/m/is too peaceful. Let's have a tank vs mech thread like

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

139KB, 1280x720px

How about Knightmare from CG? How can small mechs like these with practically no armor and puny firepower make tanks obsoleted?

>>15051026
Japanese magic rays from their engines.

>>15051033
Why can't tank use this engine?

>>15051140
Plotholium.

Realismfags are on the wrong board, accept that mecha are stupid and ridiculous and have fun wih it.

Why don't they make a show about tanks vs giant robot?

>>15050988
If tanks are so great how come they can't go up stairs? Checkmate tank fags.

File: 30C71E0800000578-3426338-image-a-68_1454327437748.jpg (59KB, 634x699px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 634x699px

>>15051255
They can though.

It all depends...

Are the mechs in our world?
Are the tanks in the mecha's world?

/m/ is peaceful because everyone is hanging out and enjoying Christmas at https://discord.gg/SfRQH7Q

>>15051340
What if I increase the incline or widen the steps?

>>15051361
Most modern tanks can climb 1m vertical obstacle.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15050988

Mechs can sidestep without having to change forward position.

Tanks can't

This can make all the difference in the world when you only have a second to get out of the way.

>>15051426
ATGMs are faster than side step though.

File: How much you wanna bet they beat that Commander to death after this.webm (3MB, 1309x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1309x720px

Most ATGMs have terrible lateral movement arcs.

If you notice the missile from far enough off and start movement PERPENDICULAR to the missile's direction of travel, you have a pretty good chance of living.

Even tanks can do this, see pic-related, but Mechs would certainly be better at this.

>>15051461
>the commander just bails

>>15051461

eh, a bipedal gait is better at setting out in any arbitrary direction aside from forwards or backwards from a stop when compared to a wheeled thing, but it's much slower at accelerating forwards or backwards using the same amount of power.

If you're really walking, not doing that silly statically balanced "just shat my pants" robot walk, you more or less start to fall over to wherever you want to go, and then use your legs to catch you and shift you forward, to fall into your next step. If you try accelerating without starting to fall in a given direction, you legs will just move out from under you and you'll fall over backwards.

First you start to fall over, which sets your body pivoting from where your feet touch the ground, giving the top part of you some velocity in the desired direction. Then you start moving your legs to keep you from falling over, bringing your legs to a similar velocity to your upper body. While you are "falling" forwards, you are accelerating, while you are completely upright, you are maintaining speed, and while you are "falling" backwards, you are slowing down.

For a given power input, you simply can't accelerate as fast as a squatter platform with it's ground contacting elements distributed further away from your COG, like a quadruped or a car, because for something like that, it is essentially already fallen over to 90 degrees, and thus they can push considerably more torque into the ground before having to worry about flipping over.

>>15051709

To be perfectly honest, it was the best thing to do to save his life.

>>15051426
>>15051461
What you gotta keep in mind is that they'd combine that with decend ground radars and automatic hit evasion.

So the pilot wouldn't even be in control of that move, it'd be triggered automatically as soon as the computer registered a missile blip on the radar.

>>15050988
Tanks are shaped like cardboard boxes.
mecha look way cooler because fuck practicallity, and watching humanoid figures fight looks cooler than watching boxes.
End of story

File: nozfvuXuKH1s6zihxo.gif (2MB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x435px

>>15051790
Tanks are cool in their own way of substance over style.

>>15051759
Making the mech move suddenly without the pilot's knowledge or anticipation is not something you want to have. The violent jerk of a mech suddenly performing a sidestep might disorient the pilot for a few seconds. Also keep in mind the terrain, it might be difficult to get a grip or the surface might be unsteady. Perhaps the mech is in a confined area, or there are friendly infantry nearby. What you guys propose sounds cool in theory, but isn't very practical. A computer system would have to calculate incoming trajectory, consider the terrain and obstacles nearby, and decide which direction to move in. What if there is no good direction to move in? Ideally the mech would never be in such a vulnerable position, but war doesn't always allow for ideal positions. Tanks are vulnerable in urban combat, but it doesn't mean tanks will never be deployed in cities, so the same should be expected of mechs.

How long would it be before enemies learn how to exploit it by creating false return images for the radar to pick up, or even using cheap RPGs to set off the automatic evasion? In Afghan wars, RPGs are so cheap that Taliban would set up ambushes using as many as 15 RPGs fired nearly at once from different directions to try and knock out armored vehicles.

In any case, moving the machine is not really practical. Something like the Trophy/Arena defensive systems would be much more practical and be faster by virtue of not requiring the machine to move at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

>>15051807
I mean yeah, they have an appeal, but it's always gonna be mecha>tank on most occassions for me.
I still like both though, and planes are great too.

>>15051140
>>15051153
Why would you waste it on a tank in the first place? They have limited mobility and treads are fucking stupid. Realistically speaking if we actually did have an engine that could power a humanoid robot it wouldn't improve the tank at all.

>>15051842
>Making the mech move suddenly without the pilot's knowledge or anticipation is not something you want to have

Having the mech get shot through the cockpit by a AT weapon is something you don't want EVEN MORE

>How long would it be before enemies learn how to exploit it by creating false return images for the radar to pick up, or even using cheap RPGs to set off the automatic evasion?

Yes, every weapon will always have a counter defense , but that doesn't mean you just stop trying. Systems and optics will continue to advance and attempts to fool these will continue as well.

>Something like the Trophy/Arena defensive systems would be much more practical

Certaintly, and you'd certaintly want hard-kill defenses installed, but these are inherently limited by how much ammunition the system has. What happens when you run out of ammo for the hard-kill system, you just hope and pray? Why not have a "Side-step the incoming fire" maneuver installed just in case?

File: Saddam and his boys rollin in da desert.jpg (240KB, 640x421px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 640x421px

>>15050988
Can I have a video with mechs fighting and dank sand music playing? No.

Can I have a video with tanks fighting and dank music sand playing? Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VhQxqH8KuI

>>15052188
Taking control away from the pilot is a bad move in every way.

File: F-16n_Viper_of_VF-43_in_flight_in_1990.jpg (289KB, 2435x1631px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 2435x1631px

>>15052220

Yes, which is why no aircraft uses Fly-by-Wire, right? Because taking control away from the pilot is a bad move in every way.

>>15052519
Nice comparison.

File: M1A1 Desert Storm.jpg (168KB, 935x960px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 935x960px

>>15052218

Yes, but what happens when the Abrams roll through, Saddam?

File: 1458729847952.png (170KB, 403x393px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 403x393px

>>15052519
>hurr fly by wire is completely the same as directly taking the controls away from the pilot in an automatic manuever that the pilot has no input on

>>15052947

You do realize Fly-By-Wire includes "HOLY SHIT PILOT, PULL THE FUCK UP, YOU'RE ABOUT TO CRASH INTO THE GROUND" automatic manuevers, right?

The Fly-by-Wire programing includes programing that takes control AWAY from the pilot to prevent the pilot from dying. The pilot has NO control during the single second the computer uses to take the aircraft out of dange.

SOURCE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw

Fuckheads who have no idea what they're talking about should not be allowed to put in their fuckhead opinions.

>>15052987
Yeah, the same fly-by-wire aircaft that also don't pull control away from the pilot if they detect a lock on like what you're proposing?

>>15053011

Which the F-22 and -35 are rumored to have? Yes.

File: 1471335322657.jpg (3MB, 5000x2508px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5000x2508px

>>15050988
Its shit OP

Why not Tanks AND Robots combined like a good ol' day w/o /pol/

We can invite 'copters and planes if we want to, since you know, they ALL mech

>>15053024
>rumored is now synonymous with confirmed
ebin
also, please post your sources for this "rumor"

>>15053038

I feel no need to continue making shots on a moving goalpost

Continue to believe what you wish, but just have the correct knowledge next time you think it's ALWAYS a bad idea to take control away from drivers.

>>15053042
What's the matter? He's only asking for a source for this bullshit that you've pulled out of your ass.
if you can't provide an actual source that confirms an aircraft that takes away control from a pilot in the midst of a combat situation, you can fuck right off.

>>15053050
>if you can't provide an actual source that confirms an aircraft that takes away control from a pilot in the midst of a combat situation, you can fuck right off.

See >>15052987

Fly-by-wire will ALWAYS take control away from the pilot to prevent death when it detects the pilot is leading the aircraft towards death, even in combat situations.

The only cases this programming is turned off is in aerobatic show-jets.

File: 1464568187263.png (556KB, 712x527px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 712x527px

REMOVE FUCHIKOMA remove fuchikoma
you are worst mech. you are the mech idiot you are the mech smell. return to section 5. to our section 5 colleagues you may come our department. you may live in the jail….ahahahaha ,section 9 we will never forgeve you. robot rascal FUck but fuck asshole mech stink section 9 sqhipere shqipare..mech mass recall best day of my life. take a bath of broken mech..ahahahahahSECTION9 WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww3 .seburo armaments we kill the CEO , seburo armaments return to your precious mainland japan….hahahahaha idiot mech and section 9 smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE FUCHIKOMA FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. leona+brenten+al+chaplain=kill section 9…you will ww3/ bonaparte alive in tank police, bonaparte making pride of tank police . fast tank bonaparte tank police. we are rich and have HEAT rounds now hahahaha ha because of bonaparte… you are ppoor stink mech… you live in a hangar hahahaha, you live in a dump
bonaparte alive numbr one #1 in tank police ….fuck the section9 ,..FUCKk ashol mechs no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur boss and department. bonaparte aliv and real strong tank kill all the mech spider with tank shell now we the tank police rule .apeface of the zoo chief aramaki h fukc the prime minister and lay egg this egg hatch and section 9 wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our funding we will crush u lik a skull of pig. tank police greattst department

File: Untitled.png (980KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1280x720px

>>15053099

ha ha wtf now i hate tank

>>15052987
>>15053042
>>15053055
What the shit are you going on about? You need to STOP calling it fly-by-wire.

Fly by wire does NOT include automatic and non-interruptable recovery. Fly by wire technology has existed in working examples since the 1960s. All it means is the aircraft has electronic controls. No need for pilot controls to be physically connected to the control surfaces by wires and rods.

What you are referring to is called Auto-GCAS or PARS, and that began development in the 1980s, with working examples not existing until the 1990s.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/06/a-gcas-could-not-prevent-germanwings-crash/

https://theaviationist.com/2015/02/02/f-16-gcat-explained/

File: leona.jpg (11KB, 194x234px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 194x234px

>>15053120
Of course you do, you're a disgusting cyborg from section 9!

Well let me tell you, even five inches of subdermal armor won't make a difference against Bonaparte so you better keep your butt hidden deep inside those creepy toilets-on-legs you like so much, cause next time we see you on OUR deployment zone we won't miss!

>>15053130
don't you dare move the goalposts now

>>15053124
>Fly by wire does NOT include automatic and non-interruptable recovery
not the guy, but technically auto-ground avoidance is just an automatic stability system given an altitude variable and ASS (lol) do count as fly by wire

>>15053144
Ground avoidance system is a subset of fly by wire technology, fly by wire makes it possible.

Saying it's the same thing as fly by wire Is like saying a self-driving car knowing how to avoid hitting pedestrians is the same as having a computer in a car.

One technology allows the other to exist. They're not the same technology. A fly by wire aircraft from the 80s wouldn't have auto GCAS. As of this year, they haven't even installed auto GCAS into all of the air force and navy jets yet.

>>15053153
I'd call that semantics at best, but I can see how confusion might exist if someone knew FbW existed, but not GCAS. If you know of both, it should be obvious what is meant.

>>15053160
That's kind of the thing, though. FBW is common, but automatic GCAS itself is a recent and classified military technology that won't be getting into civilian planes anytime soon. Sure there are other safety systems in existence that are known, but >>15052519 and >>15052947 started this idiotic thread tangent by claiming that fly by wire as a technology innately includes automatic override to pull the aircraft back up and referred to it as "fly by wire" which is a gross misrepresentation of what fly by wire actually means.

Earlier military jets have had less advanced pilot assisted recovery systems that are meant to save the pilot, but still require input from the pilot (e.g., press a button or perform a certain maneuver). They also don't automatically activate by themselves and take control, independent of and overriding the pilot's input. Civilian jets don't even have those systems, allowing events like the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash.

File: 1464005421366.png (3MB, 2008x2568px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2008x2568px

>>15053034
>a good ol' day w/o /pol/
Good goy

File: 1404068068241.jpg (187KB, 1007x726px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1007x726px

>>15053247
Is that a mobile oppression palace mk. 2 ?

File: 1482521763830.webm (3MB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 900x506px

Got this from /k/

>>15055158

Clearly they're not the best-trained pilots, but surely they would know to drop into the trees, no?

>>15050988
/m/ hate it

>>15050988
Huh?

What's that webm from?

>>15052141
>treads are fucking stupid
Shit man, we've been fighting war the wrong way for a hundred years now.

>>15053034
Where the fuck is /pol/ even in this thread? Do you even know what /pol/ is or are you just using it as a word for everything you don't like?

File: M2_Bradley_IFV_by_DarkWizard83.jpg (174KB, 955x837px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 955x837px

>>15050988
>tank vs mech thread

Is this the 90s? We've moved on to mech vs helicopter a long time ago since there are far more similarities in role. /k/ really needs to get with the times.

>>15051026
>with practically no armor and puny firepower make tanks obsoleted?

The same way this thing with no armor and puny firepower has destroyed more tanks than any actual tank has.

File: tow.jpg (2MB, 1735x1157px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1735x1157px

>>15067482

No, no, no, it wasn't the Bradley that destroyed the tanks, it was this thing.

If you replaced all the Bradleys in Gulf War One with Humvees, they'd still get as many tank-kills, given you still give them TOW missiles.

>>15050988
Like comparing apples to oranges but alright.

Mechs have much more urban maneuverability that tanks and their hands offer more utility.

They can also carry armored shields on their off hand for not only additional frontal protection but also protection against aerial attack.

>>15067518
Don't forget to give them the Bradley's sensor system. That's what really made them effective.

>>15050988
OP /k/ love him

>>15072529
what did he mean by this

>>15067042

We fought with horses for several thousand of years.

Clearly if experience is what factors in for efficiency, horses got tank threads beat.

>>15066966
You mean >>15055158 ?

It's from Schwarzesmarken.

>>15072599
legs aren't efficient though

>>15055158

Are those upgraded T-55s? Truly, a design for the ages.

(Can someone tell me if Schwarzesmarken has good Best Germans with soviet kit shooting at aliens or it's retarded Japanese teen drama. I know it will be latter but hope springs eternal.)

>>15073440
>he doesn't know you can put treads on legs

File: schwarz1 cleared for takeoff.webm (3MB, 600x336px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x336px

>>15076285
Its the former.
There's not a single nipponjin in it.