So what is the role of mecha on the battlefield? What they can

>>15817679
Heaviest infantry and/or logistical support for the rest of the squad is the most reasonable.

You should not ask yourself what weapons can do for an army, but what those weapons can do for the military-industrial complex

>huge, insanely expensive piece of shit hangar queen that needs multiple mirrored parts for its limbs

File: T-55 on hill.webm (2MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1152px

I can't see any purpose for a mecha other than some kind of self propelled ATGM for access to super mountainous areas.

File: 1501428817885.jpg (235KB, 1280x926px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1280x926px

Recently i have been struggling with this, like most westerns i am super obsessed with realism, so of course finding a role for mechs that would be easily, or more cheaply, done by infantry or tanks is endless frustrating and has been the cause of many sleepless nights. recently however i came to the conclusion that paratroopers or or light scouting troops would be best replaced by mechs. In the second world war and since the main disadvantage of paratroopers has been their inability to stand up agiants armored counterattack and a general lack of fire power when compared to conventional troops. I believe that mechs would remedy both of these problems while also increasing the speed of movement for individual paras. i envision short term mission never lasting more than a week, dropped beside enemy lines, the para-mech would size and hold bridges, cross road towns, mountain passes or wage a hit and run war to offset the enemy.

File: Captain-America.png (44KB, 506x270px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 506x270px

This is like asking what role superheros have on the battlefield...

Trying to develop a role for a vehicle before it exists is basically wishful thinking. Tanks were originally developed as slow, trundling infantry support boxes meant to cross trenches; within twenty years, they became the high-speed siege machines we know today. You can guess and suppose all you'd want, but the purpose of a humanoid vehicle would likely change quite quickly over time.

File: DICZb-IUIAAOsae.jpg (194KB, 846x1200px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 846x1200px

>>15818499
I liked this concept. It would be probably better fitting for small mechas and power armors.

>>15818653
Where did that image come from?

File: otto.jpg (199KB, 629x449px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 629x449px

>>15818653
That's what i believe too, small single person mechs, smaller mechs are much more realistic than lager ones. and they could be potentially dropped from a plane or helicopter or even deep striked from orbit.

>>15818499
I would say that's a bad use of funds. It doesn't give enough of a benefit for how much it would cost to outfit those troops.

>>15818703
>https://mobile.twitter.com/ykarps/status/900888792839712769
Kenichi Sonoda poster for a magazine, it seems.

>>15818653
meh, in a small mech the pilot takes up too much space to make it feasible. The armor protection is also insufficient. A regular tank will always smoke it.

File: 2ns9px2.jpg (1MB, 744x1052px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 744x1052px

>>15817679
The only role i think small mecha(landmates probably) and powered armor would undoubtedly do well in in the near future would be for special forces use in short, urban combat missions.

A while ago i watched some videos of the fighting going on in the Philippines between the Filipino/US militaries and Islamic extremists that had taken over a town, the US was airstriking the fuck out of abandoned houses they expect terrorists might be in, basically destroying most of the town, while Filipino soldiers were slowly and cautiously moving through streets and buildings, I also seem to recall them knowing the terrorists were hiding in an old Mosque but not being able to bomb it because they didn't want the backlash of completely destroying it.

I imagine if militaries had some decent powered armor that could protect most of it's user's body from small arms fire and operate for several hours before running out of power, situations like the one above could be resolved more effectively and with less destruction by sending special forces through the city, room clearing buildings with little risk of dying themselves thanks to the armor, then retreating before the power runs out for another team to be sent in their place.

SWAT teams would probably love it, it'd greatly decrease their risk of getting killed and allow them to better distinguish between armed criminals and unarmed civilians without getting shot in the time it takes to identify them.

It'd probably save a lot of money despite the cost of the suits to not have to use expensive as fuck explosives to destroy entire areas.

>>15819453
Jin-Roh

>>15817679
Mecha are ideally as armored as a tank with the versatility of infantry, able to cover many roles of both.

How well that works and how practical one is to use depends on the mech we're talking about. Mecha is a bit general.

>>15818537
The same as a mech, shock and awe.

I'd make it a logical and smooth transition imo.

Have powered armor be the norm, then different loadouts for different roles, then comes the need to upgun/uparmor the powered armor. Now, to carry a bigger gun, you'll need more powerful actuators and probably power as well if its an energy weapon.
So with the need to upgun the powered armors, they eventually reached the point they had to upsize because they hit the ceiling of the powered armor's load limits.
As such, different classes of powered armor appear, with the largest being no different from a small mech, being around 3 meters tall and carrying around the biggest and heaviest armor and guns.

>>15818499
Get some sleep!

File: simpsons.jpg (329KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1280x1920px

Sorry tanks, mechas and infantry, killer drones are the future of weaponry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8tGpwKWUT0

>>15819727
was this from golden era simpsins? man they do predicted a lot of stuff

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

187KB, 1753x1359px

>>15817679
>So what is the role of mecha on the battlefield?

>>15819453
>The only role i think small mecha(landmates probably) and powered armor would undoubtedly do well in in the near future would be for special forces use in short, urban combat missions.
>I imagine if militaries had some decent powered armor that could protect most of it's user's body from small arms fire and operate for several hours before running out of power, situations like the one above could be resolved more effectively and with less destruction by sending special forces through the city, room clearing buildings with little risk of dying themselves thanks to the armor, then retreating before the power runs out for another team to be sent in their place.
This will probably be the first practical use of Powered Armor in actual combat; Powerful special operation strike teams performing Smash and Grabs and other high intensity, short duration missions that can plan their logistics around limited capacitor lives.

>>15817682
>Heaviest infantry and/or logistical support for the rest of the squad is the most reasonable.
Where as this is where the technology will come into general usage after the majority of kinks and limitations have been worked out, though I doubt there'll be any bipedal humanoid designs outside of Powered Armors, at least terrestrially anyways.
Anything with legs will be most likely a multipede for stability, while arms could come in any number on any type of propulsion.

>>15817679
Combat engineering and rough terrain specialists.

...occasionally armored cannon fodder. If the controls are intuitive enough you can send pilots out with only a week of training.

>>15819727
Not so much. You either have autonomous drones which are about as smart as a sack of bricks, radio controlled drones which go down with a chaff bomb preluding an assault, both which gives you the drawbacks of both, or local controllers that lands you in square 1 with more firepower.

extreme terrain forklift.

Target to be blown up by a drone 1/3 its cost unfortunately desu

>>15821265
ECM platform?

>>15819453
Tbh this is kind of me dream to make. The hard parts are run time and not ripping the wearer's limbs off. The common man with /m/ tendencies can afford a welder, steel tubing, steel plate, cameras, and the necessary electric motors, encoders, wiring, and computer stuff (too early and too little sleep to remember right name) to build something. It's "just" making it actually good and not a clunky POS with no runtime. And I'd like to put wheels on the legs for the mkii if I get that far.

>>15820249
>You either have autonomous drones which are about as smart as a sack of bricks

With that much intelligence, they might just start questioning the overall strategy.

>>15817679
That's the problem of mechs. There's no role for them on the battlefield.

Smaller ground mechs are going to evolve over time as the required technology slowly matures. I think it will start with powered exoskeletons to let soldiers carry heavier loads once power supply and control issues can be worked out. With practical exoskeletons in the field it's only natural that armor will be added to provide more protection for the wearer. It's only a small step after that to add infantry weapons with sensors and fire control systems. As time goes by more armor and more weapons and sensors are added until you reach an optimal size and form factor. Then you may reach the point where you no longer need a human inside as you move to remote operation or even AI. When all this comes together is anyone's guess though.

File: v850d6zidefz.jpg (115KB, 795x1243px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 795x1243px

>>15825102

>>15817679
Shouldn't you ask /k/ about this?

Walking artillery

>>15825263
we often do but you know /k/. Still in denial about powered exoskeletons.

>>15818499
So, Titanfall then.

>>15818499
Had a brainstorm about this a while back.

Probably the best argument for using para-mecha is the question "What if it falls on it's side?"

For tanks, this boils down to two options. First, wait for a tow (Not going to happen) or abandon the tank. For mecha, the answer is to just get up. There are a few scenarios where this isn't true but those are mostly death sentences for both mecha and tank.

>>15825559
Falling on its side from the drop itself is unlikely. Usually it's because after landing the chute catches wind again and pulls it sideways enough to tip the whole rig over.
It's also no guarantee that the mech arms will be able to push it's body up or drag itself across the ground with its arms. It might, but it also might just be strong enough to move the weapon system.

>>15817682
That's not logical at all. What the fuck.

>>15818499
That's dumb.

>>15819453
Only powered armor makes sense.

>>15819470
That's stupid. You're stupid.

>>15819533
>hurf durf bigga gunz

>>15820227
Get real.

>>15821265
This.

>>15825043
arrr me dream

>>15825078
Truth.

>>15825102
Robo knights are fucking stupid

>>15825263
/k/ is too knowledgeable about actual military operations for this topic

>>15825559
So instead of making a mechanism that allows a tank to correct its position, you'd build a mecha? Fucking stupid. You're no engineer.

/m/, combat mecha is a fantasy. It's entirely based on rule of cool. Let go.

>>15825817
>making a mechanism that allows a tank to correct its position
at that point you're basically making a mecha

>>15825877
No you aren't, retard.

>>15825884
well how would you make a tank correct its position if it fell over?
I'm interested in what solution you'd propose?

What about Mars colony mechs, anons?

>Labor-type mecha for construction/exploration
>less gravity than earth
>Mars colonists won't be bringing tanks and jets with them
>won't have missiles lying around for drones
>inevitable Martian Mecha Melee when colonists argue amongst themselves

>>15825917
That actually makes me wonder, how would tanks operate in low gravity environments?

>>15825917
That's dumb. They would just use construction equipment to do construction.

File: 6415c354-b6fc-49d4-92a5-611d6bd35615.jpg (242KB, 759x1000px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 759x1000px

>>15825917
mecha would be used in orbit and in space stations if anything, they'd just create specialized martian construction vehicles for the martian terrain.
We're probably looking at something shaped like pic related

heavy specialized artillery
When you need to blow up lots of shit with more precision than bombs, more speed than tanks, and more defense than aircraft

File: Martian_rover_Curiosity_using_ChemCam_Msl20111115_PIA14760_MSL_PIcture-3-br2.jpg (308KB, 2127x1259px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 2127x1259px

>>15825917
I think they would just use something like this.

>>15825925
The exact same?

>>15825956
>more precision than bombs
What do you mean by bomb?

>more speed than tanks
Legs are slower than tracks

>more defense than aircraft
Could you elaborate please?

>>15825963
wouldn't lower gravity effect things like rebound from firing due to weight issues?

>>15825961
pretty /m/echa by my standards

>>15825966
dropped bombs usually result in more collateral damage
is that so? anyways, most mechs can fly
stronger armor than a standard aircraft

>>15825974
Lower normal force means less friction so maybe it slides further from recoil or driving. Otherwise it still has the same mass and the propellant still generates the same force.

>>15825978
Artillery is really not a better choice if you are worried about collateral damage, unless you want guided shells but then you also have guided bombs.

>most mechs can fly
>stronger armor than a standard aircraft
Mechs are fictional so their writers can make them do whatever they want. Stronger armor than a tank while flying faster than a fighter? Sure, why not.

Regardless, nothing about your suggestion benefits from a mech design. A helicopter is a flying platform that is fairly well armored and can act as your heavy artillery delivery system.

highly mobile heavy armament on rough terrain
might as well just use choppers though

>>15818499
reminds me of VOTOMS
SF pilots drop in for a blitz on armour of infrastructure and get the fuck out, the legs are even designed to absorb fall impact with sole anchors and heavy duty hinges and presumably shock absorbers

File: objekt 279.jpg (96KB, 800x351px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x351px

>>15827801
>heavy terrain
Just add more tracks

>>15817679
>So what is the role of mecha on the battlefield?
its to trip, fall and kill his occupants

File: Evas and lilith's worst nightmare.jpg (86KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 576x432px

>>15817679
>>15819727

well anons

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mZZiI4ShQ

>>15825800
>It might, but it also might just be strong enough to move the weapon system.

If a mech can't lift it'self with it's arms then there's no real point to making a bipedal one. After all, a human can pick it'self off the ground and you want a mech to follow human-like movements.

And falling on it's side is more of a generalization. A vehicle could land on a tree trunk, a steep incline, a river, a bolder, a building, or even enemy fortifications. As long as it isn't flat terrain there's a risk of the vehicle falling over.

>>15825817
So I'm seeing a lot of insults and no reasoning.

Troll.

>>15827890
I see a lot of delusion but no reasoning.

Troll.

>>15828297
Oh? So what are your arguments?

>>15828378
What are yours?

File: votom1.jpg (80KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x574px

>>15828416
Let's start out at creating some context.

First, we're talking a 15-17 foot mecha with controls based on mimicking pilot movement. Pilot moves his foot and the mech moves his foot etc. Armor is about APC grade with a similar weight or less. Feet have wheels for cruising.

Armaments are chainguns such as the M230 and various missiles. Dexterity approaches human.

For reference, Votoms or Heavy Gear.

The primary usage for a mech would be support for parachute drops. Tanks and other armored vehicles are almost never dropped since the danger of falling over or getting stuck on stuff is so high. At least with limbs you have a chance of righting yourself.

Secondary tasks would be combat engineering as the hands provide a decent improvised crane or forklift. Heavier weapons can be reloaded more easily in combat with them.

Third, legs would deal with urban or rough terrain better. The legs can compress to create more hull down positions than a tank can and the legs mean the mech can sidestep into corners rather than expose their flanks.

Finally, because of the intuitive nature of the shape and controls, soldiers can be taught to use the mech and the single pilot requirement means you can field more for less manpower.

>>15828505
>First, we're talking a 15-17 foot mecha
How does it not collapse from its own weight?

>Pilot moves his foot and the mech moves his foot etc
How?

>Armor is about APC grade with a similar weight or less
It would sink into the ground and its body would break itself apart from the strain of the weight compared to the weakness of the material.

>Feet have wheels for cruising.
How would it balance itself?

>Armaments are chainguns such as the M230 and various missiles.
Again, it's too heavy. It wouldn't be able to move and its arms would instantly snap the moment it tried to move them.

>Dexterity approaches human.
Impossible, given its construction.

>For reference, Votoms or Heavy Gear.
Those are fantasy and wouldn't work in real life.

>The primary usage for a mech would be support for parachute drops.
Its body would shatter.

>Tanks and other armored vehicles are almost never dropped
It's actually quite common.

>At least with limbs you have a chance of righting yourself.
Not with its construction, its body would break apart.

>Secondary tasks would be combat engineering as the hands provide a decent improvised crane or forklift. Heavier weapons can be reloaded more easily in combat with them.
Again, the entire structure would break apart.

>Third, legs would deal with urban or rough terrain better.
No, it wouldn't.

>The legs can compress to create more hull down positions than a tank
No it can't.

>and the legs mean the mech can sidestep into corners rather than expose their flanks.
It wouldn't be able to move because its too heavy and the materials that compose its body would not be able to bear the burden.

>Finally, because of the intuitive nature of the shape and controls
You haven't explained how the controls work.

>Finally, because of the intuitive nature of the shape and controls,
What you're proposing is so expensive that the numbers would not be significant and the level of maintenance would be insane.

This is complete fantasy.

>>15828505
>Tanks and other armored vehicles are almost never dropped since the danger of falling over or getting stuck on stuff is so high.
No, it's because they weigh a fuck ton and it's hard to slow them down enough to survive impact.

>>15828505
>Heavier weapons can be reloaded more easily in combat with them
Or just use an ammo feed chute and never have to reload like most vehicle weapons. Except missiles, though I have no idea how your would reload those as a robohumanoid.

>The legs can compress to create more hull down positions
The inherent additional height negates that. The real advantage is if it can crawl like a person without destroying it's arms and legs.

>single pilot requirement means you can field more for less manpower.
That puts a massive amount of work on one person. Plus they would have to work in fairly large units to be able to maintain an adequate rotation.

File: TOY-RBT-0050_01.jpg (68KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 533x800px

>>15818499
Helldivers from the second patlabor movie are that pretty much

File: Blizzaia_wanzer_01.jpg (101KB, 670x950px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 670x950px

>>15817679

>>15828505
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1504211437160.webm

>>15828779
pretty sure a type 10 weighs more than the max takeoff weight of a c-1 including the plane.

>>15828529
>How does it not collapse from its own weight?
>Not with its construction, its body would break apart.

Considering how the Badger 288 is a thing I think we can dismiss all claims about structural integrity

>How?

Waldos, haven't you head of them?

>Again, it's too heavy. It wouldn't be able to move and its arms would instantly snap the moment it tried to move them.

A helicopter gunship uses this. Saying a mecha can't is just silly.

>Impossible, given its construction.
METHOD 2 proves it can be done.

>No, it wouldn't.
>No it can't.
>It wouldn't be able to move because its too heavy and the materials that compose its body would not be able to bear the burden.

Why? Don't say that it's obvious, use examples of something similar.

>This is complete fantasy.

So was flying once.

>>15828820
There's an explanation but I forgot about it.

>>15828828
>Badger 288
Not even remotely similar. And you're talking about a stationary structure with extremely limited moving parts that uses huge cables and the most structurally sound rafters available to avoid falling apart. None of this would work for what you claim is an agile fighting robot.
>Waldos, haven't you head of them?
They are not used for anything nearly as complicated as controlling a giant humanoid bipedal form.
>A helicopter gunship uses this. Saying a mecha can't is just silly.
A helicopter is a platform. An arm-like structure would snap.
>METHOD 2 proves it can be done.
That thing has terrible dexterity that is nowhere near a living organism's, much less a human's.
>Why?
Because it's just wrong. Legs on a robot are not magically better than treads. Bipedal Legs on a 17ft robot can't magically compress to become lower profile than a tank. There are no materials that exist that would be able to create the robot you're describing.
>So was flying once.
False equivalency. You're describing something that would not work with the materials and technologies you're proposing. It's like if you claimed that someone could achieve powered flight with wood. It's fantasy. You have no basis in reality and have no understanding of stupid simple physics or logistics. You tried and you failed. What a moron!

File: apache-helicopter-33.jpg (53KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x300px

>>15828853
>Not even remotely similar. And you're talking about a stationary structure with extremely limited moving parts that uses huge cables and the most structurally sound rafters available to avoid falling apart. None of this would work for what you claim is an agile fighting robot.

The Badger 288 is a mobile vehicle. If we're talking agility then .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I79KKNCed30

>That thing has terrible dexterity that is nowhere near a living organism's, much less a human's.

It's close enough for most purposes.

>They are not used for anything nearly as complicated as controlling a giant humanoid bipedal form.

They're used for Method 2 and allow for shoulder, elbow, and independent finger movement.

>A helicopter is a platform. An arm-like structure would snap.
Pic related shows how small the mounting for an M230 chaingun is. The gun isn't mounted directly to the hull but mounted on a 2 axis articulated mount the size of a minifridge.

> Bipedal Legs on a 17ft robot can't magically compress to become lower profile than a tank.

Doesn't need to. As long as there's even a couple feet of depression it's more than the zero most tanks have. A tank needs a very specific height to hide it's hull while exposing it's gun. A mech can crouch to make otherwise unusable positions usable.

>False equivalency. You're describing something that would not work with the materials and technologies you're proposing. It's like if you claimed that someone could achieve powered flight with wood. It's fantasy. You have no basis in reality and have no understanding of stupid simple physics or logistics. You tried and you failed. What a moron!

But you haven't said why it can't work beyond "It's impossible because it's impossible".

>punching
>kicking
>throwing
>suplexing
>shoulder-charging
>able to hold both guns and melee weapons
>able to use guns as melee weapons

Why do you guys keep struggling with this? This is grade-school stuff we're talking about.

>>15828919
>It's close enough for most purposes.

>actually being this delusional

>>15828929
>no gainax pose
you had one job

>>15828940
Still a troll

>>15825939
>mecha would be used in orbit and in space stations if anything,
Yeah, free-fall/centrifugal effect would be the optimal environment for humanoid fighting machine, as these would be the places you'd be upscaling regular Powered Armor rather than having specific purpose-built vehicles...

>>15828529
>How does it not collapse from its own weight?
It's doable, mostly comes down to materials engineering.

>>15830201
>It's doable
Only with sci-fi technology. At that point, you're better off just using the materials for an improved tank or something.

>>15830210
>Only with sci-fi technology.
At one point in time, your damn cell phone was "Sci-fi Technology"...

>At that point, you're better off just using the materials for an improved tank or something.
Not necessary, since a stronger frame material doesn't directly translate into a better armored box on treads.

>>15830565
>At one point in time, your damn cell phone was "Sci-fi Technology"...
My cell phone doesn't violate the square cube law.
>Not necessary, since a stronger frame material doesn't directly translate into a better armored box on treads.
Yes necessarily, a stronger and lighter internal frame would do wonders for any conventional vehicle.

Even expecting a human to be able to effectively motion-capture control a 15m tall humanoid robot would be questionable, the slow and careful movement required to manage the high inertia yet delicate long limbs would feel immensely unnatural.

You couldn't just strap a kung-fu master in your mecha and expect robot kung-fu.

And if the mecha falls over hardware is definitely gonna break and the pilot is gonna be hurt.

File: 1484367794578.jpg (92KB, 714x592px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 714x592px

Even Kojima accepts gigantic robot dinosaur piloted mechas are rule of cool

>>15828919
>A tank needs a very specific height to hide it's hull while exposing it's gun. A mech can crouch to make otherwise unusable positions usable.
Why not make the turret of the tank able to elevate and depress? This way it can make use these positions without the need of legs and arms, which cause the vehicle to be less stable and more expensive compared to simply having tracks.

>>15830820
See>>15828505
We're talking 15 FEET

>>15830884
because you want the arms at the very least. It helps with reloading and repairing.

>>15830210
Again, Badger 288 exists so material requirements aren't really an issue.

>>15831037
Why would you need arms to reload? Why would you want arms to reload?

>>15831179
Again, badger 288 is a piece of shit that can't do 1/100th of what you're expecting.

>>15831762
Ah, but it's also hundreds of times larger that what we're trying to do.

>>15831720
Because 120mm recoiless shells are heavy.

>>15832339
>Ah, but it's also hundreds of times larger that what we're trying to do.
It's a completely false equivalency, moron.

>>15832339
Use an ammo chute and/or autoloader

>>15828753
CHUNKY BOY

>>15832344
Fine,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MAKfH5JgrE

An excavator can support it's entire weight on it's arm at full extension. By comparison, this is child's play.

>>15832410
Most autoloaders are either A. slower than manual loading, B. can't handle multiple ammo types, C. actually need manual loading or D. any combination of the above.

>>15837025
Compared to a human loading a tank/spa gun from inside it. There are no examples of humans loading a gun through a giant arm analog thing

>>15837050
>Compared to a human loading a tank/spa gun from inside it. There are no examples of humans loading a gun through a giant arm analog thing
Yeah, honestly the best you can say here is that the arms would allow it to resupply an entire magazine at a time instead of individual shells.

>>15837025
This is a false equivalency. It is not remotely the same as a humanoid form.

>>15837050
That's the "It doesn't exist therefore it can't exist" argument. Napoleon once thought steamships were lunacy and yet we still use steam to propel our nuclear powered warships.

But to give you an idea of the increase of speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd9WBx-IA-E

Granted, scaling means doubling the reload time but that's still remarkably fast for a cannon caliber weapon.

>>15837120
Your right, the human form would be faster and more balanced.

But the argument was for structural strength and structural strength has been demonstrated.

>>15837154
The human form is more fragile because of its complicated articulation. Overall, the human form is also far less balanced. The only reason we can maintain this form is because of amazingly sophisticated and delicate spinal column.
>you don't know shit about anatomy
>you don't know shit about mechanics
>you don't know shit about physics
>yet you want to speculate on technology
>you want to try and prove your point with false equivalencies of radically different forms and function
Fuck off, retard.

>>15837146
No it's the "this doesn't exist in reality so we can't draw accurate measurements of its capabilities" argument.

>>15837167
>The human form is more fragile because of its complicated articulation. Overall, the human form is also far less balanced. The only reason we can maintain this form is because of amazingly sophisticated and delicate spinal column.
The first two points are technically true, but the last is a load of bullshit.
The spinal column is far from "delicate," and what actually allows us to maintain bipedal locomotion is the incredibly complex organic computation systems both interwoven with said body and governing it.

>>15837208
That's actually worse because it doesn't imply anything.

>>15837167
>The only reason we can maintain this form is because of amazingly sophisticated and delicate spinal column.

Actually, people that had their spinal columns fused still have adequate balance and agility.

And really, the reason your angry is that you thought this would be an easy fight and your struggling, isn't it?

>>15837253
>what actually allows us to maintain bipedal locomotion is the incredibly complex organic computation systems both interwoven with said body and governing it.

This is really the only reason you'd go with a bipedal mech vs a spider mech. The multi-leg is far more stable and redundant than a biped but you'd have to train the crew in how to use the legs to walk and balance.

>>15837323
Motion capture isn't necessarily gonna be better or easier then automated walking and if you're gonna be firing big guns without going prone multilegged is far superior.

>>15837267
It implies since nobody knows how fast a mech can load a mech weapon you can't say it's faster than an autoloader

>>15837323
>This is really the only reason you'd go with a bipedal mech vs a spider mech. The multi-leg is far more stable and redundant than a biped but you'd have to train the crew in how to use the legs to walk and balance.
>>15837338
>Motion capture isn't necessarily gonna be better or easier then automated walking and if you're gonna be firing big guns without going prone multilegged is far superior.
Yeah, your spider tank is more than likely going to have a "Motive AI;" A rudimentary facsimile of an animal brain that basically does all the planning and calculation of moving the vehicle.
It will literally all but "drive" itself at the simplest prodding of its operator, like tugging the reins on a horse.

>>15837359
If there's no hard facts either way then there's no reason not to follow supposition and incomplete models.

Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't want to debate this"

>>15837474
Go with Pneumatic over hydralic actuators for the legs. Air has a bit of give to it so you can use that for suspension. It also gives you so leeway with leaks and when you pull a peak-a-boo maneuver you can dump the pressure to duck back down faster.

Power wise, electric hybrid would be the best. Turbine-electric is theoretically the best but diesel electric is better developed.

>>15837477
Then the opposition can just say "no, autoloaders are faster"
Now you have unsubstantiated claim against unsubstantiated claim, with neither party able to prove anything.

>>15837509
>Go with Pneumatic over hydralic actuators for the legs. Air has a bit of give to it so you can use that for suspension. It also gives you so leeway with leaks and when you pull a peak-a-boo maneuver you can dump the pressure to duck back down faster.
>Power wise, electric hybrid would be the best. Turbine-electric is theoretically the best but diesel electric is better developed.
Well we've had the GE Walking Truck since '69, which was Hydraulic, as you can see the problem was actually Operating the thing since each leg was directly controlled by the Pilots' corresponding limb.

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

why is /m/ so easy to troll

>>15837649
Who do you think is trolling.

>>15837531
True, but we've seen that reloading by hand can be very fast.

>>15820249

future drones aren't going to need to be at the level of human intelligence what most analysts think going forward is that they will work like a hive of bees, wasps, etc.

>a small unarmed drone sprays an artificial pheromone.
>other drones get the signal.
>kill everything in that area.
>send signal to cease and return home.

>>15838501
>>kill everything in that area.
Yeah, that's an INCREDIBLY STUPID idea...
Have you ever seen Screamers?

File: CVYD8NtWUAA_Mtc.jpg (41KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x338px

>>15838501
Under current SOP all military aged males killed in drone strikes are automatically regarded as unlawful enemy combatants regardless of circumstances.

>>15838515

well for thinking about urban combat and the insurgent combat of this decade it doesn't seem that bad.

>bomb an area
>still get civilian casualties because they are using human shields
>bring in power amour squad/mecha/other
>still get civilian casualties because they are using human shields.

There is no perfectly clean way to deal with threats like that especially with the ultra condensed mega city warzones in the future. It just one way of dealing with the problem without unnecessary loss of life for the side that is doing the siege.

File: tankfags btfo.webm (2MB, 960x544px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x544px

FUCK OFF TANKFAGS

THIS IS THE ROLE OF MECHA ON THE BATTLEFIELD

>>15838969
>There is no perfectly clean way to deal with threats like that especially with the ultra condensed mega city warzones in the future. It just one way of dealing with the problem without unnecessary loss of life for the side that is doing the siege.
It's not non-combatant casualties I'm worried about, it's the fact that you want to build a LITERAL INDISCRIMINATE AUTONOMOUS KILLING MACHINE!
You know how people talk about drones getting hacked?
What happens when your Killer Bee Drones get hacked, or just malfunction in general...

>>15817679
None. Even tanks are losing their usefulness.

File: 2204988_p0 - 44GJbits-LB「ロングトム改 ロングバレル」.jpg (402KB, 1185x886px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1185x886px

>>15817679
OP's pic in better quality and no crop.

>>15837106
That means powerloaders are in at least. Pretty humble as giant robots go, but better than nothing.
Personally I think something like the fuchikoma looks promising as a sort of sneaky heavy weapons platform carrying mortars or wire guided missiles. Obviously you wouldn't get it to climb vertical concrete walls, but there should be at least some places it could go that a car couldn't.

>>15839922
>What happens when your Killer Bee Drones get hacked, or just malfunction in general...
Gravion?

File: 1376499090685.jpg (209KB, 850x776px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 850x776px

>>15840625
>That means powerloaders are in at least. Pretty humble as giant robots go, but better than nothing.
Eh, they'll still get weaponized somehow.

>>15840700
>Gravion?
They kill indiscriminately, meaning they might end up killing your own people or just slaughtering a nearby population en-mass, moron...

so I'm a normie who just stuck his head in here because fighting robots make cool art and you guys are arguing about this. Incredible.

>>15841825
In fact, we do this every. single. day.

File: the-third.jpg (986KB, 850x1337px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 850x1337px

post power armors