Why do mechs in video games always portrait as better than tanks

>>386547465
>2 barrel meme

Jets are greater than tanks.

>>386547465
>2 BARRELS

>>386547542
>>386547823
what's wrong with double the firepower?

File: command_and_conquer_3_kanes_wrath_conceptart_ylPvV.jpg (166KB, 800x469px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x469px

>>386547542
Yeah, 2s for pussies

Because mechs are cooler than tanks and if they were worse in game why bother having them?

>>386547927
>8 treads
just imagine trying repair this fucker

Humanoid mechs are unrealistic.
The stress the legs would suffer each time it moved its huge and heavy body, alone make that design impossible. And thats assuming the gigantic hydraulics system and engine would even fit inside that small torso.
They look cool but thats it.

>>386547465
Because they're videogames, you fucking dumbass.

>>386548063
they're probably modular, as in it looks like you could completely remove the part with the tread attached to it.

File: 1464671428932.webm (2MB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x506px

>>386548627
Like this?

File: 1487607583090.gif (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>386548880
That's actually kinda cool but wholly stupid and wasteful. But still cool.

File: 1471418257234.gif (238KB, 528x480px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 528x480px

>>386548880
It's cool and stupid in equally proportional amount

The human form is an amazing thing.

Mechs are always argued against as been useless on a wide open plane, possibly true.

In urban environments they'd be hideous to fight against.

>>386548880
why does it have four treads if it can drive just fine with 2? shouldnt it be tearing up the road now that the load distribution fell by half?

>>386549283
This. They have much better maneuverability around corners and can actually check up inside buildings on higher levels, granted they're not fucking 50m tall. 10m height is the upper limit.

>>386549449
just get a boost from the other mechs

>>386549395
The extra tracks helped lower ground pressure and could be removed for transport via rail if needed. Since they would have weighed 86 ton I don't know how well it would move along without the outer treads.

>>386547465
Obviously haven't played Trails of Cold Steel 2

>>386549283
>The human form is an amazing thing.
High center of gravity. Easy to be knocked down.
Articulations. Insanely complex to be replicated in a mech. Weak points.
Stands out everywhere.
Bigger target. Harder to shoot and miss.

Just to name a few.

>>386547465
What about a Zaku tank?

File: 1499080062211.png (70KB, 418x377px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 418x377px

Human sized bipeds holding massive sheilds or something would be good for breaching rooms and shit. Otherwise mechs are pretty dumb

>>386550415

You just defeated your own arguments based on what I'd been saying.

Also, try knocking me down fgt.

Big target in the open, not in a city.

Articulation is way easier for robots than people.

TL;DR you're a fag

I see anons talking about small "mechs" that could enter buildings and support infantry etc. at that size it would be more of a power armor or exosuite than a mech at that size. To be honest even that wouldn't make much sense from a useful ness stand point

>>386547465
Idk man Titanfall changed my perception of this long held feeling

>>386547542
It took down a Zaku, your implication is null

File: 1456344192910.png (980KB, 1663x3168px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1663x3168px

>>386547465

Play Brigador OP

Both tanks and mech have very clean strengths and weaknesses.

>tank have better center guns
>treads means more stability for weapons with heavy recoil
>mech are far better for urban warfare and flanking
>mech also got better control and can turn arround faster
>they have very powerfull stomps
>since damage is base where you hit/get hit mech got better ways to avoid taking hits in the back
>tanks are better suit for artillery while mech are better when they need to shot over cover

>>386548880
is this that show with all the lolis?

>>386553286
zakus are routinely destroyed by literal children.

>>386553870

Yes.

>>386553870
One of them, yeah.

>>386547465
Because mechs are cool and video games are fantasy.

The """advantage""" mechs have is that in almost all fiction I've seen of them, they only need one pilot where tanks need a huge crew. This makes them viable in more sci-fi settings when you have effectively limitless resources due to asteroid mining and such, but a very small number of people to defend what needs to be defended.

>>386547465
The tank's usefulness is being questioned even today, with several military thinkers claiming that they have already outlived their purpose and will have no room in future wars considering the changes to military doctrine, armaments, technology and scenarios.
With this is mind it is not hard that a fantasy, more technologically advanced, world would come to the same conclusions and create something new.

>>386547465
If the tech can get there, Mechs can be better because:
1. Mobility
2. Fire power.

Tanks aren't the most mobile vehicles, but they can dish out a shit ton of punishment, and in cases like the Tiger and Abrahms, they can take a shit ton of punishment.

File: ogre size.jpg (228KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x640px

>>386554373
If you've got the tech to build a mech why not just slap a bigger gun on a tank or motorised gun carriage?

>>386554373
>Mobility
Maybe

>Fire power
On the same weight tanks will always have bigger guns.

>>386554585

Because you're not thinking in a tridimentional scale.

>>386554585
The ogre relies on an advancement in material science that allows it's armor to shrug off nukes.

File: fucking weebshit.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>386548880

File: railgun.jpg (493KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1920x1080px

>>386554750
But if you've got a mech carrying a weapon this size it'd be xbox hueg and an easy target.

>>386547927
Nice gun depression and flat surfaces on the front of the turret,nerd

>>386554197
3-4 people isn't a "huge" crew. Some military generals even argue over whether a tank with a smaller crew size
is a good idea or has any worth while advantages. This comes after it was revealed the t14 Armata only needs 3 instead of 4 crew. Also early French ww2 tanks suffered from smaller crew because one guy ended up being a loader AND a gunner, granted this Ian before auto loading technology. You can actually make a tank require 1 crewman to operate by making everything's automated but that's not a goodbye idea

>>386554929

Personally I feel that mechs are suposed to be the line of tank and heli/jet, if a tank can fly, it would be inferior to a dedicated flying attack, just like some tanks can be amphibious, I'd say mechs are suposed to hybrids.

I like both, but on the context of mobility, a tank is like car, sidestepping would be better than driving sideways, and elevation is a big thing, tanks can't have giraffe necks.

But if you wanna get realistic, then its just going to be drona warfare because money reasons.

File: hind.jpg (200KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 800x534px

>>386555639
>if a tank can fly
Which they can.

>>386555631

About auto loaders, why people complain about them? I know manual loading is better but argue to completly remove the idea of autoloading instead of developing better ones and fixing this issue.

>>386555774
A HIND D?

>>386547465
Mech games
>Titanfall 2
>Armored Core
>Cyberbots

Tank games
>World of Autism

>>386555882
There's nothing inherently bad about auto loaders. They can load faster and won't succumb to panic or mental stress like humans would. However people complain about it because of the risk of potential mechanical failure which makes sense. You don't want to go into battle, fire a single round and then lo and behold the auto loader breaks down because it wasn't maintained or installed properly etc. it has it's pros and cons. Like if the human loader is killed another crewman can take husband place but if the loader is broken you're fucked

>tfw no Chromehounds 2
C'mon From what the fuck. Just make sure chicken snipers with armor over their cockpits can't be a thing and it'll be perfect.

>>386556538

Well, like I've said, people argued autoloaders are inherently bad,some of the issues you stated could be fixed with time, medicine was just atheist witchcraft back in the day, so its just a matter of improvement.s

>>386554284
its true. The next major wars will be fought by drone tanks, planes, and soldiers. The battles will happen safely in the middle of nowhere. The goal of every battle will be to take control of the FOB where the soldiers are controlling their drones. There will be very few deaths compared to other wars.

>>386554373
mechs would have lower mobility and firepower than tanks simply because the tank shape is vastly better for large vehicles

Human shape works for human sized things, same way ant shape only works for ant sized things

>>386554780
problem with advances in material science is that if you can make your mech survive a nuke, you can make your tank survive 10

What would be the point of having a mech game where the mechs are terrible and impractical?

>>386557562
Nukes still exist, the next major war will either not happen or result in the destruction of all involved civilizations

drone warfare will absolutely happen, but it'll mostly be against sandpeople to avoid giving them the satisfaction of actually killing something. Can't behead a drone

>>386557562
Lets say group A wipes out group Bs FOB. They then waltz into group Bs city and get the absolute fuck blown out of them by angry citizens with IEDs.

>>386557803
IN THE TERRIBLE FUTURE OF 2XXX ALL THE WORLD WAS PEACEFUL UNTIL THE MECHS ARRIVED

HOWEVER ONE BRAVE TEAM FIGHTS BACK USING THE WEAPONS OF THEIR ANCESTORS. THEY ARE THE TANK COMMANDERS, THEY FIGHT FOR JUSTICE.

>>386557803
It'd be the Dark Souls of Mech games.

>>386557808
>Nukes still exist
so? the next country to use a nuke WILL be India. And everyone will be so shocked because how could the peaceful hindus do that? But then people will also be shocked because "i thought nukes where bigger" and then people will no longer fear nukes. Using small yield nukes will turn out to be a non issue in the future
>>386557960
You mean the robots waltz into the city while the enemy controls them from 100 miles away. Theyll just send more robots, but its a shame humans will have to die.

>>386557960
>IEDs effective against flying tank drones

>>386558221
>so? the next country to use a nuke WILL be India
That's a funny way of spelling Israel

also people still know the USA and Russia have enough nukes to glass their countries

>>386558480
you sound like you know what youre talking about

>>386558480
>every bomb is a tsar bomb

>>386554585

Brigador did a good job at explaning that

>material strain
>fuel/energy consumption
>up time base on energy consumption
>standardization of hulls and designs
>cost of development
>amount of vehicles you can field
>results of battle performance vs smaller but more cheap armored battalions
>and most importantly maintenance cost and time

Sure, you could put bigger guns in tanks or mechs but cost and results can be terrible

File: 3207083.jpg (61KB, 819x756px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 819x756px

>>386558221
>the next country to use a nuke WILL be India

>>386558772
no but Russia and the USA have 5000+ nukes in the megaton range
that's sufficient to wipe out every population center 100.000 people and up

>>386558021
Oh wow I'd play it

File: Ring_of_Red_art_box.jpg (21KB, 218x309px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 218x309px

>>386557803

File: Fear-Woman.jpg (200KB, 812x1024px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 812x1024px

>>386558947
either your underage, or an old gen X'er. either way, youve drank the cold war koolaid.

we've also nukes in the 1 ton yield for blowing up factories, and irradiating passages to stop enemy movement.

>>386559223
oh yeh Russia and the USA got rid of all their cold war nukes
they were very nice and all that's left are strategic nukes that are barely 5KT and produce no radiation what so ever
They also never informed the world of this because they are so good.


Seriously any country that decides to go to war with any of the major nuclear powers and actually poses a threat instantly loses all it's industrial centers and major cities.

And sure not every bomb is a Tsar Bomba but there are plenty of bombs left that can wipe out a city in 1 blow, the world will never get used to that, it's to surreal.

File: haters.jpg (234KB, 704x739px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 704x739px

>>386547465
Good games would show the strengths and weaknesses of both.

>>386559617
Mech Strength

-It looks Cool

Mech Weakness

-Literally less efficient than battle zeppelins

>>386547465
spider tank, best of both worlds

File: nukerumor2.jpg (345KB, 964x448px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 964x448px

>>386559525
thats not what I said but okay, guy. Youve been stricken with the fear of the unknown. The future of warfare is very safe, and very exciting. and no, we wont be fighting WW4 with sticks and stones

Reminder that if a tank tips over or gets stuck in mid, a mech can pull it out.
And if a mech gets stuck, it can use its other limps to get free.

>>386559747
>Smaller bomb can only lift 500
>Bigger bomb only starts struggling when lifting 1000
Fucking bomblets.

>>386559781
>And if a mech gets stuck, it can use its other limps to get free.
or because of how heavy a mech is it's other limbs will not find any proper points to attach themselves to and trying to get their stuck legs out of mud will lead to the classic "idiot in quicksand" scenario

>>386559704
That's only true with today's real world technology. I've never seen a mech game that wasn't sci-fi. There's a reason why the richest military in the world is pumping money into developing walking robots.

>>386559781
Maybe, If said mech weigh the same as average human male.

>>386559958
>Step in deep mud
>Put strength in the leg that isn't in mud
>Get out of mud
?

>>386559962
>There's a reason why the richest military in the world is pumping money into developing walking robots.
sure, because human shaped mechanical things the size of a human make sense

anything larger and it just gets silly, you don't see any militaries investing in giant ants either

And the problem with future technology that would make mechs possible is that said advances would be better used on a wide variety of other shapes

>>386559913
>alpha bomb lifts what he needs too to stay aesthetic
>beta bomb goes straight to dead lifts, has awful posture and form, and will never actually be "strong"

>>386560081
>Step into quicksand
>Use arms to pull out legs
>Use face to pull out arms
?

>>386560081
>Think that's how it works
>Instead: second leg is now stuck in mud

hence: idiot in quicksand scenario

and if a pool of mud is so small only one leg of a mech gets stuck in it, a tank can casually roll over it without getting suck thanks to it's vastly superior surface to weight ratio

File: main-qimg-8758e6a8893421e6becbc36b9dc1a3a2.png (222KB, 602x339px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 602x339px

>>386547465

File: 1298107663971.jpg (69KB, 248x240px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 248x240px

If you want realism then why are you playing a mech game?

File: walking-tree-harvester.jpg (80KB, 468x370px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 468x370px

>>386548092
>stress the legs would suffer each time it moved its huge and heavy body, alone make that design impossible.
Which is exactly why dinosaurs never existed.

>>386560297
a ball with guns on it is unironically superior to a mech

File: timberjack.jpg (30KB, 556x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 556x400px

>>386560118
>you don't see any militaries investing in giant ants either
Because John Deere already did.

>>386560118
>anything larger and it just gets silly
In gundam its explained that mech were made for battles in space. Where as on earth, the battle field has soldiers, an up a down, and is a hundred sq miles. Battles in space have no up or down and are thousands of aq miles. In space, things can be bigger. a small human with a bomb poses no threat to a space station. A mech 100x the sized of a man carrying a 100x bigger bomb is a much more real threat. the ambidextrousness of the mech always it to do tasks only infantry could do, in huge areas

>>386560361
correct me if I'm wrong but last I knew dinosaurs were not made of metal

>>386560498

Metal is more efficient than flesh, hence cars are made of metal and not flesh

File: 1476285377469.png (585KB, 520x472px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 520x472px

>>386560217
>>386560248
If you put one foot in mud, the other most likely won't be in fucking mud. People only "fall" for quicksand when they're already a few steps into it.
Also
>Implying tanks don't get stuck in mud
>Implying trying to roll out of it is any better and not digging into it even more

>>386560498
they were made of flesh which is weaker than metal in all ways? what are you implying?

>>386560437
well that's funny because mechs in space is the only thing dumber than mechs on earth

in space they should look like metal balls or tubes with strategically placed thrusters, something as stupid and unwieldy as a mech would be hell to pilot in space

>>386550415
>High center of gravity.
center of gravity would be wherever the engineer wanted it. Heavy, steel legs holding batteries/ammunition. while the upper body is lighter alloys.
>Easy to be knocked down.
Easy to get back up.
>Articulations. Insanely complex to be replicated in a mech.
Doesn't need to be replicated, bro.
>Weak points.
Fewer than a human, more than a tank
>Stands out everywhere.Bigger target. Harder to shoot and miss.
Do humans stand out more than cars? Is it easier to hide a human behind a tree or a car? Do you even know the advantages of articulation or is it just something for you to bitch about. Constantly?

>>386560649
whatever super engines make it possible for mech legs to exist will make it possible for tanks to just drive through mud

File: Indigo_Plasma.png (591KB, 885x608px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 885x608px

>>386560297
It's ugly as shit, but admits that it is more logical and fucks tons of "mech"

File: RB-79F.jpg (12KB, 279x292px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 279x292px

>>386560667
>something as stupid and unwieldy as a mech would be hell to pilot in space
you should watch gundam its cool shit. They even have with strategically placed thrusters like you like to help them be controlled in space like ships. Its mostly the arms and fingers that make the mech so good

>>386560498
Dinosaurs weighed over a dozen tons.
To this day your precious Square Cube Law can't explain their existence.

File: GEV.jpg (39KB, 806x258px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 806x258px

>>386560649
So what you're saying is we should build weaponised hovercraft?

>>386555639
>But if you wanna get realistic, then its just going to be drona warfare because money reasons
you still need boots on the ground if you want to get anything done.

>>386560735
>. while the upper body is lighter alloys.
Good news: your upper body is unarmored, you're okay with any durka durka blowing it up with an IED right?
>Easy to get back up.
not unless that thing's got rocket boosters on it's back
>Doesn't need to be replicated, bro.
your mech now tips on terrain with a 5% inclination, humans need constant micro-adjustments to keep stable mate
>Fewer than a human, more than a tank
Again: durka durka bait
>Do humans stand out more than cars? Is it easier to hide a human behind a tree or a car?
humans aren't 5 times taller than cars

>>386560774
>whatever super engines make it possible for mech legs to exist will make it possible for tanks to just drive into mud and not get out
All a mech needs to get out of mud are appropriately wide feet to disperse ground pressure.

>>386561064

Boots and Drones.

File: MjY0Mjg1Mg.png (501KB, 620x393px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 620x393px

>>386561064
when you say boots, what do you mean?

>>386560851
That's because you're retarded and can't imagine a mech as anything other than "a tank that's standing up"

If it's a big ball, then it loses the advantages of being a mech -- namely being able to conform to whatever cover or passage is available, and being lighter than a tank.

If assholes like you were in charge, cavalry would have never come into being. "Putting a guy on a horse just makes it so he can't hide from enemy arrows! Humans can run further distances than horses anyways, so it's not like that would be an advantage! Also, you have to feed a horse. They eat grass. They would stop to eat grass while you're trying to fight on the battlefield!"

File: FO4-tank-render.png (2MB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x810px

>>386555139
You think that's bad. Check this

>>386560874
Square cubed law doesn't say they couldn't exist, it just says they'd be slower. Wheels, which tracks on tanks use, are way more efficient than legs at carrying weight and they do it much faster as well.

File: too much high power.png (237KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 640x360px

tanks can't be powered by human will and manly spirit, they are too small to hold it all
you need extra limbs to contain it

>>386560874
only the massive 4 legged ones
and they could only move 1 of those legs at a time

Heaviest T-rex we know of 5 tons
M1 Abrams: 67 tons

File: epona2.webm (1MB, 676x380px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 676x380px

>>386560928

>>386561180
>Putting a guy on a horse just makes it so he can't hide from enemy arrows!
And if they had listened to us Agincourt wouldn't have been such a clusterfuck.

>>386560864
that thing makes more sense, it still wouldn't have near enough reaction mass to make it actually agile (larger things are more agile in space, up to a certain point, physics is silly like that) and those arms would be fairly useless on a combat robot

but typical Gundam mechs are beyond silly for both space and earth

>>386561230
Why the fuck would a tank need to move fast anywhere except a big open area? Most modern conflicts happen in cities.

>>386561284
>Heaviest T-rex we know of 5 tons
9 tons.

>>386561348

Agincourt happened becuase nobody bothered to armour the horses up

>>386561136
and course the super engines and super steel required to actually lift their entire weight

>>386560874
Land whales (aka Americans) weigh relatively the same as dinosaurs, and they exist, so why can't dinosaurs?

File: Ground_Combat_2017_600x520.jpg (79KB, 600x520px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x520px

>>386561175
The only mech worth a damn in 2017 along with its mechanised buddies.

>>386561269
Just make a bigger tank with 4 arms then, I don't get it?

>>386561526
And if the horses weren't there in the first place that wouldn't have been an issue now would it. QED

>>386561470
still not event 1/6th the weight of the M1

which by the way, needs all of that weight to not be a sitting duck with paper armor

File: 1458343990550.png (742KB, 708x1200px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 708x1200px

if mech ever do become a reality they will be zoids not gundam

the human form is fucking terrible,we are only good for our brains. animals have evolved to be perfect designs

>>386561180
>advantages of being a mech -- namely being able to conform to whatever cover or passage is available, and being lighter than a tank.
This.
A mech peeking a fraction of its silhouette out of cover behind a building with a mounted ATGM weapon wrecks any tank (which has to expose half its body to get a clear shot on anything)

>>386561107
>Good news: your upper body is unarmored,
less-armored
>you're okay with any durka durka blowing it up with an IED right?
You're ok with durka durka blowing up tanks with shaped charges right?
>not unless that thing's got rocket boosters on it's back
Or arms. Do YOU get stuck on your back, fat fuck? Do you need people to roll you out of bed?
>your mech now tips on terrain with a 5% inclination, humans need constant micro-adjustments to keep stable mate
Feet are tough, which is why those fellows get paid so much over in Boston to figure it out. It would be made simpler if the mech used one or more arms for negotiating inclines/declines, but that's more of a shortcut.
>Again: durka durka bait
Name one thing that can't be killed, dude. Nothing the military makes is invincible, you retard.
>humans aren't 5 times taller than cars
Way to miss the point, jackass.

>>386561743
>animals have evolved to be perfect designs
animals get btfo by humans all the time. The only thing they have going is jaw power. animals get out run and beat up by people all the time. animals are retarded pussies

What about power armor

Would power armor in real life actually be useful?

>>386561891
Not if they are made of metal

>>386561526
Agincourt wasn't proof that cavalry was useless. It was proof that some tools aren't the fit for every job.

I'm honestly surprised how civily /v/ has handled this discussion.

>>386561747
or the tank's vastly heaver weapon just shoots through whatever cover the mech is using

>>386561939
no

>>386561989
oh ok

>>386561967
/v/ can discuss everything but video games

>>386561945
name ONE (1) animal made of metal

>>386561945
This

Fuck those chrome beasts in Underrail, fuck them so much.

>>386562090

Duke Nukem, he has balls of steel.

File: 1492350687753.jpg (110KB, 540x748px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 540x748px

>>386561547
t.butthurt europoor
Enjoy Muhammad's dick

>>386561939
The minute we solve the battery problem we get power armor troops
various militaries around the world are researching it

though at first they'd mostly be logistics equipment, but later on they would be utilized to enhance the natural capacities of combat ready soldiers

human shape sucks for anything not human sized, but power armor is human sized so it'd work

File: 1481266860230.png (1MB, 1177x917px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1177x917px

>>386561529
Yeah, or maybe, you know, hydraulics, which can lift dozens of tons depending on their design and are easily replaceable, and easily paired together in a design to distribute weight and provide more force.

>>386561973
Good luck doing that with a mech that can reposition faster than a tank.

File: pCARODh.jpg (124KB, 1023x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1023x680px

>>386547542

>>386562221
you are aware the object in your picture is bracing itself against the ground with 16 contact points instead of 1 right?

you know what happens if you try that same stunt with 1 contact point? Americans are great at it

>>386561939
if it allows one to carry significantly more weight then it could be useful in a support role. If mobility is not hampered tremendously then it could serve a role in combat.

>>386562339
Nazis were memelords

>>386562090
That's why we need to make Zoids, duh

>>386562314
with it's lower speed, acceleration, worse turning and inability to fire in a 360° arc?

>>386562351
>1 right?
The combine surface area of the wheels and fixed supports could easily be translated into two feet.

>>386561175
>>386561592
That's a robot. Not a mech.

>>386553807

And they are both inferior to the A-Grav Master Race

https://vimeo.com/222247860

>>386562459
one of which is stuck in mud and the other one is the only bracing point to pull it out

>>386561470
Urban environments are more important to move fast in, tanks are more vulnerable there than anywhere else and need to respond to how dynamic urban warfare is. It's much less important in the open where you can spot a target from miles away. And by fast I mean relatively, for the power/weight ratio.
And to anyone in this thread talking about muh legs and muh space hydraulic technology, why leave out possible advancements in suspension for ground vehicles as well? If we're going to assume we can actually replicate anime tier engineering we're not going to assume tanks are still equivalent to a modern Abrahms, be fucking fair.

>>386547869
have fun reloading that shit, not even mentioning the amount of ammo stored will either last almost no time or completely destroy everything in a 50 metre radius when it's hit

>>386562447
Maybe the mech could turn its hips 360 degree?

>>386562460
fair point

>>386562447
>Lower speed
Better agility when changing directions
>worse turning and inability to fire in a 360 arc
You're implying it can turn 360 on its torso's axis
Also, good luck turning that turret when sandwiches between buildings on the street.

>>386562601
is a mechs foot always in mud? why did they build it with one foot in a puddle?

File: 1422605403692.png (173KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 750x500px

the real question is will another world war advanced tech enough for robowaifus?
how long must we wait?

>>386562407

Did Nazis invent shitposting?

File: 1465872220343.png (6KB, 108x105px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 108x105px

>>386562620
>or completely destroy everything in a 50 metre radius when it's hit

File: 1479965328179.png (364KB, 772x646px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 772x646px

>>386562615
>why leave out possible advancements in suspension for ground vehicles as well? If we're going to assume we can actually replicate anime tier engineering we're not going to assume tanks are still equivalent to a modern Abrahms, be fucking fair.
What are you going to do tp a modern tank with further hydraulics? Give it legs? It becomes a mech.

>>386562778
I bet neanderthals did.

File: 1499365793290.gif (165KB, 250x141px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 250x141px

what if it was just a manlet tank man?
is that useful?

File: 9794e722f9e759055a53aa98e7e240bb--steampunk-gadgets-dieselpunk.jpg (83KB, 449x457px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 449x457px

they had mechs in ww1 so i dont see how we cant have mechs now

>Don't have the webm of the Centurion BTFO everybody

;_;

>>386563014
I was in ww1 and I can tell you that they did not have mechs

File: iron harvest.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>386563014
This.

>>386562667
>Better agility when changing directions
momentum was here: not happening

>>386553807
I agree more people should play Brigador, if you don't mind using G2A you can get a key for a buck since it was in a Humble Montly.

>>386563086
I heard that in WW1, they actually had and used dinosaurs, but they killed all the dinosaurs and part of the treaty was that they would tell all further generations that dinosaurs died millions of years ago so we wouldn't be mad/sad for them killing all the dinosaurs just before we were born.

>>386563086
Deployed in different front maybe

>>386563205
Do you fall over when turning a corner on the street?

>>386563227
This true. Why do you think the British, French and Belgians were interested in The Congo and the Americans had to decide on who owns it? Because of the dinosaurs in the depths. It was a vital resource.

>>386563362
I don't weigh 80 tons either

>>386563143
So where the fuck is this game?

File: 1498759656807.png (273KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 500x313px

>>386562556

Glad to see a man of culture, A-gravs are the best

>Swordfish
>Bullfrog
>Rope Kid
>Arlo
>Raider
>Buckler
>Hoker
>Pompadour
>Propter

You cant get anything better that A-gravs. Still both mechs and tanks are fun in this game too.

File: 1501651107576.jpg (134KB, 800x901px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x901px

>>386563447
>80 ton mech
A 7m tall, 28 ton mech probably wouldn't fall so easily either.

File: BScon_zps4b14415f.jpg (720KB, 1024x706px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1024x706px

>>386563205
Biped here.

Yes it is.

>>386560615
>Metal is more efficient than flesh
Bullshit, who /biopunk/ here?

>>386563451
Basically dead desu. I don't see it ever making it out of this pre-pre-pre-alpha

>>386563447
but what if one of your feet where stuck in the mud?

>>386547869
If you can do two barrels, you can do a larger caliber, which is exponentially more effective.

You only do multi-barrels when you need a fire rate so high it would overheat just one, which is only efficient for fleeting targets where you have seconds to get as many hits in as possible.

>>386563556
well a 28 ton mech would also be less useful than a human because no armor or weapons

File: expert.jpg (35KB, 380x260px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 380x260px

>>386563640
expert mech warfare general here

>>386563451
It's getting a trailer "soon". Their facebook page posts pretty often.

>>386563657
the mech itself is armor and or gun

>>386547869
Double the weight, higher complexity.

>>386563657
>a horse would be less useful than a human because no armor or weapons
>a Humvee would be less useful than a human because no armor or weapons

File: F-35A_flight_(cropped).jpg (9KB, 300x216px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x216px

>>386563657
>a 27-ton fighter jet would be less useful than a human because no armor or weapons

ITT - anti mech fags BTFO

File: 1494109327480.png (1MB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x750px

>>386563657
>No armor or weapons
Could you stop being retarded for a minute?
A mech with sloped armor and a multiple TOW missile launcher rack.
There, your tank is trashed.

>>386561438
IIRC the Balls in gundam were just construction robots with a gun slapped on top

File: armenian-and-parthian-cataphracts.jpg (130KB, 1013x744px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1013x744px

>>386563947
To be fair people did make horse armor.

also Swords > Guns

File: check.png (72KB, 1074x358px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1074x358px

>>386564119
yeah but what if the mechs foot was stuck in mud?

File: 1502101634930.png (645KB, 900x583px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 900x583px

>>386564151
>>386563947
Horses had so many mounted weapons that guy might as well kill himself for his retarded argument

>>386564324
Artillery > Everything

File: Gundam.jpg (745KB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1800x1800px

>>386564324
*jetpacks behind you*

>>386564405
>>386561136
>>386560649
The mud card is a meme now

>>386564507
Are japanese laser swords folded a thousand times?

You guys are ignoring the human element. If I saw a squad of 100ft tall robots moving in on my position I'd shit my pants.

What if they're nuclear powered and do like a preditor type thing of they go down? Lose-lose for the enemy.

>>386564324
>>386564507
Fists > swords > guns

>>386564151
To be fair, a 27-ton mech is made of armor.

>>386564453
>retarded
Don't throw stones from that glass house of yours. If you don't understand an argument, it might be because you're the retarded one.

File: Rx-77-2.jpg (38KB, 310x471px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 310x471px

>>386564486
*barrages you from a distance*

>>386564598
>Mech goes down
>alla snackbars the joint
>blows the legs off the other mechs in the assault.

>>386564665
actually between the engine, various body parts, fuel and ammunition, you'd be left with little to no armor
especially considering a mech's armor would weigh more than a tank's (larger surface area)

>>386561064
The future is robo-warfare with engineers acting like commanding officers.

File: star-wars-7-force-awakens-george-lucas-reaction.jpg (102KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1200x600px

>>386564507
Sue that one there

Westfags just don't get it, they see all of their inventions and machines of war as nothing but tools. Giant robots are the most powerful personification of a single warrior on the battlefield fighting larger than life circumstances. They have a personality and style that can't be matched by simple tanks and jets, and often become characters in and of themselves, perhaps because of the human form, and people often even find themselves caring when they get damaged or destroyed, just as much as the pilots inside.

They are symbols of man's determination and spirit, being a mechanical tribute to himself. They are more like warhorses than tanks, companions in battle instead of tools. The mecha is man's projection of his desires and willpower on to a body with the power to achieve them, the human serving as part of the machine's soul. They are the "men" that surpass man's limits, and they look damn cool.

File: MS-07B3.jpg (43KB, 304x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 304x500px

>>386564654
*punches you in the back of the head*

File: 1484529237584.png (760KB, 790x534px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 790x534px

I love it how tankfags keep pushing the tonnage meme when nazi germany proved higher weigh does not mean better performance.
As if a mech needed to be 70+ tons of armor to be effective. Speed and advanced weaponry >>>>>>>> armor.

>>386564841
That'sthe beauty of it. You send in a single mech to take say...a city or base. They either surrender or get cleared out. Win win.

File: 1200px-Abrams-transparent.png (547KB, 1200x538px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1200x538px

>>386564897
>actually between the engine, various body parts, fuel and ammunition, you'd be left with little to no armor

File: 23 tons of love.jpg (614KB, 3000x1444px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 3000x1444px

>>386565065
>Speed and advanced weaponry >>>>>>>> armor.
Damn right.

>>386564897
see
>>386564067
and then eat shit.

>>386565341
F-35 has almost no armor, your point being?

>>386565341
Planes are very fast and fly, it's not easy to hit one.

>>386565184
67 tons, not 28

>>386563086
I was in WW1 and I can tell you we fought mechs.

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

>>386565602
foot stuck in mud not tread

>>386565654
Tread > Foot

>>386565065
ah yes, lets put one of the nazi tanks against the M1 and see how it goes

also mechs would be slow as shit and carry significantly less powerful weapons than tanks

File: guntank.jpg (26KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x360px

>>386565771
*treads on (You)*

File: 1497122588814.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

>>386565824
MBT main guns are only really useful for destroying fortifications and killing other tanks. A mech could easily carry a missile rack for TOWs for the same purpose and a 20/40mm cannon to suppress infantry, light cover and soft skin vehicles. Slap a mounted coaxial M2 on its shoulder too because why the fuck not.

>>386565620
Sick marching music, gramps

>>386566070
>MBT main guns are only really useful for destroying fortifications and killing other tanks
They can be loaded with White Phosporous and Multiple Flechette Rounds for ruining the day of infantry.

File: M26_T99_Garage.jpg (310KB, 1258x698px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1258x698px

>>386566070
>mech could easily carry a missile rack
Tanks do that since WWII and modern tanks can fire guide missiles from main gun

>20/40mm cannon to suppress infantry
some tanks have this

>coaxial M2
M1 have coaxial M2

>>386566345
>White Phosporous
You mean the type of munition that's outlawed in formal war? Ok

>>386566070
if you're just going to load your thing with missile racks, why aren't you using a helicopter?

faster, more agile, 3D movement, better armored, more cost efficient etc.

>>386561743
>Pack Animals
>Don't tire as easily as most
>Adapts to different climates
>Diverse diets both meat and plants are options
>Women fertile every month of the year making with almost rodent level productivity

And that's not mentioning how early we started using our hands for shit like throwing stones and having a much easier time attacking vital areas.

>>386566467
>giving a shit about international law in a full scale conflict
Sounds like you just want to lose.

>>386547465
Mechs aren't practical
Counterintuitively, this actually means that if the technology exists to make them anyway, that technology will be far beyond modern tanks.

>>386566482
>why aren't you using a helicopter?
AA guns stationed in cities, which are occupied.
No, you won't get a tank through that either.

>>386566545
Ya and any technology that can be added to a mech to make them usable could logically be applied to a tank. Mechs are only useful in a major urban center. Anything else a tank would probably just perform better. Especially in a defensive battle

>>386547465
Because the only reason to have mechs is because they are more mobile.
If it was possible to make mechs that were as mobile and could operate in as many areas as a Zaku II, then tanks would have no purpose.

>>386562620
>have fun reloading that shit
To be honest that tank is large as fuck and has an autoloading system, the problem i have with it is that the only time it's been depicted in media as the main machine it only had a crew of two.

Then again the tank itself handles the gunner's duty while the commander acquires targets for it but havent bothered looking it up.

File: Brigador Rat King.gif (2MB, 432x492px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 432x492px

>>386562556
You don't utilize ground pound enough IMO, it does lock you in place for a moment but it's kind of stupidly strong on Hoker.

Anyway, agravs can be fun but there's nothing like stomping through the night on a proper heavy mech and raising hell.

>>386566596
And you think a mechanical would just walk in without issues?

>>386566985
Mech*

File: eric2b.jpg (1MB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1060px

>>386566327
Yeah, shit was tight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fViRx0EWMh4

>>386566985
With infantry support, yes. Unlike an MBT, it can aim at things and not be hindered by obstructions such as buildings and lampposts.

>>386547869
misaligned sights. 2 barrels to reload.

>>386566596
So the slower, worse armored mech which can only move through limited terrain is going to have a better time approaching them why?

>>386567137
>>386567108

>>386567108
so it can only roll in after the infantry already takes care off all the problems which they couldn't do for any of the other options because...

File: Ep. 9 - Karen's First Airdrop 1.jpg (45KB, 829x621px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 829x621px

>>386567137
what if your mech can fly, or be dropped from space and can shoot while approaching?

>>386567108
So a tank can't have infantry support then? Good to know. And mechs could just have a bullseye painted on them as every AA, tank and infantry division would spot it way easier then a lower profile tank.

>>386567217
It goes in with the infantry. Infantry alone won't get it done.
>>386566070

Do some of you REALLY believe that bipedal mech would have any advantage?

>>386567390
try reading the thread.

File: chicken walker.jpg (431KB, 700x931px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 700x931px

>>386567390
It'd be too adorable to shoot at.

>>386567312
>mechs could just have a bullseye painted on them as every AA, tank and infantry division would spot it way easier then a lower profile tank.
So a tank can't be spotted as easily even though it's a big-ass moving box? Good to know.

File: snapshot20090209203904.jpg (247KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1920x1080px

>>386566923
IIRC it was even mentioned in that episode how the 2-man crew of driver and commander was an huge setback or something

>>386558781
You forgot the most important part - mechs are considered to be cool and scary in-universe.

>>386567476
A tank isn't 10 metres high and cause the ground to shake with every 2 metres of movement

The future is mechs. MBT's are dead anyway. The British had it right, infantry support tanks were what tanks were designed for. Now that's even more pronounced. MBT's are just not worth it. You'll now create smaller support vehicles with automated turrets and support systems. Mechs are going to become useful in urban warfare simply because they can get past shit that a tank can't. Unless we invent gravity shit that makes tanks float over rubble, a mech is going to be superior for urban stuff.

A mech isn't going to be a 100ft tall thing, It'll be 12ft and designed to hold crossroads that are rubble choked until it's cleared and the tank supports can come in. If we go with the assumption that superpowers fighting superpowers is never going to happen because nukes, then that makes mechs a way better investment because chances are you'll be facing durkadurka with a rifle or RPG in an urban environment.

Until personalised armour suits exist that can survive on small power packs, a mech that can remove rubble and so on will be superior to a tank.

Why don't you fucks get this? You're the same cunts who go "b-but battleships are shit because they can be sunk by aircraft!" forgetting that they'd work just like an aircraft carrier, in a formation. Equipped with huge railguns they could effectively bombard shit without the need of missiles and shit.

A tank is great. A machine that can act like a human and have greater resilience than a suit of armour is great. Plus you can punch throw a building, or whatever.

>>386547465
Rule of Cool

>>386566871
>Ya and any technology that can be added to a mech to make them usable could logically be applied to a tank.
Holy shit this argument again. Tell me why we don't make tanks out of F35s and MAYBE you'll start understanding why it's a bullshit argument.

>Mechs are only useful in a major urban center
and forests
and rocky terrain
and anywhere that needs something to shoot guns at another thing while taking light fire.

You, and all other anti-mech screechers, don't understand that tanks didn't cause the modern soldier to go extinct. Helicopters didn't cause tanks to go extinct. Battleships didn't cause helicopters and tanks to go extinct. Aircraft carriers didn't cause battleships to go extinct. Artillery didn't cause tanks to go extinct. They are all varied tools in a chest that are used in different combinations for different situations for maximum effectiveness. Just because a soldier with a rifle isn't as "useful" as a tank on an open field doesn't mean a tank commander doesn't want infantry support.

File: tree.jpg (43KB, 247x164px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 247x164px

>>386567476
"Nobody's here but us trees!"
If we're talking about advancing tech to the levels of mechs being viable no doubt camouflage development would also be more advanced.

>>386567620
>cause the ground to shake with every 2 metres of movement
Well it can.

File: 51.jpg (251KB, 1066x1491px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1066x1491px

Tanks are clearly superior.

File: 1478625200870.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>386567659
>The future is mechs

You mean drones and robots.

>>386547465
Because Mecha in general opperates on the rule of cool rather than what is practical.

Just the amount of joints alone in a mech are enough to drive engineers to the bottle and make them stay there, let alone dealing with stuff like ammunition for their weapons, actual gigantic humanoid weapons, fuels for thrusters, etc.

>>386567774
Active camouflage doesn't fool basic radar equipment.

>>386567923
Sadly no, because there is no 100% fool proof defence against EMP and cyber attacks. So a guy in a tank is always going to be better than an automated one.

>>386567923
Robot MECHS

>>386565225
>posting a plane that wouldn't be able to pen a modern MBT with its meme gun
B-brrrt amirite guys? Guys?

>>386561228
>Driver can't see where he's going, so has to drive by the commander shouting directions
>If the driver ever opens up his hatch, he won't be able to give directions any more so the TC can only get a view of the battlefield while the tank is stationary
>2 massive guns, 2 loaders, a TC and a at least one gunner fit into that tiny ass turret
>The hull is fucking massive at the front for some reason, either because the driver needs 2 chicks in bikinis to help him drive or because the engine is at the front
>Seems to have more armour on the top than the front for some reason
>I don't even know where to start on the fucking tracks
>Doesn't seem to have adequate space to radiate away heat, so can only be used in Alaska in mid-January
>Seems to have a lawnmower engine powering it, max speed 5mph
Did I miss anything?

>>386568115
Which is why they also carry other ordinance you log.

>>386568115
Most of A-10's kills were with missiles, and it did a good job at it. The damned thing can destroy over 20 tanks a DAY.

>>386568115
Doesn't need too. If the crew has concussion it's as good as dead. If the optics are gone, it's good as dead. If a fuel line is cut, ammo is hit, or the tracks disabled, it's as good as dead.

>>386568058
>>The future is firearms
>Sadly no, because there is no 100% fool proof defence against running out of ammo. So a guy with a sword is always going to be better than a guy with a musket.
Modern MBTs have a shitload of electronics so they're screwed against EMP too.

>>386567739
please be patient we have autism and can only think in black and white extremes

File: 1490737755454.gif (3MB, 274x199px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 274x199px

>>386567923
drone on drone warfare is the future.

Daily reminder that there's literaly no difference between a tank-fag and a train-fag.
Both are ultra autistic retards with ZERO critical thinking.

>b-but muh realism!

Go back to draw sonic fan art.

>investing on things that are on the ground

air superiority > everything else

The only factual issue preventing mechs from being real is that modern robotics are still in their infancy. Military funding is limitless, and someone will definitely want them to happen.

>>386567739
>Aircraft carriers didn't cause battleships to go extinct.
Um, akshully...

File: nukerumor1b (1).jpg (402KB, 968x462px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 968x462px

>>386568058
>there is no 100% fool proof defence against EMP
putting your cellphone in a cube made of cinder blocks will protect it from EMP. being in a sub level garage will save your car from EMP. You watch to many movies

File: c508faab763239ffa973429ade0a0d00.jpg (125KB, 900x681px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x681px

>>386568570

>>386568567
>can't come up with valid arguments about why mechs are better
>resorts to ad hominem attacks
I guess all threads on /v/ really do just devolve into shit flinging eventually.

>>386568542
there's no bite to drone on drone warfare. If humans aren't dying, then the purposes of war aren't being fulfilled. Drone on drone warfare is nothing more than threats. You can't convince someone of the error of his ways by taking away some of his toys. He can't convince his population that he did all he could and stood up to aggressors if none of their sons even bled to prove the point. Drone vs Drone will be over quickly, and then it will become drone vs. human, and then it goes asymmetrical.

>>386568603
I'd fund some robots.
Lewd robots.
I wanna fuck a robot.
Make love, not war.

>>386568792
>can't come up with valid arguments about why mechs are better
have you tried reading the thread?

File: 1200px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg (273KB, 1200x767px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1200x767px

>>386568643
It's dangerous to go alone, take these.

File: treize2.jpg (71KB, 467x640px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 467x640px

>>386568858
>If humans aren't dying, then the purposes of war aren't being fulfilled

>>386568907
Yes, and there's no valid arguments.

>>386568858
what if those drones take your resources, topple your infrastructure, and sit on your land? What if drones barricaded your territory so trade wasnt being conducted? Drones are the future

File: 1487132941043.png (570KB, 647x457px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 647x457px

>>386568643
Don't tell me you actually thought aircraft carriers sailed alone.

>>386567739
>Tell me why we don't make tanks out of F35s and MAYBE you'll start understanding why it's a bullshit argument.
Because they do completely different jobs completely differently as such require different things to be effect.

Mechs and tanks on the other hand are in direct competition of the job of supporting the infantry on the ground by drawing fire.

The point about the technology statement is that mech fanatics generally make bogus claims like mechs are better because they have shields, completely ignoring that logically, if technology was that advance, a tank would have it also.

>and forests
If a forest is so thick a tank cant get through, a mech will struggle also. However it is much easier to hide a tank in a forest making it extremely effective.

>and rocky terrain
Possible. I could give it rocky terrain, because of how they are design, its probably best they avoid rocky terrain like a tank should avoid a city.

>and anywhere that needs something to shoot guns at another thing while taking light fire.
Unless the tank can do the same job better.

>don't understand that tanks didn't cause the modern soldier to go extinct.
No they didnt, but they didnt compete with the role of infantry, but they made traditional cavalry go extinct

>Helicopters didn't cause tanks to go extinct.
And helicopters arnt used to do the same jobs.

>Battleships didn't cause helicopters and tanks to go extinct.
Arnt even fighting in the same theater

>Aircraft carriers didn't cause battleships to go extinct.
Except they did

>Artillery didn't cause tanks to go extinct.
Again, they didnt do the same job.

Tanks are designed to breach enemy positions that infantry otherwise would be unable to do. Artillery softens enemies up but can not take ground, helicopters are too vulnerable to fly and have limited flight time to be distracting shots from the infantry.

Its a job only a mech or a tank could do, which tanks can do better

>>386569053
If a drone is sitting outside your house trying to enforce curfew, it won't kill you, and you have an AK47 in your house, what's going to happen?

>>386568398
I know but they have manual systems that don't completely fuck them. If you EMP a robot, it's fucked. A MBT can still reverse and shit because it's not reliant on electronics to transmit the commands.

>>386568686
And a robot controlled by a transmitted and a command centre is not those things.

>>386568643
They didn't. Depending on who's classification you use (as in, if you use NATO's) there is still a Battleship in action with the Russians. They considered it a Heavy Battle Cruiser. Battleships aren't useful now because the weapons they would use are better used on smaller targets. But a battleship equipped with large power plants could power several huge railguns. Something which is very useful at hitting something beyond the horizon.

>>386569013
>>386569140
None of those ships is a "battleship", they're destroyers, cruisers and supply ships. All markedly different from classic battleship concept, which indeed went the way of the dodo around WW2.

>>386569217
Battleships stopped being used because they cost too much.

>>386569210
>If a drone is sitting outside your house trying to enforce curfew, it won't kill you
what?
and you have an AK47 in your house, what's going to happen?
nothing until you leave to buy groceries? then it kills you

>>386569217
>went the way of the dodo around WW2.
Last American Battleship was struck from the record in 2006.

>>386547465

>Flip a tank on its side
it's bricked

Flip a mech on it's side
FUCK YEAH CARTWHEEL

>>386569189
>Mechs and tanks on the other hand are in direct competition of the job of supporting the infantry on the ground by drawing fire.
Did you ever consider you might be wrong on this point due to a personal lack of creativity and critical thinking?

>If a forest is so thick a tank cant get through, a mech will struggle also
>>386560361
>>386560407

>Unless the tank can do the same job better.
Refer to argument 1. You only think they're doing the exact same job because you're mentally blocked on that.

>>386569286
and course because there's literally nothing a battleship can do a carrier can't do better

>>386569215
>They considered it a Heavy Battle Cruiser.
Yeah, we do. We also can't really into building aircraft carriers.
>railguns
Mite b cool, but they're still experimental weapons.

>>386569215
>And a robot controlled by a transmitted and a command centre is not those things.
are you saying a mech or a drone in a concrete underground garage storage would be effected by an EMP? Command centers are just trailers with computers in them

>>386569447
all I see in that picture is a 6 legged (important), unarmored (important), unarmed (important) lightweight (important) civilian vehicle

>>386569447
>You only think they're doing the exact same job
I only claimed that Ant Mechs aren't being developed by the military because a corporation already built them. Don't drag your own mental biases into this.

>>386568792
Which mechs? There's no mech. That's the problem.
Mechs are a fictional thing, made by the criativity of the writer.

And yes, if we compare a Gundam to any tank that we have today the tanks would be BTFO out of existence. A small turtle full of cannons can't compare to something that can dash behind you in less than a second and laser blade you in half.

The same thing on armors.
>muh bikini armor is unrealistic
No shit sherlock.

>>386569631
and what we're saying is, if you can make a gundam, you can make a super tank that shits on the gundam

just so you know: it's easier to make a tank fly than to make a mech fly

>>386569418
>a drone can't kill you
>it kills you
Well then you deserve to die, you retard.

>>386569217
Battleships and Carriers were working hand-in-hand for nearly 100 years.

>>386547869
basically you want 8 barrels or one barrel.
you want a gigantic minigun or a Cannon.
It'd actually be funny if they put a Gau-8 on a tank. I REALLY want to see a gau-8 on a tank now.

>>386569726
Again, a carrier strike group has no battleships. It typically has a couple of cruisers with AEGIS systems and a bunch of missiles, a bunch of destroyers with a bunch missiles and defensive systems, maybe even some subs and of course supply ships.

It doesn't have huge artillery-carrying ships. That paradigm is gone.

>>386569932
It would be useless in real life. It's extremely cool in Brigador, though.

>>386569617
that had nothing to do with the post, bro.

>>386569573
So what you're saying is the ability to step over a fallen log, or change your profile to fit between different-sized passages is not what's important for getting through forests. It's 6 legs, lack of a weapon, and weight?

Right.

File: 1479208075676.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>386569932
>Gau-8
Already taken

>>386570106
yea it seems worthless unless you're fighting a Tank horde I guess.
unless you're fighting like 1000 really shitty tanks, there's no reason to mount a gau-8 basically.

>>386570127
>the ability to step over a fallen log
have you ever seen a tank being stopped by a fucking log

File: intensehate.png (294KB, 836x1316px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 836x1316px

>>386568058
>>386567659
>heh I watch chinese cartoons and that makes me an expert on warfare
>tall ass robot suits are the future because clearing rubble
>battleships would be useful today in formations
>mbts are an obsolete concept but the cruiser tank concept from 1914 is the future
>drones and MBT's can be defeated by EMP but complex fucking robot suits are immune because I say so
/k/ would like a word with you

>>386570106
>battleships existed for 100 years, during all of the largest naval battles in modern history
>but since they don't exist RIGHT NOW, they had no purpose in any wars ever!!!!
It's like talking to a sack of wet rocks.

>>386570127
>that had nothing to do with the post, bro.
Then don't quote my post in the first place dipshit.

>>386570127
well that vehicle has 6 legs for a reason: namely it would not be stable with any less

a 2 legged vehicle would need to raise 50% of it's surface area to step over an object, a 6 legged vehicle only needs to lift 17%
add onto this the fact the mech would have a higher center of gravity, vastly higher weight (triple to 6x) and couldn't afford to move at a snails pace and you've got yourself a tipped over mech waiting to happen

>>386561743
then how come huamns win the worldsb owl every year?

check mate

File: 1500698378363.jpg (89KB, 718x653px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 718x653px

>>386548880

>>386570262
>they had no purpose in any wars ever
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were always useless. I'm saying they're obsolete now.

The last time we had really impressive naval battles was WW2. Guess what other type of massive war ship really came into its own in WW2? Yeah.

File: dragons-teeth-tank-traps-near-hollerath-in-the-eiffel-region-of-germany-BB9JHA.jpg (303KB, 1300x956px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1300x956px

>>386570242
I've seen tanks stopped with some pretty shitty little things

>>386570262
He's not saying they were never useful, he's saying they're about as relevant to modern warfare as the trebuchet

I would have said catapult but IS is actually using the damn things to launch grenades

>>386570460
DELETE THIS

>>386570460
A mech would trip on those and fall too...

>>386567848
A small and compact death machine propelled by a regular combustion engine causes vibrations insignificant to the force of 30 tons slamming into the ground with every step a mech would cause

>>386570460
what's more efficient: spending 3 billion on a mech that's useless in any other engagement or spending 100k a drone with explosives to blow a path for the tank

>>386570608
Are you implying that wouldn't destroy the enemy's morale?

>>386570518
Wait, shit, what? Link?

File: earthshakers.jpg (173KB, 1300x761px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1300x761px

>>386570608
>insignificant to the force of 30 tons slamming into the ground with every step a mech would cause
pic related is a 12 ton animal that doesnt shake the earth with every step