Will military mecha ever be real?

>>15845329
Most likely not, short of attacking battleships while keeping in their blind-spots, mecha don't really have any huge advantages over current military hardware.

>>15845329
>Having to enroll into the den of idiocy, ass kissing and gayness that is the army to get a shot at achieving one's dreams.

Hopefully not. I want them to be attractions in amusements parks around the world.

>>15845397
That sounds like the navy though.

>>15845409
Considering that aquatic warfare is probably the only current type of warfare where a mech could be considered useful, them being assigned to the navy makes sense.

>>15845329

Probably not for multiple reasons. /k/ threads need to stop though.

not anything larger than power armor

File: OV4OD.jpg (77KB, 720x480px)

77KB, 720x480px

>>15845409
Nah, mate. It's universal and applies to armies throughout the globe and through the ages.

From the dickings in Hellenic phalanx formations through the samurai apprenticeship involving fucking your senpai in the ass to the modern day intentional dropping of soap, the gayness has always been a part of it, like in monasteries and other single-sex places.

Idiocy and ass kissing/licking of superiors to get anywhere is obviously something you agreed with in the first place.

>>15845329
guns and tanks are mecha

>>15845396
battleships don't exist anymore.

File: lossy-page1-220px-Bio-inspired_Big_Dog_quadruped_robot_is_being_developed_as_a_mule_that_can_traverse_difficult_terrain.tiff.jpg (34KB, 220x262px)

34KB, 220x262px

Reminder that the US military contacted Boston dynamics to create a support robot and this is what was made, however it was deemed too loud. Military Mecha can be a very real thing one day

For space if we ever have an actual presence there.

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

2MB, 960x544px

>be me, a butthurt tankfag
>go on 4chan, go to /m/ naturally
>shitpost for hours about how mechs aren't realistic and how tanks are better

FUCK OFF

>>15845802
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng
It's descendants are laready much quieter. Walking robots are developing very quickly.

File: 1503250596190.webm (2MB, 960x544px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x544px

>>15845878
Not so fast!

>>15845418
>Considering that aquatic warfare is probably the only current type of warfare where a mech could be considered useful, them being assigned to the navy makes sense.

Explain.

>>15846919
Something something square cube law something something whales something something nobody who knows what they're talking about ever replies in these types of threads

Depends on what you think a mecha is.

We have passive load bearing exoskeletons in field trials now. Its used to reduce the burden a soldier has to carry, but with more carrying capacity it will be eventually be used to carry weapons and equipment that was too heavy for a single soldier to carry.

Then once a suitable power source becomes available, a powered exoskeleton can start to bulk up with armor, propulsion systems, radar, etc, making them a one man tank.

But piloted mecha will be rare, with the largest being something like the Scopedog.

>>15846919
It's an extreme longshot, but a mech could theorectically be built so that it could maintain a position bellow a ship and blast it from underneath, that said that it the only use i can think of for real life current warfare.

>>15847070
why would such a vehicle need to be humanoid

>>15847070
you mean that thing that special forces teams already do

>>15845329
The RX-78 is currently being modified to carry the olympic torch so soon

>>15847087
Rule of cool, In all honesty you could probably make small submarine with rotating propellers to maintain depth and speed.

>>15845418
>>15847070
Zeonic pls go and stay go

>>15845967
> takes one tank with plot relevance to kill an ai dummy.
> a single autist with a mech kills a batlaion of it.

but in all honestly, ground vehicles save for reconnaissance and transport are all obsolete.

File: 1504051626380.png (418KB, 770x648px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 770x648px

>>15847225
>but in all honestly, ground vehicles save for reconnaissance and transport are all obsolete.
oh look, a retarded statement on /m/, how shocking.

>>15847087
Nothing of the OP or any of the other posts in the chain before now have stated a need for it to be humanoid. All that it needs to be is a mecha for military application. It could be a robot shark with laser beams on its head.

>>15845329
1. Limitation of current tech (and 10 years down), I can see power armor (not Stark level, probably just at Wayne level) in coming future, humonoid mecha not so, not even chicken legged or 4 legged ones.
2. Cost and logistics issues.
3. Its effectiveness. Let's face it a mech would be sore thumb in a battlefield, a walking crosshair, if an old school tank or a simple fighter aircraft can take it down too easy, it will just make it harder to justify item 2 above!
4. Biological issue, mainly us humans. A simple fall from the point where we standing to a flat surface floor is sufficient enough to kill us, let alone strap into a 7-15 meter tall machine. Thus until we achieve item 1, riding a mech is no different siting in a coffin.

Drones are the next generation of warfare. Eventually, they will replace conventional infantry in most situations via human sized weapons platforms. It is possible that a humanoid done could be developed at some point. I don't think giant robots will pass the realm of fiction.

>>15847526
The next 50 years will be interesting while current drone roles expand and the current talks to curb them go on. So far piloted drones have gotten an easy pass, South Korea's turrets are over 5 years in use without any word on them. I'd be interested if other anons know the formal rulings on drone warfare. It's already easy to find AI cautionary tales, I want to read about actual rulings.

>>15845329
Hopefully they won't look that shit if they do

File: 1483201670089.gif (262KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 500x281px

>>15845881
I want to protect it.

>>15845329
could be a potential solution for combat in megacities, where tanks and aircraft don't perform well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPdOZbyzbw

>>15848236
colony drop when?

>>15847526
>>15845881
This is a very interesting discussion. Right now, the thing with drones is that you'd have to mass-produce them to such an extent that they can take and hold ground, which so far--despite humongous advances in weaponry, air power, etc.--is still a job for the grunt. Aside from the noise issue, which as anon pointed out is being worked on, practical drones will need to be not only inexpensive to build but also inexpensive to power, supply, and maintain.

How long with a mech's battery last? It can't live off rations, or "live off the land," i.e go hunting for food and supplies or just take it from the populace as invading armies have always done. Even with a battery life of 240 hours (and that's a very generous estimation), you'd need to recharge it after 10 days of constant operation, 20 if you give it time to "rest." And where is the robot's ammunition coming from? Supply drops? Those can be destroyed or intercepted. And what if the drone gets damaged? Absent self-repair capacities, it can't heal wounds like a human can, you'll need to send in technicians to help it, and those guys will likely be expensive and hard to replace.

So those are some of the things we'll have to overcome if we want drones to take a central role in future war.

File: Leonardo_da_Vinci_drawing-helicopter.jpg (104KB, 798x263px)

104KB, 798x263px

>>15845329
Who knows, /m/an?

>>15845489
We do have submarines and aircraft carriers. Some of them are larger than WW1 battleships.

>>15847225
Not really. Air power can't take and hold ground. We learned that the hard way in Vietnam. Infantry needs fire support support and sortieing a plane can take anywhere from minutes to hours.

>>15847233
You can't just call people stupid. You NEED to Illustrate WHY they are a waste of oxygen. Otherwise they can just write you off as a troll.

>>15845329
Maybe? It honestly depends on how they are developed and what is made and said functions.

To be honest if a single mecha could tank a missile and still move then its worth on the battlefield would increase tenfold. Similar to the premise of Heavy Object, kinda.

Oh and you also have to think of costs. If its somehow cheaper and faster to make than a tank AND more durable than one you bet everyone and their fucking grandmothers with a degree in robotics would fucking go into the mecha business.

>>15845329
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDZHRSI5G88

before this video i say never but if someone in the military watches this and think they can put weapons and kill people with it then it will happen

remember tanks are sitting ducks in urban combat and need infantry for protection so if they can make a humanoid tank that can fight as an infantry in urban combat then they will make it

ALSO i think the mechs will look like gasaraki ishtar robots

>>15845329
I dotn think giant robots will ever work because just shoot the knee and its gg for them

the only way giant robot warfare can exist is if EVERYONE goes giant robot.

>>15849103
By the same virtue, everybody goes for the treads of a tank.

Besides, you can armor knees.

>>15849103
True but it just takes one outing of a seemingly invincible giant pilotable robot and everyone will be paying for them.

Another way mecha warfare could exist if it were space combat i.e. Macross, Gundam so on and so forth.

File: gasaraki 29.jpg (741KB, 1840x1794px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1840x1794px

>>15849102

>>15849118
>>15849122
sorry wasn't specific, i was talking more so the back of the knee joint

>>15849118
>everybody goes for the treads of a tank
well gee which is easier to hit, the thread of a tank or the knee joint the size of a tank? and you cant really armor up the joints otherwise you lose mobility

>>15849122
yeah space warfare would probably be the only way mech warfare could exist. in fact they would be pretty OP

File: HRKZToS.jpg (341KB, 1918x1068px)

341KB, 1918x1068px

>>15847526
Huge armies of drone soldiers with the occasional human soldier in the field when?

>>15848338
>How long with a mech's battery last? It can't live off rations, or "live off the land," i.e go hunting for food and supplies or just take it from the populace as invading armies have always done. Even with a battery life of 240 hours (and that's a very generous estimation), you'd need to recharge it after 10 days of constant operation, 20 if you give it time to "rest."

have them take shifts, occasionally send a small portion of the drones back to some sort of mobile power generator to recharge then have them come back immediately afterwards.
you could also have them tethered to trucks and tanks and shit using a removable power cable, kinda like Evangelion.

>And where is the robot's ammunition coming from? Supply drops? Those can be destroyed or intercepted.

I don't see how this is any more of an issue for drones than for humans, both need to be resupplied from time to time, human soldiers don't just shit out more ammo.

>And what if the drone gets damaged? Absent self-repair capacities, it can't heal wounds like a human can, you'll need to send in technicians to help it, and those guys will likely be expensive and hard to replace.

When a human soldier gets shot or injured by an explosive he's out of action and needs to be sent home, and potentially needs lots of expensive surgery and government money to live with the disabilities that are going to prevent him from getting a job.

A drone can take a bullet to the torso and potentially have no damage that immediately disables it and requires repair, they don't bleed or get infections like humans do.

A drone can step on a landmine and lose it's legs but still be useful until it can be repaired by just sticking into a position or on top of a vehicle to be an automated turret, a human would be useless for combat at that point and require other soldiers to save him.

they pretty much pay for themselves.

>>15849132
>bakc of the knee joint
Yeah that makes sense.

Pretty much for mecha combat to be a valid option was to make everyone think that these metal monstrosities are actually invincible expect for one similar. Lets say someone tried to shoot the back of the knee joint to incapacitate it and it didn't work? Well you are fucking dead or at least you are thinking you are going to be soon. It all comes down to fear on the battlefield.

>>15849132
>knee joint the size of a tank

Retard, we're talking about small realism-fag mecha where the knee joints would likely be smaller than a tank's sprocket wheel, even on huge gundam bullshit even double knee joints are dwarfed by tanks.

And "just shoot the tiny weakpoints like you would in a video game lol" doesn't work in real life, otherwise tanks would be fucking worthless with how many quite vulnerable parts they actually have, it's technically possible to disable the most heavily armored tanks ever made with a .50 cal by shooting into vents and shit, but that doesn't happen in actual combat.

File: pic10.jpg (22KB, 300x304px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x304px

>>15849132
>and you cant really armor up the joints otherwise you lose mobility

Yes you can. Sure, you still have a weak point in the back but that's a very small target from a very tricky angle.

The answer is: when there's a need for it.

>>15849102
How is a 13 foot giant man not going to be a sitting duck as well?

>>15849122
>Another way mecha warfare could exist if it were space combat
Why would a humanoid body be beneficial for space combat?

>>15845329
No. But they could have uses for police work.

>>15849210
Catfall maneuver. You can swing the limbs in leu of gyros. The limbs can double as manipulators or thruster mountings.

>>15849240
That's cool if you're a space worker or something. You're not going to swinging your limbs around to turn yourself in combat, especially if your weapons are mounted on them or are hand carried. If you really wanted to just put nonfunctional flexible limbs for that sole purpose.
This is also assuming space combat will just be air combat in a vacuum.

>>15849257
>This is also assuming space combat will just be air combat in a vacuum.

it won't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvs_f5MwT04


Space combat probably won't be based on small, high speed craft making quick maneuvers, but if it was they wouldn't be anything like planes or jets.

If you've ever tried a semi-realistic air combat simulator the thing you'll most wish your plane could do is turn to face any direction in less than a second, it'd make aiming at enemy craft very easy, having limbs of some sort for the whole "AMBAC" thing would basically make the ultimate turn-fighter, and in space would very easily outmaneuver poorly designed space-planes like the stuff you see in star wars and most other sci-fi, and be able to shoot at them the entire time.

But in atmosphere that doesn't work thanks to planes having to be aerodynamic and very light weight, not to mention having to deal with a little thing called gravity.
In space there's no reason to design a craft to be anything like a plane/jet unless you intend to have it re-enter the atmosphere.

>>15845329
Yes, see the boston dynamics quad legged things. Only a matter of time until someone realizes hey this would be great for carrying a TOW launcher through terrain a vehicle couldn't. They would mostly be used for being a platform to truck heavy weaponry and corresponding ammo compliment.

>>15849300
To take yet another angle, in space propellant is either extremely precious or extremely destructive to your near vicinity, so if you're fighting on or within a structure in microgravity you could improve your mobility and efficiency massively by using limbs to climb around. A zero-g space tank with legs could be incredibly practical in close combat.

>>15849320
>propellant is either extremely precious

I should've mentioned this, limbs allow more fuel efficient maneuvering even out in open space thanks to not having to burn up propellant to turn the craft on it's center of mass.

>>15849360
They aren't the only things that can do that

>>15845881
nice doggo

>>15845329
Why would you want it to? Haven't we had enough war? You probably wouldn't think war is cool if it broke out in your home country.

>>15849372
Only other method i'm aware of are reaction wheels, which are slow as shit and wouldn't work for a quick space fighter, maybe even too slow just for a worker pod.

>>15845329
Give it 2 or 3 centuries.

>>15849430
Fundamentally an arm is just a reaction wheel that can't go all the way round. Unless you want your robot spinning it's arms and legs like a windmill.

>>15849421
Profit. I mean war is just a business with your buyers being folks with clashing ideals.

>>15849430
A big enough reaction wheel has the same capabilities.
Movable engines can be used.
It's wasteful for most uses, but multiple engines facing different directions can be used.

>>15849421
People who oppose the development of new weapons on the principle of not wanting more war are naive and ignorant, war is going to be around as long as humans are around, in a lot of ways war benefits human civilization by encouraging technological advancement, as well as economic prosperity, we wouldn't be talking through the internet right now if the technologies necessary for it hadn't been developed so soon out of military interests.

Most technology developed by the military ends up being used for non-military purposes as well.

>>15849457
Limbs still allow for everything >>15849320 said and more, such as being able walk around under gravity, and they'd give it a very versatile ability to manipulate objects.

They'd make an incredibly multi-purpose vehicle for few downsides, reaction wheels wouldn't, they work great for current spacecraft custom designed for very specific pre-planned missions, but in a far future scenario where things such as O'niell cylinders are around, craft with limbs would be very useful.

File: OV-1.png (992KB, 961x723px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 961x723px

>>15848338
Drones are, and will continue to be, sortied from mobile command centers. Artillery also follows this protocol already. A drone's effective range will be determined by where the military can establish a base.

>>15849503
You are basically saying you want a shitty half space fighter half ground afv because you want to be able to fight in space and in a colony.
That's like suggesting putting legs on a f-16 so it can also fight on the ground.

>>15849457
Big reaction wheels are big, heavy things by nature and they only work on a particular axis.

>>15849638
Drones will be limited by how far we can get secure communications. Already, we've had a case where the enemy spoofed a drone's GPS and convinced it to land .

I think it was Iran but I'll need to look that up.

>>15849642
>back to saying space craft and jets are the same thing

Brainlet.

>>15849687
>implying I said that
The example of jet with legs was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of trying to make something fight in two vastly different fields.

>>15849143
>have them take shifts, occasionally send a small portion of the drones back to some sort of mobile power generator to recharge then have them come back immediately afterwards.
you could also have them tethered to trucks and tanks and shit using a removable power cable, kinda like Evangelion.

Yeah, though in that case the recharge station becomes a very tempting target, and you'll need some very sturdy cables that are both long and won't get damaged easily in combat conditions. I agree with your other points.

>>15849638
Yeah. Cool image BTW, pardon my ignorance but where'd you get it? Is it from an Army website or something?

>>15849360
>>15849320
>>15849300
Have you guys heard of Children of a Dead Earth? IIRC it's like the most realistic space combat game around, first you have to calculate trajectories to get your ships in range of the enemy, then you launch missiles, lasers (which are invisible!) and drones to fight. The graphics are pretty bare bones but it's hyper realistic.

>>15849706
http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2014/nov-dec/05_DIVARTYWP.html

>>15849706
Yeah I've played coade, it's a lot of fun despite a few weird points (rapid firing railguns for example).
They don't deal with any structure or asteroid bound combat though, it's mainly open space orbital stuff which has a very different dynamic. In open space I'm sure mechs would be largely useless, except perhaps for a bit of extra radiation protection when doing maintenance (an issue which is often very underrated)

>>15849703
The requirements for a jet and a space fighter are vastly different.

The way they're designed would be vastly different.

Sticking a few limbs on the armored metal sphere with guns in it that is the core of the vehicle instead of using giant reaction wheels that weight almost as much while making it a much less versatile vehicle is vastly different from putting legs on a jet.

Fighting in space is vastly different from using a jet on earth, basically everything important is inside spaceships or massive space colonies, being able to enter a space colony without having to drag entirely separate vehicles to it and unload them would be a very nice advantage, and it wouldn't come with nearly as many downsides and engineering problems as trying to make a jet land and walk around, and it'd be much more practical than making a gigantic unarmored jet land and walk on the ground for basically no reason.

File: takara-crusher-joe-galleon-48-scale_1_b27b8785809fdc42726d0487366c53c5.jpg (34KB, 400x213px)

34KB, 400x213px

>>15849861
reaction wheels can be vastly lighter and smaller than limbs for the same amount of reaction torque, because they can be spun up to ludicrous speeds.

And I'd bet good money that by the time there comes to be space stations big enough that there arises a need to invade them with vehicles, that specialized vehicles will be designed for that purpose, rather than burdening all space superiority vehicles with the gear for operating indoors.

>>15850293
Reaction wheels are only good along one axis and can only gimbal. A limb can gimbal, wield weapons, assist or facilitate docking, or aid in repairs.

File: 1288068525359.jpg (35KB, 526x721px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 526x721px

>>15847526

>>15849464
>Most technology developed by the military ends up being used for non-military purposes as well.

This

>>15851127
>treize is all about warriors on the battlefield
>ironically models himself after napoleonic times when armies started using less troops overall and pushing more towards mobile artillery strategies to take advantage of new technologies

>>15851550
Actually, that fits in with the more elite soldier doctrines of the napoleonic era.

>>15851652
They may have had that distinction because of their experience as war veterans, but Napoleonic era warfare was even less about individual prowess than previous forms of war due to the heavy focus on mobile artillery rather than infantry/cavalry offense. The warrior ideal that Treize kept going on about was a much more romantic medieval concept.

File: LDDScreenShot104.png (98KB, 1077x691px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1077x691px

>>15847526
>ones are the next generation of warfare. Eventually, they will replace conventional infantry in most situations via human sized weapons platforms.
Nooo they won't...
Mostly because of the can of worms that would be opened by implementing automated targeting programs for offensive combat.

Hell, the earliest implementation of "automated killing" in warfare is the LANDMINE, and that shit is still a problem for nearly half the world to this day.

>>15849300
>In space there's no reason to design a craft to be anything like a plane/jet unless you intend to have it re-enter the atmosphere.
QUAD FIGHTER!

>>15849669
>Drones will be limited by how far we can get secure communications. Already, we've had a case where the enemy spoofed a drone's GPS and convinced it to land .
Exactly, either you have a human operator pulling the trigger somewhere, or you make a fully-autonomous killing machine...
...Which begs the important question of discretion and responsibility...

>>15851721
imo drones will eventually lessen the number of casualties experienced in warfare. once drones can help capture key strategic locations on the ground, there's going to be less real people being the first through a door or spearheading an assault into a possibly deadly situation. If tanks and other vehicles are able to be controlled remotely by a human operator, you don't think that's going to save lives?

>>15851755
It's not that they shouldn't it's that they can't. Too many ways to spoof a drone and overuse leads to the enemy focusing on decap tactics, killing your controllers while the majority of your firepower is elsewhere.

>>15851761
ummm there is no military on earth that would leave a command center unguarded, your human soldiers and any additional drones would already be entrenched and prepared.

>>15851755
>>15851761
>It's not that they shouldn't it's that they can't.
And even without spoofing, we've already got way too much trouble with drones killing non-combatants due to bad intelligence, taking a human out of the loop entirely means this lapse of discretion either becomes a complete absence or you've build a thinking machine
advanced enough one can hold accountable for its actions.
It's kinda hard to court-martial a Computer after all...

>>15851791
you can have ai protocols for non-offensive maneuvers/operations, but a human operation would always control any sort of combat situation.

File: DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

Skynet soon.

File: DSCN1242gray-muzzle.jpg (2MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2272x1704px

Power armors. Possibly humanoid UGVs, and unmanned units in general.

That said, has anyone here seen videos of Boston Dynamics Handle? It has folding legs with wheels and can actually jump. How well would that work on a quadruped frame?

Also, I bet this is unrealistic but I did have an idea in mind for a sort of UCAV that kind of resembles mecha. I'd like someone to nitpick at it in every way possible, just as an exercise.

Imagine a quadcopter, maybe a little bigger than a man. It has a hollow center that can be used to hold things (Kind of like a skycrane). Upon those it has four "legs", each with grasping appendages. However, the legs can also act as arms in flight, allowing it to pick up things and store it in the center section.

The center section can carry multiple types of equipment, but one of the most interesting types is a human (Who essentially hangs in a prone position from the center section. I keep imagining this is kind of like a Slider from MGS, just not as whimsical.

Some variants also have stub wings that carry some sort of SAW and a grenade launcher quadmount, not unlike a MAARS (Pic related)..

It's not really a stereotypical mecha, and admittedly would look rather dorky. But uh, maybe it would work?

>>15849751

Rapid-firing railguns actually makes sense, since the instant a slug hits the rails it's instantly fired. No cycling mechanism, basically.

The only limitation is really on the feed mechanism and how long the railgun can fire before its rails are destroyed (I suppose the latter's fairly important though).

Who cares? War is stupid and everybody here is too retarded, fat, or both to make it in the military, let alone get to operate a vehicle of any kind.

>>15851836
Skynet was a dumb plan. If you make an AI for prosecuting war, all it will do is war.

>>15851765
It's a matter of degree and cost effectiveness. For modern armies, taking out leadership elements is difficult because the chain of command goes down to the platoon level. Take out the regimental HQ and there's still the battalion HQs. Take out the battalion HQs and you still have company COs and XOs. It's impossible to take out the entire command network in a single blow.

Drones change that. Suddenly, you can have entire regiments being commanded from a single location. Even distributing it down to company level means that entire companies can be negated with one decisive blow.

>>15852363
Why are you on this thread?

>>15852446
>Skynet was a dumb plan. If you make an AI for prosecuting war, all it will do is war.
Plus who would be stupid enough to wire ALL THE NUKES together?
They purposely make these things so you need two people to fire one, but you want to NETWORK THE LAUNCH BUTTONS TOGETHER?!

>>15852363
>War is stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA

>>15852446
>>15852503

Something to chew on for a minute: The Emergency Rocket Communication system, or more dangerously its Russian counterpart, Perimeter (Also known as the Dead Hand).

To make things worse, Perimeter is still operational. As I've said before, if Skynet happens, it won't be an American thing. It'll be a Russian thing.

File: 72c.jpg (18KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x450px

>>15852478

>>15852462
>Suddenly, you can have entire regiments being commanded from a single location
But they wouldn't because not only is that is silly, but it would also mean they wouldn't secure as many areas. Your idea is silly.

>>15852707
Ah, troll, got it.

Well have fun.

>>15853388
Putting more forces to secure a location also means that you've got less forces on the front line. You're essentially stuck between securing your base and attacking the enemy. In a base race scenario you inevitably loose because a conventional force can continue fighting when the HQ is destroyed.

You also run into issues with signal interference. There's a lack of high bandwidth channels that you can use to control drones and receive video feedback. If you saturate those your signals end up mixing and data gets garbled.

You need a central authority that can organize the mess and assign switching patterns.

>>15852302
Also keep in mind capacitor charge time and power supply output. That's going to be a bigger factor than the rails in the short term.

>>15854046
>Putting more forces to secure a location also means that you've got less forces on the front line.
Wrong. They're using drones on the front line.
>In a base race scenario you inevitably loose because a conventional force can continue fighting when the HQ is destroyed.
It's not a base race scenario. First off, this model of progression has been in use since ancient times and is still being used. Secondly, this is an effective area extension via drone deployment.
>You also run into issues with signal interference.
That's an inherent issue with drones, but obviously drones are still effective despite that.
>You need a central authority that can organize the mess
It's called the military. That's what they do.

Your arguments suck, you have no idea what you're talking about