>Technology has advanced to the point that mechs are viable

Because robots look cool.

>>15655393
and we already way past the year 1999...

let it go, use a bit of your imagination to fit in the blank.... ...

File: TOY-RBT-4018_02.jpg (131KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x533px

>>15655393
Dougram's relatively good about avoiding this; Combat Armors and conventional fighting vehicles all carry weaponry that's capable of destroying each other. The most prominent non-main-character ace in the series and all of his cohorts ride around in and kill Combat Armors in Native Dancers.

>>15655393
Why would IFVs and AFVs need to be more advanced? They're not intended to fight super heavy armor like MS. I guess tanks are, which is why they have stuff like the Guntanks, Hidolfr, or just the MS themselves. Same holds for all mechs really.

>>15655393
Mechas project a mental retardation field that incapacitates tank crews rendering them unable to hit a target the size of a medium sized office building

>>15655393
Why do these things have open cockpits?

File: (G_P) Patlabor TV 30(x264 720p)(61966369)[(005194)05-38-33].jpg (76KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x720px

>>15655962
The seats move. They can lower the pilot into the chest cavity where the pilots use robust monitors to see instead of their eyes.

File: 1473596814012.jpg (415KB, 1500x1146px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1500x1146px

>>15655393

This is why I liked Gundam

Finally figured out all you need to bring tanks up to the level of mechs is give it a second gun

>>15656773
Ha

File: when you activate the k card.webm (3MB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 900x506px

>>15655723
Not always

File: ZSU-23-4.jpg (595KB, 2030x1348px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 2030x1348px

>>15656878
Was East Germany never given dedicated AA units?

The idea of using tanks to fire at flying targets is hilarious to me

>>15656883
Japs thinks tank divisions consist only of tanks apperantly.

>>15655393

Is that a legged APC in the center of the pic?

>>15661432
No troop capacity to speak of if it's the X-10 like it seems to be. More of a legged tank, unless tanks technically need to have treads.

File: 1341878768735.jpg (739KB, 2775x2000px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 2775x2000px

>>15661432
A camoed up X-10.

>>15656878
Sauce?

>>15659059
Or they just didn't bother modeling a Shilka for the production. It would be too OP versus the TSF's anyway. The Jap mecha purists that hump UC would be upset to see mecha forced to use some sort of tactics to take out the human equivalent of a laser-class.

>>15661644
>t. some butthurt stormfronter who exclusively faps to panzers

>>15661644
>>15661658
The problem is that once you go there the solution becomes "lob a javelin".
Which makes the solution to EVERYTHING become "lob a javelin", because it is. You can't go halfway on this because even that much goes too far to have mechs. There's a reason the Bradley scored just as many tank kills as the Abrams in Desert Storm.

>>15661644

Given how fucking OP SPAAGs are supposed to be against anything that isn't a Fort or a Destroyer charging line, I find budget (or a lack thereof) to be a likely reason.

File: d_50c_loto_by_progv-d50bv6w.jpg (244KB, 1259x1693px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1259x1693px

>>15656773

>>15661637
Looks like muvluv.

File: 1452459514497.jpg (159KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1920x1080px

>>15661674
>There's a reason the Bradley scored just as many tank kills as the Abrams in Desert Storm.
Iraqi's suck combined with thermal vision, autocannons firing APFSDS rounds and ATGM from the late 80's are fucking OP against 50-60-70's slavic/chinese military equipment.

The ability to spot targets 3 kilometers away in sand enviorment is seriously overpowered as fuck. Especially against an opponent who spent most of their money and time in reenacting world war 1 with "modern export equipment" for 7 years with their neighbor.

More coalition soldiers died to friendly fire then iraqi fire since it really gets hard to tell who is who in the desert kilometers away.

>>15661817
Most likely

File: laughing whores.webm (589KB, 574x340px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 574x340px

>>15661658
>he doesn't exclusively fap to panzers

Technology does not proceed unilaterally. Not everything receives equal funding and attention. If mecha proved to be of greater utility, ability and versatility than tanks and IFVs, they would likely receive the majority of development, leaving the preceding vehicle types in the same situation was the horse-drawn wagon.

That said, it would have to be a hell of a clear and evident advantage to overcome general conservatism.

>>15655393
Because all the advanced technology you're going to give to a tank doesn't fundamentally change its tank-like shape.

Hover capability? Still looks like a tank.
Shield generator? Still looks like a tank.
Projectile interceptor (be it projectile or laser-based)? Still looks like a tank.
Charged armor to slag projectiles? Still looks like a tank.
Really powerful gun? Still looks like a tank.

What you should really be asking is why anyone is even fighting when technology has clearly advanced to a point that High Energy Lasers are viable. Tank, mech, infantry, chopper, jet, even satellite; doesn't matter, the laser blows a hole through it in a fraction of a second all the same. It's just lasers shooting lasers all day long. The moment you get in line of sight of a laser, it lasers you, and the other 30 lasers nearby it also laser you.

Who the fuck signs up for the military knowing that there's invisible lasers hiding in every hill and behind every tree and under every rock and over every crest that will instantaneously and unerringly zap your dumb ass? How would your command structure even tell you where to go or what to do when all of your satellites and communications equipment has been zapped out of the fucking sky? Are you unspooling wires behind you all day and using terrestrial radio?

Nah. Weaponized lasers are like handing everyone a fucking nuke. There's no point in playing once that happens. We all sit down and learn how to play nice or at least bully the guys who DON'T have lasers.

File: BRDXv.jpg (220KB, 860x616px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 860x616px

>>15662977
>IRL BETA laserwank
The future of warfare is truly horrifying

>>15662977
Unless you're in a timeline where they invent magic perfect anti-laser coatings that make them completely obsolete and you have to invent megaparticles so you can genocide half your population.

File: Type 90 Mist.jpg (151KB, 1261x852px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1261x852px

>>15662977
I mean, sure but those tanks in OP are literally just the Type 90

No changes, no upgrades, just the Type 90 next to a fucking MECH

File: 1458770534155.jpg (450KB, 1271x711px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1271x711px

>>15662977
>Because all the advanced technology you're going to give to a tank doesn't fundamentally change its tank-like shape.
But the problem OP has is not the "tank-like shape" but that the tank is technologically speaking the same as a real world tank or worse, outright a carbon copy of real world tank placed in a mech setting.

Aesthetically speaking tanks that are carbon copies of real world tanks feels out of place when placed among mechs, ESPECIALLY when the mech aesthetically speaking is very destinct from said tanks. Patlabor mech designs look very "real robot" while for example in muv luv they dont (pic related).It get even worse when they fly among badly drawn helicopters

>>15663747
Well patlabor mechs are not really that super duper special or OP so Type 90's would do good.

File: 1405658946416.gif (545KB, 324x216px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 324x216px

>>15662977
>It's just lasers shooting lasers all day long.

Also, for the record, we had radio communications before satellites were a thing.

>low profile
>low center of gravity
>redundancy for a failed leg
A tank with legs for covering rough terrain wouldn't be a humanoid mecha, it would be a spider tank.

File: Kino_no_Tabi_v6_FRP3_1_notext.jpg (637KB, 1967x1400px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1967x1400px

>>15663974
There's already a tank for going over rough terrain.
Its called a tank.

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

>>15655393
>Technology has advanced to the point that mechs are viable
Noooooooooo. The AI required doesn't exist.

>>15661637
looks like its Schwarzesmarken.

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>15665655

>AI =! Technology

>>15655393
What technology that is essential for mechs would also be used in other ground vehicles? Because unless you need them to walk on legs I'm not seeing much overlap here. Tech isn't a linear progression.

>>15666824
>fire control and computer assistance/automation
If a single operator can handle movement and gunnery at the same time for a robot, that stuff could be applied to tanks or other armored vehicles as well to improve combat and gunnery efficiency or reduce the number needed for vehicle crew, like how Russian tanks feature autoloaders so human loaders are no longer required. A properly advanced system could analyze terrain, perform threat detection, share data links with friendlies, etc. Patlabor featured extensive machine learning systems that could optimize movement and avoid obstacles, to the point that police software had algorithms that could predicatively evade or brake to avoid collateral damage, yet also allow high agility maneuvers around obstacles. It's less applicable to wheeled or tracked vehicles, but there's always value in a system that can assist vehicle crews in terms of situational awareness and gunnery

>super compact and high density energy sources and powerplants
If a humanoid design can have a power system that is unobtrusive yet practical enough to allow it to a decent operational endurance (or maybe even run and jump), then the same technologies can be applied to wheeled or tracked vehicles to allow them to be smaller (more efficient engines), stealthier (fewer engine emissions, less noise, etc) or more mobile (greater power to weight ratio for better speed or carry heavier arms, armor, and/or equipment without as much slowdown) as well as general improvements in efficiency (alternative power sources)

>>15662977
I think you're overestimating the effectiveness of lasers. Sure, it can hit anything in line of sight with perfect accuracy but a light fog kills it. The latest in weaponized lasers is an anti-missile system the size of a large truck and needs about 10 seconds of uninterupted fire to kill something made of sheet metal.

Really, anything with armor or stays low enough to the ground to kick up some dust is going to be damned hard to kill with lasers. Save that shit for anti-air work.

>>15663989
Tanks are kinda bad on anything rougher than a ditch. The Fall of France was effective because the Ardennes were considered impossible to drive a tank through and indeed a tank would not have been able to cross through if not for the efforts of Wehrmacht engineers.

We still see elements of this to this day. Modern tanks don't wade through rivers deeper than 5 feet. Urban terrain is generally death to unescorted tanks. Nobody even considers driving an M1 Abrams through a swamp.

>>15666824
Most of the most essential technology already exists in one form or another. It's more the doctrine and need for mechs that is missing. Hardest thing would be the control system that mimics the human body. .

For example, you could use mechs for paratrooper attacks, dropping them in to offer some mechanized support. You'd never want to do this with a full sized tank. A tank could land in some ditch or on a house or just land on it's side rather than it's treads. With all that weight you'd never right the damned thing. A mech can right it'self, dig it's way out of debris, or even climb out of a ditch if necessary.

>>15667601
>Modern tanks don't wade through rivers deeper than 5 feet.
It's too bad; giant snorkels and float screens were fun.

File: scopedogs.jpg (75KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x768px

>>15655393
in any realistic situation tracked and wheeled vehicles would most likely have a faster overland top speed, and their lower silhouette would make them more desirable in wide open or sparsely covered regions

mechs at best would fill the role of urban fire support pretty well, the ability to just step over road obstructions or even climb or jump over barricades and to have an elevated field of view and angle of fire on potential threats. The ability to locomote rapidly in multiple directions with legs would probably help them in tight quarters and give them an edge over IFV's or tanks in urban terrain too. Only issue is that infantry would have a definite advantage over them with their high silhouette, even moreso than already vulnerable tanks and IFV's.

if youre dealing with shit like AT's though, theyd be the gods of almost every theater of war you could deploy them in save maybe swampy ass jungles. The lethality of their standard weapons and addons, plus their speed and size would make them extremely potent.

>>15667584
Actually Raytheon just put a laser pod on an apache and killed a truck from 1.4mi

Mechs are expensive. You need variety in your military weapons.

>>15663951
>>15663747
Yeah, Patlabor's premise is literally "But in ten years, who knows?..."

>>15659059
>Japs knowing anything about tanks
has there ever been a decent/really good japanese tank?

File: 1480296058406.png (3MB, 2000x1189px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1189px

>>15669039
Of course not. Even the latest one is paper tier.

File: iQp-fgzPFc.jpg (60KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 604x604px

>>15669039
Has there ever been a truly good asian tank to begin with?
They're either loaded with fragile gimmicks and cost $$$$$ like the type 10 (type 90 seems so meh it's ok at least) or the korean Ks or they're chinese.
>tfw for all it's technical advancement, K1 never got CRBN protection
What the fuck, dogeaters. You'd think they'd know better considering the kind of neighborhood they live in

File: Tank biathlon 2015 highlights, T-72B3 lose it's drivespockets.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15669594
Loosing your roadwheel is a rather minor thing to happen and not that signficant since it can be fixed on the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzdJFLDGaNg

Unlike webm related where one of the T-72B looses it's drivespockets which require capital rebuilding.To be fair, T-72B3 tanks are just various T-72B models built during the soviet era upgraded to the T-72B3 standard so that they can compete with modern tanks, this particular tank may have seen very heavy service during it's lifetime and it finally broken when it drove into a concrete wall
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/08/31/t-72-cracked-up-after-hitting-brick-wall/

File: Type 74 front paint.jpg (4MB, 4752x3168px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4752x3168px

>>15669039

The Type 74 is a strong contender for "Greatest 2nd Gen MBT"

Unfortunately, it was built at the start of the 3rd Gen

>>15670641
But isn't the Type 74 basicaly a tin-can in terms of protection?

>>15671414
Depending on the energy situation they might be. But still, even if the advances are transferable, that's no guarantee that they'll actually be transferred. At this very moment we are living in a world full of old shit that nobody has bothered to upgrade or replace yet

In the Front Mission games, tanks and copters are credible threats to the wanzers.

>>15669996
T-90s are just an upgrade for the T-72 that was renamed to make it sound newer.

File: Leopard 1 bw.jpg (314KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1200x801px

>>15671317

Gen 2 MBT's weren't about armor.

File: T-90 First Good Look_Dec1993_1.jpg (501KB, 2100x1416px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 2100x1416px

>>15672448
The T-90 obr 1993 was just a T-72 obr 1989 with T-80UD FCS and commander station. The T-90A is arugably more different since it have a different turret, FCS was improved and the autoloader was larger and other minor things. Different enough that it can be considered "a different tank" but still share parts.

But yes the T-90 family came from the T-72 and thus share many parts. The newly born russian federation, unlike the soviet union was too poor to actually build a "new" tank. So poor that they could not produce two different tanks at the same time, the T-72 and T-80.

>>15671317
It has good ballistic shape and thickness. There are other Gen 2 MBT's like the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 that are truly "tin-cans" when it comes to protection.