Why do tanks always portrait as inferior to mechs in both technology

>>15784900
Because they can't walk.

>>15784900
Tanks are a meme. Planes are the masterrace. Even boats are better than tanks because they can carry planes.

>>15784900
You keep making this thread christ man calm down

>>15784900

There's no /m/ in tank, how many threads are you going to make about tanks being better than mecha?

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

3MB, 1280x720px

Legs > treads

>>15784900
becuze mechs R kool.


but like really, its fantasy. same reason superman doesnt get killed by bullets. Rule of Cool, suspension of disbelief. real life combat is insanely boring these days, and some mecha action never hurt anybody.

>>15784950

Robot rebellion when, we know where but when?

Because tanks are lame and are outdated even by 10 years ago.

>>15784907
But what if we made a tank that can carry planes?

>>15784900
If you want to talk about tanks fuck off to /k/ like normal people do when they want to talk about tanks.

>>15784900
Tanks can't fight in space.

File: x2 Guntank Guncannon in space.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>>15785176

>>15785176
You could have the body of a tank with standard space propulsion I imagine.

>>15785184
Yes, but that would be quite retarded.

Zero gravity changes the rules dramatically. Robots become the queen to pure spheres' king.

>>15785196
At that point you'd have a lumpy fighter with a cannon on the front.

>>15784900
What do you want to win anon? You should already know your answer. Run, punch a bag, eat something good and forget how shitty anime is in general.

>>15785209
Except you would never build fighters in space. At least not shaped like an aeroplane at all. Because it makes no damn sense.

>>15785219
How would you build them then?

File: Nfnu0YL.png (492KB, 1200x1341px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1200x1341px

>>15785229

I'm not sure about fighters, but the Orion drive battleships are a good example of actual "space battleships".

They also happen to look dorky as fuck. No surprise nobody's made a hard sci-fi story about war in orbit.

The robots are taking all the technological and development budget from the tanks, leaving everyone with inferior tanks from yesteryear but modern, advanced robots.

I'd imagine any universe where mechs are technologically viable, there wouldn't be much of a distinction between the two.

>>15785271
Orion looks like it does solely because of the atomic propulsion and the fact they "took off" from Earth.

>>15785229
Space fighters in general don't make any sense at the moment. The amount of shit you need to cram into anything that is left in space on its own leaves little room for miniaturization.
Plus, this is real space we're talking about. You have to decelerate on your own and all that jazz meaning the concept of something small but nimble does not even exist up there.

But yes, spheres are the way to go as far as modern physics is concerned. Star Fury if you want to look cool but pretty impractical, Ball from MSG if you want to get less silly at the expense of looking silly.

mech over tank for the versatility, i read it was the reason in the original gundam serie

mech can dodge, hide behind cover, fight in any kind of terrain, can use a varieties of weapon and change quickly

>>15785271
How the hell does the orion drive derive thrust from detonating nukes behind it in outer space?
A supercritical nuclear reaction just generates shitloads of heat and light. The huge explosive shockwave from a nuclear blast on earth comes from the instantly expanding superheated atmosphere. The actual material of the bomb itself hitting the plate would be like the propulsive force of a wet fart.

>>15785315

I'm not 100% sure myself, but I do know that the Orion Drive and the weapons Orion itself used were not simple nukes, they were shaped charges.

In other words, the nuclear blast was directed in a specific direction, much like how a HEAT shell has its entire blast concentrated directly forward (Into the tank). Presumably by directing the blast in the opposite direction of desired travel you could create enough force to push the craft along.

I'm kind of curious why they don't just put the shaped charges on ICBMs though. It would be far more direct and harder to intercept, though come to think of it using nukes in space was outright banned to begin with.

>>15785151
If we had the technology to do that we would just make planes that can carry more planes.

>>15785307

Forgot to respond to this, but have you by chance seen the laser mines from that Space Combat sim? Things utterly raped anything that came close, including many famous fictional space fighters.

And what were they? Oh, just cubes with thrusters on the corners and high-intensity laser cannons on the faces, programmed to point their red beams of death at anything that ventured too close. If it were really necessary they could even chase targets, so basically you could have a swarm of laser cubes chasing after your sorry ass.

I don't know what the pinnacle of "space fighter" development is, but given how well they worked...I imagine they're closer than most.

File: qqxvyb.jpg (58KB, 743x347px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 743x347px

>>15785346

See: Boeing 747 AAC

Lockheed CL-1201

File: 220px-Orion_pulse_unit.png (29KB, 220x267px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x267px

>>15785315
it's a nuclear warhead encased in a lead/depleted uranium lens, the aperture of which is filled beryllium-oxide and capped with a tungsten/boron plate.
When the nuke is detonated, the x-ray pulse is reflected by the casing for about a microsecond, channeling all the energy into the channel filler, creating an x-ray pumped plasma stream which then superheats the tungsten plate while accelerating it to high sub-light speeds. This pancake-shaped plasma blast then impacts the pusher plate on the back of the spaceship with kinetic energy equivalent to 50-60% of the nuclear device's yield.

That's how it works, and we can make these things today. Shit, we could have made them in the 60s,

>>15785340
I looked it up and they weren't shaped charges. You can't make a nuclear shaped charge, a nuclear reaction blasts broad spectrum light in all directions. You'd need a mirror to direct it, except it would heat up any mirror and reflective materials stop being reflective when they get hot.
The nuclear pulse charges for Orion had a big disc of solid propellant on one side, the nuke would heat that up and cause it to expand to the point that it would push on the shock absorber

>>15784900

Calm down there ESL guy.

>>15785354
You can, actually, shape a nuclear charge with a very dense radiation mirror. The weaponized version of the Orion's propulsion unit does just that and can, theoretically, turn a nuclear warhead into a directed energy weapon capable of burning through meters of steel at hundreds of kilometers (in space)

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges

>>15785346
We did. The big issue, from what I recall, was trying to dock back in flight.

File: 240de49a1e04626063ffc49052e0cfe5f3cd80de.png (33KB, 1024x481px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x481px

>>15785373

Speaking of which, anyone know why inflight refueling is considered to be safe while getting attached to, say, a probe and then being hoisted into the plane isn't?

Pic related to link:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf

>>15785404
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46q-RUkAmc

basically it boils down to this: its less risky to plug a hose to a plane , and then let it kinda loose while it pumps fuel , rather than to anchor something with that much mass as a plane to another plane , risking both planes fuselage to any turbulence that could bust the recovery craddle thats why even though some parasite fighter concepts managed to fly and operate, were scrapped

File: 1501770379398033.jpg (46KB, 750x503px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 750x503px

>>15784900
Because mechas are superior

File: pride_world_wide.jpg (552KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1920x1080px

>>15784900
Because their main mediums are cartoon and video games. The former is dumb to get upset about, and the latter is more focused with fun over realism. Also obligatory Guntank pride.

>>15784900
Because Bandai wants to sell us toy robots, not toy tanks plus as other anons said IRL aircraft>tanks

>>15784900
Stop dragging Yukari into your shitty threads, ESL faggot OP, and go read stuff involving BOLOs or Hammer's Slammers.

Oh wait, you're an illiterate ESL. My bad.

File: Panzer-IV_destroyed-AFV_40.jpg (150KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1200x790px

Shut the fuck up already with your tank addiction

>>15784900
Tanks can't mount giant swords

File: hover_tank_by_spirekat-d5gt38y.jpg (268KB, 1600x989px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1600x989px

>>15784900
Why would you bring contemporary weaponry into a sci-fi /m/echa situtation anyway?

At least /m/ that shit up. Make them hovertanks or something. With manouvering thrusters and jetpacks and stuff. Gundams and tanks weight 'bout the same (60 tons), right? both should be able to jump around in a similar fashion, right? I really would like to see an engagement between hovertanks and gundams.

Not totally unrelated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMDmp7LVuKY

On second thought...didn't Gundam kinda do that already with some of the mobile armors? Maybe it did. I don't remember.

>>15784950
>>15784963
They're going to show these kinds of vids in the robot Nuremberg trials.

File: the_arcadia_by_resak.jpg (599KB, 1280x780px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1280x780px

>>15786869
Why not? Spaceships do it.

File: image.jpg (271KB, 1400x964px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1400x964px

>>15784900
Because mechas are better, you fluffy tank dork.

>>15784900
Because if the mechs aren't better than tanks people would subconsciously wonder what the point of the mechs are.

>>15791158
Which they do ow anyways.

>>15789632
That's a giant knife, not a sword. They're completely different.

File: b22dbd9e556c14e521afc55ff1a11ea5[1].jpg (89KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x400px

Cars with guns> tanks

>>15784900
Its around just never the focus, Patlabor 2 had that mech platoon gets their asses handed to them by a tunguska so its not unheard of for 'lower' armor to wreck them.

>>15793353
>>>/mo/

>What can be worst than "Guntank in Space"???
>G-Bull in Space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSh53c2j24I

File: Outlaw_Star_Grappler_arms_(1).jpg (49KB, 655x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 655x480px

>>15793351
What a load of crap. Like it matters wether it's a blade or a spear or an axe. Anime never gave a damn.

>>15796636
xWhy does a ship need arms?

File: outlawstar-vs-eldorado.jpg (141KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 960x720px

>>15796677
To grapple with other ships of course! What a silly question.

>>15785354

> You can't make a nuclear shaped charge

Actually you can and every dry lithium thermonuclear device... is.

What you're misinterpreting is what you're "reflecting".

You're reflecting the hard radiation from the primary to the secondary. This travels at light speed, while the overpressure shockwave of the primary's expansion travels much slower at mach speed.

The reflector in the design focuses almost all the radiation of the primary on the spark plug to ignite the secondary. All of this happens before the force of the explosion of the primary reaches the secondary.

We're talking about a difference of literally microseconds here but it does matter. It took us a lot of tries to get the math right.

>>15784900
Because otherwise there's no reason to have mechs, at least on the same type of battlefield.

File: 71fWrROv+OL._SX355_.jpg (21KB, 355x321px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 355x321px

>>15796636
>>15796819
> yfw you realize Outlaw Star is about outlaws and pirates fighting in really fancy Balls

>>15784900
Because mechs are superheroes.

Also, tanks are a bad meme and belong in the 90s