits, just by virtue of it's sheer massive fucking size, but it would almost certainly be knocked out of action. Smaller ships, if not sunk outright, would be fukken rekt.

By sending out planes of their own, and launching missiles, and intercepting enemy missiles, ships remain relevant in combat. Gundam has it worse for it's spacecraft because of minskovy particle interference making it so that opponents wind up right on top of each other before they notice each other. In that sort of environment, with beam guns that blast right through even the biggest ships, I'd imagine they'd drastically change paradigms, and rely on small fleets of tiny, cheap, specialized ships instead of larger ships.

>>15017831
>Nice, they inspired the B2 stealth bomber dozen of years later

Bruh, Northrup, the very same company that made the B2 stealth bomber, flew this flying wing two years before the Ho-229 flew. And a giant flying wing bomber just two years after.

Flying wing designs have been around forever, albeit mostly unsuccessfully until fly-by-wire controls and computer assistance. The wing is the part of the plane that provides lift, so it's only natural to then attempt to make the entire plane the wing.

>>15016284
>>15016336
>>15016339
>>15016400
>>15016475
>>15016513
>>15016714

This is pure gold. You were actually this upset that you had to create fake arguments that nobody in this thread has had.

And just because *some* idea were laughed at and turned out to be useful does not mean that *all* ideas will. Seriously, how childish are you?

Don't you think if the military, defence contractors and military research institutions could see the potential of this they be publishing material and research for futhered funding? You autists are delusional of your level of knowledge.

File: P1110746.jpg (2MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>15018012
If we are to believe the wiki this flying wing, the first with jet engine flew well. And Northrop did study it before building the B2.

> Gundam
The catapult of their carrier aren't even useful, they take forever and wouldn't give meaningful save in fuel

>>15018106
>Y-you just got lucky
>The Institution just sprout it to everybody if its ever happens, r-right guis?
>Never realize it already happens

/k/DCS at the action gentlemen

No wonder nobody even trust what ever come out of your mouth /k/ek, even /his/ laught at your very face.

>>15018200

Misrepresent my posts if you want, it does not change the fact that nobody in this thread had made these arguments.

Calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a shortsighted luddite does not make you correct. I have consistently asked throughout this thread for any serious and authoritative research in this, yet none has appeared.

You know why? They already know the answer.

>>15018308
Whatever man, everybody knows giving argument in shit thread like this never worth their time anyway. I just like watching realfags and hardon/k/ shitflinging at each other because it'll help my sleep.

So have fun anon.

>>15018324

No worries bud.

>>15018324
>I was just pretending to be retarded

File: technical1.jpg (69KB, 593x345px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 593x345px

>>15019338

>>15018169
does that thing even fly?

>>15018169
>If we are to believe the wiki this flying wing, the first with jet engine flew well. And Northrop did study it before building the B2.
What did he mean by this?

>>15018169
>this flying wing, the first with jet engine flew well.

>only prototype to be tested in powered flight suffered an engine burnout on it's third test flight, crashing and killing the pilot

Doesn't sound like he flew so good

>>15019338
>>15019370
>>15021805
Why is this thread being bumped?

File: c7ead16f8162b0b81e549dfb841130f2.jpg (31KB, 400x371px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x371px

>>14993700
>being an American myself its kind of embarrassing.

Then get the fuck out.

File: MKII-CANON.gif (567KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 450x253px

US & Japanese Mech-Suit Maker

File: 1480731886820.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>15022423
>give it legs
>make them completely useless by welding them togther and gluing tracks on

>>14999999

>>15022423
I wonder if President Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister will be watching the Gundam Fight.