People bitch all the time about certain mecha designs being "impractical",

>>15604529

Not having legs. Tanks are practical, planes are practical. Giant robots are not.

File: perfection.jpg (483KB, 900x1275px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 900x1275px

>>15604529
>what the hell makes a "practical" design?

>>15604529
Range of motion. The less model clipping the better.

>>15604549
Entered the thread to post this

Any technological advance that makes combat mecha feasible makes traditional vehicles more practical, efficient, and effective than mecha. Light weight, high strength material for joints and inner structure? Use less of it on a simpler vehicle with less moving parts and add more armor and weapons for a total weight comparable to the equivalent mecha. Any weapon mecha can carry, a traditional vehicle can carry. Why waste reaction time pulling a trigger that sends a signal for a giant finger to pull a trigger?

File: Can you dig it.png (359KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 640x481px

>>15604529
Conversely, when you see people bitching about impracticality on this board, it usually means the design is too busy because it has exposed wires and joints and shit.

Pic related is exhibit A in anime, it wouldn't last a second if it didn't operate almost exclusively in space and if it didn't have energy shields

File: 005Bd8p4gw1exdhtzyc5kj30le0sj0xe.jpg (178KB, 770x1027px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 770x1027px

> so what the hell makes a "practical" design?
Whether or not I can fuck it

File: hmm.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>15604663

>>15604529
Nothing.

Mechs are inherently impractical unless you're in a lower gravity environment like Mars.

File: titanfall_2_scorch.jpg (67KB, 950x519px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 950x519px

>>15604529
I unironically like Titanfall's mechs.

yes, they're mechs, stop bringing up that retard

>>15604549
isn't that a 5th gen armored core (minus the claw)

>>15607729
I think Respawn stopped being retarded and just fully embraced that Titanfall 2 is a mech game.

>>15607729
I love Scorch and his comfy big cockpit.

>>15604529
>practical
>impractical
Those are dirty words used by tankfags to worship their heathen gods of realism.

>>15604547
>Tank
>Practical
Kek
If not for bunch of international asshole triying to spank their powerdick into each other, it'll just end up like the battleships.

>>15608676
Actually, it's a matter of Battletech trademarking the term Mech.

Practical designs are chicken walkers or extremely boxy and dense robots with no range of movement.
They're all brown and desert painted, they don't use guns but instead either their arms are guns or they use add on packs that are standardized.
They are all slow and only the chicken walker cam jump, also there's no external boosters or open vents.
Also the only weapons are missiles or physical guns, lasers or photon are kiddie Japanese sci-fi shit.

>>15608818
But modern MBTs are like cruisers. Heavy tanks are ones that went the way of the battleships.

>>15609292
>Actually, it's a matter of Battletech trademarking the term Mech.

Pretty sure you're just pulling that out of your ass.
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=1,0&Search%5FArg=mech&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=TV3Re22cd2W0sJv9F-wetxK-s1&SEQ=20170612125019&SID=1

File: imc_ogre_loadout_fmt.jpg (325KB, 910x1374px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 910x1374px

>>15607729
Well, at the very least they are "mecha", if you reserve "`mech" for "battlemech".

>>15608818
They said the same shit about advances in HEAT rounds and ATGMs in the 50s and 60s and it was not borne out.

>>15609329
That's a decent analogy. Even the Soviets rapidly abandoned heavy tanks after WWII and they had a massive institutional inertia behind heavy tanks.

Of course then three decades later there was the massive boondoggle of the T-64/72/80 series, where they created 3 different but functionally identical MBTs with for political reasons, so it's not like the Soviets can't fall into tar pits.

File: 9790305-Little-child-boy-wall-corner-punishment-standing-Stock-Photo-child-violence-crying.jpg (136KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1300x866px

>>15604549
>like to think up designs for my imaginary mecha game while doing mindless shit
>its literally this

File: new Front Mission never ever.webm (3MB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x524px

>>15610959
its okay anon, being a realismfag is just a phase.

File: 1411095660005.jpg (261KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1920x1200px

>>15604529
Treads, rotating turret, sensors mounted inline with and above the gun, minimum three man crew and a quickly replaceable powerpack.

File: 25rioXD.jpg (3MB, 4864x2888px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4864x2888px

Today I must remind them

>>15609292

Battletech owns the term " 'Mech " -- note the apostrophe. Without the apostrophe, it's usable by anyone.

File: 62875815_p0.jpg (715KB, 700x988px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 700x988px

>>15607729
Titanfall strikes that almost perfect balance between Western and Japanese mech/mecha design imo, it's pretty great

>>15608676

did they finally gave titans recharging shields? otherwise Titanfall 2 titans are still some fucking power-ups.

>>15611230
Your "opinion" is shit

>>15611007
>Bait the post.

File: 1497302679736.jpg (52KB, 797x606px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 797x606px

>>15612833
Have to agree. Thou Gasaraki, is sort of most "western" Japaneese design. Even more "western", than "westerners" ever done themself.

>>15604529
nothing, they just want it the junkyard piece of shit michael bay aesthetic to feel tacticool

>>15611009
True, but the mere proximity to the trademarked term can lead to conflict. Remember when GW tried to trade mark the term Space Marine?

File: image.jpg (404KB, 1200x1011px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1200x1011px

>>15604529
>so what the hell makes a "practical" design?

Landmates.

Besides them, the only way a humanoid mech that doesn't control by mimicking pilot movements would be practical would be with a direct neural link so the pilot can control it with their mind, cockpits with plane-like controls are dumb.

Chicken walkers and the like are completely pointless and impractical, they just function as vastly less useful tanks, to justify the existence of mecha they'd need to be able to do something current vehicles can't, or at least do stuff they can better, the only practical piloted mecha is a scaled up humanoid that can do anything a human can, but bigger, a realistic vision of "mechs" is just super-heavy powered armor.

>>15611230
Why would you want a balance between something good and something shit

>>15613371
Landmates are extremely silly. The fact you have to have an armored sleeve protruding for the pilots arms will never, ever not look retarded. Plane controls for mechs are perfectly fine. They can do everything they are depicted to do with sufficient terrain mapping and inverse kinematics and stance toggles for various specialized actions like using hand signals, picking stuff up, punching, harmbatoning, etc.

>>15613442
Which one is which though?

>>15604529
Well, 0079 covers its ass a lot explaining the evolution of the zaku from a mining exosuit, how future fuel generates minovsky particles that block radar making long range weaponry useless and huge chunks of metal hard to notice, and other stuff. At the same time the galaxy express goes ftl on space rails by moving wheels under it.

Just don't break the suspension of disbelief. Don't over explain stuff while leaving big chunks in the open, or make it clear it doesn't matter for the story.

>>15613678
>Just don't break the suspension of disbelief. Don't over explain stuff while leaving big chunks in the open, or make it clear it doesn't matter for the story.
How is the latter breaking suspension of disbelief?

>>15613705
No, it's a good thing. If you make it clear from the start that in universe something makes sense then most viewers will be dandy.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2336x3350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2336x3350px

>>15613489
>Landmate controls are retarded
>Let's instead try to control all the characters complexities of the humanoid form with a fucking joystick

What did he mean by this?

The only thing conventional controls would be good for is trying to make the mech control like a first person shooter, which is a stupid idea, at that point it'd be a glorified tank that doesn't tank as well, the only justification for mecha existing would be as a scaled up form of the immense versatility of a humanoid body, the pilot needs to be able to control the arms like they're his own, to take advantage of the full range of motions the machine is capable of, landmates allow that while keeping weight down compared to a giant cockpit, and the "retarded" arms hanging off the front serve as nice back ups in case the larger arms cease to function, and allow the pilot to effortlessly manipulate smaller object made for human hands.


Landmates are the ideal realismfag mecha, you may not like it, but this is what peak practicality looks like.

File: GA-02a[1].jpg (149KB, 1141x823px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1141x823px

>>15613336
Most of the comments about the Titan can be applied to the Labors in Patlabor - like the flak jacket and revolver canon. Though to Patlabor's benefit most of the complex parts are hid underneath jacketed sleeves. Also modern tanks have exposed sensors anyways, the Titan has more than 1 rotating camera as well. Also sloped armour hasn't matter since the development of long rod penetrators - protip, these projectiles normalize to the slope surface they impact.

Honestly I don't hold a candle to east vs west debate. Like what you like, don't like what you like. The idea of comparing 2 fictional machines is retarded. Especially in this case because technically the Titan is more advanced then the TA. Remember they drop this thing from orbit and then deploy energy shields (also the phase shifting bastard in TF2). A lot of criticisms can be leveled both ways. Shit I remember that one scene from Gasaraki where they said the TA was faster then a wheeled vehicle.

Still I liked Gasaraki if only for the traditional animation. IMO the Ishtar is the better of the TAs but hey personal preference.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 727x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 727x480px

>>15614181
>Also sloped armour hasn't matter since the development of long rod penetrators - protip, these projectiles normalize to the slope surface they impact.


Sloped armor is useful against APFSDS rounds, it's HEAT and HESH shells that can smash their fronts onto a sloped plate to get a 90 degree angle for the explosive charge, APFSDS rounds just pierce a hole straight through something with kinetic force, if they hit an angled plate they have to go through more material, and a sufficiently angled plate will bounce them off because their tip can't dig into the material, they're the modern equivalent of APCR shells from WWII, they're not a fucking magic bullet that redirect themselves to hit armor at a 90 degree angle with no loss of armor penetration, if sloped armor wasn't useful against modern ammunition every modern tank would be boxy as fuck, it's drastically easier to fit stuff into and manufacture a boxy tank, but tanks are still sloped pretty hard, stop spreading myths.

File: leopard_2a6_armor.jpg2.jpg (297KB, 1280x1430px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1280x1430px

>>15614259
Are you high?

Earlier APFSDS were made from steel. They could shatter and they could bounce, however a tungsten or DU penetrator will not considering that they are denser and heavier then the material they are being fire into, namely steel.

They do normalize -angle downward into the hull- once they dig in and they will dig in. We're talking about a surface area of around 2-3cm leaving the barrel at 1500 m\s, that also weighs around 10kg - that's a lot of energy. The difference is when they hit composite armour. IF the composite does its job the penetrator will deformed or the tip will be too eroded to continue through.

So no they don't deflect. You can't deflect modern penetrators. Modern tanks are a lot boxier than their post WWII cousins. What does matter is how the composite plates are angled which will depend on the application. LOS thickness doesn't matter on steel as much as it does for the plates that will have to impede the penetrator.

That's the point. They're not magic either. The slopes on the TA posted wouldn't work at 45 degrees to the tank anyway. They stand vertically and slope inward to the hip. It might as well be flat if your shooting from the ground.

That's why some tanks you see today are literal boxes. Leo 2SG comes to mind.

>>15614259
>>15614486
Okay, so armor penetration is actually a very, VERY complicated topic with no real cut and dried answers.

APFSDS, which I'm going to call long rods for obvious reasons, are the simplest in concept. It's a long, heavy rod that punches through armor. The kinetic energy is concentrated so much in such a narrow point that it deforms armor and shatters the hull. The armor material is compressed so severely that it basically explodes in response. The penetrator too will have shards break off and scatter like fragmentation from a grenade. Sloped armor can offer some defense but it's got to be pretty severe. Long rods are designed with angles like 45°.Some could deal with 30° but passed maybe 20° the penetrator is just going to bounce.

HESH really isn't used for anti-tank work. Most tanks and even armored vehicles have anti-spalling liners to prevent fragmentations from the inner layer of the armor. HOWEVER, HESH is AWESOME against concrete. It's a bit like attaching a demolition charge right against it's surface and as a result the brits love it.

HEAT follows weird rules. First off, projectile velocity doesn't matter. You could attach a shaped charge to a stick and poke it at an enemy tank and that warhead would work just as well as if it was shot out of a cannon. As a result, HEAT does wonders at long range. Drawbacks? Penetration is a fixed length regardless of material. You could stop a HEAT warhead with phone books if you have enough. Spaced armor kills HEAT while being cheap and lightweight. Damage is also a little wonky. A shaped charge will destroy anything along it's line but if it's not hitting something that goes bang then chances are the tank isn't going to die from it. Unless you hit the fuel or ammo dead on it's probably a wasted shot. You also don't get any angle normalization so sloped armor with spacing does wonders thanks to trigonometry.

cont>>15614582
Finally, there's APHE. Not much more than a bomb in an armored piercing case with a delayed impact timer. Now APFSDS and HEAT warheads both require secondary explosions to kill a target so the best defense is safe ammo storage. APHE doesn't need that. If the shot gets through the armor then the hull it'self will contain and focus the explosion turning the cabin into an unsurvivable hell as shockwaves bounce off the interior and reduce the crew to hamburger.

Luckily, just about every armor scheme in the world is designed with APHE in mind so you really don't need to worry about it.

File: MerkvaMk3BAZarmour_zps2c2105c0.png (1MB, 1024x982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x982px

>>15614582
>>15614603
If a tungsten pentrator makes it through the armour -aside from the fragments- more than likely it will not have enough energy to continue through the other side. If that happens you have a very large piece of metal bouncing around inside the tank. If the penetrator is made of depleted uranium it will set the inside of the vehicle on fire because the material is pyrophoric when turn to dust.

Same thing with HEAT. The molten jet will spray superheated metal inside the cabin of the vehicle. Which will also set things on fire like the crew. Also tandem warheads can be used to defeat both spaced and explosive reactive armour. Depends though, like all things its not so cut and dry. Essentially HEAT is bomb you explode outside the vehicle, it needs to be very specific but it doesn't really matter as long as you get it to the target.

The problem with APHE is that they need to be able to pierce the armour in one piece without shattering and with the fuzes intact. Very difficult as the armour became tougher and tougher. It has largely been phased out in tank guns.

There is no such thing as a wasted shot

>>15614682
You seem to know a lot about this stuff, I have a question about high explosive shells vs tanks(not HEAT, just HE), I play a lot of War Thunder and I've noticed that a good tactic for taking out certain tanks is having shells explode on the front of their turret so that shrapnel shoots down through the thin top armor of the hull, for instance in a short-lived T-90 vs Leopard 2 mode the most effective way for the T-90 to destroy a Leo from the front wasn't with sabot rounds or missiles but by firing HE at the lower front of the turret so that a ton of stuff flies through the top of the hull, or another example is a KV-2 APHE shell detonating on the front of a Tiger II turret, killing the driver and radio operator.


Does this actually work IRL?

File: 1446976724981-0.jpg (261KB, 495x700px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 495x700px

I thought people agreed VOTOMS had the most practical designs when they actually took a tally and asked actual engineers and shit what they thought looked most practical?

>>15614818
>took a tally and asked actual engineers and shit
I'd love to read this

>>15614818
VOTOMS designs would probably be better off as powered armor, being 12 feet tall and having a cockpit doesn't really give them any advantages, they need reliable automated walking which we haven't mastered with robots whereas powered armor just needs it's pilot to practice for a while to walk and run reliably.

>>15614823
Someone posted it in another thread a while ago but fuck if I have the link, It was all in Japanese.

VOTOMS was first place and Patlabor was a close second, I think the reasoning behind it was that the schematics for the Labors and AT's were pretty solid and made sense and refrained from using bullshit to explain things.

>>15614818
>>15614823

I guess they didn't show the engineers how they skated around like NHL players.

Although that is now a moot point thanks to Boston Dynamics.

>>15614830
I think that just adds to the "cheap mass produced coffin" aesthetic they have going for it, the AT's if I remember correctly were based off of the way military surplus machinery after world war 2 was cannibalized reused and modified in Japan and some other places.

>>15614682
>If that happens you have a very large piece of metal bouncing around inside the tank

Not very likely. At these levels of kinetic energies steel is pretty pliable so the rod would end up imbeded on the far wall. Similar case with uranium except the rod will inevitably shatter into smaller pieces. Yes, this creates a large fire but only for a moment .

HEAT, on the other hand, doesn't benefit from shrapnel. Yes, you've basically got a thermal lance through the armor but unless you hit something that catches fire it's not going to kill the tank outright.Kill a crewmember, probably but not the entire crew.

The problem is that these methods don't benefit from concussive waves. At most you've got shrapnel but even thick cloth can protect against shrapnel. Heat alone isn't going to cut it because the reaction happens so fast you can't transfer enough heat to set the crew on fire. You need to ignite the fuel or ammo and modern ammo storage techniques makes this difficult.

Lets take the M1 Abrams for example. Let's say it takes a tandem HEAT warhead to the side of the turret. BLAM, the copper jet shoots right into the cabin and skewers the loader. HOWEVER, main ammo storage is isolated from the crew so while the loader now has some superior internal ventilation the rest of the crew are fine.

Well that was boring, lets change things up. This time the shot not only skewers the loader but also spears right into the ammo storage. It cooks of the 120mm shells in a catastrophic explosion KA-BOOM. Fortunately, the 120mm ammo storage is behind a blast door in a compartment with blowout panels. All the ammo for the main gun is gone but the tank is still mobile and armed with MGs.

So no, just putting fire in the cabin isn't going to cut it.

>>15604529
A fighter jet.

File: 99120116004_AdMecOnagerDunecrawler02.jpg (45KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x620px

4+ legged mechs are more practical than 2 legged ones.

>>15613336
That's because western designs are just aped eastern designs.

>>15609329
When was the last time tanks were actually necessary in combat?

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15614811
Look I know what I know and I know most tanks have thinner roof armour. I suppose it possible if the HE was powerful enough. Though I'm not to certain for modern tanks. I suppose designers today have to take into account things such as mortar fire. Ask /k/ or lurk more.

>>15614902
>So no, just putting fire in the cabin isn't going to cut it.
As long as someone gets maimed in there that'll be enough to get the tank put out of action. Either way the enclosed environment will be mighty uncomfortable for the occupants - spall liners, body armour and helmet not withstanding. Its not like they're gonna keep fighting while one of the guys is bleeding out.

Also if the blowout panel is going off I don't know if the crew would want to stick around for that shit.

You don't need to "destroy" a tank to put it out of action.

File: gasaraki077.jpg (270KB, 1184x805px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1184x805px

the mech has to do something that other machines can't. it has to either create a new dimension of battle, like the airplane did between the World Wars, or provide a better solution an old problem, like drones do.

the most common site of warfare is urban settings, right now. tight spaces with lots of cover, but little room to maneuver. right now, you don't see lots of heavy armor vehicles, aren't mobile and are too expensive. some idiot with an RPG can take out a tank, assuming he doesn't mind dying in the attempt. and lots of idiots don't mind dying.

tools of war have to be durable, mobile, and cost effective.

the solution has been drone planes and smaller armed vehicles. a shitty pickup with a massive machine gun works just fine, and is cheap to maintain and replace.

on the opposite end are billion dollar fighter planes. these are so expensive because they are impossible for anything more cheaply made to destroy. a top level fighter plane can run missions for years and doesn't have to worry about being destroyed because of its powerful electronic countermeasures and detection evasion.

the mech has to be more mobile than the shitty pickup, carry as much weaponry as needed, and be either cheap to repair, or so fucking hard to break that you don't have to worry about repair costs.

when designing your dream mech, think about this: how much is this going to cost? and, will some jihadi shithead with a rocket launcher be able to cripple it?

>>15613489
>specialized actions
this is why they are terrible. humans aren't stupid. if you are playing a fighting game, and you notice that a particular character has a time delay between two certain moves, you will watch players who use that move, so you can exploit the delay.

if you notice that a mech can only punch in a few patterns, you can memorize those patterns and program counter punches into yours. or, just design a system that shadows an actual human and react dynamically.

watch Real Steel. the final fight is a perfect example of this. a robot carrying out pre-programmed instructions will NEVER beat a live, thinking human being

>>15615149
and before someong brings up chess players, I believe the current crop of computer chess masters are actually a human, paired with a machine. the machine gives its suggestions, and the human picks from those. these are doing much better than a human, or machine, alone

>>15615076
>Also if the blowout panel is going off I don't know if the crew would want to stick around for that shit.
SOP is to wait in the tank and wait for the ammunition to finish burning.

>>15615076
>Also if the blowout panel is going off I don't know if the crew would want to stick around for that shit.

The Abrams has blowout panels for a reason, they make it safer to be inside the tank when the ammo goes off than outside, if you try to get out of the hatches it increases your likelihood of getting injured or killed by all those pretty fireworks going off on the back of the turret.

Unless it get's ammo racked while the loader has the ammo door open, in which case RIP

>>15614181
>>15613336

robot damashis fucking when bandai

>>15615124
>the mech has to do something that other machines can't...
Power armor seems to be the desired goal for future infantry warfare for a lot of pretty obvious reasons, assuming the technology develops. At some point in time in human history the technology will exist, and this is one of those fields where it's hard to picture any alternative outside of straight-up making humanoid drones to replace human infantry entirely.

In that scenario it's hard to say what could happen. A small mech just large enough for a pilot (or possibly just a drone itself) could find feasibility assisting infantry as a heavy weapons platform, communications platform, mule, etc. A support vehicle for rough terrain and urban environments, and a reliable power armor killer.

Of course, it's more likely that we'd just never see a need for that kind of technology, even as an extension of what's to come.

File: HunterConcept.jpg (276KB, 1024x725px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1024x725px

Heavy Gear is my personal favorite for practical design.

File: 1497302870556.jpg (238KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1280x720px

>>15614181
Just to make sure you understand the point. You will never, ever be able to armor mech on the same level as tank. Said Raiden/Ishtar are armored up to 14.5mm at frontal projection. Probably, could protect from 20mm with some luck. Enything of larger caliber - and you have to rely on superior maneuverability, redundancy and (in theory) on active protection systems.
Titans, with all that half-magic mumbo-jumbo, like force fields, orbital deployment and direct energy weapon... can`t bounce 30mm autocannon fire.

Summing all that, sloped armor is good, since it greatly increase protection from low caliber rounds. You can`t tank high caliber rounds any way.

File: 1464138377243.png (313KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 650x650px

>>15615219
Heavy Gears, TA`s from Gasaraki, VOTOMs, Titans - are all on the same league of "somewhat belivable" mecha. They are relatively compact (compact enough, to be limited by pilot size), realisticaly armored and armes, function alongside with conventional vehicles (save for Titans, but we were never shown any combined forces). In case of VOTOM - stupidly thin armor, no visible engine of adequate size is certain minus in design. Heavy Gear, is sort of "VOTOM made with realistic technology". Nothing to add, really. Robust, more or less armored, compact, can run on any shit that burns, require relatively little maintenance, cheap enough. TA- is a mecha, that COULD be built nowdays. Cost a lot, tend to break in most surprising ways, require a lot of efforts to deliver, pilot and maintain. Well, a prototype is allways like that. Look at F-35 or T-14 for example. Titans, while very little info is given, looks like a mature technology, sort of like powered armor suits for Heinlein`s mobile infantry were. They`ve earned their niche, and all advancements in design are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

>>15615514
>You will never, ever be able to armor mech on the same level as tank

Why not?

I feel like people who make this statement just think "it's bigger so it has to have better armor", no, often the bigger something is the worse you need to armor it to stay under weight thresholds, square cube law and such.

You could put better armor on a mecha cockpit than on what we know as a tank, it's a drastically smaller surface area, meaning drastically less weight, you certainly couldn't cover the whole mech in that sort of armor but the cockpits themselves could be made to survive any tank cannon from the front, the punch from the impact would be a bigger threat than penetration.


When I think of a realistic mecha big enough to have a cockpit I think the ideal design would be to have a compact cockpit where the pilot lays down straight on their back, controlling the mech with their mind via cybernetics, with the entire cockpit section being an extremely angled, pointy shape with composite armor thicker than current MBTs, then just attach some weapons, a power source, and some long spindly limbs(similar to the lighter titans from Titanfall), and you've got a mech as tough as a tank, and that's compromising armor to fit a human pilot in it, make it a more compact drone and it can simply BTFO any current tank in terms of armor, limbs would get shot right off by a large cannon but the same could be said for tracks, and the limbs could potentially be made very hard to hit if they were quite skinny.

Saying it's impossible to put tank-like armor on something with easily half the surface area is just wrong, the real question isn't if you could, but if you should.


Also,
>14.5mm of frontal steel being enough to stop 20mm rounds

Not even close

>>15615554
>T-14 for example.

If you're talking about the one that "broke down" during that military parade, I hear the crew only had about five minutes to get familiar with the new vehicle beforehand and the driver accidentally hit the brake or something and couldn't figure out how to fix it for a few minutes, hence why the tracks didn't want to turn and they couldn't tow it until the crew got their shit together.

File: 1464126770468.png (957KB, 1200x825px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 1200x825px

>>15615681
>>Why not?

>>I feel like people who make this statement just think "it's bigger so it has to have better armor"

In reality, its exactly the opposite. Tank is SMALLER. It have less space to protect, so it can use more armor, while being in the same weight class.
>>You could put better armor on a mecha cockpit than on what we know as a tank, it's a drastically smaller surface area, meaning drastically less weight,
Well, not like on tank, since that is pointless (it will be too heavy to move agile enough), but like on modern combat helicopters - you can.

>>...and you've got a mech as tough as a tank

No, you are not. Most of the M1 in US service, were not destroyed via penetration of the armor, but were "mission-killed", read, disabled, and being unable to be repaired fast enough. (T-72 variants rule on this field. Sad, but true fact.) Same will go for your mecha. What reason do you have to haul heavy, tank-armored cockpit (and mass results in larger limbs, bulkier shilouette and being larger target), if simple IED, grenade, or small-arm fire can easilly disable it? BTW, thats why lighter titans in TF are stupid beyond redemption. Frag round near the legs - and your mech is just a fixed target.
>>Not even close
14,5mm is a round caliber of KPV machinegun, not the armor.

File: 1466067660384.jpg (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>15615695
>>If you're talking about the one that "broke down" during that military parade, I hear the crew only had about five minutes to get familiar with the new vehicle...

Well, that is what I`ve heard too. Thou, I just mean that it is a half-prototype vehicle, with a lot of child flaws, that would be cleared some time after it enters service in reasonable numbers.

>>15611007
the moment I saw the Sloped armour part is the moment I realize it's b8 m80

>>15615705
>>15615554
>>15615219
>HGA
I want to like this game but
>entire game is just a lobby based shooter

>>15615714
You're not wrong. Development is still slow since they're somewhat understaffed

>>15615076
>If that happens you have a very large piece of metal bouncing around inside the tank

Yes they will if they don't want to take another hit.

File: 7013944360ce603f3dd062c613a6c2de.jpg (166KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x857px

>SWATbots
Glorified ASIMOs and pretty weak compared to humans but at least it's OK if they get shot

File: 1406798994997.jpg (17KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x300px

roller blades

>>15615853

Asimos fucked Patlabors to produce these things.These look great.

File: Figureheads-2016-03-09-14-03-31-846.avi_snapshot_04.50_2016.03.09_15.12.13650.jpg (732KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1600x900px

>>15615853
oh shit i love operator Asimos, too bad this kind of design tend to get overlooked.
it almost plausible in real life too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c

>>15615705
> Tank is SMALLER

Well, it's got less surface area

>>15615905
How is that game? Is is fun? Do I need a vpn to play it?

>>15615905
when the shit did they make a game of Adam?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXI0l3yqBrA

>>15615705
A mech would actually be harder to disable than a tank. With a tank a severed tread is enough to stop one but with a mech it can crawl if you blow off a leg entirely. Likewise, you've got two arms incase one is disabled.

That being said, you're not going to out tank a tank due to squared-cubed issues and all that surface area. There's also the issue with the crew of one, and really the single man crew requirements is the only reason to have a humanoid war robot, means that a single well placed penetrating blow can knock out a mech

I'd never try to out tank a tank with a mech but mechs have their own advantages. For one, you could air drop a mech and not worry about it landing on a tree or a steep incline or a building and falling over. Well, actually it would still fall over but with all those limbs it can right it'self.

File: 1170472303824.jpg (200KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 640x480px

>>15617353
Crawling mech is still an easy target. So, result will be mostly the same, as disabling the tracked vehicle.

And no, right now, piloted mecha have no significant advantages over conventional vehicles (not necessary tanks). As a result, if you want to write a "believable" story with mecha, you have to think about plausible niche for them. Even Macross and Gundam have some sort of plot device, that explains, why mecha are used.

File: 93d96ab4b17aca2019bf779ba91fe8b71455815716_full.jpg (107KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x360px

>>15616570
>>15617028
its FigureHeads, F2P PC-console game, i used to play a bit on PC but lately it keeps disconnecting and crashed.

>>15618100
I know, I remember reading about the beta long ago but never got around to it and forgot all about it. Do you need a vpn to play? Is it p2w?

>>15604529
In my definition.

Ground mechs should have non overly sophisticated design that can maneuver like a human being, and has thrusters than can make it hover, as in being able to make it move fast at a certain direction without walking/strafing. Making it more practical and effective than a tank.

Space mechs should be like the Stark Jegan.

>>15618087
I always felt okay with Gundam's
>we need absurd amounts of materials to build way too many colonies
>we'd rather have a single heavy machinery tool that can use a variety of smaller one than a variety of heavy machines.
>woah, this things are pretty cool, bet they could even grab a canon
MEANWHILE
>Well, our future technology mumbo jumbo particle engines make radar, heat detection, and even long range cameras useless.
>But I'm sure we should still invest in high speed planes.

It's dumb and wacky, but the excuse is part of the characterization of the universe and the power figures. It's not like the mecha have a reasson to exist AND something else happened for the plot.


>fuck the earth

File: 1302960750475.jpg (25KB, 327x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 327x400px

>>15620718
That`s exactly what I mean. The excuse may be stupid, but should explain why the mecha even exist.
In Macross, there were huge humanoid aliens, and the idea of fighting them on foot. In Gasaraki, it was some alien magitech muscle tissue, that allowed them to learn and be more mobile than conventional vehicles.
In Rideback, that was simply enternaiment purpose.

>>15607729
I'm a huge fan. I love Northstar's sweet greetings 2 minutes before we get blown to hell

>>15614902
>HEAT, on the other hand, doesn't benefit from shrapnel. Yes, you've basically got a thermal lance through the armor but unless you hit something that catches fire it's not going to kill the tank outright.Kill a crewmember, probably but not the entire crew.

Generally most modern HEAT shells have a fragmentation sleeve so they're more effective against light targets and supporting infantry. The US doesn't even deploy HE-FRAG rounds any more, just the MPAT HEAT and a anti-fortification HE round for engineering units.

>>15615514
What anime is this?

>>15622176
Garasaki.

>>15622182
thanks i'm gonna go pull a torrent of it. looks cool, been kinda burnt out on mecha anime for a while but looks interesting.

>>15620693
Retard.

>>15621173

Considering Boston Dynamic's Handle frame robot i basically 80% of a rideback, we're pretty close now....

>>15611821

Not really.

But the new titan (the Monarch) has the ability to sap energy from enemy titans, slowing enemy movement while filling their own shields. If you use the Monarch carefully you've essentially got a recharging shield.

Basically there's no application for a gundam style mech in today's warfare. Despite the armour being a lesser priority, since mechs are supposed to be able to avoid shots, the only reasonable application would be to counter landing and flying vehicles. The only realistic project would be using powered armour for rescue mission or drone walking tanks to fight in urban locations.
On the other hand if you are looking for harsh realism in a mech show I think you are kinda missing the point.

>>15611230
Who weebtron main here? Holla

>>15622235
Ignoring that it's mechanically impposible, a smaller mech a la VOTOMs could be quite useful in the middle east as support for infantry. More usefull than most stuff the army is developing atm.
On the other hand let's ignore how sand would be the most effective weapon against those legs.

>>15622824
>Ignoring that it's mechanically impposible

first we must assume that the horse is a perfect sphere

>>15604549
>"practical design"
>It's not even painted red

File: 1238241389703.jpg (83KB, 600x686px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x686px

>>15622195
Yep, got the same thoughts exactly. If someone manage to market the whole thing for entertainment purpose cheap enough, we really may see this one out of prototype stage.

File: 1180166542858.jpg (84KB, 720x523px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 720x523px

>>15622824
>>On the other hand let's ignore how sand would be the most effective weapon against those legs.
Watch Gasaraki, damn it. That was exactly what happened. Its relatively easy to overcome nowdays. Also, mecha (not gundam, but something on par with VOTOMs or TA from Gasaraki) are perfectly mechanically sound. They are simply not practical. Thats why you have to find a niche for them first.

>>15622947
o poat bwter pic or die here

File: 1496646166156.png (130KB, 512x494px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 512x494px

i'd like to think the ideal mecha designs for maximum efficiency in certain ways of combat would be Amored Core V
The shields mounted on some of the legs and weapon positioning seems rather effective, you can sacrifice defense for mobility and vice versa and even costumize your mech to better suit your combat style
Also would a over-sized Fencer armor from EDF fall into this topic? their armor feels like it could work if it wasn't just a power suit

>>15623142
> Armored Core V

Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long ass time.

>>15611007
Yeah, but, what is the mech on the right? That's the real question here.

>>15623142
ACV mecha are too wide, they wouldn't be able to move in cities or forests, since a mecha doesn't have to be just like a human body and should be designed with compactness in mind their shoulders shouldn't be much wide than their hips, and their hips shouldn't be unnecessarily wide, follow those rules and keep it small and it'll fit in all sorts of tight spaces in cities/forests/mountains.

Speaking of cities/forests/mountains, those are the environments you should design a mecha to excel in, wide open spaces with no extremely rough terrain are where tanks are at their best, both historically and now those three environments are death traps for them, legs and a vertical orientation help with a lot of issues tanks face there, and if we're talking about some Starship Troopers shit where they can rocket jump they'd completely BTFO conventional vehicles without exception due to having such excellent mobility in such hard to navigate environments.

File: 1497302559695.jpg (103KB, 600x995px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x995px

>>15624121
see>>15615514
>>15615124
>>15622947
and finally this:
>>15622182

>>15618087
>Niche

How about paratrooper armored support? Normally, you need to air drop crew and vehicles separately incase the vehicle falls into a ditch or onto a tree or just lands weirdly and falls on it's side in a way that traps the crew in. With a mech you can right yourself easily.

Crew requirements are also very low since you can sync the mechs movement to the pilot's movement. Think a mechanical version of motion capture.

Finally, the arms allow you to try to salvage enemy weapons. Exactly how successful you are will depend on what the enemy is using but an immobile artillery piece like the 155mm howtizer would be ideal.

File: Avatar_pg85_e.jpg (949KB, 2000x3525px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 2000x3525px

>>15624492
Well, in my RPG campaign, I exploit similar idea. To all you`ve stated, add interstellar travel and delivery from and to orbit. And, surprisingly, hightech, but lightweight vehicle on the ground of recipient planet, became cheaper, than low tech, but heavy one. (Think Titans, from Titanfall-1, that are build on the fly onboard of the mothership). In this scenario, mechs are sort of plausible (environmental protection, redundancy, reasonable armor and mobility, adequate weaponry, if needed). So, in my campaign, the father of all mechs, was a hostile environment explorer suit. Sort of glorified bipedal rover. Picrelated. Avatar had similar thoughts it seems.

>>15624501
One idea you might want to include is to have the pilot wear powered armor in the cockpit. This does a couple things.

First, adds a bit more survivability to the pilot. Remember that mechs can't be armored as well as a tank. Between the space between the hull and the pilot and the separate airtight seals on both you've got some decent toughness even when the hull is penetrated.

Second, you can skip some creature comforts that are redundant with the power armor. HUDs and Cushions, for example.

Third, you can keep fighting after the mech dies. Power armor would be very useful for prying your way out of a downed mech, after all, and being linked to a larger vehicle would keep the armor fully charged.

File: 8445b19a0ef459c122b94e913ecf40dc.jpg (189KB, 1214x786px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1214x786px

>>15625270
In case of my scenario, there are two major human fractions, with different approach. Federation, relies heavily on implants and cyborgization. Their operators, are linked directly to the equipment, be it exoskeleton or mecha. Sort of pilot controlls the whole thing as if it is his own body.
The Empire, are nanotech users, who relies on genetic manipulations. Not "mutants", but more like engineered eugenics. They are faster, stronger than baseline human, live longer, think better. However, Empire disapprouves most of the implants usage. Well, the implants are really hardly needed, if you can re-grow any organ back, given enough time and appropriate treatment. Imperial operators, use the equipment that reads neural impulses and relays them to pseudo-AI, controlling the mech, or exoskeleton. AI learns with time, so pair became more and more effective, with accumulated experience. Think of it as a Titanfall-2 "Buddy titan" The idea is similar.
In both cases, operators have no real need for manual controll, so enclosed capsule with human body is small, well-protected. Operator is fixed wia amortisation cushion all the time, with very limited range of motion (look at cockpit of TA in Gasaraki). So, there is very little need for actual "powered armor" inside of 3-meter tall mecha. Environmental suits are used if needed, of course.
Picrelated is an early military mecha design (patlabor reference, I know. Internal design is different however.)

File: 7b848bcd96886cde6da49969a835f952.jpg (203KB, 1214x786px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1214x786px

>>15626606

>>15608818
>it'll just end up like the battleships.

STOP REMINDING ME, IT COULD'VE BEEN GLORIOUS
>tfw there has literally only been one battle in history where battleship armadas actually fought each other in the way they were intended when built

File: 1*9yirFgXgcFzonGrD67PqfQ.png (2MB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x797px

>>15626622
image didn't post