The great debate.
I like mechas but there should be more tanks in anime.
Why not both?
Do you even Guntank?
You might as well debate spear/pikemen vs knights. Because mechs of that size and caliber are supposed to be future techno knights.
There is no debate.
Mecha are realistically impractical and overpowered in fiction.
RX-78-2 slices tanks like its nobody's businessand then the tops promptly fly away because zeon tanks are also jets
>>112002893
Tank.
Tracks are easy to maintain and repair.
Legs like those, used in actual combat, would require retarded amount of calculation and gyroscopes that don't exist yet.
Feasibility and realism? Tanks
Coolness factor? Mecha
>>112003091
>implying tanks could put a fight against a ZeongZeong have no legs by the way.
from code geass we can say mecha >>>>>> tank. They had one fight with mecha vs old tech and the old tech got obliterated
Tank, every day.
Gunktank
All the benefits of a Mobile Suit, but none of the drawbacks (useless legs)
I'm really irritated that Civilization 5 has mecha. Of all the futuristic ideas one could come up with, why would you pick a mecha for a game that actually attempts to follow some sort of scientific chronology?
>>112003091
Not yet but maybe soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs
>>112003266
for the life of me all i can imagine is a gundum trying to catch up to other gundums with legs saying
>i lost these in the space war of 3273, life is rough
Do you even Loto, OP?
Fucker have the best of both worlds.
TanksI like to see them struggle before being crushed by a mecha. No offense, Igloofags.
>>112002893
Tank is manned by Jesus Yamato and the one with the girly name
RX-78 by Kio Asuno
Who wins?
>>112003574
Jesus can't do shit without his laser spamming robot.
>>112003574
>DRAGOON tank gun
>Dead waifus warhead
Kio doesn't stand a chance.
>>112003091
>That don't exist yet.
Even if they did, why would you want to make your vehicles intentionally unstable? Engineers have been working hard on getting the centre of mass as low as possible on tanks.
Mechs are cool, sure, but when real physics are applied they are hopelessly impractical.
>>112002893
Tanks, son, tanks...
>>112002893
realistically, tanks. They're cheaper to mass produce, and mechs are highly impractical presently.
In anime however, mechs will always win.
>>112002893
Mecha, anyone that say tank have shit taste.
>>112003062
Actually giant mechs are realistically possible. We just do not fund it.
>>112002959
This.
>>112002893
>anime
mecha (rule of cool)
>real world
tank
>guntank
Is that like a tank with a gun?
>>112004002
Your face is full of shit.
>>112004036
>Actually i am speaking out of my ass.
>>112003185
>mecha is cooler than tanks
Feats of engineering > children's toys.
>>112002893
I deploy Hayato and R- Kai in the GUNTANK.
Your turn.
Tank.
Using a giant robot to fight a tank is dumb.
>>112003974
>In anime however, mechs will always win.
Watch Patlabor.
The second movie has a combat scene where mechs get obliterated by simple soviet tech tracked vehicles and infantry with RPGs.
>>112002893
Do you have to ask?
>>112004062
>Is that like a tank with a gun?
Kinda...
>>112004036
Impractical does not mean impossible.
Giant mecha would be a really fucking stupid idea.
The only good reason why you'd want to get them is that your side is so much superior that you can afford the handicap for the coolness factor.
>>112004151
I deploy Frau being fucked by Amuro in a Gundam.
>>112004100
He said possible and not practical.
Tank is always the correct answer
>>112004036
Haven't you read his post? He said impractical, not impossible. Of course it's possible to build giant mechs already with today's technology but there is absolutely no reason to do so because of how incredibly stupid and inefficient mechs are.
>>112002893
Mecha, tank a shit.
>>112004218
I love armchair scientists and engineers. If you think mechs won't be used in future warfare, I just don't know what to tell you.
>>112003574
>Kio Asuno
gundam age's greatest mistake, well after this of course
>>112003046
>mechs
>future techno knights
pls
>>112004298
For what reason would they be used?
I like both
>>112004298
You just described yourself.
But please, humor us and tell us of the magnificent advantages of having a top heavy tall weapons platform.
How about a compromise? A mecha that can transform into a tank?
>>112004251
>Tank is always the correct answer
To get trashed in.
Mech>Attack Jet>Tank
>>112004282
Everything is inefficient at first. Are you retarded or just pretending to be?
Any technology starts off needlessly impaired and terrible inefficient, then it evolves past those problems.
Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea because it is still a foreign concept in the real world.
>>112004384
>bbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>>112004384
FYI, those things are outdated these days and are being out-phased.
>>112004298
I am an actual scientist and engineer and I can confirm that we won't use mechs in future warfare.
Already now we are transitioning to unmanned vehicles and robots. Mechas are unbelievably inefficient and flawed, they are also immensely restricted by the pilot.
You have to be an uneducated idiot to genuinely believe that mechas will ever be used outside of silly anime or an edgy teenager's fantasy.
>>112004384
>A-10
Come back when that gun can actually defeat the armor of anything but old Cold War shit.
You might as well replace it with a much lighter one and use the extra weight for missiles.
Only fags can ride these rainbow painted mecha shit
>>112004412
They still aren't an efficient platform for most problems. Small scale powered armor or similar will likely get use, but there just aren't enough compelling reasons for a walking vehicle.
Possibly if land wars in jungle or rough terrain (a lot of asia for example) a mech might be feasible, but as it stands even tanks are a bit outdated as a concept.
>>112004494
>implying mechs have to be huge
>implying they have to be piloted
>>112004494
>actual scientist
You forgot totip your fedora anon
>>112004412
>Everything is inefficient at first.
>Any technology starts off needlessly impaired and terrible inefficient, then it evolves past those problems.
[citation needed]
You obviously have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. This is also completely unrelated to the viability of such a technology.
Give me a single substantial argument why mechas should ever be used.
>implying you wouldnt pilot this over a tank
>>112004580
If they aren't huge and don't have a pilot inside then it's not really a mech anymore, now is it?
>>112004412
>Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea
Because they are a needlessly large target with needlessly vulnerable parts.
Tanks hug the ground for a reason, and there's already people who say that the idea of a tank is outdated because the armor is insufficient.
>>112004542
See the problem is you are thinking about the future of warfare as it is today. You aren't considering what the FUTURE of warfare would be like, most importantly space combat.
>>112004580
A mecha per definition is manned and has humanoid shape. Otherwise it isn't a mecha.
>>112004671
If it's gonna be in space, why have legs?
>>112004671
Why would you want a humanoid form when operating in space?
>>112004626
Looks kind of retarded.
What's with all the extra useless fins?
>>112004627
Do you know what a mech is, or do you just know what a Gundam is?
All this mech vs tank discussion is retarded.
Hurr durr future mechs will be better.
Alright nerds, how about we compare a car to the human body?
A car can go much faster than a person, on the other hand, if it looked like a running mech, that mech wouldn't be able to run as fast as the car because running is still inferior to a car.
Also mechs have little to no space for weaponry.
>>112004197
>take low-budget tank
>slap huge-ass gun on it
>add autoloader
Tac-nukes optional.
>>112004626
I would, but only for a chance to have it hump a tank with its barrel between its legs.
>>112004715
Kcyilia pls go
>>112004412
>Large mechs seem like an outlandish idea because it is still a foreign concept in the real world.
Large mechs are outlandish because there is nothing a large mech can do that the several tanks and aircraft you can build for the same cost can't do better and with more tactical adaptability.
The problem with mechs is that they're made to look like humans, not to be efficient as weapons or vehicles. Planes and tanks were built to be as efficient as the tech allowed. I'm pretty sure there are better ways to get around terrain than simulating walking.
>>112004036
Mechas will exist, but will most likely be used in construction than anything else.
>>112004784
>Bandkanon
Glorious Sweden!
>drive tank
>see this
>what do?
checkmate 2nd armored division
The main issue with a mech or even power armor is the energy required for operation is too much from too small a vehicle.
A power armor suit with actual armor protection is going to be kicking past 5,000kg. What engine are you going to mount on it and what fuel source is going to fit? Skipping the engine, and just using batteries what level of energy density are you going to need?
But lets just hand wave away the energy issue. Power armor is staggeringly good, while a mech is a poor vehicle.
If you limit your anti tank armament to a limited number of AT missiles you can have a normal soldier make a reasonable effort to attack a MBT. Take it up to a vehicle size, lets say even something as small as an ATV and you and put on a very deadly AT missile and guidance system.
With power armor you have the situation of the tankette, to well armored to kill with anti personal weapons, but overkill to shoot with a MBT killer. However crew served and light vehicle mounted guns are very good for attacking both power armor and tankettes.
The 20mm to 30mm auto cannons are going to be the weapons of the future. A full power armor infantry would be almost impossible to damage without heavy weapons that foot soldiers can't carry (20mm cannons), or would be using too much overkill on (full sized AT missile).
The giant mecha, is a terrible design for reasons of functional mobility. If it can fly then it doesn't need arms and legs. If it can't fly then what is it so big? Tanks are their size because that's how small they can be to mount their main gun armor to offer some protection and an engine to power it. A mecha large enough to pack around a full sized MTB cannon is going to be larger than a tank, and have effectively less armor due to it's layout.
>>112004907
Defending the homeland from Ze Russian, two active fighter jets at a time!
>>112004755
What you just posted picture of is large and has a pilot in it.
Do you know what a mech is?
>>112004755
>human mechs
>not animal mechs
shiggy diggy anons
Next huge weapon I expect is a hivemind AI-controlled cloud of hovercraft drones.
Imagine a swarm of some 500 dog sized beasts going through the area.
>>112004919
send a cute girl so they go back to their caves and post on /r9k/ about it
>>112004755
That's just a tank with legs.
Flimsy legs.
With a wide and tall base.
That thing will get trashed the instant it shows its ugly head.
>>112004444
It's not that it's outdate (the whole plane is regularly updated) it's the age of the airframe. Like a lot of the US air fleet, some of these airframes are running up to 40 years of service which is why projects like the JSF exist since the USAF needs a replacement now.
>>112004964
BEAST WAAAAARSSSS
>>112004610
>Cant debunk his claim or bring any arguments to strengthen my claim
>I just call him a faggot instead
You are good at this debating stuff, maybe you should try your luck in the politics.
>>112004979
scrin pls go and stay go
planes>tanks>mechs
>>112004494
Are mechas "edgy" now? This shit needs to fucking stop. Something you don't like =/ edgy. It's not a catch-all phrase to look down on something with, it does have an actual meaning.
In theory, a fully humanoid machine would be superior in terms of maneuverability and adaptability to various environments in which a tank would be next to useless (space, forests, etc). A tank has it's uses as a mobile artillery platform but a single mobile suit fulfills this role and more.
>>112004919
Use my superior velocity over mechs and movement capabilities to retreat.
>>112004877
I'd say the main advantage of a mech besides walking is the versatility: guns can be treated as modules and exchanged at will even in battle. An armored vehicle is specialized to one function it does very well.
>>112005036
acecombat assault horizon > acecombat 5 & 6 combined
>>112005023
Gee anon, I didn't see you tips your fedora yet.
>>112004979
Just imagine a swarm of a militarized version of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bA3wp9h3abI#t=57
>>112004950
>>112004755
>>112005003
That and the gun the whole thing is built around cant penetrate present day tanks.
Unless of course you would arm it with depleted uranium rounds, but you know... Radiation weapons...
>>112005110
>guns can be treated as modules and exchanged at will even in battle
So you want a big fucking transportation vehicle to follow your mech around in battle now? That's not a waste of resources of all.
>>112005133
That's because you were too fast with yours.
>>112005000
Can tanks jump over ruins and large wreckage? I don't think so.
>>112004627
Mechs are no go but strength boosting exoskeletons actually have practical applications in like, firefighting and and construction. Maybe even Law enforcement so female police officers can better detain perps.a future of cute cybernetic enhanced police women
>>112005049
A machine as complicated as a mech would be pretty difficult to maintain in a combat environment that isn't a sterile room.
>>112005126
Funny man.
>>112005196
Stop feeding the troll. You don't need to respond just because he does.
>>112005200
No, that's what CAS is for.
>>112005155
The A10's gun isn't strictly about penetration, but overwhelming the structural integrity of the tank. Basically if it can't penetrate, it beats the thing to death (or the crew dies first).
>>112004494
>Mecha
>edgy teenager's fantasy.
Teenagers, maybe, but edgy? Retards like you need to stop misusing words like this. This is how words lose their meaning, believe it or not, deconstruction used to be a real thing too.
>>112004189
>No Zakrello funnels
Shit MA, would not pilot/10
>>112005155
It still can carry a fuckload of AT missiles, though. Even if his BRAAAAAAAP! gun is no longer the shit, he can still rekt tanks gud. Which is his main shtick.
>>112005046
Edgy has already been used for more than a decade as colloquial term to describe someone who thinks that they're cool or trying hard to appear cool.
>>112005110
That's an advantage how? You can make 10 tanks for the cost of a single mech and then just airdrop the one with the capabilities you need.
Also, tanks are outdated but there's nothing stopping you from making a weapons platform with exchangeable weapons without making it bipedal.
>>112005200
Spider mechs or quadruped (horse) mechs are way superior the fucking chicken legs mechs.
>>112005152
>>112005261
>The A10's gun isn't strictly about penetration, but overwhelming the structural integrity of the tank. Basically if it can't penetrate, it beats the thing to death
>>112005202
Why female?
>>112005200
Tank can just drive through that crap or blow it up
>>112005200
>Can tanks jump over ruins and large wreckage?Have you played Metal Slug or Blaster Master?
>>112005264
See >>112005281.
Lurk more newfag.
>>112005281
No it hasn't.
>>112002893
I don't like this argument, it always goes straight to calling mecha impractical and unrealistic. They generally are, but when people are asked to describe why mecha are impractical and unrealistic they make a list of reasons why mecha aren't tanks. They'll explain how the more compact tank design can be enclosed with armor more easily and using fewer resources than on a humanoid shaped robot and so on. Comparing tanks and mecha like that assumes that tanks and mecha have to serve the same battlefield role.
Not a great example, but in the movie "Avatar" the humans have bipedal robots with big guns navigating the thick vegetation of the forest floor. This allows them to keep up with and support infantry in that environment. That's very situational, but it's something a tank can't do.
If you call mecha unrealistic because of the logistical limitations of powering and maintaining a machine like that, you'd be right if we were considering mecha using contemporary technology. More sufficient technology can't be ruled out in the future.
So anyway, yes, giant mecha the size of gundams make themselves too big a target with too great a resources commitment to be to be considered practical. That's obvious, but I don't think the concept of a war machine with legs is as inherently unrealistic if you broaden the definition of mecha.
>>112005271
>It still can carry a fuckload of AT missiles
Holy shit! Nobody else can do that!
Except, you know, multiple other multi purpose aircraft and even infantry.
>>112005287
>>112005323
The glorious mech future is soon.
>>112004777
>Also mechs have little to no space for weaponry.
Mechs in nearly any anime have various built-in weapon systems in their heads, arms, legs, torso, etc.
Have you just never watched any any all? even gundam
Mecha (which are bipedal) will never be practical.
Something like pic related is far more likely.
>>112004957
put tracks on it
>suddenly it becomes ten times as cheap
>far easier to maintain and repair
>faster on 95% of terrain
>lower silhouette
>less exposed mobility parts
>lighter
>lower weight pressure
>can be made smaller since no need for ridiculously power requirements to drive legs
>extended operational range
>etc
>etc
Mechs are only good for fantasy settings.
>>112005200
>be French in 1939
>Germany invades Poland, France declares war on Germany 3 days later
>Get warned that germans will flank your defenisve Maginot line through the Belgian woods
>pfft, tanks can't go through those woods
>get flanked, get fucked
I'm currently studying in robotics and biotechnology in one of the most prestigious universities in the world in order to make ma dream a real thing: Create real Evangelion
>>112005281
Not really, edgy refers to when somebody tried too hard to do something offensive or "on the edge" of what was acceptable.
>>112005405
The beauty of mechs is that they can perform many different combat and support roles, while tanks just do their one job.
In an age where multi-purpose devices and machines rule over all else, mechs are looking more enticing than ever.
>>112005406
F-18s can't hit shit and F-16 pilots don't like going low enough to get a dead on hit. A-10's normally can take more brunt than either of those which helps handle small arms fire.
>>112005286
That's an advantage because a single model can be used in virtually all situations, only changing the modules it carries. Add that to what >>112005049 said and you have a single unit that will work on the rainforest, the desert or anywhere else.
>>112005375
Try harder, samefag.
>>112005465
>put tracks on it
>suddenly becomes largely restricted and forced into one role
>>112005126
I've only played Assault Horizon because >Mustard race and I can still tell you're full of shit.
Fucking Akula and his rear firing fucking missiles.
>>112005348
Because cute.
No one remembers Odessa? Feds tried it with the Type 61 and got stomped by Zakus. Mby in a ambush situation, but in open ground conflict, mecha every time.
>>112005555
>Has legs
>It now has magically attained multiple roles
Such as?
>>112005155
While the Gau-8 can't land killing blows on modern tanks it can still immobilize/incapacitate them. Anything short of that level of armor will get shredded.
>>112005582
If we go by that intro video for MS IGLOO then you should also remember space ships doing multi-G turns and landing crafts pulling even harder stunts.
>>112005323
The more movable parts you have, the more units you are going to lose.
>>112005531
Samefagging is when you reply to your own post pretending to be someone else. Linking to your own post is something else and not looked down upon.
>>112005348
Because females are weaker and cute? Power armor would allow the hiring of cuter females in most physically demanding jobs.
>>112005517
Again, how the fuck is this an advantage? What's better, to have 1 unit that works everywhere but has to keep changing locations or to have 3 specialised units that work where they are. There aren't more than 10 tipes of environments anyway and tanks are 10 or more times cheaper.
And even if for some stupid reason you wanted 1 vehicle that works everywhere why make it have legs? Legs are stupid and inefficient.
>>112005569
Reverse missiles aren't new.
But 8 of them spiraling around like something ripped straight from Macross, that leaves quite an impression.
Shame the boss fight is not much more than a tour of DC, though.
>>112005281
>colloquial term to describe someone who thinks that they're cool or trying hard to appear cool.
No, that's being a tryhard faggot, faggot.
>>112005508
>F/A18's can't hit shit
Nigger, its not the plane, its the type of missile that determines accuracy
>F-16's don't like going low
They don't need to, WW2 ended seventy years ago, there is no need to go low n' slow anymore when you can just hover at 30k feet raining AGM's on enemy positions.
>>112005258
Close Air Support, or Combat Armor Suit?
Because one of those is a mech.
Wouldn't a VTOL vehicle suffice?
Something along the lines of the F-35 with a mounted cannon akin to a attack helicopter.
I mean, looking at what people call mechs, the fundamental quality is the two (or more) legs.
But these legs imply you'll be on the ground, using diesel fuel and ground units are always susceptible to airstrikes.
If you gave them ways of VTOL, then suddenly the hideously heavy and not aerodynamic vehicle has to fly around using a different kind of fuel, jet fuel. That is impractical.
Space, no. The most versatile platform would be a literal ball.
There is no practical way to implement multi-role multi-function vehicles until smaller, more compact energy sources can be developed.
>>112005531
See >>112005676.
Lurk more newfag before you continue with your dipshitting.
>>112005662
Not talking about Igloo, but in the books and other anime that depict tanks, even the zeon ones, unless they have surprise and numbers, the MS's have to much of an advantage.
>>112005738
Close Air Support.
>>112005202
>Muh GITS future
>>112005323
I don't understand, what could a mech do that carpet bombing from drones can't accomplish?
>>112005669
None of those explain anything, they jsut throw around places where a humanoid weapon platform would supposedly be more suitable. I for one would not put a mech in either space or a desert, and I see absolutely no reason why one would.
>>112005679
Power armour that cheap would sure as hell not be restricted to women just in order to create some kind of "equal" (read: role reversing and then some) work environment between men and women.
>>112005569
>Fucking Akula and his rear firing fucking missiles.
git gud son
>>112005414
Have you ever though that in reality that space is all taken by armour/systems that the mech requires to function properly?
Magical joints, infinite ammo, non-existing sensors don't work in real life.
>>112005499
You want helicopters, son.
>>112005517
You do know that tanks can also have their turrets and armaments changed?
Rainforest? Why would you bring tanks to the territory of infantry and air cav? Let alone why would you bring in giant robots that couldn't see what they are stepping on.
Space? How the hell would a humanoid construct be superior to any other form of craft built specifically for space and on that matter, if the mech had rockets all around it, how would it walk anymore?
>>112005049
>In theory, a fully humanoid machine would be superior in terms of maneuverability and adaptability to various environments in which a tank would be next to useless (space, forests, etc). A tank has it's uses as a mobile artillery platform but a single mobile suit fulfills this role and more.
See above and i also add, tanks can fire beyond line of sight and over hills etc.
>>112005499
Yet again, change the turret and you have a multirole vehicle.
>>112005669
What now?
>>112005481
>robotics
>biotechnology
>even in the same general spectrum of scientific discovery
Anon, it's past your bedtime.
>>112005809
Given situations where carpet bombing would destroy things you didn't intend to destroy. Collateral damage, asymmetrical warfare and stuff. Also
>drones
>carpet bombing
>>112005809
By this logic why not just nuke entire countries? Why not carpet bomb everything? Why not just obliterate Gaza off the map?
That is a terrible argument.
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
Though, if you have a setting with functional mechs and they stand reasonably tall over the height of a tank, there's the advantage of being able to plink that massive weak spot that is the top of the tank.
You know that fuckstupid gunplatform mech from the second half of Valvrave? The Ideal Blume? That thing's effectiveness is pretty much a product of how tall it is. The massive amount of firepower is pretty relevant too, but its height pretty much means anything below it is fucked due to armor thickness distributions.
>>112005904
Yeah why not?
>>112005691
How many specialized armored vehicles exist? We basically have the common tank, the urban armored vehicle and amphibian armored vehicles.
And having 1 model for all situations will cut on costs a lot, and that alone can win wars.
>>112005904
>Why not just obliterate Gaza off the map?
They're working on it, anon.
>>112003574
I want to fuck Kio.
>>112005947
We tried that with the F-35.
>>112005884
The armament of a vehicle doesn't define it's role and capabilities solely. Fighter jets and humvees can both use guided missiles, that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
>>112005904
Rolling Thunder was a good idea.
>>112005737
>Nigger, its not the plane, its the type of missile that determines accuracy
That's the point, the F-18 can't load the right munitions or the loaders are dumbasses.
And sometimes you do have to get lower than most pilots feel comfortable depending on the landscape. A-10's are good for that, F-16's aren't.
>>112005947
Bridgelayers and mine flails, if you want some esoteric engineer corps stuff...
>>112005049
If you used the same budget to build both a tank and a mech, the tank would still win:
If the tank works normally, the mech ain't worth a shit.
If the mech works as intended, the tank probably had enough budget to have enough rocket engi news and CPU power to fly around faster than the .each (and more aerodynamically) and call in a satellite precision laser.
>>112002893
Tank unless the machine in question is at least NEXT tier.
>>112005691
Yeah man. Why have smart phones when PCs exist? Why have skype when phones exist? Why have 2-in-one hair wash when conditioner and shampoo exists?
I could go on forever.
>>112005810
If I were designing power armor, my target demographic would be prepubescent girls.
>>112006004
>Plane uses AA missiles
>Then it uses AT missiles
Hurr, it's not a multi role craft.
>>112005963
Area bombing in the form of gradual and consistent bombardment with "precision" artillery and air strikes.
What will the jews think of next?
>>112005990
That didn't really cut budget, at all...
>>112005963
No they are not. They could have turned Gaza into a giant hole in the ground day 1 if they wanted to.
The point is the argument of just carpet bombing or nuking because it destroys more is retarded.
>>112005947
>implying that just because specialised tanks don't exist now we should use mehcs
Please, how many working mechs are in active service right now? Oh, that's right, fucking 0.
There's no way using bipedal weapons will cut costs, ever. They're expensive to make and super expensive to maintain, they have a ton of moving parts because they have to copy humanoid movement. You're looking at like 20 or more joints. A tank with a hydrogen powerplant and an electrical engine only has to worry about it's tracks.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD DOWN MECHAFAGS
>>112005854
>in reality that space is all taken by armour/systems that the mech requires to function properly
No because none of this shit exists in-- BUT WAIT IS DOES AND LOOK IT HAS ARM GUNS
>>112006096
Yup.
On one hand I feel bad for Lockheed Martin for having to appease so many requests from the three branches
But then I'm angry at them for jewing themselves out as hard as possible
>tank and tank destroyer is interchange-able terms in WW2
>IFV/APC are different categories even though they fit the criteria of a tank in most definitions
>armored fighting vehicles with wheels are tanks like the striker
>half track tanks
>walking tanks like pic related are possible
>apache helicopter has thicker armor than most scout tanks of WW2, and I mean that in thickness and not materials used
>hypothetically armored transportation for VIP's like armored limousines are considered tanks by definition
So there you have it. Have fun.
>>112005822
I wouldn't mind the rear firing missiles so much, since he's the last boss and everything, except he's also TOTALLY UNKILLABLE until he decides to deliver all his cringeworthy lines.
You basically have to chase him around for a good fifteen minutes enduring him shittalking you and shooting misiles out of his ass, and you can't do jack shit about it because the game designers had to have their wanky set piece. That's just shitty design. It has nothing to do with shit.
>>112005906
What a stupid idea. Do you really need to be told why there's no tank out there designed to be super tall so they can plink tank top armor?
>>112006125
Isn't a neutron bomb the best choice for that?
>>112006174
That looks retarded even for a tank.
>>112006125
>because it destroys more
It destroys everything.
There's no point in helping people if you destroy everything.
>>112006125
>No they are not. They could have turned Gaza into a giant hole in the ground day 1 if they wanted to.
That they don't do it doesn't mean they don't want to. The problem is that they'd make an enemy of much of the world doing so, and then they'd be fucked.
>>112006056
What are you trying to say?
>>112004919
Do you even BHAAAAAANEBLAAAAAAADEEEE!!!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1biHKEJB-lc
A mech with legs has to do all this predictive calculations with the terrain it is traversing
implying there are externally mounted sensors operating at full load to ensure the leg joints make the perfect step possible
This is hopelessly stupid.
What do you guys think about hovertanks?
Will they ever be a thing?
>>112006260
I don't think you've been following this conversation.
>>112006190
Wait, are you listing falsehoods and fallacies or something? I don't understand.
>>112006185
We robocop now.
>>112006324
Not really man.
>>112006185
this still has wheels
>>112003474
>No offense, Igloofags
Fuck that whole episode, tanks have no business going that fast.
>>112006185
You do know that the gun on it is an airsoft gun and its "armor" is some light plastic that is thinly distributed all around for the looks?
>>112006185
Oh, it has a pair of mini guns.
That's it? A fucking pair of mini guns? That looks like a fucking toy for fuck sake.
>>112006365
The only thing more inefficient than a mech is a mech with a neutrino cannon.
>>112006185
You now notice it has a pole stuck up its ass just so it can stand up.
I liked AC V designs more, That extra armor in the legs made it seemed that they where prepped to counter the weakness
Tanks. Because:
1) Frontal armor. In battle, people are shooting at your front. Tanks have a very small frontal area which can be heavily armored. Mechas have very large, very high fronts. This is simply impossible because the amount of armor needed would make the thing impossibly heavy. Even if it was possible with some sort of as yet unknown ultra-light armor, one good direct hit from a tank would cause it to topple backwards.
2) Ground pressure. The tank spreads its weight over its tracks, but the mecha, which needs to be even heavier than a tank, has to manage with just two relatively small areas of ground contact, i.e. its feet. Therefore it will sink into anything that isn't rock or very, very hard ground.
3) Power. I've visited one of the world's foremost "mecha labs" in Turin. They have some great stuff, but it still needs twice its own weight in batteries to move (and that just for 30 minutes or so), and that is without any armor at all.
>>112006214
Irrelevant. It's fiction, not real life.
Also who needs taller tanks when you can just make the AT missile you fired a second ago strike from above for same effect? In a more archaic world we really would be building towering vehicles until some limit of engineering is hit, at which point we'd be shooting in steep ballistic arcs mortar style.
>>112006196
ECM jammer.
Failing that, go in and out of DFM repeatedly, it breaks the lock every time.
>>112006080
You doesn't seem to understand what I'm getting at conceptually. The platform a weapon is mounted on has as much to do with its role and capabilities as the weapon itself. Simply changing the turret mounted weapon on a tank doesn't drastically change its operational capabilities. Also, MBTs carry various types of ammunition for different roles, so changing the main gun on a tank isn't especially useful anyway.
>>112006415
It's a prototype. It still needs a reasonable budget and proper materials.
>>112006446
Mechs are not inefficient, though I guess you could make an argument for large bipedal mechs being inefficient but it would be rather weak.
Mechs = multipurpose
Tanks = one job
>>112006056
That's a stupid comparison. If it cost 10 times as much to buy a 2-in one hair shampoo as it did to buy them seperately nobody would do it.
Also, skype is just better than a phone in every measurable way. It's cheper and more practical.
Versatility is only a good thing when you're not giving up efficiency for it. Mechs do exactly that.
>>112005810
Obviously power armor wouldn't just be restricted to women but it'd sure as fuck put them on even footing with men when physical strength is no longer a limiter.
I had this story idea about perfected realdolls that can be controlled from remote locations. 90% of the people on the streets are just remote controlled proxies and a lot of people become shut ins that hate how imperfect they look or are afraid of dying. Also there's no surefire way to tell peoples true gender and age anymore at first glance. Meanwhile law enforcement agencies are using models without strength limiters to combat and detain the emergence of psychic criminals that believe they're the master race and the world is their playground. The MC is an officer that uses his dead sisters proxy to combat psychics as well as deal with proxy related crimes.
I should get started on this, I think I have a winner.
>>112006321
Probably not as an MBT, Maybe as an advancement of landing craft we already have for swampy terrain.
>>112004352
Construction
>>112006174
>No Railgun upgrade
>Not posting the MARV
I am disappoint Anon.
>>112006548
>Mechs = multipurpose
Running, jumping, breakdancing, going to the shops
>Tanks = one job
Killing the fuck out of your enemy
Mobile suits were designed for use in space, which makes sense because just a Ball (the "ideal" sphere-with thrusters-space vehicle design) has limited mobility and little room for weaponry, whereas a mobile suit can land and shoot things as if it were an artillery gun, fight CQC style, and still hold things as a human would, all while keeping the maneuverability of the Ball by having small thrusters on the torso and limbs.
In space, a tank would be useless unless you mounted thrusters, in which it becomes a Ball with a large, impractical cannon.
>>112006548
>Mechs = multipurpose
But that's simply untrue. How is a mech multi-purpose? I've seen people talk about space and deserts and rainforests, but in no way has anyone explained why a mech would have any kind of advantage in those environments.
>>112006539
As well as a small power source that would be able to power it up.
But, when we get such a power source, guess who is going to win again?
Tanks, with smaller powerplant or better one of the same size as tanks currently have, you could either have more room for weapons/ammo and or power up systems and weapons you couldn't before.
>>112006464
All things considered, some war vehicles are designed just because they look cool.
None of the 5 or so gargantuan motorised artillery... platforms of the Nazis were found, right?
>>112006569
Any new technology is expensive, anon. Were you around for the first home computers? Those horribly inefficient and expensive giant boxes that required a room full of fans beating down on it?
It's no wonder PCs never caught on. I mean just look at how terrible the early models were. If only technology could improve in both cost and efficiency.
>>112006548
>tanks
>one job
I can list a few uses for a tank in home improvement and garbage disposal, actually.
Demolition tanks, coming to a TV near you.
I feel like this is kind of an useless comparison, Mechs have the mobility, and tanks have the power, it's like different weapons, it depends on situation, if you have both working together it's like having a balanced squad, so why not see them working together and obliterate those individualists? A squad of Mechs? A squad of tanks? I say get them both.
>>112006419
>That looks like a fucking toy for fuck sake.
It is literally a toy for rich people
>>112006562
The Mech is probably faster and can out maneuver the Tank, how fast are hippos again
>>112006548
Please, do list the multiple roles a Mech can do.
>>112006699
Why do that when you could just make better tanks? Just keep pumping out better and better tanks until everything is a tank.
>>112006592
While the plot isn't, that setting is the one from the movie The Substitutes, or whatever its English name is.
>>112006548
>Implying that mechs aren't inneficient just because they're versatile
Holy fuck, no. You can be as multi-purpose as you want to, but a tank is just better in what it does, and so are bridge layers, repair drones, etc. For weapons it's better to be really good at one thing than kinda meh at everything. Specialisation is a good thing.
>>112006733
Indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuratas
1Million dollars for a platform that couldnt deflect a 9mm bullet and is armed with dual BB miniguns.
Any takers?
>>112006751
>Though they are bulky animals, hippopotamuses can gallop at 30 km/h (19 mph) on land but normally trot.
>>112006751
Faster than you.
>>112005904
>By this logic why not just nuke entire countries?
Well, conventional bombs destroy everything. Nukes destroy everything and poison the soil with radiation ensuring fucking nothing will thrive there for thousands of years.
>>112006671
Yeah. Add to this better achievements in robotics are still required here in order to make the damn thing move fluently.
Also in the case of tanks, I heard Russia wants to make a large as fuck Baneblade-alike with a single large cannon.
But wouldn't that go into unpractical? Such enormous size?
>>112006592
Isn't half of that just Surrogate
>>112006659
Just as a side note, a mech that can walk on a rainforest wont be able to walk in a desert so easily, it will sink in the sand.
>>112006464
Only two planes (the shittiest ones, if memory serves) even carry ECM and breaking out of DFM makes him stop his speeches. Whih means you have to do it again.
Anyway, I beat him after a couple of tries, even on Hard (whatever Hard was called, cba to look it up). The difficulty isn't the issue, the fact that it was shitty design is the issue. And AH had plenty of other errors besides that one fight.
I'm not even sure it should be in the same category as the other Ace Combat games. It felt more like a CoD clone IN THE AIR at times.
>>112006699
Bullshit argument. When the first computers were produced, microelectronics was in its infancy. The technology that would be needed for mechas is very mature (motors, batteries, etc.) and yet we don't don't make them. Because they are still totally impracticable.
>>112006699
PCs caught on because there was no cheaper and more efficient alternative.
>>112006766
they can combine
they can transform
they have hands with 5 fingers that can grab things
they can jump
they can fly
they shoot lasers
they dont exist
>>112006659
The main thing I see in mechs is that they have hands, so they can do all the shit you would do with your hands on a larger scale.
So you standardize production to the point where they are less costly to make and then you can make smaller weapons systems/tools for them.
Granted thats assuming we reach a point where power/materials become a non-issue.
>>112006773
You are so right. Why find another form of transportation when you could just keep breeding better and better horses?
>>112006829
Who is why you use neutron bombs.
>>112006699
>early PCs were inefficient
Compared to what? The abacus? Early PCs were just better at what they did than any other solution, even though they're shit by modern standards. Nothing else could crack the Enigma code.
Making a mech with 20 joints will never be cheaper to make and repair than a simpler and more elegant solution. The problem with mechs is that you're starting with the result(I want a humanoid weapon) and trying to engineer your way out of it.
>>112006690
The nazis were kind of desperate for a Superwaffe.
When V1 and V2 didn't work out, they went kind of crazy.
>>112004919
Beta? No problem. Take a GAU-8 and mount it on a fucking big tank. You won't need to run.
>>112006932
>not using antimatter bombs
>>112005351
>Tank can just drive through that crap or blow it up
Oddly enough tanks have to be very careful to avoid throwing track or damaging track. They are also due to their weight more limited in mobility that lighter units which don't need to worry about things like bridge weight hills sliding, or sinking in the ground when stopped and bottoming out on their hull. (nearly as much)
Now, on the right ground tanks are fucking devastating and are able to perform lighting fast assaults. In the same way that a cavalry charge could scatter unformed units and strike terror, having 20 tanks crest a hill at 70km/hr shooting explosive rounds and letting lose with machine guns tends to put some fear into even well trained troops.
The speed and violence of a mechanized assault with tanks and APCs with LAV in support is one of the most impressive actions humans have every undertaken.
While in Afghanistan with Leopard 1 and 2s the Taliban figured that our tanks top speed was the top speed of the tank pushing the mine rollers or around 25km/hr. In one op the Taliban thought they were going to retreat on dirt bikes across the desert after doing whatever it was they were doing. Nothing in the world puts the terror into a human like trying to race away on a dirt bike when 3 Leopard 2 MBT clocking in at 68,000kg accelerate to 105km/hr to give chase before opening fire on the move.
I'm not positive by I think that's the land speed record for a L2A6M. Even diesel tanks like to burn JP-8 when they can get it.
This is the most autistic discussion happening on /a/ right now.
That's a goddamn feat.
>>112006348
Criteria of tanks is mutable.
If you're comparing, compare all of them vs mecha.
This entire thread is stupid.
Mechs exist in fiction under circumstances wildly different from our reality, and yet we're holding them to our reality's standards like they were intended to answer every question ever about how such nonsense could work.
There is no debate.
Stop it.
>>112006920
>so they can do all the shit you would do with your hands on a larger scale
Such as? Disarm larger mines, pull larger triggers?
