"If use mecha technology in tanks, they will be much cooler

>>15763102
>"If use mecha technology in tanks, they will be much cooler than robots!" - this is the usual argument of the opponents of progress...
That's not what people say when they argue against the military utility of a mecha, you blithering retard.

>>15763102
Transformation technology so that tanks can become mecha.

>>15763102

Armor and Armament

The tanks in mecha setting should be as armored (AT LEAST) and as armed (AT LEAST) as any mecha.

Logically, they should be more so given their higher weight limits.

Thanks that can transform into robots.

The whole point of humanoid robots is that they can traverse terrain that other mobile weapons can't, or at least they can do it much better. They combine the firepower of tanks and other large vehicles with the maneuverability of infantry.

>>15763102
Automation. This is something that's always confused me about mecha franchises. You've got this big giant robot full of complex features, but only a single person operates it. Meanwhile, tanks still require entire crews, at minimum two people is the smallest I've seen, to be effective. Now, obviously that's because thematically a mecha is more similar to a fighter jet in concept, and most modern planes only have the one pilot even if some can seat two. But in-character it's just because mecha are so refined and have so many automated support features that they only take a single person crewing them. So apply the same concept to tanks. Autoloaders, AI support for the electronics and aiming, self-managing engine systems and all that crap (I admit, I have very little understanding of the roles of a tank crew) so that a single person can drive a tank as well as a whole team can.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-09-01-18-04.png (672KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1280x720px

Truly ahead of its time.

File: 4leg.jpg (57KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x320px

>>15763142
Then it will be easier to add the legs to the tank

>>15763216
The problem right now is that a trained human with hardware assistance is about the best choice.

The TC of the tank needs to be able to spot enemies and command the tank. Thermal vision and stuff helps, but even then there's a limit to how well you can see based on the hardware you have(The screen that the thermal vision output goes to? The thermal vision shit itself?), so some rational guess work is needed to identify what they see and what do they do.
The gunner needs to be able to find what the TC is seeing and wants dead. Again, human judgement is needed at times.
Driver needs to drive, seeing where he is driving to is not that crucial if the TC can see where they are going and guide him, still, terrain judgement to determine what gear to drive at, etc etc.

Loader can be replaced by autoloader somewhat, but there are still pros and cons to it.

Using computers to spot is rather unreliable at times. See: Dummy balloons in Gundam fucking with MS computers
Combining the TC and Gunner role might work, but having to command the tank and shoot might just be too much, adding the driver role would just be too much. Of course, a lot of automation will help, but the automation has to be at least as good as a well-trained crew.

>>15763102
I’d also like to point out in at least 90% of non-arbore combat situations your robots are going to be crawling around on the ground anyway.

>>15763249
This is probably where tanks in the immediate future are going. Boil all the rolls down into 1 with advances in automation. If you can learn to do this fairly well in world of fucking tanks, once the automation becomes reliable the operator will be capable of using the tank one maned with proper training,

>>15763266
humanoid machines also have the advantage of quick weapon and equipment swap out. No more need of 10 different vehicles to do 10 different jobs. Hand carried equipment can allow one machine to do it all, or at least to a point....
Fire support Missiles, heavy anti-armor canons, anti-infantry weapons, It can all be hand carried and external mounted. Jam the weapon, just drop and grab another. Need to switch to infantry suppression from anti armor, Just swap out. Arms and humanoid movement allow for equipment switch out in seconds.

>>15763273
Of course.

The role of the radioman has already been combined into the TC. The loader can be fully replaced by an autoloader eventually once the technology becomes more reliable and better, and they are already in use.
The problem is integrating the gunner and driver's jobs into the TC.

Removing the human element completely is still a good while into the future.

>>15763277
With the same technology you can just make a tank that can swap out weapons just a quick.

A guy in an Ironman suite and a Davy Crockett rapes both anyway.

>>15763249
Oh, sure, I recognize that there are problems with the idea if we're using real-world technology. I'm talking about with the sort of technology in your average mecha series. Those issues never seem to trouble a giant robot much, I'd assume the solutions used (whatever they are) could be translated to a tank.

File: urban combat.gif (3MB, 252x195px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 252x195px

>>15763102
make em sneakier

>>15763102
Cooler, no. More efficient, yes.

>>15763298
Software that judge the terrain might be translatable, but you'll need a complete different set of software for actually controlling the tank of course.

Another problem, I think, might be the hardware needed to run any fancy weapons. Like trying to get MS-grade beam weapons on a tank might just make the tank too big and heavy

File: G-bull-evolve.jpg (31KB, 400x213px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x213px

>>15763324
>Another problem, I think, might be the hardware needed to run any fancy weapons. Like trying to get MS-grade beam weapons on a tank might just make the tank too big and heavy
If they can make reactors small enough to fit inside an MS torso that will power beam weapons, I don't see why one can't be embedded in the hull of a tank. It would already replace the conventional engines that would otherwise be powering a tank.

I mean, take UC, the G-Bull is already pretty close, isn't it? It has treads, is meant for front line combat, and packs twin beam cannons in a turret as well as the ability to hold a beam rifle.

File: 5RAPSCITXBGULPO7VZSOXJGWI4.jpg (112KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1600x1068px

>>15763102
>Tanks

>>15763342
>G-Bull
Actually, we could probably try to gauge how big a tank with MS weapons and reactor might be.

If we have the information of the size of the beam rifle and reactor and construct the tank around it, we might be able to get a good gauge.

I'm pretty sure the ass of the tank will be kind of problematic though, strapping the reactor in and having to ensure that the rifle doesn't stick too much to the front means you have to shift the gun backwards, and tanks tend to keep their powerplant to the rear.
Even a stripped down beam rifle might be problem for the turret as well since the same problem with shifting the gun back and having to account for any recoil.

File: 1382842218917.jpg (303KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1000x1000px

>>15763355
>Compact nuclear fusion reactor technology
>Planes cruise at faster then Blackbird speeds at the edge of space, spam lasers and can stay up for weeks

File: [Commie] Macross Frontier the Movie ~Sayonara no Tsubasa~ [BD 1080p AAC] [66AE8F11].mkv_snapshot_01.35.58_[2016.06.07_17.22.59].jpg (948KB, 1916x1076px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 1916x1076px

>>15763366
So, Valkyries without the transformation ability?

>>15763372
>stay up for weeks
You'll need at least two pilots, a toilet, a fridge and microwave.

File: venuswarstank.jpg (136KB, 640x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 640x800px

>>15763102
Make them bigger and absurdly armored and armed.

Enemies outmaneuvering it? It doesn't matter if all sides of the thing are covered with guns. It got stuck or immobile? It is now a casemate/bunker/fortress. Too huge for urban terrains? There is no problem if there is no city anymore.

>>15763377
So the VF equivalent of the SU-34.

There was the VIP variant of the VF-25 that has a large crew cabin in the Master File.

File: 2K22 Tunguska.jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x600px

>>15763355
>Planes

File: tanker's life.jpg (392KB, 1024x742px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1024x742px

>>15763102

From what I do know of battle tanks, the SEED Linear Tank seems incredibly spacious. Skygrasper and Spearhead pilots probably have less space than that.

Going by OP's image, first order of business is to rig it with at least one of the beam turrets they use on the Skygrasper, probably. The main gun could probably be converted into a second beam gun as well. Modern tanks are capable of taking two or more automated turrets so this would easily go without saying, perhaps they could have just one, but with the guns of the same caliber size they use for the Mobius Zero's gunpods. Those seem to have some effect on MS targets, at least. Better than the standard cannons on the Mobius, for sure.

Next would be to improve the suspension and track mechanisms so that it can at least keep pace with a BuCUE without shaking itself into a cloud of buckshot debris strewn all over the roads and plains.

Basically, IMO the SEED Linear Tank would probably end up like a smaller version of BuCUE or maybe the Landlion in SRW OGS; the only difference apart from size is its delicious filling of murderous racists crewing it.

File: bolo___we_are_already_in_hell_by_shimmering_sword-d336pwn.jpg (315KB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1280x640px

>>15763378

BOLO BOLO BOLO BOLO BOLO

File: BMPT_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012_(8).jpg (1MB, 2250x1445px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1445px

>>15763277
You still have to carry all those weapons you plan to switch to. If you're going to carry all these different weapons, why go through the effort of making an arm contraption that aims, shoots, and swaps between them. Just mount all of them. No quick swapping system is faster than that.

File: D-50C_-_Loto_-_SpecTechDetailDesign.jpg (476KB, 2000x1422px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 2000x1422px

>Constantly insisting that mobile armors and transforming APCs are great ideas into the void while /m/ laughs at me.

>>15763249
Just because you can drop the crew down doesn't mean you would want to. It works for aircraft because aircraft return to a carrier or airfield while not on mission. Armored vehicles on the front lines have to stay on the front lines. Sure if something catastrophic happens they will fall back to the support units in the rear, but everything else has to be handled by the crew.
Keeping guard at night, repairing a thrown track or tire, retrieving and storing supplies, digging fighting positions, camouflaging the vehicle, engine/system maintenance, etc.
All these things are done by a large crew for an aircraft and the pilot usually doesn't participate, but ground vehicles have to do them with only who they brought with them.

>>15763358
Or you could mount it on top, in some sort of armored rotating tower, and put a bunch of optics there too since they will be able to see more. What could we call such a construct?

File: eureka seven remake.jpg (423KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1680x1050px

>>15763110
>>15763121
What about tanks that transform into surfing robots

>>15763379
>has a large crew cabin
no way

>>15763102
Weapons in Gundam Seed are powered by the reactors within the MS.
You can't just put them on their tanks because they don't have that level of miniaturization.
Also Tanks the size of something like a Bucue or smaller would just be sitting ducks, or very situational at best.
Zaft dropped the Bucues after SEED because they were ineffective against MS, and the only time you see any thing similar is with the Gaia and GAZuOOT.

>>15763998
Almost all MS in seed don't have reactors, they run off batteries.

>>15763249

Random question, why don't they make the gunner have a similar system to an AH gunner where the cameras track their head movement?

I'm imagining it either has something to do with the confines of a tank or the fact that the camera can be destroyed, but I just want to make sure.

>>15763281
Yeah, modular tanks would make more sense than mechs.

>>15763306
Ever heard of the Obrum PL-01? From what I understand it can vary its thermal signature in different environments, making it difficult to see in infrared.

>>15763378

A big tank is an easy target for airstrikes. If there's no city anymore they might as well just tacnuke the tank too.

Oh yeah, something worth mentioning -

In the PS1 Armored Core games (And a scrapped design in Armored Core 2) there's one design that combines the RADAR head with machine gun weapon arms, caterpillar legs, and S40/2 missile launchers (You can see it in the OP for Project Phantasma, it's just before the OP AC and Anfang).

Unsurprisingly, it has a very close resemblance to a SPAAG, which suggests that you could put some of the Armored Core's technologies (Such as boosters and and active protection systems) on a SPAAG or some other tank.

I unfortunately can't provide pictures because my drive is dead and anything I put on the internet is gone.

>>15764398
I would guess it's because you don't really look around with your head in a tank.
Plus the gun is fixed to the turret, so even if you did have something like that, all it would do is spin the turret in the direction you are facing, which you would be doing anyway since the gunner sight is in line with the gun.
If you have to go do something else like load or dismount or man another position, the headset would be in the way.
And it's another thing that could break.

>which suggests that you could put some of the Armored Core's technologies (Such as boosters and and active protection systems) on a SPAAG or some other tank.
Why wouldn't you be able to?

>>15763102

Why is everything from Seed that isn't the actual show so good

>>15764482
Power consumption and space for propellant, mostly. Even the smallest Armored Core is substantially bigger than a tank by volume.

>>15764512
It's not like you're limited to duct taping existing ac parts on existing afv frames.
It's the technology that matters, not the individual designs. You could make smaller boosters or build bigger vehicles.
If you really wanted to you could put quad legs on your missiles. They wouldn't help at all and would disrupt their balance, create lots of drag, add weight and cost. But you could.

>>15764521
Yes, you can make the technology small enough to fit on an AFV, but will the tradeoffs necessarily involved in the process of miniaturization result in something that still has legitimate worth compared to the original? There's more to such a process than simply making the same thing, but smaller.

Ultimately, there are also factors such as overhead and research & development costs that we simply cannot know. In the case of Armored Core, we can at least get a decent in-world idea of the average cost of a complete Armored Core just by adding up the cost of individual parts to the player, but we have no idea how much time, money and effort went into designing those, or how much of a comparative discount we're getting via economy of scale and such.

What I'm trying to say is, I suppose, that this shit is complex, and the reason tanks aren't Armored Cores is that Armored Cores exist and they fill a different niche.

And are sometimes also tanks, anyway, so...why bother?

>>15763939
They ditched the transformation system in exchange for a 10-man cabin for the VIP-VF-25

>>15764057
Reactors or batteries, either way they haven't been minaturized

>>15764537
There's no point debating the effectiveness of a miniaturized version of an ac part because there is no room for speculation on either side. There is nothing to go off of.
Likewise regarding research or development time and cost.
Since acs get all this technology researched and developed for free, why can't other vehicles?

File: B2.webm (1020KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 1280x720px

>>15763447
*teleports behind you*

>>15764398
>Ever heard of the Obrum PL-01?
Literally just a ricer CV90

>>15763102
just give up on tanks, and be a full mecha motherfucker.

>>15765078
this

>So, what kind of development can be applied on the tanks of the future?

A fancy source of electricity would improve tanks quite a bit, allowing for a fully electric drive-train, something that's been on the military's wishlist for at least 70 years.

>>15763216
Even with today's technology, a tank could easily be built such that it could be operated by one person, at some level. It's pretty common in video games like battlefield to have one player drive the thing and shoot the gun and such. Obviously it's just a game, but it's not like the technology isn't there to have a steering wheel and a joystick in the same place.

The trouble is that one person can't do all the jobs that need doing at the same time very well. You can probably drive a car. You could probably be trained to drive an off-road vehicle through rough terrain. You probably could never be trained to be any good at spotting camoflauged enemy vehicles several kilometers away while driving an offroad vehicle through rough terrain, and certainly not while also shooting a gun at something else several hundred meters away in a different direction. Honestly, I suspect a mech would also benefit greatly from a crew of at least two. Fighter jets are an interesting case, since their performance requirements are so strict that it's a major sacrifice to make room for a second crewmember, and they can rely much more heavily on sensors than ground vehicles (until stealth becomes more widespread).

I'd imagine automation will really kick in when the lone crewman is no longer the driver or gunner, but instead just the commander, who tells the vehicle's computer where to drive, or which of the targets it's noticed to shoot.

>>15764398
>Random question, why don't they make the gunner have a similar system to an AH gunner where the cameras track their head movement?
Usually the gunner sits inside of the turret, or in a compartment below an unmanned turret, and rotates along with it, so that would be kind of weird.

File: heavy_object_by_asakurashinji-d9m6gzb.jpg (196KB, 1280x560px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x560px

>>15763102

>>15765319
HO's look so fucking stupid, good lord.

>>15765337

Gunion

>>15765337
The most refined soviet engineering.

File: 1403886009loadout_arsenal_g72.jpg (413KB, 1920x1512px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1920x1512px

>>15765078

Yes, I know it's basically a CV90 at heart but there's no denying the stealth system could be used elsewhere.

>>15765245

>I'd imagine automation will really kick in when the lone crewman is no longer the driver or gunner, but instead just the commander, who tells the vehicle's computer where to drive, or which of the targets it's noticed to shoot.

Huh.

I know this is a stretch, but do you suppose in the distant future the only person manning a warship will be the captain too? I remember reading that Arsenal Ships would have a crew of about 50, and that it could supposedly be controlled by AEGIS if it were really necessary (A battleship drone? Sounds a little too much like something out of Terminator...).

>>15764658
The sky grasper is about the same size as a traditional jet and has beam weapons

File: krang_cartoon_tripod.jpg (26KB, 432x389px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 432x389px

>>15765337
You know you're in trouble when fucking Kraang can give you pointers on tank design

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

44KB, 540x300px

>>15764786

>Using a B2 for SEAD

>>15766452
>using a stealth bomber to slip past enemy AD
wow what a novel concept

>>15766461

>Slipping past anything in a B2

You do realize the bitch is now over 2 decades old, yes?

File: B2 banking.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>15766464
And the Tunguska is a little bit older than the B2 (service life began in '82), so she should have no problem stealthing past it at high altitude.

>>15766464
What does age have to do with anything? The F-22 is still the premier air superiority craft in the world, and that plane has been around since the 90's.

File: Artist_Rendering_B21_Bomber_Air_Force_Official.jpg (53KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x512px

>>15766476

Not only that, judging by the B-21's appearance there isn't much to fix.

IIRC the only real difference between the B-2 and the B-21 is that the B-21's got modular innards, kind of like modern-day warships.

Oh, and it has two engines rather than four, likely a result of the fact bigger turbofans are now available.

>>15766503
That's the direction warplanes are going in. Modularity, so that upgrading your aircraft doesn't mean ripping out a ton of stuff in the process.
IIRC, the F-35's software is designed to be easy to upgrade as well, instead of the Ada monstrosity of the Raptor.

>>15766539

Too bad the F-35 otherwise sucks.

Someone who I know in the USAF said something about how he hates that in movies with the F-35 the interface listing anything that might go wrong is entirely empty. Apparently that's impossible according to him.

>>15766544

>My dad works at nintendo

>>15766545

The F-35 does objectively suck though. What really killed it was the ridiculous STO/VL requirement, as noted by earlier VTOL studies it effectively halves the range and payload of the aircraft at the same time. Like, literally.

The JSF program shouldn't have existed in the first place, honestly. Everything that resulted from it has fallen flat on its face.

>>15766544
No shit. It's a massively complex aircraft. Even a regular ass car with such a display is going to have a list at least half a page long.

Thankfully though, you're wrong about the F-35 sucking. Your friend is probably some POG maintainer. Everyone that actually flies the things absolutely loves the aircraft, and understands what a technological leap it is over the legacy hornets and vipers it's going to be taking over for, which it is currently become outright cost-competitive with. Greater range, greater payload, excellent sensor fusion and revolutionary network integration (remember, the F-22 actually has a pretty damned bad data link and is going to be reliant upon the F-35 for proper networking) come together with the best radar available and an all-aspect electro-optical system that borders on fucking cheating to create an absolutely stellar aircraft.

You can keep your outdated news reports and memespouting about MUH SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS.

Daily reminder that an F-35 with AIM-120Ds has a wider air defense envelope than an F-14 with AIM-54s.

File: F-35 pulling moves.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15766560
Time to drop some truth bombs in this shit thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

>>15766588
F-35 haters and spreyfags ETERNALLY BTFO

>>15766544
>Someone who I know in the USAF said something about how he hates that in movies with the F-35 the interface listing anything that might go wrong is entirely empty. Apparently that's impossible according to him.
That's true for almost all airplanes. Seriously, you should hear what maintainers have to say about such stalwarts of the USAF such as the B-1 bomber (mechanics HATE that plane), the F/A-18, and the F-16. Stuff is always going wrong with airplanes because they're incredibly complex and subject to stress and wear that most other vehicles aren't exposed to ever.

File: C8iaNFEWAAA4hni.jpg (87KB, 1200x692px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1200x692px

>Impressed with the F-35's engineering but still think it's a hideous waste of money.

Is there an MSV lore bit about a controversial super cool mobile suit that cost the GDP of several colonies to develop? Because that'd be cool.

File: shrinking-cost-of-f-35a.jpg (277KB, 2100x1297px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 2100x1297px

>>15767725
Its not too bad when you consider the fact that the cost of development is spread amongst several different nations and corporations.
Furthermore, the price per unit is actually quite competitive with contemporary 4.5th gen aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Rafale.

>>15767725
http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/RX-178-X0_Prototype_Gundam_Mk-II

That comes from a vidya game, though.

>>15766594
By what? Clumsy maneuvers, that 4th gen Russian fighters were able to perform like 15 years ago? More like Nope.
Crap, I do hate that we abandoned our own plane development in favor of fucking eurofighter...

File: NF-16 VISTA cobra.webm (2MB, 577x431px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 577x431px

>>15767765
There were US aircraft that could pull those same manuevers well over 20 years ago.
We were just smart enough to realize there was more to military aviation than fancy airshow tricks, such as sensor fusion and data link capabilities, things the Russians still have trouble with.

Any one of you have heard about modafinil. It helps me to <a href=https://modpill.com>focus</a> at work

>>15767816
A bot? In MY /m/? It's more likely than you think.

File: 1452767349063.png (379KB, 689x601px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 689x601px

What about hovercraft tanks?

>>15767818
I prefer to think of it as a highly advanced AI bringing its own cultural flavor of shitposting to the thread.

>>15767916
Love them, those or like the Hammer slammers ones with they iridium armors plus blowers. I'm all for the variety without going much full retard.

>>15767993
Whats your opinion on Bolos

>>15767994
I have to read a book, but seem cool enough.
I'm know reading some alright space opera about merc companies using little mechs/heavy armors. The first one (cartwright cavaliers) needed a good editor cutting the crap but was very flowing, now I'm with asbaran solutions and it's a lot more polished, a bit more dry tough.

File: nekomata_type32_05.png (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

>>15767916

Best part of 2142 was "RUNNING IN THE 90'S" as the PAC

>>15767725
The program in retrospect hasn't even been that expensive. People said exactly the same shit about the F-16 and now look at it.

>>15767916

Interesting idea until the recoil of the gun sends the thing flipping end over end

>>15768363
A better example is the E-3 Sentry AWACS, people ragged on the project when it was being developed because they thought it was overly expensive, and was a solution looking for a problem. Nowadays its one of the most important cornerstones of U.S. strategic and tactical operations.

>>15767916

Hover tanks are cool, and it's really a shame they're comple fantasy tech, aside from Hammer's Slammers-style literal hovercraft tanks, which are just kind of silly and impractical, sliding all over the place.

>>15769118
Cannons have had ways of compensating for recoil since the 19th century.

>>15763102
Tanks don't look cool. There's nothing aesthetic about them at all. The entire idea of a tank is function over form so people who convince themselves into thinking they look cool are just wrong.

At least jets, boats and infantry have potential to look cool but tanks just all fucking look the same.

File: 1464367407958.jpg (520KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1280x720px

>>15769638
Only modern tanks have the samefag look to them.
If you look at older tanks you start seeing more distinct differences.

File: Challenger 2 desert.jpg (2MB, 4064x2704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4064x2704px

>>15769638
>Tanks don't look cool.

Ha ha ha

>There's nothing aesthetic about them at all.

HA HA HA HA

>>15769638

>Jets
>Boats
>Don't all look the same

Hull with towers and fuselage with wings

Wow, such diversity

>>15770295
The Challenger 2 is aesthetic as fuck.

Leopard 2 has its own charms, especially the later models with their fancy turrets.

Abrams is just ugly. Box turret on box hull.
Even the Tiger which has a box for a hull looks more attractive than it.

File: F22 and Aggressors.jpg (2MB, 3192x2120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3192x2120px

>>15770487
>>15770295

Planes look cooler.

>>15765337
hell episode is this from? it looks fucking stupid.

>>15770498
>Planes look cooler

But they don't?

File: PorscheTigers1_zps568fdbb9.gif (817KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 500x281px

>>15769638
Its ok to have shit taste, you don't have to confess it to us.

File: Harrier.jpg (2MB, 3600x2280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2280px

>>15770516

Not a convincing argument.

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 805x2045px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 805x2045px

>>15763102

File: M1 Abrams Heavy Patrol Afghanistan.jpg (1MB, 3214x1841px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3214x1841px

>>15770487
>Abrams is just ugly. Box turret on box hull.

I fucking love it. Those lines and surfaces just speak Fortress to me.

File: British Medium Mk.II in Egypt, 1939.jpg (141KB, 1000x789px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1000x789px

>>15770523
Neither was yours, sweetheart.

>>15770487
What differentiates a Leo 2 from an Abrams aesthetically? They're both boxy as fuck.

File: F14 Jolly Rogers carrier.jpg (283KB, 1854x1013px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1854x1013px

>>15770529

They must be cooler, more mecha transform into planes than tanks and more mecha squadrons are based off real fighter squadrons.

>>15770529
Tanks are slow and gay.
Jets are fast and hetero.

File: 1376679333404.jpg (225KB, 800x904px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 800x904px

>>15770536
From terrible shows, sure. Never much cared for terrible shows.

>>15770538

Jets are fragile and prejudice.
Tanks are tough and accepting,.

>>15770540
Jets can fuck up tanks
Tanks get fucked up by jets

File: Falcon Su-30 scheme.jpg (145KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 2048x1362px

>>15770540

Yet a plane can blow up a tank, and they get custom paintjobs.

File: Buk-M1-2_9A310M1-2.jpg (561KB, 1938x2156px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1938x2156px

>>15770547
>>15770552
SPAA fucks up jets, but I doubt you'll say they're cooler than jets.

>inb4 SEAD

Only works on Arabic-tier armies

>>15770558
SPAA aren't tanks though

>>15770558
>SPAA fucks up jets
only shitty third world slavjets get fucked up by AA in this day and age

File: F16 SEAD.jpg (88KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x667px

>>15770558
>inb4 SEAD
but they will be blown up by a Wild Weasel and that Wild Weasel is gonna fly home.

File: ZRK_Krug_2005_G1.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>15770561
They're best friends with tanks and often compliment each other's treads.

>>15770567
Only shitty third world slavjets are fighting armies with AA. Most western nations know how to pick their wars.

>>15770571
If they're fighting an Arabic-tier military, sure. Vietnamese did pretty good against SEAD, though not perfect given the American advantages.

Why do jetfags always invade tank threads, but tankfags never invade jet threads?

>>15770590
there aren't enough tankfags on /m/.
blame macross.

>>15770590

That's what fighting aircraft do, right? Get into your space and take a dump on you.

File: Leopard 2, spain.jpg (1MB, 3177x2341px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3177x2341px

>>15770534

Leopard 2 is an angular box while the Abrams is a slanted box. Yes, there's a difference.

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

2MB, 2790x1860px

>>15770618
Not really?

File: Abrams Night.jpg (640KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 2048x1365px

>>15770635
Yes really. It's like saying a Rafale and Eurofighter are the same.

File: Gripen.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>15770641
You're right.
The Gripen is better looking than both meme doritos.

>>15767916

Look up the Bell M-X Hovercrafts. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

I'm surprised nothing similar has appeared in anime because it's so fucking ridiculous and awesome.

>>15770299
Now they're just ditching the fuselage too. Look at the NGAD concepts, though being a fan of flying wings I have no problem with them.

File: 1 (55).jpg (380KB, 2377x1357px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 2377x1357px

What if we use all this sci-fi material science and power generation tech to create ridiculous vtol gunships which are basically flying tanks except literally and not a meme?

>>15770635
Just look at the turret.

The Leo2 turret's boxiness isn't as prominent as the Abrams turret's boxiness.
Leo2 has angles and slopes, Abrams is mostly flat with no angles.

>>15770895
>Look up the Bell M-X Hovercrafts

Are those the ICBM launching hovercrafts?

make tanks that are crewed by one man... instead of having 1 guy tell commands to 2-3 other dudes to get stuff done just have one guy do it all.

>>15772295
There's more than just driving and shooting.

File: Char_1935_S_Somua_1.jpg (1015KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 2016x1512px

>>15772295

people tried to reduce crew spaces for a while.

Technology managed to fulfill the roles of (auto)loader and communications (to allow the radio not need a dedicated person), but things like one or two-man turrets where one dude had to pull double duty as commander/gunner or commander/loader (triple duty for one-man turrets, quadruple duty for one-man turret platoon commanders because they have to command the other vehicles) have been tried and all they proved is that crewpeople have an upper limit on what they're able to do at the same time without going bonkers.

Hell, even light vehicles like humvees and armored cars don't expect the driver to drive and operate the turret gun at the same time because the driver has to focus on not plowing nose-first into a shell crater. Sure he could operate the turret gun or drive but he has to completely drop one for the other or else perform both at severely degraded efficiency.

imo the only plausible way to have "one-man tanks" is to have everything else that the one dude isn't focusing on- gunnery/rangefinding, communications, driving, target spotting, loading, and the like - operated by a computer.

>>15771134

Look up the Sikorsky AARV. Dual-hardness steel is basically cheap composite armor, and for about the size of a Kiowa you're nearly immune to .50cals.

>>15771649

I remember hearing that the reason for not-sloped armor in MBTs was that a direct hit would only compromise one ceramic tile instead of multiple.

That seems like a largely debunked theory though, given the Leopard 2 soon had add-on sloped armor. Thing's a shot trap though.

>>15771880

Yes. They also had smaller versions only armed with air defense missiles.

I remember someone joking that the point of all these ridiculous proposals (Which included trains and transport aircraft) was simply to confuse the shit out of the Soviets and make them build pointless countermeasures. They had doubts any of them would actually go into service.

>>15774160

Oh yeah, another proposal similar to flying tanks (Though they were howitzers rather than direct-fire guns).

During Vietnam the US also proposed mounting XM204 "soft recoil howitzers" on the sides of CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters. That alone should confirm that we at least have the ability to put weapons close to an AT gun on VTOLs.

Another weird proposal involved using B-1 Lancers as aerial "arsenal ships" that could be armed with long-range weapons designated by more close by friendlies. Some of the stranger designs equipped 80 AMRAAMs (!!) as an end-all-be-all to interception missions. I don't know how that would do on a VTOL but it would admittedly be silly.

Don't assume VTOLs are the ultimate thing though, they will likely never outperform straight-takeoff jets or be as safe as helicopters. Getting them to be stealthy is also an issue, and the only good design to theoretically pull it off well in a large-sized aircraft is the Boeing SOFTA, which nor only is supposedly classified (Some ex-Boeing employee released very badly scanned pictures of it and then vanished - I wonder why?), it's also likely vaporware.

Still better than mechs, probably. I don't think we should compare mechs to tanks and planes though, they should be treated as heavy infantry if anything.

>>15774246
>80 AMRAAMs
I had no idea Itano worked for the USAF.

File: miniature hit to kill.jpg (57KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 752x423px

>>15774279
Well, they're working on making micro missiles a reality. God I love the military industrial complex.

>>15774357

Wow. I thought the 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missiles were crazy, but this takes things to a whole new level.

How many standard in a vehicle-mounted pack? Judging by the photos it looks like 15 × 9 = 135, but I'm not sure if there are actually nine missiles per cell.

>>15763107
This. OP is dumber than a rock.

>>15763378
I never noticed the Hetzer mounting of the main gun before. Cool

File: hayai.png (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>15770538
>tanks are slow

>>15776397

M18 hellcat.

Also, looking at some of the trials for the M1 Abrams with its insanely powerful gas turbine makes it hard for you to recall it weighs over forty tons.

I hear that the limiter was not only designed to reduce wear, it was actually designed to prevent the crew from being knocked around in its innards. It's basically the closest thing to a G-LOC limiter in a tank.

Just imagine if you released the limiter, too. Hilarity ensues.

Though, aircraft also have War Emergency Power, which is similar. In 5th generation fighters there is also usually a limit in place meant to prevent G-forces from killing the pilot, but either way..."limiter release" is not a thing entirely of fiction.

File: mecha_maneuvers_6853.jpg (98KB, 330x265px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 330x265px

>>15763102
>"If use mecha technology in tanks, they will be much cooler than robots!" - this is the usual argument of the opponents of progress...

Wrong. The usual scenario is some know-nothing says something inane like
>it's gonna be super fast and run circles around them silly tanks and it's going to do karate make everyone piss their pants because it's scary
to which the logical response is to point out how big, heavy, complicated and slow it would be. Questions of its role in combat operations and the practicality of it all eventually come to head. Of course, the braindead mecha supporter response is
>theyre battlefield generalists, they like do everything really well and only the acest of pilots can use them well also there's going to be like hundreds of thousands of them well they really be much more complicated than your average jet amirite
Pointing out how a combat robot would need amazingly sophisticated power sources, computing systems, construction materials and engineering does nothing to deter these maniacs from their insistence that war robots are going to be a reality by the next century.

Finally, after hearing all of their fantastical reasoning about why giant robots are the real life battlefield future, it becomes apparent that with the advanced technology a giant robot would require, you could just build a really good tank which would make more sense.

>>15771649
>>15774160

Also, reminder that the Leopard 2 used to look even uglier than the Abrams (Before it got its equally retarded shot trap):

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qI32EmWEoy0/V3MzpY0zFgI/AAAAAAAB2wQ/-Giji5vMMVEajimBdSZelOTkINg22aEyACLcB/s1600/Leopard%2B2%2BA7%2BMeng%2BGerman%2BMain%2BBattle%2BTank%2Breview%2B35th%2Bscale%2B-%2B%2Bpic%2B03.JPG

I feel old because I genuinely remember the days it looked like that.

Kind of reminds me of how people say Armored Core's controls sucked when back then THERE WERE NO ANALOG STICKS. If anything it was revolutionary.

>>15774160
>>15777111
Stop worrying about shot traps, its literally not even a consideration at any point past WW2.

File: 2us7dyw.jpg (278KB, 1599x1060px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1599x1060px

>>15774160
>>15777111
What would this shot trap in the modern era? 30mm APDS rounds that would at best destroy the drivers optic?

>>15777127

Okay, maybe I'm just REALLY old. And ignorant. Bear with this likely stupid question.

Why wouldn't a shot trap trap a KE penetrator from another tank?

File: 1404911718-leopard-2a5-nl-05-of-87.jpg (852KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 3008x2000px

>>15777177
The simple answer is that for a long rod penetrator or APFSDS round to bounce is that the armor is angled at 80 degrees or more plus is pretty thick and hard.

Which the spaced add on armor on the leopard 2 dont do. Instead of simply deflecting the incoming projectile it let itself get penetrated at the cost of destroying the tip of the penetrator and causing structural damage to the penetrator before it impacts the main armor. Of course if a 100mm full bore round impacted it then it might bounce but since it is pretty thin then it might still penetrate due to overshell and normalization.

File: 1461624139775.jpg (60KB, 840x473px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 840x473px

>>15777177

in the old times, tank shells were just giant bullets filled with explosives, and the velocities the shells were fired at along with the metallurgy involved meant that the shells had a chance of gouging out the armor and ricocheting into another surface.

Nowadays, KE penetrators are long, thin darts made of shit like tungsten or depleted uranium- they're very hard and very dense, but at the speeds the guns fire them at, they act completely differently from the old big-bullet shells in that they don't "bounce-" they either shatter, or dig in and then break apart.

The second is that armor composition today , for the most part, is no longer just solid steel. That pointy gubbins on the front of the Leo 2 is actually a spaced armor package made up of several layers of armor plating eith gaps in between them. The idea is that the penetrator (KE or HEAT) would hit the spaced armor packaging, which would then either absorb the HEAT EFP or fuck up the KE penetrator.

File: Leopard 2 aus.jpg (550KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1600x1062px

>>15777111

>even uglier

I much prefer the pre-A4 Leopard2's

Looks so perfect and compact

File: l17181-hover-tank-24429.png (104KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 620x348px

>>15768235
sound nice, closest I got was its prototype in that one BF4 dlc.

File: pic772041.jpg (1008KB, 1232x1683px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1232x1683px

>>15767993
I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that story.

File: screenshot2.jpg (88KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x600px

>>15777388

Yeah, my fondest vidya memories are all from 2142.

Such a good game, it's sad that only private servers exist for it anymore...

File: t-80u firing in midair.jpg (50KB, 945x430px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 945x430px

>>15776397

Not all of them. Granted, they're not just fast either.

>>15766464
so are most SAM systems

File: Pantsir-S1.jpg (2MB, 2250x1461px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1461px

>>15777666

The missiles, sure, but the radar systems (the part that counts) is being updated on a much quicker cycle

>>15763102
The entire point of mecha is that they are larger and thus able to mount larger reactors and more weapons than tanks.

>>15766470

Reminds me of an interesting article the Aviationist just posted

https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/13/fiction-story-a-b-2-spirit-stealth-bomber-is-downed-during-an-air-strike-on-a-north-korean-nuclear-site/

>>15777723
>The entire point of mecha is that they are larger and thus able to mount larger reactors and more weapons than tanks.
What? No.

File: Gasaraki.jpg (31KB, 300x373px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x373px

>>15777723
>they are larger

Not always my dude

File: le flying wing man.jpg (74KB, 511x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 511x640px

>>15777725
>Disclaimer: this story contains some “poetic licenses” to make the fictional scenario more interesting.
What next? Are you gonna bring up Ace Combat as an example of B2's being piss easy to shoot down?

>>15777745

Just thought it was interesting to bring up since you're talking B2 vs. AA, fucker, not even the dude you're trolling.

Sorry, forgot /m/ is no fun allowed

>>15777723
In the future the mechanical police will arrest you if you build something big that isn't humanoid I guess.

>>15764490
Because SEED was meant to be a reimagining of UC for the 2000s. It was meant to be able to have all the depth and intrigue of UC so that Sunrise could have a new timeline to explore, since it's hard to try and cram more events into an ~80 year time period. That's why all the background material is so intriguing, especially the official timeline they put out to give info on what lead to the war in SEED.

Then Fukuda and Morosawa shat the bed so hard that everyone's efforts were all wasted.

File: tarantula-05.gif (37KB, 661x534px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 661x534px

(picture is from Metal skin panic Madox)

>>15763102
I know the discrepancy you are talking of, so I hope you are being figurative as there's no "mecha technology" just like there is no tank technology.
Tank are barely defined by tracked locomotion and having a turret.
Mecha are badly defined by limbed locomotion and not being worn by its pilot.

They can share technology
- one man control/AI
- same power source
- jump jet
- anti-missile
- shield
- stealth (so long as you don't mind to hide ground print)
- armors/weapons
- arms (to shoot around corner, of course)
But if you made a tank that can also use limbed locomotion, it would become a mecha, just like making it fly would make it a gunship

btw, it's a stupid meme to think mecha have to match MBT, I can easily imagine a future were MBT design is dead and mech are used to help field non-tank specialized weapons.

>>15763216
Agreement

>>15763281
And with what will you grab the heavy equipment? Is your tank followed by a crane?
Mostly joking here, but if you put arms on a tank, the only way to ward off the possibility of a weapon being "out of reach/hard to reach" would be to improve its tracks until it is no different from legs.

>>15763867
I love BOLO but I can't help wondering how they travel without flattening roads, towns, hills and mountain range.

>>15766573
It is a technological leap, but still a shitty design that don't match the needs. There's many example through history, the F-35 is the latest one.
Had it been built without VTOL destroying its flight envelop would have been amazing, instead it have reduced everything and its out of control budget could have been spent for other equipments.

The F-35 should have been the superior multi-role fighter in the world. Instead we are amazed it is not inferior to the previous generation. I've seen battle plan about its 'superiority' that had drones doing all the works while it just sat behind as a glorified computer.

>>15777835
I hope Sunrise tries again soon.
I'd like to see another try at this with a good team

>>15779245
>It is a technological leap, but still a shitty design that don't match the needs.
But it does.

File: 2013.png (183KB, 592x382px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 592x382px

>>15779245
>I love BOLO but I can't help wondering how they travel without flattening roads, towns, hills and mountain range.

Something like this?

>>15777723
the point of mecha is to sell toys u pizza shit

>>15779245
>I love BOLO but I can't help wondering how they travel without flattening roads, towns, hills and mountain range.
I think they just do do that. Well, until they get anti-grav, but that's, what, mark 30?

File: gzg_6mmscifi_painted_02.jpg (240KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1600x1200px

>>15777397
They are pretty great, If you like minis Brigade models has a nice 6mm and 15mm range based on them.
GZG has 6mm scope dogs tough.

Tanks that transform in to planes.

we need tanks
tanks with arms
tanks with arms with flamethrowers

>>15779245
>MBT concept is dead, mechs for non-tank weapons
Would you mind explaining that bit? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the differences between tank concepts outside of weight categories, so that bit confuses me a bit.

>>15780022
He's being retarded.

>>15770523
nice death-trap

>>15779245
>I love BOLO but I can't help wondering how they travel without flattening roads, towns, hills and mountain range.

MK XXX+ Bolos can fly.

anything below that mark just doesn't give a fuck what it drives over.

>>15779746
Can they be guntanks? Because we have one of those with a flamethrower arm.

We only make MBT's because country's can't afford to experiment with tank designs in peacetime.

>>15780473
What kind of herb are you smoking.

>>15777745
PICKLE
PICKLE

>>15780022
Don't worry about that they never came up with a perfect definition either.
MBT is defined on the wiki as "armor-protected direct fire and maneuver role" but since it would include wheeled vehicle and some self-propelled cannon, we usually also imply "armor-focus, tracked vehicle with a turret".
Some people aren't fine with a role centric definition but it work.

My take:
Whether a role can work will change with time & technology
- armor is becoming irrelevant as modern shells, missiles and infantry weapon can kill even the best tank in the world. Before skills was required to snipe a specific part of a tank, today even riffles are getting auto-aim apps
- direct fire is dominant when it is the only way to get a precise target shelled in time, now we have GPS guided artillery shell or missiles
- maneuver is still dominant but ground vehicle can't keep up with air force mobility and the mobility of support/AA unit is different.

If armor become unaffordable, you care about shooting first, shooting the projectile or using something else as armor.
If missiles and indirect-fire is more relevant, you need to see first and protecting yourself will require to be ready first
maneuver is forever relevant, but crossing distance faster is irrelevant if the enemy can shoot first and you can't get support to prevent it

So about mechs,
Mech aren't just humanoid samurai trying to slice army, they can help other vehicle cross terrain and if you want artillery and anti-air unit deep into the mountain they can be walkers too.
A tank can only use hull-down and can't shoot from every position. A walking design could use more of the reliefs to protect itself from infantry (power armor allowing to carry anti-tank weapon) or any other direct fire.
Legs don't mean being slow. put wheels on it, be creative with a separate drive-train and it work.

Now this is usually where you hear the stupid meme that legs will cost too much, even if that not why we don't have walkers now.

>>15781125
While I don't completely agree with the idea that the MBT is going to be phased out anytime soon, the firepower vs armor race leaning heavily for firepower is a major point.
People tend to say that mecha (Front Mission like ones, at least) would be sitting ducks and one hit wonders for aircraft, but the same could be said of tanks.
Mechs (I use wanzers as my baseline mech) being tool users rather than tools, that is having exchangeable weapons and engineering tools thanks to "universal" manipulators, is what would likely make them a good second choice for most roles when specialized vehicles aren't available.
Slapping all weapons on a tank gives us the Bradley fighting vehicle and similar designs: lots of guns for many situations, but most of them will be dead weight during a mission, ammo for a given weapon will be limited by the space taken by the ammo of another weapon, on top of being a pain to conceal in any way, shape or form.
Combat niches appear after the introduction of a new weapon, not the other way around. I haven't really given though to what niche would emerge for mechs.

>>15781212
IMO exchangeable equipment is hardly an advantage.
Aircraft, for example, already have hardpoints where nearly anything can be mounted. If you really wanted to, you could make a tank that could swap out its entire turret assembly. Or you could make the turret like a giant rws with horizontal mount points on the sides. Or just go full helicopter and stick pylons everywhere.
Not to mention the increased difficulty in aligning the weapons to the gunner's optics.

Overall it's a more complicated solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

>>15781125
>Now this is usually where you hear the stupid meme that legs will cost too much, even if that not why we don't have walkers now.
You can't dismiss facts by calling them stupid memes. Ground pressure and autobalancing legs are hurdles that fuck up mechs in real life, and even Boston Dynamic's Big Dog was canned because it was deemed too loud for combat. As it stands now robotic legs would have a much harder time in soft terrain than tracks; the Abrams for example has a ground pressure of 15 psi, which is about as much as two adult humans (16 psi, each 8), and less than a horse (25 psi). So if you want to help other vehicles cross terrain better than current tracked fighting vehicles, you're going to need to invest a lot more research into them - hence, why legs cost too fucking much.

Then there's the assumption that mechs (using your wanzer baseline) will be faster/more maneuverable than current tanks. The Abrams easily goes 25mph off road (40 mph on). Piling all the shit you want a mech to have (legs, wheels) is going to burden it heavily, meaning that you're going to need a fairly decent powerplant to get it to move properly, let alone operate in the way you envision in rough environments.

This is all referring to the giant robot sort of mech. If we're talking powered armor then I'm really excited to see how those develop, but they're going to occupy a different role from tanks entirely. Development of powered armor is almost definitely going to result in "enhanced infantry", in the sense that it'll be easier for them to carry heavier weaponry and probably enhanced survivability against small arms fire. They'll be great for tight, enclosed spaces (fighting indoors or in cramped city streets), but not so great at what tanks do (provide mobile armor while in urban areas, ride off at high speed to bring heavy land-based firepower to places).

File: Anti-RPG.gif (800KB, 550x300px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 550x300px

>>15781212
I'm the one you quote but I do think that ARMOR will depend of anti-missile technology.
If a much cheaper, man-portable missile can destroy a MBT with >50% chance, there would already be no point to armor.
If anti-missile protected it from 90% of RPG/missiles and why not, even from vehicle carried hellfire missile, then armor will stay important, if you can snipe artillery shell then direct-fire may even get more important.

Talking of "niche" undermine those discussion. We only consider a niche compared to other vehicle, but you can have a vehicle abandon a certain roles to leave it to another or have a vehicle created for an already covered niche to have more redundancy/flexibility.
The Bradley was a design clusterfuck that resulted in a good vehicle (at the right era at least). It's missiles made it capable of killing tanks before we knew how efficient it was, its sensor make it good at targeting a lot of things and sending the data to other units, improving a whole tank battalion with only one unit.
You can look for reports for that.
If there's a good vehicle to demonstrate that a mechs could turn out great, it's the Bradley.

>wanzers
I hate wanzer.
Using them as a baseline make them an argument AGAINST mechs.
They are another of those uncreative pointlessly humanoid mecha with magically stronger weapon and armor. Completely incompatible with a combined-arms context. The last manga I've seen with those barely showed example of mech mobility (and yet it included a underwater infiltration).

File: Apache Static Field s.jpg (2MB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1800x1200px

>>15781284
That's no fact, that's a thought-terminating-cliché you repeat like automaton because it take much longer to explain why it's wrong.

You don't know how to use the numbers you clearly picked from Wikipedia, the result is a tunnel vision and ignore that their logical conclusion make mechs perfectly fine (from 10tons, 30tanks, or 100tons for spider) so long as you don't have them wear stupid flat metal stiletto.
You don't even need to match a tank 9 square-meter surface-contact.
Take a 8 wheeled 30tons tank vehicle, it have less surface to ground surface contact than a 30tons mech running (single 1m2 feet) would have

Ground pressure is not a problem, this is even impossible to sink into the ground unless it's mud full of water, and mech would have better luck there.
Take this picture: A gunship like that weight 8 tons, how much pressure do you think are on those 10cm2 wheels?

This isn't even a spec you want to reduce as much as possible. Why?
Because less pressure = less traction
The reason tracks exist isn't because they would "sink into the ground" otherwise, it's because TRACTION rely on FRICTION to push wheeled/tracked vehicle forward, that friction work very badly in any soft soil and isn't always enough to fight off the vehicle weight in a slope. Wheels also can't raise their wheels above a "step"like obstacle or modify the geometry of the vehicle. This is why tracks are basically wheels that create&retrieve makeshift ramp.
This isn't the case for walker, we move by shifting our center of gravity. You only get aberrant result if you start assuming sprint start with flat smooth feet on a uphill flat rock solid slope.

Also be careful with what you quote and read >>15781299, I'm not the one who brought up shitty wanzer as a shitty baseline.
My own baseline is an hypothetical mech between 1 to 100tons with 2 to 6 legs with correctly fitted feet.

For speed read earlier post again, combat speed isn't a spec that matter nowadays. Same for profile btw

>>15781299
You've clearly never played Front Mission, or at least only Evolve, which is a separate canon to the numbered series. Not sure about the manga by the guy behind Thunderbolt, though. MBTs and aircraft can tear through wanzers like they're made of paper and they're deployed in combined arms operations, even if it's usually not shown during gameplay on the player's side. Otherwise I don't know why you're so hostile to wanzers. Those aren't 12 meter tall MS, they're usually about 5.
That aside, I don't find anything to disagree about regarding the actual content of the posts. What sort of mech are you envisioning?

>>15781415
>Take this picture: A gunship like that weight 8 tons, how much pressure do you think are on those 10cm2 wheels?
It's completely useless to talk about ground preasure with an aerial vehicle as an example since it CAN FLY. Get another example like some armored car or something.

>>15781415
>>15781562
>that pic
Good luck moving that Apache anywhere without starting the rotors

File: Wanzer2.jpg (158KB, 1112x901px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1112x901px

>>15781562
>>15781601
Anons, are so stupid as to believe a mech couldn't possibly lift their legs higher than the soil feet print?
Thank you for showing how retarded people who argue against the feasibility of mechs can be. You've just done a lot to show the ground pressure argument is supported by trolls.

>>15781556
I only mentioned a manga, this one.
http://mangafox.me/manga/front_mission_dog_life_dog_style/
since you tell me Evolve (and its JUMP JET FLYING MECHA) is special I checked a bit more.
Putting aside that it was a video game with gameplay need, we are still talking of pointlessly humanoid mecha made boxy to give them "more realism". As I remember there's roller-blade ultra fast mecha, they have mechanical-hand-held weapons complete with magazines (It was surprising when a mech did have a simple 360° gun for hands, of course its entire should was also a pack for 6 gigantic missiles), there's also arms pile-buster, mecha-centric technology, hovercraft made with robot torso despite hill suited to grab anything, spider mech used in the desert, invisible mecha.

But you were right, despite looking more armored than tank some are papercraft. This is almost like this franchise was made to make the very idea of mecha look bad.

(to be continued)

File: 004.jpg (762KB, 2765x2000px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 2765x2000px

>>15781556
>What sort of mech are you envisioning?
- no human hands, industrial manipulators, don't need to switch weapon or magazines but dexterous enough to help.
- no head unless we are talking of copter/drone-like sensor or turret.
- actuators protected in Patlabor's fashion (that's already better protected than typical drive train).
- equipment on hardpoint only.
- it assume anti-missile technology exist and tanks are still used

possibility:
(<1tons) overgrown exoskeleton built from commercial equipment, meant for combat engineering, getting scrap out of the way, it can easily handle things too big for humans shape, if weapon are eventually made for it, it only place/anchor them, they have their own battery/actuator/sensor and someone else can control them.

(5~10tons) full mech don't need to be humanoid, less than 5 meter tall, more if fully extended, do all of the above stronger, easily fold inside a plane. Armor is anti-shrapnel and don't get in sight. It have enough sensor to shot missile.

(5~10tons) take any helicopter, give it more complex landing gear, allowing it to land on more terrains out of danger and increase its loitering time. May be worth the slight mass increase.

(~30tons) 4 or 6 identical leg frame, wheels outside, unlike the patlabor example it is no larger than wheeled/tracked vehicle because it reuse the space used by drive train and wheels, it fold enough for air transport, version are built from already existing equipments.
- engineering, with cranes. Legs are meant to get into better position, get leverage and flexibility,
- anti-air/radar, to forbid mountain range and stay hard to reach,
- mortar/artillery, mountain range, hard to reach,
- command&comm,
- Infantry fighting, it can elevate itself to move above fence in urban environment, slat armor can be added on legs and the main body hide behind.

(~70tons) improbable dedicated armored artillery version, laugh of rivers and fording, only a very creative design could save its speed

File: ARV-A-L.jpg (1MB, 1250x938px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x938px

>>15781125

I'm going to put forth the opinion that standard (And to an extent even composite) armor is indeed becoming obsolete. They may protect against AT shells, but against missiles and such they can only go so far.

Reactive armor can be overcome by tandem charges. Slat armor is simply too big and cumbersome. However, in recent times we've developed this funny thing called an "active protection system", which - provided that it be refined to enough of an extent - would not only provide better protection against AT missiles, it would also make the size and weight of MBTs lighter (As they need to carry less armor). You're no longer trying to stop Hellfires, you're just trying to stop 40mm shells. It's practically the closest thing we have to an energy shield.

Now, putting an APS on a mech? I'm imagining it's mandatory. That doesn't solve the issue of small arms and such, but it at least makes AT missiles way less of a threat.

>>15782039

>(~30tons) 4 or 6 identical leg frame, wheels outside, unlike the patlabor example it is no larger than wheeled/tracked vehicle because it reuse the space used by drive train and wheels, it fold enough for air transport, version are built from already existing equipments.

Given a little thought, the idea of making foldable wheeled legs is a decent one. However, the machine would as a result be rolling more than walking.

Pic related, you could make it have better stability with folding wheels. Plus, if you really needed to you might be able to fold them back inward to save space.

File: 1253662492951.jpg (100KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x600px

>>15782221
>You're no longer trying to stop Hellfires, you're just trying to stop 40mm shells. It's practically the closest thing we have to an energy shield.

I know you meant one less worry but to be clear:
The APS is only rated for RPG and missiles, not any kinetic projectile.
It is possible to intercept shells but only if they have a significant flight time (indirect fire) and with a lot of bullets + a specific anti-shell radar (which by the way also calculate where the enemy artillery was to fire those)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar
While I'm on it, it is imaginable to shoot down guided bomb if you can detect them.

So Tank and mechs can only hope to have anti-missile for now.
But I guess I do have a picture for a mech that intercept everything

>Reactive armor can be overcome by tandem charges.
They also have a bad tendency to explode due to simple firearms, making them dangerous for troopers nearby even without a missile abound.

>>15781893
You have done alot to show that you dont have reading comprehension while performing a classic example of strawman. You are trying to argue that mechs wont suffer from ground pressure by posting a image of a attack helicopter.

>>15782442
>They also have a bad tendency to explode due to simple firearms
Why are you making shit up? Reactive armor even in the 80's were designed with small arms, heavy machine guns and napalm in mind. You must be stuck in the 60's where reactive armor was at it's infancy.

>>15782496

It doesn't matter anyway, tandem charges are becoming commonplace just as quickly. What are you going to do, build tandem reactive armor?

...Oh man, now I'm trying to imagine that.

>>15782527
We're already there (sorta). The latest armor upgrade for the Abrams is ERA for the sides and turret with an added layer of angled ceramic plates for better protection against tandem warheads and ATGMs

File: IMG_0531.jpg (51KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x332px

>>15782592
Forgot the pic

File: 1468551037811.gif (187KB, 1753x1359px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1753x1359px

>>15782039
>- no human hands, industrial manipulators, don't need to switch weapon or magazines but dexterous enough to help.

???Guntank???

File: 1253525351201.jpg (48KB, 400x305px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x305px

>>15784176
Not really, I meant that it can grab things and is dexterous enough to say, do a cat's cradle but don't need to have human-like hand with five fingers.

Btw, imagine something like this used as a scout vehicle. If you make suspension system of a car complex enough at some point it will become capable of walking.

>>15784638

Also, Boston Dynamics Handle proved you could jump with two wheels, if anything it would be easier with four.

File: just_cause_3_art-600x328.jpg (68KB, 600x328px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x328px

These omni directional wheels are better for legged based mech with wheels. So there is less pivot points that can cause mechanical failure or susceptible to damage and lack of shielding for maneuverability.

>>15766588
Talk to me when it sees combat

>>15786492

Define "combat"

File: 1235460063176.jpg (83KB, 900x562px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 900x562px

>>15785500
don't hype these things yet, there's a reason wheels are large. You won't get tachikoma high speed dash like that.
If you could, just have a 360° pivot above the wheels that turn just that fast.

Also, on your picture I see a dozen more pivots/axle near the ground, ready to get stuck in filth.
Even ball-wheels would be better

>>15777736
Don't Gasaraki's mechs need literal demons to actually work?

File: 1262327906976.jpg (27KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x600px

>>15790435
Are you seriously asking that? We've been working on artificial muscle since forever. Demon is just anime being anime.
also they are revealed as alien technology in a cheesy end

The real challenge will be an electric power sources that last a days and programming the things to walk at all

>>15763884
>You still have to carry all those weapons you plan to switch to.

No, you don't.

>>15763281
>using nukes as an argument

This isn't the 50s grandpa, you can't use nukes as conventional weapons anymore. Plus the Davy Crockett was shit and couldn't actually destroy heavy armor without a near hit. It was intended to spread radiation to slow infantry, not destroy tank columns.

>>15763239
No, because you are literally doubling the complexity of the locomotion by having twice as many legs for no added benefit. Animals in nature have four legs for the additional speed it gives, but if you have a transforming tank then you already have treads and wheels for wanting to go fast.

File: 1467098362831.jpg (49KB, 300x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x392px

>>15776520
>Pointing out how a combat robot would need amazingly sophisticated power sources, computing systems, construction materials and engineering

Wow you mean like every vehicle ever!? Your entire retarded rambling is based on the erroneous assumption that the mech is supposed to supplant the MBT which is a complete falsehood. I really hope you are just pretending to be this retarded.

>>15791851
If you aren't going to carry the extra weapons/equipment where is it going to be?
Trucks full of giant weapons following every group around?

File: 1320582747527.jpg (419KB, 1268x1012px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1268x1012px

>>15791857
All thread go like this.
Mech can only be some shitty attempt at copying anime, they are made of solid gold, are forbidden to use existing technology, will never get any support from other unit and are forbidden to give any support by some code of chivalry.

>>15791961
>Trucks full of giant weapons following every group around?
That's a good description of an army logistic, where do you think they store slats, urban survival kit, anti-mine equipment, missiles box, fixed artillery.
The point isn't to switch weapon while you are being shot at, even if it's a bonus. Just being able to repurpose an unit from anti-tank to anti-air in a hour or scavenge weapon from destroyed unit are a general dream

>>15792016
>where do you think they store slats, urban survival kit, anti-mine equipment, missiles box, fixed artillery.
Not out in the field anywhere near the lines. The company/battalion supply trucks probably carry spares of anything likely to need replacing. It's not going to hold an arsenal and certainly not enough for the whole unit to swap.
I can't speak for armor units, but infantry companies barely kept extra weapons. A handful of spare rifles, a machinegun or two. And all of this would be with the company hq, sometimes as much as an hour away from subordinate units.
The only place you could feasibly store that quantity of extra weaponry, especially large arms, would be a base of some sort where support units are.
Scavenging weapons is the only useful advantage imo, and I'm not sure how often it would ever be utilized.

>>15792016
What combat role will a giant robot fill?

>Just being able to repurpose an unit from anti-tank to anti-air in a hour or scavenge weapon from destroyed unit are a general dream

Shows you have no understanding of the complexity of weapons systems or how heavily damaged a knocked out piece of equipment would be.

And even if, even if you somehow managed to convince people that you could make a modular weapon system that could, without calibration or tuning change roles vastly in a short period of time, why would you put it on legs rather than use other forms of locomotion? Why would you have modules sitting close enough to the fighting to be easily swapped out to counter an immediate enemy threat and not in a chassis ready to fight?

Remember a giant robot is a weapon system. It would be designed for a role, to carry a weapon system, to protect it, or to do reconaissance, etc. What benefit would having it have legs or be humanoid impart?

The problem is that you're not seeing this objectively; in a military context giant robot is just an X (whatever role you want it to fill) with legs and maybe arms. There is no massive gap for a giant robot to fill that's unique, no problem of mobility, firepower, armour or capability that it solves or could solve on its own. Nor is there really any chance of a new role emerging.

>>15792037
It wouldn't be. Those weapons would be attached to tanks, afvs and if the vehicle is knocked out damaged. If not, they're usable already.

File: 1328373119786.jpg (124KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 600x449px

>>15792037
You are making a double standard then, if tank can store equipment they frequently need in a base, so can mech. This is not because mechs won't replace MBT that there is no place left.
My jobs had me look at military transport truck, what they carry and how to maintain them. There's actually a lot of spare.

>Scavenging weapons is the only useful advantage imo, and I'm not sure how often it would ever be utilized.
We have vehicle dedicated to retrieving destroyed tank, they are brought back to factory (cargo have room to bring things back), stripped on the field of everything of use, refurbished and sent back modernized when possible.

There's a reason the military are putting money into exoskeleton even though the technology isn't up to it.

>>15792040
>giant robot
Oh I smell a GIANT goalpost running. Also blatantly ignoring what I said about mech not having to follow anime archetype. If you are incapable of considering things without anime logic in mind (based on WWII), you are the one not looking at this objectively.
For our purpose, exoskeleton to be used on the field count as mech, bigger mech can have any form and weight as much as any support vehicle, IFV or MBT.

As said, my job make me look at the next generation of military equipment. They are already developing modular weapon systems with most of their budget. Current armies are equipped to fight the cold war, we couldn't do modular at the time, technology take a lot of time to be put into service. They are solving that by standardizing equipments and making vehicle modular to work at cross-purpose.

Saying anime mech make no sense is playing captain obvious
Saying you'll never get any sort of mech in a combat or support purpose, is failing at understanding technology.
You should be saying you don't see that coming in your lifetime, at least that can be defended.

>>15792111
This is the same argument I've seen people making for years and years and years. Your job makes you do nothing of the sort; the fact that you talked about captured weaponry in any seriousness proves that fact.

>>15792121
>captured weaponry
What was said is scavenger weapon from our own unit idiot, learn to read.
Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.
Only things you've proven is that people like you care more about trying strawman than being right.

File: 9v68YaU.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>15792139
>Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.

>>15792139
Why would they be scavenging from their own unit? They have weaponry already and are in a battlefield role.

Also

>Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.

neatly demonstrates how ignorant you are.

File: 837045_1435856113.png (523KB, 632x483px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 632x483px

>>15792139
>Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.

File: 8ba9bb79142c5bd86c977f85a78aa683.jpg (120KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 612x612px

>>15792139
>Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.

Yeah, you've got a job as a military analyst alright.

Holy fuck son.

File: 1503005483184.jpg (62KB, 421x421px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 421x421px

>>15792139
>Yet, I'll teach you that the Russian made their tank gun a few millimeter larger so they can use NATO shells with little loss of accuracy but we can't use theirs.

>>15792111
>You are making a double standard then, if tank can store equipment they frequently need in a base, so can mech.
The point is, if you are storing these extra weapons you want to swap at a base full of support personnel, it is no different than a hard point system. If you wanted to be able to repurpose your vehicles quickly it would be far easier and cheaper to design vehicles with hard points rather than with some sort of hand or arm.

>We have vehicle dedicated to retrieving destroyed tank
That has nothing to do with the ability to scavenge weapons in the field and I don't know why you even brought it up.

>>15792221
>>15792178
>>15792175
>>15792170
>>15792165
https://books.google.fr/books?id=wZ0eDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT300&lpg=PT300&dq=Russian+caliber+captured+ammo&source=bl&ots=8LcWUurUWP&sig=XmiDR2vkVKPZaJCFg7AcC85l0Qw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi61_yemOXVAhUHCsAKHdYBAqM4ChDoAQhEMAY#v=onepage&q=Russian%20caliber%20captured%20ammo&f=false

Nice shitpost, save us the trouble of calling you idiots 5 times.

>>15794899
I would note that the russian guns use 2 part ammunition with an autoloader, while many western guns use 1 piece ammunition hand loaded. Western 1 piece rounds will not fit in the ammunition slots nor the autoloader of russian tanks.

>>15794899
>82mm mortar can fire 81mm mortar shells
>therefore a 125mm tank gun can fire 120mm tank gun shells

Ridiculous. Try again.

File: 1430192757977.jpg (94KB, 581x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 581x500px

>>15792888
>If you wanted to be able to repurpose your vehicles quickly it would be far easier and cheaper to design vehicles with hard points rather than with some sort of hand or arm
Hardpoint without proper positioning is pointless, that's why the the army is investing a lot of money and time on robotics and making more of their vehicles capable of switching roles, separating all equipment into modules and trying to overcome tracks and wheels limitation.

Having hardpoint on arms and exoskeleton or mechs to manipulate the heavy equipments/weapons is the only ways they'll get the maximum flexibility on the field. It's inevitable that future warfare will involve mechs, some people here need to learn better than anime design.

>>15795184
It's a given that equipment will become physically incompatible, the next war will be about trying to make sure your drones and targeting liaisons can't be hacked.
Only the idiot below brought up the topic of enemy scavenging.

>>15795194
Say the shitposter who got caught wrong 3 time in a row over his anime goalpost, his ignorance about scavenging and equipment switch plus a desperate spam.

>>15795340
>Having hardpoint on arms and exoskeleton or mechs to manipulate the heavy equipments/weapons is the only ways they'll get the maximum flexibility on the field
That brings up the questions of "why are you carrying multiple weapons on a single platform instead of using multiple platforms for a single weapon" and "where are you carring all this extra equipment" again And the whole focus on robotics (at least in terms of exoskeletons, which is what I believe you're talking about considering your pic related) is to enhance infantry (usually by upping their carrying capacity/how far they can travel). I'm interested in what you mean about vehicles capable of switching roles, because I thought the trend was towards "multirole" vehicles that are meant to ease logistics by having one vehicle that can do the job of older specialized vehicles better due to new technology.

Really, a lot of what you're trying to explain is hard for me to think of, partly because of your English and partly because I don't know what you envision an IRL mech should be. Could you mock something up in paint or something so we can get a better idea of what imagining?
Literally just slapping some circles, squares, and lines together + labeling things would help a lot.

>>15795340
Hate to break it to you but you're responding to multiple people. And I used the term giant robot to refer to basically an IFV with legs/arms in any form.

Also you're hilariously wrong about your assertion of shared munitions from the Warsaw Pact. It's astonishing how misinformed you can be about this.

File: 1430194057547.jpg (213KB, 1600x1298px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1298px

>>15795369
>>That brings up the questions of "why are you carrying multiple weapons on a single platform instead of using multiple platforms for a single weapon"
Several platforms cost much more than just the weapons, are less flexible. It's what pretty much all military dream to do: need less vehicle to have the same result.
> and "where are you carying all this extra equipment"
Again: same place you store all the spare slats, armors, ammo, unused equipments, weapons waiting to be deployed, weapons that might or not be needed, support vehicles who need protection...etc
Winning a war is more logistic than deploying and refueling unit.

>Really, a lot of what you're trying to explain is hard for me to think of, partly because of your English and partly because I don't know what you envision an IRL mech should be
>should
More like 'could be'. This post >>15782039 contain a lot of ideas for short terms to long therm (50y -> 100y), further tech can hardly be predicted in anything but what the technology should allow.
I expect the military to get mechs just because we won't see any other way to define their latest gizmo, but that's no fun unless it weight a ton.

>>15795375
Possible, trolls are quick to spam shit face in unison.
Anyway, you decided to plead guilty of poor wording, talking of giant when you are just talking of a 30tons IFV. So let's sanitize further: are you assuming anime-bipedal design, anime-like hand? Are tank titanic for you?
Better, just tell us the most realistic mechs you see coming, after power-armor.
>Warsaw Pact
You are the one who brought up friend-enemy scavenging, everybody else was talking about scavenging your own downed equipments, let's call it equipment retrieval to make it clearer for you.
Also, standardization of ammunition and more within NATO is a things. Even non-nato country end up sharing equipment because of arms market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_Agreement
It's time to just admit you made shit arguments.

>>15795428
>NATO Standardization between allies for mass logistics is the same as claiming that you can use 120mm L55 rounds in Russian tank guns.

You keep digging the whole deeper and deeper and you make yourself look even more ridiculous the more you do it.

Again, if your plan is to scavenge ammunition from the enemy, you've fucked up logistically and are in dire straits. If you're talking about taking ammunition from destroyed units, again, that means that you've fucked up and are in a very bad operational situation; ie you're not only out of ammunition, but you've also got units destroyed around you. You've clearly never read anything about military planning or logistics or studied operational doctrine in any depth.

>>15795428
Holy shit anon, do you not know that one of the reasons that the russkies build larger caliber guns is thaat their metallurgy was not as good, so they needed a bigger bore to get the same kinds of speeds?
Even if NATO 120 mm could fit into a warsaw pact gun, chances are, you'd blow up the tank because the cannon can't handle the pressure.

Fucking weeaboos.

>>15795340
>>15795428
There's no advantage in arms/hands over hardpoints if they equipment isn't out in the field with you.
Hardpoints can just as easily allow for role flexibility with arguably superior performance and the possibility of greater load.
The only thing hands would be better at is possibly being able to equip the weapons without help, which is a moot point because the weapons need to be stored in the rear, where there are plenty of support personnel and you could easily add a forklift or two.

>>15766366

you'd still need a maintenance crew at least for something that big

>>15795428
>Again: same place you store all the spare slats, armors, ammo, unused equipments, weapons waiting to be deployed, weapons that might or not be needed, support vehicles who need protection...etc
So, again, on a base behind the front lines like >>15792037?

Also, I still want you to draw the stuff you're talking about. Most of the stuff you talk about here >>15782039 goes along the broader definition of mechs that the Japanese use, while pretty much everyone else has been using the "mech/mecha = giant robot" definition.

><1ton mech
Basically how powered armor development is going.

>5~10 ton mech
Your description of "do all of the above stronger" makes it sound like a souped up version of power armor (first things that came to mind for me was a military version of Alien 2's power loader and AYNIK Jackets), but I don't know what you're imagining it to look like with the extending/folding up for plane storage bits.

>5~10 ton mech (alt)
Isn't that just an improved helicopter?

>~30 ton mech
This is what I want you to draw the most. At the size of being no larger than current wheeled/tracked vehicles, I don't see how legs give this thing an advantage over tanks in climbing over "step" obstacles. That's a thing they were designed to do anyway, way back with trenches WWI.
Most of the bullet points you list are already fulfilled by existing vehicles, so I guess this hypothetical vehicle would be useful for logistics as it's essentially a highly modifiable chassis that's easier to do field conversions with. But for the infantry fighting points I'm not sure what sort of fences can't be knocked down or driven through, and the slat armor's going to offer less protection for infantry than modern tanks/IFVs. I still don't see why it needs legs or arm-like manipulators.
Lastly I doubt it'll weigh ~30 tons, maybe ~40 to ~50 tons.

>~70 ton mech
I don't know how any modern 70 ton vehicle will be able to laugh at rivers/fording, unless it flies.

>>15766560
>STO/VL capability was an ancient checkpoint for the jsf program

>>15786492
just wait for it to btfo nork mig 15s and 29's from BVR

>>15796509
Vietnam era stuff can do that.

File: Schreitbagger_MM_A91.jpg (988KB, 1181x831px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 1181x831px

>>15796474
> So, again, on a base behind the front lines like >>15792037?
You make it sound like bases are just cantina for soldiers, they are, but even if our time of peace made us forget it, bases are meant to move with the front.
You don't bring back a combat vehicle all 600km to the frontier to replace a parts or change equipment, not unless its frame is fucked and even then, the US army DO have a process to reuse a burned down M1 Abram tank (look for documentary)
Same logic, it is not efficient to abandon/destroy a missile-truck because the front is unrepairable but the missile system is ok.

>Also, I still want you to draw the stuff you're talking about.
You are asking for much, I don't know anybody who could defend all design with a single picture.
Really, any shit photoshop I could make will be less relevant than their descriptions.

I have a engineering background for my job but you can follow some rules to break the mold.
- forget anime rules, don't force single pilot, human hand, fighting alone, being efficient against everything at any time, having humanoid legs or be transported like a snowflake
- If you start from an armored vehicle, remember you can replace all volume dedicated to transmission axles and inner shocks absorber
- Learn that programing is the blocker, not speed or powerplant
- look at the fucked up stuff the military work on, imagine what could accidentally make them /m/ as hell.
- be creative, it don't have to look cool to work

> >>15782039 (You) goes along the broader definition [...]everyone else has been using the "mech/mecha = giant robot" definition.
I don't believe everyone lack imagination at this point, even gaijin can imagine smaller than Gundam. Beside, "giant robot" is sadly troll slang for "walking-goalpost".

>extending/folding up for plane storage bits.
Don't over-imagine it, legs just fold, and extending is about the space you take. You don't have to WALK out of a plane, drop-vehicle don't even roll in.

(to be continued)

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

38KB, 500x364px

>>15792139
jesus christ

>>15799370
>(to be continued)
No, please don't. We already know you're retarded.

File: 1436288960358.jpg (138KB, 785x663px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 785x663px

(continued)
>>15796474
>Your description of "do all of the above stronger" makes it sound like a souped up version of power armor (first things that came to mind for me was a military version of Alien 2's power loader and AYNIK Jackets)
I'm working on a 2000 limit here, for alien2, companies did called the studios to know, and Sarcos was build to do exactly that.

In any case, no matter how strong an exoskeleton can be, to carry something wider/heavier than itself, it need either to be bigger or for several to work together with robotic precision.

>Isn't that just an improved helicopter?
An helicopter that would fit any definition of a mech, our future is /m/ past.
I've had discussion about how we might miss the apparition of mechs, either because we don't recognize them, or because we have upped our expectation out of pride (or spite).

>>~30 ton mech
>This is what I want you to draw the most
No bet. It's the hardest sell, fighting against high expectation, a disappointing PRESENT and "why change what work?"

Wheeled/tracked vehicle are much more limited than we realize, be it in town or in the field. The military learned to do without because no one can, but if the programing and experience existed... you don't need 3m long (or extending) legs to have tremendous mobility perk. When you control your geometry and center of gravity a little allow a lot more. Irregular concrete can be stepped over without toppling, you can sidestep around obstacle, sidestep, moonwalk, many things you avoided because you risked to stay stuck. Climbing a slope isn't only a question of friction/weight. Keeping the ground in mountain, putting artillery/AA that no tracked armor can challenge

>bullet point
You missed the point, that's "variation using the same design" + the perk above. Army don't mind variation or new vehicle line, so long it work.

>fording
Current tanks can only ford if there's a nice slope both side (or a floating bridge). A walker could be able to climb a 2m step.

>>15799370
>You don't bring back a combat vehicle all 600km
Anon specifically stated that the company HQ could be about an hour away, and you're not going to travel 600km in a single hour on land.

>bulletpoints
None of that answers why legs or arms are necessary.

>legs just fold
Makes sense. Saving even just a little bit of space helps, no need to go full "prequel trilogy battle droid" with folding.

>we might miss the apparition of mechs, either because we don't recognize them, or because we have upped our expectation\
You could say that we already live in a pretty /m/ future, and have been since the advent of the tank. Again, the Japanese use "mech/mecha" in a much broader sense than the west, and by their terms we're living in it. Some of them consider computers "mecha," so by that definition we certainly live in one.


>I don't believe everyone lack imagination at this point, even gaijin can imagine smaller than Gundam. Beside, "giant robot" is sadly troll slang for "walking-goalpost".
Anon, even the fucking OP was talking about why giant robots are less plausible than just upgrading tanks. No one's arguing that a type of mech isn't going to pop up in the future, they're arguing why large-ish humanoid robots (or hell, even tank-sized robots with legs and arms) aren't practical.

>Irregular concrete can be stepped over
Why do you need to step over it in the first place?
>sidestep around obstacle, sidestep
If you just want to move side-to-side without turning your hull, you don't need legs. You just need to engineer a hull with more than one axis of movement.
>moonwalk
Why can't you just engineer a tank that can go backwards just as fast as it goes forwards, like has happened multiple times in the past?
.
>A walker could be able to climb a 2m step.
It's something, but it'll mean jack all against deeper rivers. Not sure how much that'd help without data on average river depth, and river is a fairly broad term.

Still not sold on why you need legs or arms.

>>15792016

why doesn't it have a turret?

>>15770503
> looks fucking stupid.
You mean like literally every other fictional military design?

Also, it's not even from the show. You'd know that if you actually watched it, you fucking /a/-tier pleb.

>>15802533
It's a mine clearer
It doesn't fight

File: crusher.jpg (156KB, 440x434px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 440x434px

>>15800982
You seem to be honestly interested but frankly you are taking a few things all wrongs.
ex :the bullet point was about design (your request of a drawing), it explain how anime culture and preconceived ideas can be dropped to imagine realistic mechs.
Your quest of "necessity" was clearly discussed in the second post, really, it was obvious even if none of us were native english speaker.

Speaking of "necessity". Need change with time, technologies and the enemies. Before the necessity was to get horse. later it was to get slow metal box with guns, or to have dogfight capable planes, I hope you'll notice how some of those are fundamentally different today, the name carried over but the original "niche" is long dead. You don't "need tank because our ancestor used them", it is only a technical solution that survive or lose against the evolution of RPG (thanks to antimissiles).

Now for straight questions:
>Why do you need to step over it in the first place?
You are being silly again, confusing what we can do, with what we want to do. They are different things.
LOT of place or maneuver are impossible with tracked/wheeled vehicles, armies dream they had a technical solution, even costly.

>You just need to engineer a hull with more than one axis of movement.
I would pay to see a tank capable of casually moving sideway without rotating its main frame.

>moonwalk
Was a joke really.

>Not sure how much that'd help without data on average river depth
Speaking of average, a typical error is to fail to add-up every common capabilities like "moving 360° regardless of hull/armor orientation" over the grand picture. "Miracles reasons you need mech" don't exist, but tons of little reasons could sums up to a yes.

>Still not sold on why you need legs or arms.
I'd say it's because you want them to be used already to 'buy' them. I don't ask you to believe but your skepticism could use some goodwill.

>>15770663
What game is this from?

File: F-16s for days.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

>>15802618
real life.

I'd say human beings are pretty familiar with the concept of using arms and legs. so, what gives?

File: 1251265595181.jpg (411KB, 2048x1107px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2048x1107px

One more thing:
>>15800982
>You could say that we already live in a pretty /m/ future, and have been since the advent of the tank. Again, the Japanese use "mech/mecha" in a much broader sense than the west, and by their terms we're living in it. Some of them consider computers "mecha," so by that definition we certainly live in one.

Japanese definition isn't wider, really. The definition you claim to be used is just ridiculously limited or evasive. Everybody know mech in this context is about piloted walking vehicle, no matter the size the legs or the lack of arms. Only idiots limit mech to "only anime robot that are easy to criticize".
If there's one thing proper to Japanese it's that they aren't afraid of breaking some mold.
unfortunately it barely make up for their difficulty to drop the teenager pilots tropes and school harem setting

File: Untitled.png (26KB, 1277x106px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1277x106px

>>15802633
>Everybody know mech in this context is about piloted walking vehicle

My dude, the Japanese use Robot for that shit.

Mecha is a much broader term in Japan. Yes, any WESTERNER will think walking machine, but not any JAPANESE person

>>15777732
You could at least try to refute him with even a single example of a counter-argument.

If the best you can do is say 'no' then you might as well have not even replied.

>>15802670
I don't need to have a detailed refutation for something that's plainly wrong.

>>15802670
It's completely ridiculous from anyone with any actual knowledge of engineering, military vehicle design and common sense.

>>15776520
>mecha supporter
Stopped reading there. You are clearly in the wrong neighborhood and do not belong anywhere near here.

Go back to /k/ with all the 'vehicle-supporters' (god, I feel like I just lost like half my brain cells typing that out)

>>15802629

turns out that anthropoid shapes kinda suck for making things that aren't monkeys

>>15802628
That first clip that I was replying to doesn't look real at all. The smoke looks like CG.

>>15802699
>hurdur it's just wrong because I say so
Then fucking provide a single counter-example, retard.

>>15802720
I didn't know we had an expert in fictional military robotics over here. Please correct me and tell me what the military designed and built gundams for.

File: 1499138845296.png (355KB, 552x552px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 552x552px

>>15802825
>all mecha are gundams

>>15802825
How's this:
Nothing states mecha must be bigger than tanks, therefore the statement is false and a tank may be equipped with a bigger powerplant or more weapons than a mech.
Now open up, here comes the airplane

File: reincar.jpg (79KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1200x960px

>>15763102
A big fucking sword anon, just add one that rotates around the tank or add a set of manipulator arms to wield it.
That and or thruster flight, kinetic barriers, pile drivers, a infinite or improbable energy source, cool transformation mode which over clocks the system, and gattai.
Any combining tanks in media not transformers?

File: 1406755443444.jpg (93KB, 770x578px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 770x578px

>>15802665
I'm reluctantly forced to agree that this stupid interpretation is as far as translation goes, the norm.
But I'll maintain that we don't have to keep doing shit because everybody else do.

>>15802907
Not that guy or anyone, but the official lore of Gundam insisted that MS are sized over the smallest Minovsky drive available at the time. Meaning that tank and fighter needed to be as big to also get this power source.

>>15803129
Gundam Unicorn have the loto, but it's more that it carry soldiers.

you gave me an idea, force tank to be treated exactly like mecha are portrayed: heroes unit with overly dramatic duel, custom paint, unnecessary HORNament, deployed with a lot of decorum even if they could just run out the front doors, child pilot, light effect when they activate a super-mode, explosion even if just a metal chunk is hit, glowing sensor eyes
etc

File: Ff-x7bst.jpg (145KB, 800x345px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x345px

>>15804853
>the official lore of Gundam insisted that MS are sized over the smallest Minovsky drive available at the time
Nothing stops you from building a bigger whatever, and a bigger whatever can put more/bigger guns.

File: 1280034511221.jpg (917KB, 2393x3259px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 2393x3259px

>>15804887
That's the Mobile Armor for you, but the bigger you are the less mobility you have, no cheat around that, also beam weapon mean that one good shoot will make you explode before you can say "It's a gundam!"

File: stormshadowkillstank.webm (2MB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x540px

>>15763102
future tanks needs to be resistant to hokuto shin ken

I like tanks but I don't like tankfags.

File: Gundam_vs_Gelgoog_(CCA_Version).png (863KB, 1332x720px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 1332x720px

>>15807394
The core booster is not a mobile armor. And as stupidly large as it is may look in the show, it is actually roughly the size of modern fighters.

For example:
f-18; length 17.1 m, weight 16.7 tons
core booster; length 13.8 m, 18.3 t
gundam; height 18.0 m, weight 60.0 t
gelgoog; height 19.2 m, weight 73.3 t
elmeth; length 85.4 m, weight 291.8 t

The elmeth is also almost twice as tall as a mobile suit at 47.7 m

>>15807486
I like mecha but I hate mechbabbies.

File: 1280040250114sb.jpg (3MB, 1995x2413px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1995x2413px

>>15807650
I've seen nothing that would distinguish a mobile armor from a fighter outside of their appearance or mass.
Then again, nothing distinguish them from Mobile-suit either except probably mass
So we are both right

>>15807791
I suppose there aren't any hard rules concerning the classification, but the FF designator was used for fighters.
And it would also imply the saberfish and dopp are mobile armors.

File: 1351447755988.jpg (211KB, 804x1128px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 804x1128px

>>15807835
Well, author aren't always good with terminology.
At best you could say that mobile armor require at least one limb and to reach a certain mass, but it's a stretch and considering Elmeth's funnel to be limbs, they are brain controlled at least.