How long before mechs become usable to the military? https:

When humans need to fight at close range in space.

>>15073806
When /k/ leaves
A good /m/an knows that first, robots like we imagine will never be used by the military, and second, that militaries are already /m/ owing to the machines they use

File: 1482857855856.gif (3MB, 200x110px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x110px

What kind of weaponry would they put on something like this?

File: Red Shoulder 2.jpg (165KB, 776x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 776x960px

>>15073806
As soon as we put tank tracks on the feet.

>>15073806
>How long before mechs become usable to the military?

something like -22 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

I see combat mechs being used for sports before they ever get used by the military

we will end up with labor/patlabor kind of deal

>>15073806

Probably not too long if they manage to find a niche for something more than twice the height of a tank, with none of the stability or defense that make a tank valuable in the first place. Robots or power armor will be good because their relatively low profile and agility will be an asset. Giant robots don't have those. So they'll probably become a military curio and left alone martially. There's a good chance they'll have a future in entertainment though.

>>15073806
As soon as they address the issue of exposed weak points that are easily aloha snackbar'd, massive power consumption, and find a plausible reason why an increased profile would be a good thing.

>>15074306
Even tanks are becoming obsolete. Current doctrine is beyond visual range weapon systems.

>>15074331
>Even tanks are becoming obsolete.
enough with this meme

>>15074381
Anything an Abrams can do, an Apache can do better from 4+ miles away, anon.

>>15074505
>I'll support ground troop from 4 miles away.
Oh wait, I can't.
>I'll hold ground from 4 miles away.
Oh wait, I can't do that either.
>I know, I'll just sit here, pick targets off and avoid being shot down by a guided missile.
I can't even do this better than a tank could!

>>15074505
holy shit you're retarded.

Remember this:

People thought that hot air balloons, not airplanes, were the future of warfare.

People thought that tanks were just going to keep getting bigger and fatter as time went on, becoming battleships of the land.

People thought that bombers were better at delivering nukes.

People thought that ICBMs would end all war and conflict between large nations.

People thought that bayonets were obsolete.

People thought that 4,000 casualties, not even deaths, were too high a cost.

Anyone who argues that tanks are better than mechs are on the wrong side of history.

>>15074651
another retard detected
jesus christ

>>15074306
The last time there was a thread about mecha replacing tanks, it was pointed out that tanks have treads that only allow them to move in a single dimension, so that if someone fired an anti-tank rocket down its traversal axis (e.g., right at the front of it), it would have a hard time dodging it even if it saw it coming.

An argument could be made that with enough agility, a mecha could sidestep, duck under or jump over incoming projectiles, provided that the projectiles are slow enough to give reaction time (it's entirely possible that high-speed rockets will be developed in response to this). To be certain, armoring a mecha to a similar degree to a tank is extremely hard if not impossible, but if you think about it, most aircraft aren't very well armored either except around the cockpit.

And last of all, it should be pointed out that tanks were designed for the main purpose of slugging it out while directly facing another tank on wide-open plains. Taking a tank into an urban combat environment is pure suicide, as has been demonstrated numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wouldn't say that they're obsolete, but they're more often than not fighting in a war that has left them behind.

>>15074651
>because people have been wrong about things before, that means I MUST be right!
People thought pulling out was an effective method yet here you are.

File: terminator%20intro[1].jpg (122KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1920x960px

>Giant robots or tanks or infantry
>Not fully autonomous killbots

Never. A humanoid robot has too many points of failure. You get shrapnel in either leg, and it's grounded forever. You get something in it's arm, and you just halved or negated it's combat potential.

The cost of maintaining an army of them would be astronomical. You have to have parts for each joint. You have to keep it's software properly running. The moment the software crashes, it becomes a gigantic paperweight. At least with a tank or plane, you can still steer them. You would only be losing navigation and whatnot. The movement is mostly mechanical unlike robots.

A bipedal robot can probably be built with modern technology, but it will be a novelty with no practical use other than display, so not too many people will bother with this idea.
The programming, joints, maintenance, size advantage/disadvantage, ground pressure, how to control damn thing, the investment, not worth the trouble any time soon.
I can maybe see giant humanoid limbs with magical artificial muscle and neural control being a thing for construction, but not a full blown bipedal robot.

>>15073806
When everyone start to get themselves together and getting shit done instead of ranting about their suspension of disbelieves in Mongolian seafish gallery (see: Asians)

Jeeze those guys doesn't even realize that mecha already happens since 2 centuries ago. Hell, they even don't know what mecha actually is. Most of their arguments comes from wiki and always come up with a theory that already considered obsolete, that was also comes from a person that think earth is the center of the universe.

Holy shit, world change, science change, reality change, deal with it.

>>15074749
>I am asian and how dare these mongolians question my work
no really your grammar is embarrasing.

>>15073806
>How long before mechs become usable to the military?

until tech advances enough to make them practical

>>15074786
so never

>>15074830
Yeah, just like TV and Internets right?

Oh wait

>>15073806
i saw this thread in /pol/ and they are far more better then this trash board call /m/

>>15074851
this is a retarded argument

>>15074651
fuck off

>>15074830

yeah, just like rockets, airplanes, trains, and space travel.

that point is that it's stupid to assume you know what will happen in the future based off of what you know presently

>>15074851
>>15074881
You've made the mistake of assuming that because something else has matured into a widespread technlogy, that somehow mecha will.
There have been plenty of other technological dead ends that've been pursued, but dropped because something better came along, or it just wasn't worth it.

File: Pedrail_wheel.jpg (149KB, 889x864px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 889x864px

>>15074883
Fuck you, I'll have my pedrail locomotion technology soon enough and then we'll see who laughs

>>15074781
>Wah muh grammar

/pol/ confirmed

Now back on fapping to your granddaddy Trunk more

>>15074874
>I don't have any arguments so i just call you retarded

Classic

File: 11899728059312.jpg (716KB, 2000x1003px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 2000x1003px

>>15074883
Yeah and most of the "dead ends" was only 2 seconds jokes to begin with.

Sorry anon, people already done bipeds for decades and we already done it again today, the only thing that lacks is just smooth enought actuator.

But don't worry anon, you precious metalbox will never vanish from the face of the earth. We'll just fight back-to-back like the good old days.

>>15074930
the zeppelin was definitely not a "two second joke"

>>15074671
>>>15074651
>>because people have been wrong about things before, that means I MUST be right!
>People thought pulling out was an effective method yet here you are.
Burn

File: goodyear-semi-rigid-airship-620.jpg (141KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 620x350px

>>15074935
>zeppelin

Yeah and people still done that till today, so im sorry anon.

>>15074937
>People are constantly wrong but i must be RIGHT BECAUSE I'D SAID SO
>I don't like things so it mustn't be working
>I don't like you so burn lel

Pfffffft

File: 48533938.cached.jpg (57KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x500px

>>15074942
Oh look, it never go anywhere!

>>15074942
>>15074950
>widespread
oh wow a floating billboard and some designs that never gained commercial success
ya really showed those heavier than air folks

>>15074960
And you said it'll never go anywhere and can't be anything.

Hohoho but im sorry anon, airship still be a transport and recconaisance platform for years.

>>15074971
by far the most tonnage of cargo being shipped is by air, ship, or train.
drones, satellites, and specialized aircraft also fulfill most reconnaisance needs.
iirc, the US ceased using airships for reconnaisnace a few years ago.
so far, since the crash of the hindenburg and the rise of airplanes, zeppelins have indeed been a "dead end".

>>15074979
Not all but harder-to-reach areas still using airships as transport.

And they still seen as effective, low cost planes used as scientific observation post.

Sorry anon people still play around them and find way on developement and use like space programs.

Call me once it can actually do the Rocky-run shown in that image.

>>15074979
>iirc, the US ceased using airships for reconnaisnace a few years ago.
Plenty of observer-balloons were used in Iraq and dumb carpet bombing was used in Afghanistan.

Welcome to modern war.

>>15075028
>Plenty of observer-balloons were used in Iraq
20 years ago
>dumb carpet bombing was used in Afghanistan
not carried out by airships

>>15074670
At that point, wouldn't power armor be the replacement? Maybe a 'small' giant robot like a Knightmare Frame (4~5 metres tall), assuming you could get the landspinners to work. I'm talking Geass S1 KMF, not the wannabe Freedom Gundams from S2.

>>15075032
>20 years ago
Five to ten years ago. Mostly as eyes in the sky for forward bases.

>>15074651
>>15074668
>>15074671
>>15074879
>>15074937
Confirmed people who should have just been swallowed by their whore mothers

>>15075040
PA migh be a thing but it can't bear a level of firepower that 5 meters robot can carry, and the power supply might be very limited given the size of the suit.

And i think 6-8 meters are the soft spot for bipedals if we want to make it at least comparable to tanks scale-to-scale. Give them at least 75mm frontal armor (actual thickness not sloped yet) n smooth enought actuator and they ready to go.

>>15074651
Every thread. Every FUCKING thread you have to post this retarded backasswards comparison that works against you rather than for you, while covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUR!" whenever someone tries to point out flaws with fact and reason. Behold, /m/, true autism.

>>15073810
Space in general is probably the best excuse for mechs. You don't have to worry about making them carry their own weight, and it's really the only way to protect yourself from radiation and micrometeorites during an EVA. On the ISS they don't need to worry so much about radiation because they're deep in the magnetosphere, but if you're in interplanetary space and/or you have a nuclear thermal drive it's a big deal. What's more, with a mech you can make the cockpit fully pressurised, so you don't need to do hours of prebreathing before you get in like you do with a nasa low pressure spacesuit. Full pressure spacesuits do exist, but they're incredibly hard to get in and out of and move around in, so nobody actually uses them right now.

>>15074786
This.

For now they are nothing more but expensive toys in the experimental phase that constantly trip over.

If we want something akin to Labor units or Mobile Suits, we need two/three more decades for a model that will NOT trip over.

And two more decades until the military will consider to make a military model.

By that time I'll be dead already.

>>15074651
This, um, isn't actually an argument for mechs. In fact, it can be equally be applied to any theory on the future of warfare. It's a poison the well tactic that never ends well for anyone.

>>15075171
You can also use the limbs for gimbaling. Not a lot but you should be able to adjust your angle without spinning gyros. There's a weird quirk of physics that cats use to right themselves in mid air that a mech could take advantage of.

Additionally, if you set up the mech to mimic the pilot's movements you drop the learning curve.

>>15075290

You won't actually drop the learning curve, only lower and/or shorten it at best, since users still have to learn to use all the weapons that'll come with it, to operate in various environments and even have to get used to a different height and weight that the machine gives them, because even if the controls are a perfect 1:1, the user still has to get used to operating at a new set of dimensions.

File: 1315859435426.jpg (242KB, 781x550px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 781x550px

>>15075040
There are already experimental power exoskeletons. They're just designed purely as fancy forklifts and aren't armored at all. Just so that supply troops and such can lift and carry 200-500 pound boxes without having to operate an actual forklift.

Not that the idea of powered armor on the battlefield hasn't been conceived of before either.

https://youtu.be/XfBDKK-aZ0E

Link to vid

File: 3P0.jpg (41KB, 720x714px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x714px

>you'll probably never be alive for the age of mech warfare and mechanical armies.

>>15077588
Mechanical armies exist though

File: madox-01.jpg (109KB, 531x730px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 531x730px

>>15075789
Maybe its because we're still in a peacefull era where such thing aren't desperately needed at war yet, just like Mk 1 tanks that was build because brits was desperately need a linebreaker.

If there ever been a second cold war or even a ww3, i can see that something like Madox 01 or Landmates enter a massproduction phase. A full armed, powered units was something handy to get with.

>>15075271
It's not a poison the well tactic. It's just showing that all those fags who think they know what's logical and realistic can't actually know shit, and pretending that their arguments are in any way logical is just lending weight to the pre-existing paradigm in the same way that Hitler supported all the wrong naval strategies with his battleships and Reader plans.

>>15077719
>War
>under Trump

Top kek. They won't need a war to funnel taxpayer's money into rich fuck's pockets in the coming couple of years.

>>15073806
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that Korean mech is most likely fake
http://www.livescience.com/57296-giant-humanoid-robot-video-hoax.html

>>15077775

It s exactly a poisoned well argument, since while it does show that unforseen stuff can happen it doesn't do anything to prove why this particular unforseen would happen. And also fails to acknowledge that plenty of stuff has been researched but gone nowhere in the end, because not everything is useful martially.

>>15077960
>no proof
>robot is reasonably primitive for the circumstances
>all arguments boil down to 'dis is weird lol'
K m8
Not everybody needs to be Musk to do shit like this

>>15077986

Not really. The designer involved has talked about making a fictional robot before, there's no known scientists involved, no presence for the company or project beyond that video and a couple of other things. It's hardly "lol, weird - must be fake". It's not proof, but then, the article isn't claiming it is - only reason to be skeptical.

>>15077993
Let's remember, however, that robotics is little more than applied mathematics and software engineering. Any sufficiently crafty tinkerer can throw enough money at it to create that thing, especially given the apparently primitive avionics and terrain scanning systems (none).

To me, it is a walking kuratas. A simple, focused design made by a guy with few connections, a lot of money and severe autism. The machine we saw is consistent with this conclusion.

>>15077999

None of which makes it of use to the military. Just existing isn't enough reason to be used, else we'd see a lot more variety in military vehicles, from one wheeled vehicles to multi-legs given that the forestry industry among others have been using them for years.

>>15074651
>People thought that tanks were just going to keep getting bigger and fatter as time went on, becoming battleships of the land.
Dammit this is the wrong timeline.

>>15075040
Gen V armored cores are close to 1.5 to 2 meters tall, and are walking carnage.
I'd be pretty happy seeing them in any warfare
https://youtu.be/c6QU2i6-BQc

>>15078010
Oh, that's what you were trying to argue. I wasn't a part of that conversation.

>>15077795
I dunno, Trump doesn't strike me as diplomatically competent and there are rumors about him not understanding mutually assured destruction.

>>15077960
The article doesn't actually say METHOD-01 is fake, only that it's weird and kinda hinky.

>>15078079

To argue towards the apparent thrust of your conversation then, those things (designer talking about fictional robotics project, no presence for companies) are reason to be skeptical. It might line up with a small group of autistic or focused individuals effort, but that's no reason to dismiss or ridicule skepticism l.

File: c911e925d0e6a8ab560ab71eb60c3ee3.jpg (94KB, 470x477px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 470x477px

>>15078068
Um, those dumbed down NEXTs was actually 5 meters tall thought.

>>15077971
Eh, unlike robots though, most of the dead end stuff you said was to fantastical to begin with, seriously, cannon-fired personal drop pods?

Manned robots are already a thing for years, potentially very versatile, and we don't need it to be 18m humanoid gendubs. The problems that present now is that our software and actuator wasn't advance enought to mimic the biomorphic movements smoothly, thus the tripping effect. But hey, we're in the world where we go from black-white BIOS to full blown 4D projection in a matter of 20 years here, so its still goes on.

For the near future, exos are maybe still the viable answer since we're still shit at programing but hey, its mecha, still a win-win for us.

>>15074651
>People thought that hot air balloons, not airplanes, were the future of warfare.
No they didn't. By World War I it was acknowledged that airplanes were much more flexible and had room for improvement over observation balloons.

>People thought that tanks were just going to keep getting bigger and fatter as time went on, becoming battleships of the land.
Yes and no. No one outside of people reading Popular Mechanics actually thought we'd see land battleships rolling around. Logistics and square cube law and all that. However, up until World War II it was thought that tanks would stay in strict light-medium-heavy categories as opposed to the MBTs we have today.

>People thought that bombers were better at delivering nukes.
No they didn't. They knew there was a lot of potential in intercontinental missiles to be used as a delivery payload for nukes. It was just that the V-1s and V-2s had shit for targeting and thus bombers were the primary options until ICBMs caught up.

>People thought that ICBMs would end all war and conflict between large nations.
Considering the last war between superpowers ended 72 years ago, they're right?

>People thought that bayonets were obsolete.
The last bayonet charge from a unit was 13 years ago during the Battle of Danny Boy. The one before that was occurred 9 years prior during the Siege of Sarajevo. And the one before that occurred 13 years prior during the Battle of Mount Tumbledown. Bayonet charges are rare as fuck because there are very few situations in a modern war that dictate their need, and thus tactics centering around bayonet charges being a pivotal element are considered obsolete.

>People thought that 4,000 casualties, not even deaths, were too high a cost.
You mean right the fuck now in CURRENT YEAR+2 days? Everyone shat their pants over the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan even though they were extremely small compared to previous wars.

>>15078154

No-one mentioned cannon fired drop pods though. Well, except you. And while giant robots may seem more viable, they doesn't mean they are. Trains are actually, definitely viable, but they still haven't seen much use as direct machines of war, only as military transportation. Monowheels seem viable, but they weren't even useful for the commercial sector and are really just a curiosity with a century or so now.

Giant robots don't need to be 18 meters, but they don't need to be giant at all to be useful. Just plain robots or power armor are more likely to be useful and retain a lot of the advantages of robots while shedding a lot of the disadvantages.

File: c01_gaea_by_henry1025d6bmti0.jpg (238KB, 795x1004px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 795x1004px

>>15078154
You are right, my bad. I probably got yards confused with meters again. Not dumbed down nexts though they use a new reactor type more in line with that of gen 3 acs iirc

>>15078171
How are trains viable for warfare beyond transport? They're reliance on rails are their biggest weakness as the rely on them to travel everywhere and you can disable them simply by fucking up the rails.

>>15078292
>Not dumbed down nexts though they use a new reactor type more in line with that of gen 3 acs iirc

Compared to the original NEXTs? Yes, yes they are

>Radar are limited to scan mode
>Need other meant of transportation to get anywhere far
>Limited lockbox
>Can't get beyond 999 km/h
>Limited armaments

Gen 3 are AC (aka Normals), not NEXTs, both are at different level. Gen 3 is like, ol' OYW suits to ZZ/CCA era of original NEXTs.

>>15078323

They aren't viable for warfare, only in general. We know that now, but a century or more ago it wasn't so well known. Which is why you still had things like the Nazis attempting to mount artillery guns via train in WWII. You can't work out how viable something is without testing though, and counting something as viable or inviable because of theory or because there's lots of work going in to them is silly. Lots of things appear viable, commerically, martially, whatever, on paper and even in early or lengthy testing but don't work out that way in the end.

>>15078399
I know it's dumbed down in comparison but I was talking more along the specs of the reactor and the type of the reactor
More along the line of Kojimaa vs fusion
Like comparing a race car engine to a sedans v4.
Yeah it pales in comparison but that's because they were made with different purpose.
Kojimaa reactors got dropped when they got tired of giving everyone Mecha aids.
Also at the end of acvd the MC defeats a next, proving a long-standing point in the armored core series/trope the pilot mattters more than the machine.

File: tokatti and hikari defeat godzilla with the power of IMAGINATION.webm (3MB, 1151x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1151x480px

>>15077719
>tide-turning weapons being developed during a long drawn-out war
Wars (read: slugfests between major powers, not insurgencies by towel-heads) don't run that long anymore, and R&D takes far longer now that technology is far more sophisticated. Even if powered exoskeletons already exist in some form or another and all it would take is up-armoring them and improving their mobility, it would take several weeks if not months to retrofit and produce even a bare dozen or two of them, by which time the war would already be over.

Besides which, it's against the economic interests of major powers to enter long drawn-out wars, look what happened to the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what's still happening to Russia in Ukraine.

>>15078323
Well, if you strap a big-ass bomb or two to a train...

>>15078462
>Wars (read: slugfests between major powers, not insurgencies by towel-heads) don't run that long anymore
How can you know that? As far as I know there haven't been any such wars in recent times.

>>15078422
The NEXT at the end of VD wasn't exactly a topnotch NEXT though. It doesn't use the advantages of a typical next like infinite flight or speed. Hell if they didn't activate the assault armour the protag wouldn't have been able to scratch them. This isn't a case of the protag being super good, but the enemy being so dumb they throw away a free victory.

>>15078462

> R&D takes far longer now that technology is far more sophisticated.

If you put a nation in a really desperate situation like the world wars again I'm pretty sure you'd see research and development speed up regardless of the relative complexity of technology, because a lot of safety standards and red tape of various kinds would be axed given the social need. Technology is more sophisticated, but our relationship to it, our ignorance of newer technology and need to test it to become familiar with it as well as our familiarity with existing technology isn't really any different.

>>15074639
>I can't envision a badass future where wars are fought with giant robots AND tanks in concerted infantry warfare
I think we all know who is the true retardo

File: IMG_2801.jpg (110KB, 396x320px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 396x320px

>>15078154
5th Gen ACs are nothing like NEXTs. After the near world ending events of FA humanity was forced underground and lost all knowledge of ACs and how they work. 5th Gens are the first baby steps humanity made after finally getting back on their feet.

File: 1E9E57B6.png (461KB, 1280x761px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1280x761px

>>15078941
What does that have to do with Apaches being able to fulfill the role of tanks?

File: toyota ifoot.jpg (42KB, 336x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 336x500px

>>15074651
>People thought mechs, not swarms of networked weaponized drones, were the future of warfare

top meme m8

>>15078922

>If you put a nation in a really desperate situation like the world wars again I'm pretty sure you'd see research and development speed up regardless of the relative complexity of technology, because a lot of safety standards and red tape of various kinds would be axed given the social need.

That's true. You can shave a lot of time off a fighter's development cycle, for instance, if you are prepared to find out the flaws in the "final" design through 5% of the pilots dying in crashes that would have been preventable if you'd spent another ten years making sure everything is just right.

>>15078462
>R&D takes far longer now that technology is far more sophisticated.

Nah, its other way around. With everything is already automated and computerized, measurements, effectiveness and risk can be calculated in an instant, thus we can grasp a science that was more sophisticated and complex. We're not using the same tools as 100 years ago you know, where everything is handled manually, so don't think that way.

The one that was bottlenecked our technological advancement are social-politic condition, not R&D. When something aren't desperately demanded, things aren't going anywhere fast, we just take it slow.

>>15079306
Dude we're humans, thousand of years of existance and insanity are proof that we're always ready.

>>15079288
>He thought that drones aren't mechs
>Impliying that you can always trust you friendly neighborhood autonomous robots without any human intervention.

Nuuh, we're not fall to it again, Skynet

>>15079288
>swarms of networked weaponized drones
That's what DARPA turbonerds masturbate to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlQ_g4z6YyY

>>15079341
Well that's the question isn't it.
What can mecha do that troops or armor or aircraft can't?

>>15079448
>What can mecha do that troops or armor or aircraft can't?

Being all-terrain units that was able to do above jobs in one machine ie. Being versatile.

Durable enought but still be as flexible as trooper but without wasting so much money on veterancy and mortality benefits. And can even stay usefull by being a heavy duty machines for demolition, construction, and other dirty works without need to change their armaments entirely, that was very valuable things on the battlefields.

And are aircraft can hold objectives and be in battlefield for more than 3 hours? I doubt it.

>CNN video constantly compares it to Transformers
I'm legitimately mad. Wow.

>>15079515
>Being all-terrain units that was able to do above jobs in one machine ie. Being versatile.
Can it carry soldiers like an IFV?
Can it carry the same weaponry and armor of an MBT?
Can it go as fast as an attack helicopter?
>And are aircraft can hold objectives and be in battlefield for more than 3 hours? I doubt it
Drone aircraft such as the Global Hawk have loiter times far in excess of 3 hours.

>>15079534
>Can it carry soldiers like an IFV?
Depends, you want it on assault? The fuck why you need it to carry jimmies around?

>Can it carry the same weaponry and armor of an MBT?
Don't need to, versality needs a cost, and big firepower meant fuckers are sloging bastard that will fucked by everything that was not in the arc of their turret, see Irak. And anti tanks are already widespread anyway, means that now the quickest and flexible=wins.

>Can it go as fast as an attack helicopter?
Don't need to, its a ground vehicles, compare it to ground vehicles.

Also can attack helicopters stay in battlefield for long without screaming "TO HOT TO HOT AAAAAAH" and demand for rearm and refuel for every 2 hours? And not fucked everytime it traverse anyplace too dense to walk? Agains a well armed, well trained armies?

>Drone aircraft such as the Global Hawk have loiter times far in excess of 3 hours.

But the guy only have 6 missiles with 50/50 chance of it not being chaffed/shooted out by AMS. Oh wait, it doesn't even have anything. And boys from the other blocks have jammers too? well bummer.

>>15079596
*Versatility

>>15079288
Drones = Tankettes
Mechs = MBTs

Drones are a technological dead end that lack the ability to carry sufficient firepower, sufficient fuel, or sufficient defenses to actually last on the battlefield.

File: 0878F77A.png (1MB, 1380x820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1380x820px

>>15079723
How are future drones limited in firepower, fuel, and defences?

>>15079723
Until technology makes them viable again.

File: hootgrouppicture.jpg (536KB, 1586x1058px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1586x1058px

How long before Korea weaponizes their idols? They've already started mass producing them

File: Predator-C-Avenger1[1].jpg (71KB, 640x344px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x344px

>>15079723
Say that to my face fucker

>>15079596
So it actually can't fulfill the roles of troops, or armor, or aircraft?
>doesn't need to
>doesn't need to
>doesn't need to
So far all you're proposing is a glorified forklift, or a slower, taller, less versatile HMMVW.

>>15078097
War is a tot for tat business, anon. Russia will only drop exactly as many s bombs on North America as they got dropped on themselves.

T.rump

>>15073806
Usable by engineers for basebuilding and other heavy lifting work, sure. MAYBE with some kind of weapon for defence (like an assault rifle strapped to the arm?), but certainly not for frontline combat.

At best, we might see them used by police against rioters, but that's still a big IF.

>>15073806
still looks pretty fake

>>15079891
A mech would be far more effective at urban combat than a tank simply because it can sidestep into corners rather than expose it's flank. The legs can be more effectively armored than treads as seen by medieval armorers and the arms can be used to dismantle barricades rather than trying to drive over them. Pavement or even just hard packed dirt eliminates most of the ground pressure issues.

I'll grant you the tank is better at head on attack but the mech doesn't need to compete with MBTs rather it needs to do something tanks are bad at doing.

>>15080468

It would be more effective provided you could make it agile and responsive enough. Power armor and non-giant robots will pretty much always be more agile and responsive though, because they have less bulk to shift. They won't be able to mount larger weapons, but that's true regardless, and they really shouldn't need to in an urban environment.

>>15080523
Power armor kinda kills the concept of mechs, though but I digress.

Yes, agility and speed are going to be essential to a mech. The advantage of legs is that they handle rougher terrain better than wheels and treads and using that terrain to your advantage takes agility.

I'd recommend not raising the weight over 20 tons and even that is extremely high. Ideally, I'd like to see a mech at 10 tons but we can't always get what we want.

>>15080548

> Power armor kinda kills the concept of mechs

Yes, that is why a lot of people argue for them in the first place. Not to kill mechs, but because they think they're a better idea.

>>15079723
Size isn't really an argument. There's no reason why you can't automate a tank or plane.

>>15074883

I never said it will, just that it's always a possibility because we can't predict the future

>>15080551
People who say that clearly haven't thought through the problems of actually designing a useful power armour. As far as I can see power armour is pretty much a dead end, at least until material science or nanotechnology brings us something stronger or smarter to play with. Exoskeletons may have some limited use, but actually getting the flexibility, visibility, range of motion, armour, biohazard protection and power source you want all into a single package is just too much for metal and hinges and bearings to deal with. You're much better off with a "non-giant robot", and of course if there's going to be a human inside it there's a limit to how non-giant it can realistically be...

>>15080468
>The legs can be more effectively armored than treads as seen by medieval armorers
What?

Why don't you go ask /k/ if you want to know about mechs in military, or do you afraid of the answer?

File: atlas-punch.jpg (191KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1024x768px

but when do i get to punch a clanner in the Center Torso?

File: IMG_0192.jpg (48KB, 525x700px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 525x700px

>>15080922
Never seen plate armored legs before?

We figured out long ago that you can armor a leg in the way that the only weakpoint is the back of the knee and that was easily defended. With treads you'll notice that some of the tread is uncovered in the front and on the side. This is intentional as it helps the tank deal with uneven terrain but also leaves a weakpoint that can be shot. Considering that those treads are under 1500 hp of torque and even a little bit of damage can cause them to break. Treads have been known to snap on their own after all.

>>15080993
Well, first we have to get Aleksandr Kerensky to abandon the star league. Does anybody know Jerome Blake's HPG number?

>>15080947
/k/ommando here

He already made a thread and got BTFO. Control your autists or we'll send battleshipfag to shit up your board.
>>>/k/32518009

File: Arquebuse.jpg (466KB, 2409x899px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 2409x899px

>>15081031
Pew

>>15081050
Kevlar.

We can go back and forth on this but it's not really relevant anymore.

>>15081055
Kevlar wasn't a thing in the middle ages.

>>15081055
It's mean you mechs are under armored.

>>15081067
Irrelevant. We aren't talking about the middle ages.

>>15081070
But they are better armored than tanks ton for ton.

>>15081031
Have a big enough impact and the mech will topple over because lol high center of gravity
>>15081071
>But they are better armored than tanks ton for ton
"They" don't exist outside of your japanese animes. Also, a mech that is "better armored" than a tank would be incredibly heavy, which sort of makes them slow and ungainly, which defeats the supposed point of a mech, which is agility in an urban environment.

File: mg22329803900-1_1200-1407219821285.jpg (116KB, 620x740px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 620x740px

>>15079882
Myself I consider offensive drone dead ends because we have yet to see the full extent of Cyberwarfare.

Consider the following
> A war start
> suddenly all your drones fleet crash
> or missiles are launched at anything with friendly IFF
> Your best stealth drone defect to the enemy and just land.
> all landed drone try to start up and cause damage
> all surviving drone/equipment transmit their positions to the enemy (this one already happened, hacker were lousy terrorist)

Only short range observation drone and manned vehicle cannot be hacked in a practical way (at least if the Engineer didn't fuckup in an epic way)

>>15080551
The distinction between a power-armor, an exoskeleton and a mech is semantic. You can end up with mech just because the suit is not worn anymore but structurally sufficient

And you would do that because eventually you'll reach human limitation. You'll want actuator for every more, you'll want robotic hand, you'll want arms longer than human's arms, you'll make non-humanoid legs, a software that keep the user more stable than left to his instinct...
...and before you know it you have a full fledged mechs.

File: tank_epic_fail_by_seekerarmada-d5ldecy.jpg (80KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x750px

>>15081073
>Have a big enough impact and the mech will topple over because lol high center of gravity
On the other hand, tanks have also been known to topple and unlike mechs, tanks can't right themselves.

I just want to throw in my 2 cents.

1. Giant robot battles don't just not work, they don't even look or sound cool. The fact is mecha is cool in anime because of special effects and sounds, which breaks down once you tried to have them in real life.

2. The only thing that humanoid shapes offered is to better navigate human living spaces. This meant to best take advantage of this, the mecha can't be much bigger or heavier than the weight carry limit of the average home construction. You can compensate with jumpjets, but to not able to go up stairs easily is a handicap.

3. We haven't figured out a way to make infantry obsolete. We tried, we really did. Carpet bombing, tanks, nukes, drones, are all about reducing the role of infantry. And we partially succeeded, in that infantry is now only sent in when all other option are exhausted. But infantry remain the weakest link. DARPA's attempt to develop humanoid robots had hit a dead end when they revealed that the youtube videos are heavily staged and the robots are not able to move independently. Human sized powersuits are what is needed, to most effectively decrease casualties.

>>15081166
Powersuits are not for protection. You just can't fit any armor worth having onto them without squashing the wearer to the point of uselessness. They might be handy for missile launcher teams and suchlike to help carry their gear around and set it up, but for close quarters a different kind of solution is needed.

>>15074651
>>15078016
I love the idea of massive battleship type tanks and rip them ever coming to be

>>15081275
>Powersuits are not for protection. You just can't fit any armor worth having onto them without squashing the wearer to the point of uselessness.
You are not meant to have so much armour as to be able to take a rocket launcher to the face. You just need enough armour to absorb submachinegun rounds. The point isn't invulnerability, but to decrease infantry casualty rates. As long as you no longer require the soldier to carry his own equipment with his muscles, we could make a decent breakthrough with the amount of armour a soldier can carry. You just need the armour strong enough to defeat anti-infantry weapons.

>>15073806
2032, but we're all going to die in nuclear hellfire before then. Sorry.

>>15073806
We are 'tech' news sites so bad at covering robotics stuff?

This is old news, we've known for over two weeks, and they decide to publish a piece just now?

>>15073806
It needs a little Patlabor or Battroid-style head.

>>15073806
Mech are already useable since 19th century m8, what do you think trains and cars are?

>i don't know what that word means, but i spew it anyway
>I like memes and browse wikis 24/7 so i must be a master engineseer!1!!
>Nuuh, my mechawaifu is better than your mechawaifu.

This whole thread, god.
Just let those japs and yanks scientist do their work, they know the stuff more than anyone in this thread combined.

The invention of the wheel is to make life more convenience
The invention of giant humanoid robot is to make us look dumb

>>15079723
What do you think the word "drone" means

>>15082153
>The invention of wheel because we want to be a rolling rock
>The invention of wheel because we want to be a bird
>The invention of giant humanoid robots because we realise human is superior anyway

>>15082330
the human shape is inferior at everything except tool using.

>>15081084
That tank did not fall over, it got driven off a fucking cliff.
Something which would probably fuck up a mech even more than a tank.

Fuck giant robots, if such a size were practical and feasible, human beings could be that big.

androids, cyborgs, and power armor are where it's at

>>15082330
Humans are shaped and move the way they are so that they can use their hands to use tools and manipulate things. We're fuck horrible and inefficient at a whole lot, especially combat.

>>15082357
Yep, we survived and became the dominant species not because any one human is superior to any one animal, but because we lived and worked in groups, and used tools to hunt.

>>15082357
>>15082367

>Can navigate any terrain and places
>Can grab things properly
>The one of two species that can use tools properly, other than monkey (which is also "humanoid")
>Versatile
>flexible and Hard to determined movements, leads to many kind of martial arts style.

Yeah, furkin was always superior, i get it.

>>15082398
That's mainly human intelligence rather than the humanoid shape being superior. In the case of points 2 and 3, that's just because we have thumbs and fingers.

>>15082426
>That's mainly human intelligence rather than the humanoid shape being superior. In the case of points 2 and 3, that's just because we have thumbs and fingers.
Indeed. The main advantage of the human body comes with the two hands that are free to do stuff and a large brain. This means if you want to imitate it with a robot, you just need a good computer and a robot hand. The humanoid shape itself isn't needed.

The human body sacrifices everything else to have a large head and two hands, and the only place the body belongs is artificially constructed human living spaces.

>>15082469

>The human body sacrifices everything else to have a large head and two hands, and the only place the body belongs is artificially constructed human living spaces.

Uh, no. Watch the Olympics sometime.

>>15082426
Nah, brain without a proper body was also douche because in the end, you can't do anything properly.

Can wheel do jump, kick, climb, backflip, dodge, crouch/prone/stand, roundkick by them alone? Nah. In the end, they need legs like structure to extend their abilities.

Can cheetah grab anything properly and do anything on unarmed style the human can produce? Nah

Humanoid bodies also have other inate abilities like jump and grab and swings for example, the only limit we had is raw strength, gifted by gods because he know, we have tendencies to fuck other shit up.

>>15082488
>Uh, no. Watch the Olympics sometime.
You are comparing humans with other humans? Then you completely missed the point. Humans are slow, weak and clumsy. If you are trying to point out the superiority of the human bodyshape compared to other animals, the Olympics is the wrong place.

>>15082508
>Nah, brain without a proper body was also douche because in the end, you can't do anything properly.
literally what did he mean by this?
hey paco, if you can't fucking speak english, consider not posting on an english language website.

File: 1461033755304.jpg (91KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x600px

>>15073806
>/m/oron buying into cocktail science again
If you believe that shit to be real, then you might as well as believe shillary can still win the game of MURRICA throne at this point

>>15081275
>>15081166
>>15081351

Frankly, just an immunity to 7.62r would be useful. Resistance to 7.62 NATO would be great. The real benefit would still be increased firepower

>>15082335
Ah, but if you set up controls that mimic the pilots movements you can use the pilot's natural sense of posture and use it to cushion the impact.

Also, most of the structural mass in a mech would be below the waistline, similar to a human. You need to armor the legs and support the weight, after all.

>>15082556
He means that the human form is unusually versatile. We can swim, climb, and scratch our own backs and by animal standards that's a miracle.

>>15082508
>Can cheetah grab anything properly and do anything on unarmed style the human can produce? Nah

They don't need to. They have all their "tools" (claws, fangs, tail for balance, etc) built into them and will fuck up an unarmed human any day of the week. They also don't need to waste time drawing or picking up their weapons/tools as they're always ready to go.

Thats why haveing a couple of strong, mounted weapons > putting hands on a mech and having them carry everything for "muh versatility".

>>15082978
Yeah, but that just means that we're jacks of all trades, masters of none. If you were in a knife fight, would you rather be the guy with a combat knife or the guy with a swiss army knife that can also be used as a bottle opener, toothpick, corkscrew, and fork?

>>15074670
>The "Mechs can dodge rockets/rpg" meme

Things like RPG are already "high speed". If you think a human pilot will have enough time to notice and react to an incoming rocket propelled weapon, then manipulate the mechs controls and the mech responds fast enough to dodge it, then you've either been playing too many video games or watching too many movies.

If you want an idea of their speed, go get a model rocket and launch it outside. Watch how quickly it dissapears from view and you'll have an idea.

>>15082992
If fighting was all you were doing, sure, but many battles aren't won by just fighting. In fact, many battles are won before a shot is fired simply because of how one side has prepared before hand.

>>15083034
Don't move the goal post.

>>15083056
Okay, but what was my goal post? Did I ever state it?

I mean, unless we agree on what points we're arguing I can easily accuse you of strawmanning.

>>15083034
What would a mech built for combat be doing other than combat? If one side wasted their resources on a bunch of weaker but supposedly "versatile" machines, is the side that spent their resources on proven designs meant specifically for their roles suddenly going to want to not go to war with them? Mechs are not a weapon of deterrence.

>>15083102
Combat engineering and rough terrain handling. Have it clear tank traps and anti-tank trenches and assemble pontoon bridges under fire.

Otherwise, have it kneel, crouch, or even lie down to find hull down positions in rough terrain.

The tank is really good at frontal attacks but it's mediocre at everything else.

>>15083102
Probably the most useful thing they can do is setting up defences and traps. In a world where the bomber and the ballistic missile will always get through, there is no such thing as a permanent fortification, which means you must constantly be setting up new positions if you want to take advantage of the terrain.

File: terrier.jpg (112KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x400px

>>15083229
>>15083232
We already have dedicate "Combat Engineer Vehicle" for that.

I don't care for military.
Gundam fight when?

>>15083257
Well that's pretty close to being a mech already.

>>15083257
You're saying that thing can assemble a pontoon bridge under fire?

Anyhow, a mech with waldo controls would have an easier learning curve while still being useful in combat. Just stick an M230 off an apache gunship on one arm and you're golden. Maybe some anti-tank rockets while your at it.

Add in it's rough terrain handling and you've got a contender.

>>15083309
>You're saying that thing can assemble a pontoon bridge under fire?
No. But it can dig a mass grave and push dirt over it before the ice in your lemon tea melts.

>>15074886
Do you even swing grouser, brom?

https://youtu.be/OEJ7cO8oz2I

>>15074670
>An argument could be made that with enough agility, a mecha could sidestep, duck under or jump over incoming projectiles, provided that the projectiles are slow enough to give reaction time (it's entirely possible that high-speed rockets will be developed in response to this)
Yes, an argument from someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

For reference, a rocket fired from an RPG-7 has a muzzle velocity of 115 m/s. Roughly calculated that's a top speed of 257 mph. Saying that you could dodge that is like saying you could totally jump out of the way of a Bugatti Chiron coming right at you at top speed. And that's considered to be slow for an AT weapon. For example, the Carl Gustaf has a muzzle velocity of up to 255 m/s (roughly 570mph), the AT4 is at 290 m/s (649mph), and a BGM-71 TOW missile has a top speed of 320 m/s (716 mph). A mech isn't going to be dodging shit outside of anything thrown like rocks, molotovs, grenades, etc. Even then tanks are already more than armored enough to just shrug those off.

>And last of all, it should be pointed out that tanks were designed for the main purpose of slugging it out while directly facing another tank on wide-open plains. Taking a tank into an urban combat environment without infantry support is pure suicide, as has been demonstrated numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FIFY. Leaving a tank alone in an urban environment is a great way to lose a tank, but if you pair it up with infantry to attack as direct fire support they are still pretty damn effective.

The fact is that there's nothing a mech can do that the equipment we already have nor does it bring any new, decisive tactical and strategic element to the battlefield. Any theoretical technology that can be used to make it combat effective can also be implemented on tanks and other armored vehicles so that point is moot.

>>15083309
>You're saying that thing can assemble a pontoon bridge under fire?
>conducting a bridging operation before the far side is properly suppressed and obscured.
That's where you fucked up.

Also, we use trucks to transport and launch the pontoons into the water and then boats to actually set them in place. How would a mech be better than either of that equipment?

>>15083372

I don't think he's advocating matrix dodging. He's just saying that the mecha has an easier time sidling back around the corner of a building.

Best way of not getting shot is by not presenting a target in the first place.

>>15083382
A mech could both transport and build the bridge by itself.

With your method, you'd need at least seven or eight guys. With the mech, you'd just need the guy in the mech and maybe a job site supervisor to oversee the whole ordeal. Thus freeing up the other guys to, I dunno, go into town and buy a pizza or some llama tacos or something.

Plus the mech could do it while under small arms fire.

>>15083390
>He's just saying that the mecha has an easier time sidling back around the corner of a building.
>duck under or jump over incoming projectiles

He's defo talking about Matrix dodging.

>>15083401

He is? Then he's dumb.

I mean, I can buy that a mecha can use cover basically the same way a person can (assuming the cover is upscaled).

It's not going to be dodging missiles.

>>15083396
How the hell is a single unwieldy robot going to do a job carried out by multiple trucks and boats? Do you actually think that thing is going to be amphibious, or that a job that requires multiple people acting simultaneously is going to actually be faster with one person? Do you actually think a humanoid machine, with all its surface area and complex geometry, is actually going to have enough armor on it to survive even smalls arms fire and still be able to work?

Does this ACTUALLY make sense to you?

>>15082357 >>15082367
The original disagreement is about the importance of legged locomotion in human survival.

Human would have never been capable of moving & using tools if we didn't have more limbs.
And if some kind of "biological wheels" existed those would need to be so complex to allow our survival that they would be no different from legs or tentacle.

> We're fuck horrible and inefficient at a whole lot, especially combat.
We are actually incredible at tracking & walking animal to death.
A horse or a wolf can flee all they want, they'll get tired sooner than human, and will never have a moment to rest up until the moment were we can kill them just throwing rock.
And the ability to transform our environment into tools and weapon make us "efficient" at combat. You can't ignore the environment and context.
Else I could say that a wolf stuck at the bottom of a hole is harmless against a bacteria.

Limbs & legged locomotion on mechanized vehicle do have more combat potential than minimalist turrets+wheels/tracks.
Tracked & wheeled vehicle are EXTREMELY limited in what they can cross and how they can use the environment. The only reason we are happy with them is because everybody is on the same boat, but it would take one doctrine change as great as Radar, Homing Missile or Targeting computer capable of locking any entity and you would change warfare forever.

Vehicular Legged locomotion and what it imply (variable geometry) would change warfare. But of course it will take decennial before the technology is up to the task.
Remember that the current cutting edge in military vehicle have been designed 30 years ago.

>>15083416
If it's a pontoon bridge a mech could drag the trailer for the pontoons by hand and assemble them in five feet of water.

And complexity isn't really an issue. Modern military vehicles already have thousands of moving parts, adding another dozen means nothing.

>>15083382
A mech can stand in five feet of water while positioning and securing a pontoon. Possibly more depending on where the air intakes and exhaust pipes lead. We can already armor 4 ton humvees against anything short of an anti-tank weapon, why can we do the same for a 15 ton mech?

>>15083498
>drag the trailer for the pontoons by hand

Using the hands/arms would not be effective for this. You would still want to hitch it like any other trailer.

>assemble them in five feet of water.

I really don't think it's going to be a simple task to make a humanoid machine that can ford five feet of water. Walking on land is going to be hard enough without having half its body submerged.

>And complexity isn't really an issue. Modern military vehicles already have thousands of moving parts, adding another dozen means nothing.

That is a very reductive assessment of how complicated a humanoid mech would be

>>15083507
>We can already armor 4 ton humvees against anything short of an anti-tank weapon, why can we do the same for a 15 ton mech?
compared to a truck.

First of all, the humvee isn't designed to have all that armor. A vehicle can only carry so much weight, and those heavy add-on kits kill mobility and wreck suspension. The ultimate realization of trying to up-armor humvees was that we needed a newer, larger, and more expensive vehicle to provide that kind of protection and remain effective.

Second, a humanoid form would have a lot more surface area to armor relative to wheeled or tracked vehicle of similar mass (a humanoid shape is very complex), meaning that a similar level of armor protection would weigh a lot more. This problem would be exacerbated by all the limbs with large joints that need to be armored - protecting wheels and tracks is already a problem, and it will only get worse with arms and legs.

To say nothing of all of the strain it's going to put on the legs, which already do more work to be less efficient than wheels and tracks - and I'm not even talking about ground pressure.

>>15079832
already did

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/south-koreas-pop-music-barrage-rattles-north.html

>>15083507
A humvee doesn't need clearance room for a bunch of moving joints.

Also, how are you going to address the issue of this big, armored, heavy mech not sinking into the mud and sand of the river bed its going to be walking into and getting stuck in.

>>15083498
>adding another dozen means nothing.

Now use this reasoning to explain it to the engineers who have to maintain the damn thing while they're busy pulling their hair out.

File: U364P886T15D1923F104DT20111024161109.jpg (103KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 900x598px

>>15083498
>>15083507
So you want to replace trucks specifically designed to launch pontoons pontoons and boats directly from their beds in no more than 5 minutes with a robot that would drag a trailer like a little kid with a wagon and can only ford 5 feet deep. How the fuck is this supposed to be effective again?

Also, you clearly have zero knowledge of engineer ops if you think this can be built by only 8 guys, let alone one dude in a mech.

File: protesters vs polis humvee.webm (3MB, 1279x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1279x720px

How would a mech handle this?

It wouldn't.

>>15083578
With an enormous riot shield?

>>15083599
>With an enormous riot shield?
Now that is just silly super robot territory. If you really believe that then you have no idea what happens when you scale things up.

>>15083736
What are you on about? Armour plating or shielding is one of the few things that actually becomes more viable on larger scales, because it takes a smaller and smaller proportion of the mass of the object or system for the same level of protection. You might argue that making a bigger slower target means you'll have to protect against bigger and stronger threats, but that doesn't seem relevant to the particular context that you brought up.

>>15083578
>have feet and leg components that are resistant to high temperatures
>just stand in the fire
>critical cockpit is nice and safe in an elevated position
>flaming material just runs down the vertical surface of the standing robot
>walk over and smack the shit out of the protesters

>>15083736
Yes, yes, things get heavier faster than they get larger. "Muh square cube law" is known to everyone here and the arguments mitigating it (chiefly M A T E R I A L S C I E N C E) should be known to you as well. Just stop.

>>15074199
votoms being pretty "realistic" really is more than just a meme

>>15083792
>(chiefly M A T E R I A L S C I E N C E)
Any super-ally that you can use for the shield, would be equally viable for the humvee.

What you need to come up with is tech advancements that ONLY benefit humanoid giant robots and not anything else. That is very, very hard.

>>15083802
ARMS
AND
LEGS

>>15083890
>ARMS
>AND
>LEGS
Neither are of benefit. Giant robots have no use of tool-making. And bipedal sucks outside of indoor human environments. Are you the same guy who used the Olympics to argue that humans body is the greatest?

>>15078154
>most of the dead end stuff you said was to fantastical to begin with
Just like mecha.

>>15081164
Epic strawman.

>>15083578
You see that telephone pole over there? Rip it out of the ground and swing it at the protesters. Don't have to hit anybody, just scare the crap out of them and occasionally catch the odd molotov.

File: 1402955897104.png (98KB, 704x672px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 704x672px

Squids > Human form

>>15083802
And thats part of the argument that powered armor makes mechs pointless.

But more to the point, good material science negates the whole "Legs can't hold up the weight" argument that people throw around.

>>15084417
>good material science negates the whole "Legs can't hold up the weight" argument that people throw around.
If you can use that material for legs, you can use the same material for tracked and wheeled vehicles. And the legs are inherently a weakpoint.

Look, giant robots are cool. But they are only cool the same way food pills and flying cars are cool. They are not meant to WORK. Do not confuse coolness for practicality.

Stick to human sized power armour, and you get what we need in the real world. Don't try to replace vehicles with giant robots.

>>15084427
Food pills aren't cool. What's the point of food you can't taste?

>>15084579
>Food pills aren't cool. What's the point of food you can't taste?
Before microwaves and TV dinners, it used to be that everyone spend at least an hour cooking. Food pills was envisioned as a solution.

In real life we have Soylent food powders now, that full-fill that niche.

File: the fuck am I reading.jpg (39KB, 446x469px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 446x469px

>>15084662
>full-fill

>>15084662
Long term those Soylent shakes are actually not good for you if you literally replace all your meals with them. The guy who came up with the formula for it isn't even a nutritionist, he's a Software Engineer, and Soylent's most impressive achievement not is that it meets the legal requirements to be sold as "Food".

>>15085155
>Long term those Soylent shakes are actually not good for you if you literally replace all your meals with them. The guy who came up with the formula for it isn't even a nutritionist, he's a Software Engineer
He didn't need to be a nutritionist, because he didn't invent the contents. He just follows the American FDA nutritional guidelines. By your own standards none of us are qualified to cook our own food.

File: XOS22_thumb(2).jpg (187KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x750px

>>15083985
>mecha
>fantastical

Bruh
Do you even know what the word actually means?
Pic related was already a mecha, just human sized. Why do you think Madox 01, Appleseed, Starship Trooper and All you need is kill is a thing here?
Biomorph and humanoid robots are already a thing for this past few years either.
Jeeze, /k/uk are unbelieveably stupid, aren't they?

File: HK G11_2.jpg (120KB, 1500x655px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1500x655px

>>15085387
I fully believe functional mecha can be built.
I just doubt that they'll be in any type of direct combat role.

>>15085400
It depends on how crazy locos from Boston Dynamics and DARPA are and that bunch of the white wigs from the Pentagon want m8. If we want to be just like French in WW2 then go right ahead.

>>15080993
Where's that one webm from the latest, of the Atlas in this weird prerender but ingame scene where like 1000 missles fly out.

>>15080993
>but when do i get to punch a clanner in the Center Torso?
It is my personal theory that genuinely effective power armour would lead to an arms race, where you would build anti-powerarmour armour. You would never build them any bigger than, say, a Rhinoceros, but you could justify a really large power suit if you design it to counter normal power armour. And then you would get to have your melee weapons, because you really aren't suppose to use missiles and RPGs indoors.

>>15085587
For me the invention of power armor will trigger a race that leads to multiple energy-efficient invention since everyone was trying to miniaturize the energy source. The power armour itself is divided into a small, human sized personal armour and a heavier, land-mate like "Ogres" that was used to carry multiple heavy weapons and as armoured as light tanks, while still able to come up with other infantry. While the energy source miniaturize, the suit was steadily upgraded with jump packs, better actuator and skibooster, makes them faster and able to dodge dumb missiles and RPGs more easily, makes them more deadly on urban, jungle, and mountainious combat. Guided missiles can take them out but since they are more maneuverable and noumerous, using an expensive Missiles agains them are considered a waste.

File: ackchyually.png (19KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x200px

>>15085387
>Arguing retarded semantics
By the Japanese definition Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters are already mecha.

Power armor exists as prototypes. Aliens powerloaders for logistics initially. Problems for battlefield use are fuel consumption, reliability and maintenance burden

Once its matured enough for combat duty there's be Elysium style exoframes with more torso armor and probably legs, back and torso only. Soldiers don't need super arm strength, just to be able to carry more equipment at a reasonable marching pace

In the far future if tactical need develops (heavy use of NBCs, enemies lack any effective anti-armor weapons) they could reach Fallout sized or at most AT or Landmate sized.

Gundam, TimberWolf and Mazinger sized walking combat mecha would still be a joke.

>>15084427
And the legs are inherently a weakpoint.

But so are treads and legs are far easier to armor that treads. Just look at medieval armor, full protection with solid plates for the front and sides. Much better than treads that are weak from the sides.

>>15085690
>Dodging missiles
Dumb. Even supersonic jet fighters can't dodge the latest generation of missiles that maneuver far beyond the speed of human reflexes and the structural limits of any manned vehicle
>A guided missile is more expensive then a landmate and pilot
Dumb.

>>15085870
But fighter jets can only go forward. A fighter jet can't jump sixty feet to it's left immediately without shredding itself into a shiny ball of tin foil. A mech can transverse in any direction it chooses. Making a missile's job of tracking that much more difficult.

>>15085708
>By the Japanese definition Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters are already mecha.

Yes, and ?

>Aliens powerloaders for logistics initially

So you're using an old ass fiction movies that come out in the time where people think that internet was never a thing?

>Soldiers don't need super arm strength, just to be able to carry more equipment at a reasonable marching pace

Depends on what roles this soldiers be, assault, raid, kill ops? Pretty much needed. Never underestimate the power of extra tricks on our sleeve.

>Problems for battlefield use are fuel consumption, reliability and maintenance burden.

Its an easy matter when the know how and spare parts already exist. You're sound like a raunchy ass field engineer in 1916 when Mk1 is in their first debut.

>heavy use of NBCs, enemies lack any effective anti-armor weapons

And heavy developement on countermeasures. An effective anti-armour weapons are either expensive and not that widespread either, also come with limited numbers. plus finding a competent operator was real hard, not everyone are Mellowlink or MD Geist.

>Gundam, TimberWolf and Mazinger sized walking combat mecha would still be a joke.

And nobody said it will be like them either m8.

>>15085891
Its discussed further up the thread. Missiles and RPG travel a lot faster than you are thinking and actually usually ACCELERATE as they travel towards you. You will be lucky to even notice them before they hit you, much less react to them and dodge effectively.

>>15085870
Read again m8, i said dumb missiles, you know, the one that can only go STRAIGHT

>Guided missiles
>Not expensive

For shooting on something that can run and hide inside cover and ruins easily is pretty much a waste of money m8, especially when the thing was have any kinds of countermeasures and also massproduced.

>>15085891
How long does it take you to jump to your left?

Like half a second to think to do it and another half a second to do it, during which time the missile's unfeeling electronics have already predicted your move and made the relatively tiny course correction to hit you at over half a km per second with microsecond precision.

And a mecha would suffer even more inertia then a human body.

Alternatively you could use cluster submunitions to dramatically increase the lethal radius

>>15085891
Assuming it could be made of fictional material capable of withstanding the stress created by such a maneuver, any pilots would certainly be pulped by the G-forces created.

>>15085907
>Like half a second to think to do it and another half a second to do it, during which time the missile's unfeeling electronics have already predicted your move and made the relatively tiny course correction to hit you at over half a km per second with microsecond precision.

Aaand it was assuming we're only play in some flat open area without cover whatsoever, that was also meant to be death to any ground unit.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>Hey Comrade Ivan, you hear the Americans are deploying those Japanese made giant robots?
>Aye Comrade. You know what this means?
>Activate it.

>>15085906
I think it's generally agreed that missiles are guided or tracking and rockets are dumbfire.

>>15085907

>the missile's unfeeling electronics have already predicted your move

No, they have not in fact predicted anything. The missile's 'unfeeling electronics' react to available data from whatever sensory input it has. If you interfere with that input, or peform a maneuver that the missile's course correction abilities can't follow.

Many missiles require a human operator to guide them to their target, and some others have son guidance at all.

>cluster submunitions
>Using UN banned weapon systems

Sure, just give the opposition that PR victory, you didn't want public support for the war anyways

File: someone about to get rekt.webm (3MB, 1280x676px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x676px

>wasting money on mechas when hat money could be better spent on artillery.

>>15085901
If you need to kill someone in CQC then use a blade. If you need to take them alive then use a taser. If you find enemy armor then put down the rifle and use the rocket launcher on your shoulder

Punching shit isn't worth almost doubling the complexity of your PA.

You can't just magically handwave away logistics maintenance and reliability of any vehicle you escaped abortion.

SWAT might adopt PA before the army because they don't have as much autonomy worries.

Guided missiles aren't expensive to physically produce, what's expensive is the R&D, IP costs and MIC pork which gets divided by the number of units ordered. order twice as many guided missiles and the costs per unit might almost halve.

And if a country is going to keep up in armaments tech then there isn't really any choice but to spend the money even for a limited number of very expensive missiles.

The US military literally sees nothing wrong with using Tomahawk missiles to blow up a tent of angry goat herders with AKs.

>>15085925
>SWAT combat power armor

That might actually be a really viable use for a power armor. Just have that one SWAT member on the team have one, and you have yourself a guy who can knock down doors, break locks, over power and hold down a guy fucked out of his mind on drugs, and just generally be a weapon of intimidation.

>>15085924
>Impliying war is just about kill kill kill
>thinking you'll never need any infrastructure whatsoever

Thats why you're never get it right eh, Ivan?

>>15085917
You really don't have any concept of just how damn slow human brains and physiology is compared to modern computers and sensors?

>>15085891
Jets can also engage from miles away and have advanced stealth suites. If a mech wants to stand a chance it needs to achieve that same level of stealth/radar/maneuverability WHILE being capable of fighting on the ground as well. Either air or ground combat will be severely compromised, or it will be so ridiculously expensive that every one mech is going to be dealing with dozens of missiles, cannons, lasers, whatever from dozens of jets at a time because it's far better to build a swarm of jets than one huge expensive mech.

File: 501216-x1_alpha_car_mech_super.jpg (26KB, 600x624px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x624px

>>15085936
What about X-1 Alpha?

>>15085936
Now I want a SWAT skin for my PA in Fallout 4.

>>15085936
>and you have one guy who has to do everything while the others cover the exits.

Basically.

>>15085967
Clearly they'd take turns being the power armour guy.

I'm now mental imaging the SWAT guys acting like bickering siblings.
"SAAAAARGE! McKinzy got to be in the power suit last time. Tell him it's MY turn now!"

>>15085949
It was stupid because /k/ said its stupid

seriously m8, you know how things works in here....

>>15085967
More likely they've got most of the team in powered armor and advance over open terrain by tipping over a car and pushing it forwards.

>>15085925
>The US military literally sees nothing wrong with using Tomahawk missiles to blow up a tent of angry goat herders with AKs

Tell that to my Uncle....
If it doesn't has any strategic value whatsoever, then they just clear it out with copters or two. Or even a small unit.

>>15085925
Actually, PA might solve two logistics issues we deal with today.

First off is the unloading and distributing of equipment in the field. This is everything from the deployment of field kitchens to assembling barracks to getting food to the kitchen to just putting ammo in an armory. Most of this has to be done by hand and while more specialized vehicles can help with this they've got to be shipped over as well and aren't exactly useful in a fight.

The second is that the modern first world soldier often finds himself carrying a hundred pounds of gear. It's begun to create long term health issues. If commanders want to stack more equipment on our infantry we need to give them something to work with.

>>15085940
Fighting on the ground should logically aid stealth. You've got an unpredictable backdrop of the ground to work with and you can use hills as partial cover. Radar will get returns from the ground as well as the mech and during the day the sun will heat the ground so it produces an infrared sig as well.

One of the reasons we have wild weasel missions is because SAMs are so hard to detect from the air.

File: M1_road_wheel_replacement.jpg (693KB, 2288x1712px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 2288x1712px

>>15085851
Treads and wheels have far less points of failure than legs. You blow off a road wheel? An hour or so of maintenance with on board equipment and the tank's back killing dudes. Damage a leg? Good fucking luck replacing all those valuable motors and servos and hydraulics and all the other irreplaceable on the field things that are required just to keep it moving.

Also, it doesn't matter if you can armor an entire leg if you can only plate it in 25mm of armor because it otherwise can't move whereas a tank can mount 100mm of armor. Wheels and treads are far more efficient in terms of movement than legs will ever be, meaning you can always slap more armor onto a wheeled/treaded platform than a humanoid one for the same amount of power.

Let's not forget that the human form is inefficient in terms of ground pressure, meaning even if you were able to mount the same amount of armor as a tank good luck finding terrain that will let you go anywhere.

>>15086444
>mecha takes leg damage
>can still hop back to base on one leg
>pop the damaged part out
>slot in a new one
>back in the action before the coffee's finished brewing
>tank loses one of its treads
>literally can't go anywhere
>crew hops out to fix it on site
>a band of goat rapers with dirt encrusted AKs gun them down like dogs while screaming "aloha snack bar!"
Hmmmmm...

>>15086469

Are you joking?

>>15086444
>Treads and wheels have far less points of failure than legs. You blow off a road wheel? An hour or so of maintenance with on board equipment and the tank's back killing dudes.

I'll give you wheels are easier to repair than legs, lord knows I've changed a few tires, but a tank tread is made of hundreds of links and if a single link breaks the tread is useless.

>Also, it doesn't matter if you can armor an entire leg if you can only plate it in 25mm of armor because it otherwise can't move whereas a tank can mount 100mm of armor.

In the front, yes. the sides are another story. But that's besides the point. A mech doesn't need to out tank a tank because tanks aren't good for everything. You never want to send a tank into urban combat without infantry and tanks tend to suffer in rough terrain like forests and hills. A tank going over a hill will often expose it's belly.

>Let's not forget that the human form is inefficient in terms of ground pressure, meaning even if you were able to mount the same amount of armor as a tank good luck finding terrain that will let you go anywhere.

Ground pressure is overrated. On sand, it's actually an asset since sand gets stiffer the more pressure you put on it. Otherwise, you only loose out on wet soil since you squeeze the water out.

>>15086469
Less hopping back to base and more crawling away from battle. Still better than a tank which is fodder for artillery and air strikes when it throws a tread.

>I'm so genius, why can't DARPA think of this?

>>15086633
Unless your mech is human size with human weight, it's not going to crawl anywhere.

>>15086673
Okay, why? So long as it has human-like dexterity and at least a human power to weight ratio I don't see a problem here.

>>15086633
>but a tank tread is made of hundreds of links and if a single link breaks the tread is useless.
That's not true. This is why spare links are carried. It's like a metal watch band link but on a larger scale. All they have to do is take out the broken segment and substitute a replacement segment and pin. It's a very simple design. In most armies, even the tank crew is able to perform those repairs, you don't need engineers or robotics mechanics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZIA45FcaPY

I expect a mech's leg to be much more complex, and if a robotic leg is damaged, it can't be repaired by the mech's operator himself. This is why in so many shows like Gundam and whatnot, even they know that so they just swap out damaged limbs for modular arms and legs instead. You can make the case that a tank crew can't be expected to repair a tank tread while under fire, but neither would the mech operator so that's not a advantage for the mech. You say the mech can crawl away, but it's just as much a sitting duck as disabled vehicle, except it happens to be shuffling on the ground at a few miles per hour which is inconsequential if someone was going to go after it.

>>15086633
>but a tank tread is made of hundreds of links and if a single link breaks the tread is useless.

What? You just replace the damaged links. Tanks have been carrying spare tread parts as standard equipment practically since tanks were a thing.

>>15086917
It also takes hours and can't be done from inside the tank.

So that's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. An enemy could zero in artillery before you can change the treads.

>>15086999
>It also takes hours and can't be done from inside the tank.

...Neither can repairing a leg.

And even if you want to take a page out of Gundam's book and just pop the damaged part right off, leaving aside where you're going to get another leg, you're just as big a target for artillery, if not even bigger, offset slightly by the virtue of a pitifully low crawl speed.

>>15087014
So it's essentially the same

Only that one of them can get away slowly

>you're just as big a target for artillery, if not even bigger

Assuming you're actually create a 18 meters robot. 6-7 meters? Still essentially the same, if not a bit smaller.

>>15087057
>Assuming you're actually create a 18 meters robot. 6-7 meters? Still essentially the same, if not a bit smaller.
But a 6-7 meter giant robot would have WORSE armour than a vehicle of similar size. So your survival chance is lower.

You have to understand that fundamentally, the humanoid shape is not good for armouring. That given the same tech, the humanoid would have thinner armour.

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

38KB, 500x364px

>>15086469
You're fucking retarded.

>>15087057
>Only that one of them can get away slowly
Are you saying that artillery is incapable of tracking an target moving at <10mph?

>>15087064
>But a 6-7 meter giant robot would have WORSE armour than a vehicle of similar size.

Nah, at least the robots can get around for 45-55mm worth of frontal armor, outside of lamelar and slope design of course. That is, more or less the same as regular Bradley while being as large scale-to-scale. (I was using Samsons stat since we don't have one yet). Survival chance against a tank busting artilery round are out of question of course. Agains regular small arms, grenades and MGs? It was enought.

>>15087082
If they are blindsided by being on the other side of the map, well yes, thats why you'll need multiple rounds to actually hit things, even if you'll have a spotter.

Using expensive sensor rounds agains downed opponents? Waste

>>15087114
>If they are blindsided by being on the other side of the map,
Real life isn't a videogame.

>>15087122
Its still the same aren't they? What sudently an RL people have somekind of djinn sight?

>>15087144
Yeah?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjFo5EuW64k

>>15087082
With indirect fire and a spotter? How the hell are you supposed to get the timing right?

>>15087144
>What sudently an RL people have somekind of djinn sigh
they're called satellites, drones, and reconnaisance aircraft.

>>15087177
Back in WWI, the art of meticulously timed and calculated artillery was mastered.

http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWcreeping.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_(artillery)#Moving_barrage

Now we have fire control mechanisms and computers to do that for us. Even if it was a third world army, how fucking hard can it be for a spotter to keep relaying info and for the artillery guys to walk the shells forward at a constant pace?

>>15087114
>>15087144
>>15087177
>thats why you'll need multiple rounds to actually hit things, even if you'll have a spotter.
You're joking, right? Artillery ALWAYS involves multiple rounds. There's no such thing as "it's weakened, fire a single 105mm howitzer shell to finish it off and then we stop".

And the point of the spotter is to provide information to correct the incoming fire and help guide it. Guess what happens when a spotter KEEPS providing information and the artillery KEEPS firing? That's a NORMAL artillery barrage that can follow a target.

>How the hell are you supposed to get the timing right?
What the fuck? You make it sound like the military has no idea how long their own projectiles work. Fuse timing, time to impact, firing angles, weather effects, how much propellant charge, etc is ALL taken into account by the artillery crew. There's a lot of math that has to be done because they're sure as hell not just firing randomly.

>>15087177
Profesional calculation and satelite triangulation
It's atleast 90% accurate in the field, if the spotter or the enemy doesn't fuck you up much with jammers and chaff usage, or the enemy doesn't sudddenly goes mobile.

>>15087189
>>15087226

And thats still doesn't stop anyone to use mobile ground unit and manipulate surrounding areas like cover usage do they? You'll need to stop assuming that enemy was a dumb sandnigger or a stationary test dummy.

Even then, they'll need to avoid colateral damage, so there's limit of artilery usage. But yes, for support operation they'll pretty much effective.

>>15087524
>And thats still doesn't stop anyone to use mobile ground unit and manipulate surrounding areas like cover usage do they?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean taking cover?

>Even then, they'll need to avoid colateral damage, so there's limit of artilery usage.
Not really. If you're firing into enemy territory, you generally don't give a shit unless it's some kind of civilian space. Even if there are civilians around, sometimes they just don't care, like in Aleppo.

>>15087548
that anon is going for miracle magical over-exaggerated cool-looking headshot shown in movies and anime

>>15087548
Yeah but thankfully we're mostly not a fucking dumb ass sandniggers. And if you want a locals support and less of international scandals then you'll be trying avoid it as much as you can.

>>15087568
It doesn't even need cool looking ass anime hayay you always glorifies about mr. strawman. Just impliying that enemy aren't as dumb as we think, and they are actually into tactics.

>>15087577
Meh, it's debatable. When it does happen, the country tends to cover it up and how are you going to hold a nation accountable?

I mean, how many times has it happened where drone strikes hit a bunch of civilians?

File: p0242.jpg (293KB, 840x1200px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 840x1200px

>Mechs
>Tanks

Fools, the Penny-farthing is obviously the future of warfare. With its ingenious two wheel design, it can traverse nearly any terrain a human can and by removing that pesky heavy armor it has more than doubled its speed compared to similarly sized military vehicles, surely allowing it to dodge not only incoming rockets, but bullets as well.

File: deploy_by_blazenmonk-d6jsk46.jpg (195KB, 1600x872px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1600x872px

Mech will be a thing because Logistic Exoskeleton are and you will scale them up as needed.
Once it become cheap enough the obvious military use (holding ground in difficult place, extreme versatility and combat engineering) will propel it the rest of the way.

It doesn't need to replace tank, and tank armor is overrated. We are going toward a world of who-shot-first-win.
Mech capable of fielding artillery, AA and survive tactics that use the limitation of tank would be very valuable.

>>15083545
Way to move the goalpost, your pict wouldn't be built with a single pootoons launching bridge either, but a single mech would make unloading the component faster.

Not the dude you talked to anyway, the military will obviously have purpose built vehicle meant to facilitate the work and Mech would already part of Logistic Force if we had the control software and interface missing.
Those are the only thing missing, we already have the power source, the actuator, the structures and none of them are costly to built.

The software however is a programmer nightmare.

>>15083599 >>15083736
> With an enormous riot shield?
That's actually an excellent idea, and the guy who believe it's super robot is a troll.

Why it is a good idea? Because slated armor is a thing, what is the point of slat armor? prematurely detonate whatever is thrown at you. A transparent plastic might not survive long against fire & rocket but it's cheap; it's light and can be discarded.
Better, against slow projectiles like these >>15083578 the elasticity might actual push back the molotov without breaking them.

A tank would be incapable of fielding such shield for obvious reasons, a vehicle using its environment as shield and changing its geometry at will is an military engineer dream.

>>15088000
>Why it is a good idea? Because slated armor is a thing, what is the point of slat armor? prematurely detonate whatever is thrown at you. A transparent plastic might not survive long against fire & rocket but it's cheap; it's light and can be discarded.
You seem to not realise spaced armour is a thing, and that it is WW2 technology. You are describing what tanks had been using for decades.

>>15085937
>>Thats why you're never get it right eh, Ivan?
Yeah, and WWII was won by `murika. Get lost, pleb.

>>15088006
Maybe he meant that kinds of spaced armour that can be dynamically vectored (things that tanks can't) and easily replaced due to hands.

File: 1227993854545.jpg (124KB, 690x989px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 690x989px

>>15088006
>>You seem to not realise spaced armour is a thing, and that it is WW2 technology. You are describing what tanks had been using for decades.

Not him, but I think he means, that human-shaped mecha, can discard allready burning shield instantly. Also, riot shields, are used by modern police for a reason, you know.

>>15088146
>Maybe he meant that kinds of spaced armour that can be dynamically vectored (things that tanks can't) and easily replaced due to hands.
Then he has no idea how bloody weak "hands" would be in a combat situation. At least attach the damn shield on a hardpoint, not by "hands" that would basically snap the second serious force is applied.

Frankly I don't know why I even bother continuing, because the guy clearly has no idea what movable joints mean to structural integrity. I might as well be arguing with a guy who think all giant robots are like Mazinger and made of Super Alloy Z.

>>15088151
>Also, riot shields, are used by modern police for a reason, you know.
The reason being they had to be usable by a human. Not because humans are magically superior.

It is rather fascinating to not just see an anon arguing for giant robots, but arguing that humanoid shapes is in fact superior in battle in general. That's not how it works. Giant robots are used in fiction because they are cool, that's all they are.

>>15088140
WWII was indeed won by a final blow that American delivered to Japs.

And nobody actually "won" anyway, it only leads to another dickwaving contest by Commies and Murricas because both are claiming to be the real "hero" of war like a gigantic children they are.

File: stryker06.jpg (3MB, 3408x2272px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3408x2272px

>>15088006
His poor english has confounded you. He meant slatted armor as in cage armor, not spaced armor.

Slatted armor is great against HEAT warheads, but is otherwise crap against high explosives or kinetic penetrators, though.

He seems to think riot shields and slatted armor are elastic which is wrong, though.

>>15088000
>A tank would be incapable of fielding such shield for obvious reasons
That's a lie. Spaced armor, slatted armor, standoff/skirt armor, explosive reactive armor, and trophy protection systems have existed for many years and allow for premature detonation of projectiles.

>a vehicle using its environment as shield and changing its geometry at will is an military engineer dream
Tanks have been using terrain to their advantage for decades already (hull down, etc). A vehicle that can change its geometry is only a dream to children and generals.

There have been many projects for variable geometry military vehicles with varying levels of success and it has been a nightmare for engineers to try to solve and for maintenance crews to repair and service. Things like VTOL aircraft are nice in theory but difficult to implement cheaply and reliably. Swing wing aircraft is easier, but still not truly reliable.

>>15088152
Depends, mechanical hands that was build for heavy construction was durable as fuck you know.

But eh, all of this arguments are totally pointless anyway, only an actual field test can invalid either side of arguments. All i can say that i was arguing with both side of nerds who fap to treads and wheels erryday and fap to mechanical robot, and claim that their fap material is superior based on whatever wiki had spew. I just take both that anon and your arguments as a grain of salt.

File: 1379862022120.jpg (101KB, 796x1004px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 796x1004px

>>15088006
Actually I wrote slated armor thinking of spaced armor. And that's NOT what tank have been using for decade.
It does exist since WWII but those can barely be used because they are more or less permanent (as in, need to be bolted) and more problematic : they directly interfere with combat mobility.

A tank or an IFV could never add a spaced armor that can rotate 360° independently of the main canon and not get in the way when they move (because conventional vehicle have a limited ground clearance). Warship have double hull but it add mass and they loose in speed.
A mech however could, and could even leave said armor for troops, just the same way it could get stuff out of the way properly, tear away metal door without the need of a demolition team, get anti-armor troops on a roof...etc
Unlike the bullshit you ear about sinking into the ground a mech would actually fare great in a bog. A wheeled/tracked vehicle loose all traction but a mech simply have to get its feet out and they won't have retarded anime heels.

Ideally you only need weapon&shield directed at a threat. Terrorist & Insurgency are a problem because you can't detect the enemy and are forced to sit here and tank. But if you get to fight an enemy State that care more about its own troops and defending its own position, then you go back to a type of warfare where only special ops could ever sneak up on you.

To give you a different example, if we ever get to spend that much on space tech I expect us to move shield with canadarm in the direction of the easily detected threat than armor the entire station (which would cost more for no reason).

[/rambling]

>>15087014
>...Neither can repairing a leg.

>Mech has HANDS
>which are controlled from INSIDE the Mech

Checkmate, tank.

>>15087226
>There's no such thing as "it's weakened, fire a single 105mm howitzer shell to finish it off and then we stop".

Laughing Panzerhaubitze 2000

>>15088203
If it's worth shooting, call down a barrage

Fuck this prissy "one shot one kill" anime. Nonsense

File: khang_le_16.jpg (288KB, 1178x1151px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1178x1151px

>>15088169
You'll see my answer, to add to it (even if you'll probably answer it before this one come) : I never said space armor was elastic, but if you do use a frigging plastic glass for anti-insurgency equipment you would easily bounce back a cocktail Molotov.
For conventional combat you would use shield capable of preemptively detonating missiles.

And no, tank have never made much use of such spaced armor, because it directly get in the way of their vision, their turret, take a lot of space on a vehicle with fixed geometry.
A wheeled/tracked vehicle can't afford a spaced armor 1m away from them because they can't move it at wish or make it face an enemy without sacrificing their mobility.

Tank have been using the terrain as much as they could. And you have no better reference only because as of today the technology don't allow better, even with gunship.
Tank won't have conveniently slopped ground everywhere. They will rules in plain, but in any tricky environment anybody can imagine an exoskeleton launching missile from behind a rock, a hole or a corner.

I'm using as reference an oversized exoskeleton of 1tons 3/4m tall, but 8meter would still be transportable by plane, and non-humanoid design can reach all the way to an IFV or tank mass.
Aside, I once calculated that a 30tons mech could fire a tank gun without needing bracing. Simply because it can preemptively let itself fall to counter the recoil.

>>15088152
> Then he has no idea how bloody weak "hands" would be in a combat situation
Never said it would tank kinetic penetrator but if you don't make an anime human hand you have multiple real example showing it won't be weak and won't loose in flexibility.
The very suspension/turret system of vehicle are made to resist mines and IED. The only difference is that you'll have more space.
The extreme clearance of a mech would also make mine much weaker as only an explosion directly under the feet would damage it. If not the shockwave will spread all around.

File: sorenbendt_apesuit_by_sonobeno-d68hxwe.jpg (136KB, 1024x668px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x668px

have pict, will post

>>15088199

Yes, because attaching both spare legs and repair kits to several-meter-tall weapons of war won't prove cumbersome.

Good luck repairing anything in combat situation, too.

>>15088181
Slatted/explosive reactive armor is light enough by design and has never needed to be mounted on a rotating assembly independently of the main gun because it already covers an all around arc and does not obstruct the main gun.

Have you considered how thick a metal shield has to be to withstand 12.7mm gunfire? And you expect a mech to carry that on one arm (balancing difficulty) and not suffer mobility decrease?

Also, it's only a fool that would willingly move through a bog in the first place. Enjoy that mud and sand getting into leg joints. If they will fuck up tank wheels and tread locomotion like on the Eastern front of WWII, they will do the same for robotic ankle and knee joints.

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

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>15088169
>Things like VTOL aircraft are nice in theory but difficult to implement cheaply and reliably. Swing wing aircraft is easier, but still not truly reliable.
Funny thing the US is building a stealthy & supersonic VTOL fighter right now and a tilt rotor helicopter is in service

"Mechs are gonna be real" ESL Paco is only "pretending" to be retarded.

Don't feed his autism.

File: 1417102127701.jpg (35KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x300px

>>15088248
Don't confuse the "best you could do" with "what you needed".
Slatted armor have never be built on rotating assembly because no current vehicle would make use of it efficiently.
A mech that already have arms would naturally profit, regardless if it need it.

> 12.7mm gunfire
1) it's possible even if it's not needed
2) the mech would already be armored
3) I don't know what design you have in mind but a non-anime mech would be all about auto-balance and not even noticing the size

Anyway the requirement of anti-insurgency warfare was to be able to survive rocket coming from nowhere. The riot shield was only an answer to the cocktail Molotov webm
If you know where the enemy vehicle are (because that's how modern warfare is) you can use a mech to place huge slab of armor that human would have an hard time lifting and manipulating.

>Also, it's only a fool that would willingly move through a bog in the first place.
Causal error again, only a fool would do that because there is no way to cross those easily for now.
> Enjoy that mud and sand getting into leg joints
Easily solved by basic design solution, you should see industrial excavator someday.

>>15088258
"Tank wus kang" /pol/acks-slav-rednec/k/s abomination is only pretending to be "smart"

Don't feed his autism

wow i can do this dance too

>>15087524
>if the spotter or the enemy doesn't fuck you up much with jammers and chaff usage, or the enemy doesn't sudddenly goes mobile.

That's the argument. Because a mech can at the very least crawl when it looses a leg it's far less vulnerable to artillery than a tank without a tread.

>>15087226
>What the fuck? You make it sound like the military has no idea how long their own projectiles work. Fuse timing, time to impact, firing angles, weather effects, how much propellant charge, etc is ALL taken into account by the artillery crew. There's a lot of math that has to be done because they're sure as hell not just firing randomly.

Two problems, the spotter is a typical infantryman not trained in artillery spotting. He just saw a disabled vehicle and called it in.He doesn't know how long the artillery is going to take to arrive or how long until the artillery can fire. He can't relay precise data on the target's movement or direction since he doesn't have that kind of training.

yes, you could task a trained spotter for this but in the case of a mech it would have gotten away by then.

>>15088155
>It is rather fascinating to not just see an anon arguing for giant robots, but arguing that humanoid shapes is in fact superior in battle in general. That's not how it works.

Tough, that's what we're arguing. Deal with it.

>>15088460
>yes, you could task a trained spotter for this but in the case of a mech it would have gotten away by then.

I'm absolutely sure that a crippled war machine with its pilot dazed by the fall would just crawl out of the effective range of artillery batteries in seconds, yes.

>>15078097
>Trump not diplomatically competent
>is favored by Putin, Duerte and fucking Assad, and now Shinzo Abe
Yeah, right, I guess Obama is the real problem child.
>and there are rumors about him not understanding mutually assured destruction.
Against who? Russia is the only one that can guarantee MAD.

>>15088481
Putin probably thinks Trump is hilarious and Abe reasonably thinks that Orenji is going to run the anti-China hard line, which suits him just fine.

The other two are two-bit dictators, which is a word that's too long for Trump to remember, so they figure they're going to be fine now.

>>15088523
So apparently, Trump get all world leaders to like him, and he's not even president yet.

>>15088151
What's the sign say there onii-chan?

>>15088527
>him
They like him the way the people of Rome liked Caligula - as the dude who made them lol by making a horse a Senator.

>>15088535
Well, good joke but it isn't suitable, the people didn't like Caligula and the senate didn't either, he has a short rule.

If anything, Trump should be Octavian, the fair hair one, who finished the civil war and got rid of the republic.

>>15088474
>Seconds

Why seconds? Why not minutes? Is the spotter right on top of the mech? Does the artillery have their guns already trained on the mech? Are the artillery shells already in the air towards the mech?

File: George-Bush-Mission-accomplished.jpg (50KB, 504x378px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 504x378px

>>15088543
>who finished the civil war
He sure did. It's just that he declared mission accomplished and started the next war against yet another roman citizen right afterwards.

>>15088547

I don't know how you think artillery works, but it doesn't take hours to triangulate, load and fire upon receiving coordinates.

>>15088555
Bush started 2 wars.

Obama continues 2 wars, starts 2 more, and is now risking for war with Russia.

Trump is going to end them.

>>15078097
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14194986/russia-hack-intelligence-report-election-trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.27e7c6565e70
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/16/fbi-agrees-cia-russia-hacked-help-trump/95528318/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/donald-trump-russia-fbi-investigations/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/fbi-russia-trump-election-harry-reid-james-comey-wikileaks

Trump is Putins stooge.

But enough of that, this is /m/

>>15088575
Well, where is the proof?

>>15088560
Never said hours but minutes is enough.

Seconds is just obscene.

File: WHERE ARE PROOFS.webm (889KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 320x240px

>>15088577

>>15088578

And why would it be?

How would something like a humanoid war machine several meters high feebly crawl away from the middle of a combat zone without being harassed?

>>15088583
I love this dance.

Everyone keeps saying it's the russian, but they have no proof, just "alleged evidences and FBI & CIA's claims".

I always like how in every single mech vs real warfare thread, it's always "the mecha is alone against an entire continent's worth of OpFor!"

Even now I'm looking and every agruement I see boils down to "The mech would lose cause it's alone and has no infantry support and the tank wins cause it always has infantry and artillery and air support."

>>15088570
>Trump is going to end them.

Hopefully not with a bang.

Also the war against Iraq really never stopped. They just switched to killing kids by means of starvation and embargo for a decade between the first and the second invasion.

>>15088595
Some people like to stack the deck.

Hell, we spend a quarter of each thread saying that mechs don't need to be tanks.

>>15088600
>Hopefully not with a bang.
The Syrian war already ended last December, and with the truce between two rivals, the turks and the russies.

>They just switched to killing kids by means of starvation and embargo for a decade between the first and the second invasion.
Holy shit what? So embargo counted as wars now? Are we in war with Russia? And does this embargo specifically target kids?

>>15088575

>Resort to hackusations after losing

Man, the US elections are pretty similar to Online FPS these days.