Thinking about future warfare with giant robots. Leaving aside the issues with mechs themselves, how should they be organized and deployed at the small unit level?
Talking battletech or heavy gear here, not magical weeaboo shit
>>29464161
You honestly have a long way until giant robot mechs op, humanoid robots can barely stand up today. You're better off putting your investments into real military combat robots. This is coming from a mechanical engineer
>>29464220
Also in almost any case (according to analysis of the actual lore) a tank would be a cheaper, more effective option.
I feel like they would need to be deployed in rather large groups , unlike what the show in Mecha programs and battletech universe I think each individual mech "soldier" would have only one serious weapon system since the propulsion and power system would take up so much of its physical form.
They'd be grouped like naval battle groups, I think, long range (artillery?) strikers protected by fast mobile close range (plasma sword?) mechs , missiliers in the middle, etc. I doubt one on one or small team combat is realistic especially given the cost the mechs would carry, they would be protected like flagships.
>>29464161
I've had this discussion many times and honestly, with bipedal robots with multiple weapons payload capabilities, infantry based movement and tactics would be most suitable for mech combat
>>29465099
This of course would apply in urban-moderate density regions. Desert, I'd say do what tankers do and have a backhoe come in and dig a ditch so the mech can shoot from the defelade position
>>29464220
>>29464614
>Leaving aside the issues with mechs themselves
Fuck off autist
>>29464161
Robot/mechs will never exist.
you have the fact that ground resistance doesnt scale, they would sink into any surface, the heavier they are, the more metal is needed to hold them up, making them heavier, ect. Ect.
it will never happen, if you wanna talk this bullshit go over to /toy/, or whatever the weeb board is.
The future of warfare will be dominated by space and air, constant drones like the ones in use today and new commercial type drones. Maybe the occasional missile from space. Finally the conventional military come in to subdue the population and keep things in order until a puppet government is established.
>>29464161
Go ask /tg/. They are better suited tot his kind of what-if questions than /k/ or /m/. I bet someone on /tg/ has already solved your question before. That's just how /tg/ rolls
>>29464161
Thinking about future warfare with giant dragons. Leaving aside the issues with dragons themselves, how should they be organized and deployed at the small unit level?
Talking lotr or d&d here, not magical weeaboo shit
>>29465509
Deployment would be dependent on how these issues were magically solved.
>>29464161
>battletech
>not magical weeaboo shit
Pick one
TECHNOLOGY WILL NEVER ADVANCE WE WILL STAGNATE FOREVER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE FAST TANKS WITH A LARGE GUN AND ARMOR!!!!
>>29465803
Your strawman is embarassing
>>29465824
>but but but its NOT THE SAME!!!!
>>29465803
Cool straw man.
Let's put aside the "how" for a moment to ask "why?" Assuming that the technology to make a giant (ie between 10-20+ meters tall) bipedal robot that was useful in combat existed, why would you use that technology to create something that is a much more complicated, expensive, and fragile tank?
There might be a place for some type of demi-humanoid robot with arms and tracks instead of legs as a construction/utility vehicle, but that's a far cry from battletech bullshit.
>>29465841
Greentext doesn't make it untrue, m8.
>>29465847
Funny, people used to use the same argument for tanks.
>>29465875
They really didn't.
>>29464161
>Leaving aside the issues with mechs themselves, how should they be organized and deployed at the small unit level?
Your question is self-defeating.
The issues of mechs themselves tell us what they can and, more especially, cannot be used for.
what they can and cannot be used for tells us how we have to organize them.
>weeaboo shit
mechs in general ARE weebshit.
>>29465891
yea everyone thought tanks would work and were better in everway. sure.
>>29465875
they failed to see a need, not failed to pass basic physics.
>>29465892
exactly. and i enjoy mecha anime and other weeb-ish stuff. but we might as well speculate how the introduction of magic is going to affect close air support
>>29465898
its impossible to make a "tank" that carries the armor, weapons and still move fast enough to break through the trenches. It would be FAR too heavy and would get stuck in the mud.
Please learn basic physics and take your weaboo fantasies elsewhere. The germans are far better at engineering than we are and they would have made it by now if it was possible.
>>29465897
Again with the strawmen.
You're boring, even for a weebshitter.
>>29465875
The first tanks that were actually built and not just the speculation of some engineer appeared only ~30 years after the appearance of the first practical automobiles and only ~20 years after the beginning of the automotive industry. They were specifically developed because no other existing technologies could deal with the battlefield situation of WWI.
Can you think of ANY hypothetical real-world situation where a battletech robot would be able to do something that tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones, and infantry could not?
>>29465847
Assuming that the technology to make a tank (ie between 10-20+ meters tall) bipedal robot that was useful in combat existed, why would you use that technology to create something that is a much more complicated, expensive, and fragile tank?
>>29465927
except all that is wrong.
tanks were developed as a "oh crap, nothing we have can break this stalemate" weapon. they leveraged a lot of existing technology and refined a few new ones to create a tank.
/k/ - no fun allowed
OP here - let's say it's battletech since that seems to be what most people are familiar with. Mechs are resilient, deadly, and able to handle a wide variety of terrain and opponents. How would you use them?
>>29466006
as scrap and spare parts for tanks.
>>29465999
we're frustrated when we want to talk about guns or tanks or artillery or fighters or naval combat or something and instead we have to talk about irrelevant politics or "what movie/music/anime is /k/-related?" or mecha or airshit bullshit
>>29465927
You have once again sidestepped around the question of necessity and utility.
Your analogy is that in the same way that advancements in material science and engine design allowed what previously was not possible (MBTs) to become possible and even useful, so too will advancements in related technological fields allow things battletech robots to become a reality.
The reason why it is a bad analogy is that, as previously stated, tanks had a reason to exist that incentivized their development. They were designed to meet a specific battlefield need that nothing else was able to fill, and they continued to be developed because the role they occupy is still necessary and important. By contrast, there is nothing a giant robot can do that an existing technology cannot do as well or better.
Thus, even if we had incredible sci-fi level advances in capacitors, material science, computers etc, it would make far more sense to apply those advances to proven technologies that have an actual reason to exist rather than to make a giant robot that will be slower than a wheeled or tracked vehicle, easier to hit than a wheeled or tracked vehicle due to being anywhere from 3-6 times as tall, much more vulnerable to damage than a wheeled or tracked vehicle due to the much greater number of moving parts in a limb compared to a power train, and much more difficult and expensive to maintain and repair than a wheeled or tracked vehicle due to the much greater mechanical complexity of the whole system.
>>29464161
>hurrr muh 20 foot tall mechs
>muh gundams
Aside from drone fags you people are the worst
Power armor is in all ways more practical
>>29464161
>how should they be organized and deployed at the small unit level?
the same way every other unit has been organized throughout all of history? eg your smallest unit is the least number of men you need to create a tactically viable unit.
>>29465803
>hey look at these things that people were wrong about before
>that means you're wrong too!
Delete this picture and kill yourself.
