How might a man kill the pilot of a mechanical bipod without damaging the hardware?
>>44178841
Pickpocket nat 20
Same way you'd shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane.
>>44178841
Roll to pin the bipod until they eject.
>have your hacker trigger the eject function
>have your sniper be ready to clay pigeon the pilot
>>44178841
If there's no protection against it, dose the pilot with radiation of the appropriate type or if it's sealed, find a way to asphyxiate them?
>>44178841
Psychic power.
>>44179087
Really there are tons of ways to do this with hacking.
Some kind of nanomachine killbot swarm that can fit through tiny gaps and kill the pilot. The cockpit might just not be 100% sealed.
It also depends on how you define "no damage to the hardware". If you're OK with a single small hole that can be patched up later that adds some new ideas.
Gas or asphyxiate him.
>>44178841
Sonic weaponry.
>>44178841
Neutron bombs.
>>44178841
>Disable machine, open the hatch, shoot pilot.
>Hack the machine and fry the pilot's brain, screw with life-support, or eject them.
>Biological or chemical warfare (assuming it's not environmentally sealed).
>Small arms fire or shrapnel (assuming the pilot's exposed).
>Radiation via things like neutron weapons.
>>44180405
But anything those kill with radiation they also BTFO with heat and blast pressure.
>>44178890
Underated
>A million ways to kill the pilot with ease
So mechs are useless?
>>44180504
It's a giant mechanical bipod, it can take a bit of heat and pressure.
>>44180600
At the distance it can do that it can also take a bit of radiation. As long as it has NBC protective air filters and such, like a modern tank.
>>44180563
Barring technical innovations that make it easier to protect a pilot, yeah. This is why robots are better; humans can take less shock and heat than most electronics.
>>44180563
That assumes they'd be used for direct combat. An exoskeleton type mech could possibly be useful for bomb diffusal, saving people from wrecked buildings and vehicles, and putting out fires under extremely dangerous circumstances.
>>44180633
The point of neutron bombs is to kill tanks, which could already sit out most nuclear weapons. The neutron bombardment would result in a noticeable fraction on the tank's armor becoming radioactive itself, bypassing radiation shielding by making the shielding itself hazardous. This ensures that even if the tanks aren't knocked out by the blast, the crews cannot exit and the vehicles cannot be serviced or supplied for weeks without irradiating the ground crew, leaving the vehicles unsupportable.
>>44180563
They're big targets that require sophisticated engineering to just to remain upright and maneuver. Intimidating, but ultimately impractical. Consider how the human body is used in combat, which the shape of the mech is based on: during active combat you're ducking, crawling, leaning around corners, etc. The mech cannot imitate any of those movements.
The main argument for a mech would be to have a stable weapons platform in extreme rough terrain that even treaded vehicles would have difficulty operating in. For those situations, I believe that air support via drones would be a better investment.
>>44178841
Kinetic penetrators. It'll cause some damage to the vehicle, but that can be patched up.
>>44178841
Hit it with a bunch of Gamma. Neutron would work, but leave it radioactive.
>>44180796
Drones are limited by their control range, weight limits, and loiter time. If you want a gun position in the mountains providing support for several consecutive days or weeks, you want it on the ground and dug in.
>but why not airlift in conventional artillery?
Maybe you doing have air superiority. Maybe the nearest usable landing site is still separated by hard terrain. Maybe you can't fly over the operation area without alerting the enemy's early warning system. Maybe somebody in the brass just wants a walking tank, and damn the consequences.
>>44179087
How do you hack hardware that isn't connected to any external sources and even if it did, you wouldn't know how to access them, and if it was possible to access them, wouldn't it probably possess multiple encryption keys and possibly a self destruct sequence precisely so it doesn't fall into enemy hands when the pilot dies stranded or bails?
Also why would mechs eject their pilots upwards like an airplane? Wouldn't it make more sense to eject them backwards or just pop off bits of covering that would prevent the pilots escape so they could jump out?
>>44178841
Have the machine absorbed in a near divine shadow being and wait for them to when life support fails.Until his mother's soul saves his ass.
>>44180973
>Drones are limited by their control range, weight limits, and loiter time. If you want a gun position in the mountains providing support for several consecutive days or weeks, you want it on the ground and dug in.
Drones would have better weight and loiter time than traditional air support, since you can cut out all the human controls and comforts. Control might admittedly be more difficult, but a local relay would probably mitigate this.
>Maybe you doing have air superiority. Maybe the nearest usable landing site is still separated by hard terrain. Maybe you can't fly over the operation area without alerting the enemy's early warning system. Maybe somebody in the brass just wants a walking tank, and damn the consequences.
Maybe if your combat doctrines are unable to cope with those situations without turning to billion dollar boondoggles, you need to send the boys back home for some more training.
>>44180796
>The mech cannot imitate any of those movements.
Now what?
Godmars is a mecha series where the main robot has a neutron bomb on it, and if it ever gets defeated, the bomb goes off, destroying whatever planet it's on. This makes sense in context. The bad guys want the robot. At one point, they attempt electrocuting it at such a high voltage that the pilot would die, leaving the robot intact for them to take.
>>44179383
mega ultra bullet-as-big-as-my-cock armor penetrating rounds?
>>44178841
>a mechanical bipod
According to my checkered - and pulpy - past studies, the preferred methods include Nazi Superscience and Whizbang Space Magic. That said, it seems unwise not to consider using both. It's the only way to be sure ...
>>44181257
>bullet-as-big-as-my-cock armor penetrating rounds
Spray it with quick hardening foam to completely seal it in, then wait for either the pilots surrender or expiration to hit it with the dissolving solution.
>>44180790
>With the increase in average tank armor thickness since the first ER weapons were fielded, tank armor protection approaches the level where tank crews are now almost completely protected from radiation effects. Therefore, for an ER weapon to incapacitate a modern tank crew through irradiation, the weapon must now be detonated at such a close proximity to the tank that the nuclear explosion's blast would now be equally effective at incapacitating it and its crew.
>>44181234
Mechs are traditionally bipedal human-piloted combat suits. Your image is that of a droid.
very, very, carefully.
>>44178841
With a precision point-blank shot.
>>44181354
So, are you nogunz or are you insinuating that anon has a micropenis?
>>44181509
>So, are you nogunz
Unfortunately for me, yes.
>are you insinuating that anon has a micropenis?
Unfortunately for him, yes.
>>44181435
>>bipedal
>check
>>human-piloted
>check
>>combat suit
>check
>>a droid
wut?
>>44178841
Your pic suggests an answer.
Wait until the mech is back at base for maintenance, and bribe that inevitably disgruntled underpaid mechanic/technician to bludgeon the pilot to death with a wrench.
I mean, just look at this scene; the tech is working hard fiddling with the computers while the pilot is just laying there taking a nap in a sexy pose. After a while, that's bound to inspire enough resentment to make the tech susceptible to murderous thoughts when the right price is offered.
>>44181543
It's hard to tell a sense of scale from that image, but they appear to be roughly human sized at most. I'm not familiar with that specific game to know otherwise.
>>44181604
Well, the name is right there in the image (heavy gear 2) and I would have not posted an image of rowboats if I was trying to make a point about mechas being able to crouch and prone. Heavy Gears are big, up to several meters tall. As you can see in >>44181543, there's a cockpit with a seat inside the torso.
as previous anon said:
Human are relatively squishy.
it also leads to the question of "Damaged" Are we not breaching the hull, or leaving it fully operational?
Starvation works like a champ. Pin the thing against a large heavy immobile object - like pinching it between two cement mixing trucks, setting the parking brakes, chocking the tires and walking off for a few days. Have a nice time getting the leverage to move the trucks. Dehydration and starvation are slightly less awful than cleaning the cockpit out/replacing the upholstery.
However, the Anon who suggested just murdering the pilot while they're nowhere near it is probably wiser. Food poisoning is so very debilitating.
>>44181666
Some games refer to droids as mechs, I wanted to make it clear that there was a distinction between them in this circumstance. Heavy Gear is an extremely generic phrase, didn't even know there was a game with that name.
Some of those details on that example is just weird, though. Why's it got treaded feet if it has legs? The gun is separate, so how's it reloaded? I don't see any ammunition storage. Are those exposed fuel tanks behind the shoulder? Can it do the torso twist?
>>44181763
You can also get the pilot to surrender the vehicle
>>44178890
What about shooting a man after throwing him out of a plane?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CTLt5iVQwQ
>>44181868
>Why's it got treaded feet if it has legs?
Why do people strap wheels to the soles of their feet instead of just walking? Because it enables faster movement. Gears can walk and run, or, they can just roll on the tracks fast over flat terrain.
>The gun is separate, so how's it reloaded?
How do you reload a gun? Eject the magazine, insert a fresh one. Gears are hardly the only mechas in existence with traditional style firearms.
>I don't see any ammunition storage.
Stored in internal containers and extracted when needed. Thus out of harms way.
>Are those exposed fuel tanks behind the shoulder?
No, it's part of the engine assembly.
>Can it do the torso twist?
Yes.
>>44181580
They're both pilots, it looks like there's tandem seats.
>>44181190
I'm sorry lieutenant but that's just not how this army operates.
>>44181999
>Why do people strap wheels to the soles of their feet instead of just walking? Because it enables faster movement. Gears can walk and run, or, they can just roll on the tracks fast over flat terrain.
Wheelies went out of style years ago, but I get your point. They just seem impractical for the size of the mech versus the treads, you would need some amazing torque in those legs.
>How do you reload a gun? Eject the magazine, insert a fresh one. Gears are hardly the only mechas in existence with traditional style firearms.
No shit, Sherlock. The magazine is non-obvious on those weapon models. The second pic looks like it could be anything from a missile launcher to an energy weapon to a flamethrower.
>Stored in internal containers and extracted when needed. Thus out of harms way.
Of course, but where? The only things that look like storage compartments are on the shoulders which do not look accessible with those arms. Behind one of the skirt plates?
>No, it's part of the engine assembly.
That sounds like a liability to me.
>>44182135
>pic is the last major boondoggle, project citadel, or as it was known during design "General Hoffman's insane sky fortress"
>>44178841
>build a time machine, steal the mecha before the pilot can get in it.
>Go back in time with mecha and kill pilots parents in front of them at a young age.
>>44182271
>That sounds like a liability to me.
Than combat vehicle doesn't have a weak point at its engine?
>>44180982
This.
People always say "It's mechanical, just hack it" without understanding how electronic communication, and by extension, hacking, works. You can't externally hack something that's self contained, because the thing is using hard lines to control it's own systems. The best you could do is disrupt wireless communications (which, in any military vehicle, is completely separate from every other part of it), and even that would be far more easily achieved through jammers than hacking, given how heavily encrypted communications are. You could potentially isolate a machine, but you can't hack it to do something like eject the pilot, because the pilot's the one that's actually sitting in it, and the only way to trigger the eject is to push the button in the cockpit.
>>44182379
>Than combat vehicle doesn't have a weak point at its engine?
Show me another combat vehicle that has its engine exposed up above the rest of the vehicle. You could be standing on the ground in front of that thing and have an angle for a RPG shot.
>>44182442
That's assuming it's not connected to anything remotely. Seeing how we're moving more and more towards electronic devices and wireless networking in the battlefield, and relying on many different services for intel and shit, it shouldn't be out of the question that an enemy could intercept and interfere with such operations. Probably not up to taking control of the vehicle, but that doesn't mean you can't screw with them. Feed false info, fuck with guidance or navigation, etc.
As I remember, even the US drones have been hacked by fucking sand people. Are we assuming a more capable enemy cannot do anything to such devices, or other devices utilizing wireless communication?
>>44182498
There, combat vehicle with its engines exposed for delicious RPG shots.
>>44180405
>Neutron bombs.
Turns out, still thermic.
>>44182586
That's the "Being isolated" part of my previous post.
One of the big vulnerabilities of modern drones is that many use public GPS for navigation, and a very common coding language, like C++, for their programming. Drones are an emergent technology, so they haven't very well proofed them yet. If they start using a custom designed coding language and put encryption devices in all of them in order to use encrypted GPS signals, they'll be far less vulnerable. As it stands though, current drones really are vulnerable to hacking, because they're controlled externally.
The original topic wasn't about hacking externally controlled drones, though. It was about hacking an internally controlled mech.
Roll A 12, followed by a 3
>>44182685
Helis are exposed because it's literally impossible to have any degree of armor useful against explosives and still be able to take off. Their best defense has always been staying out of reach.
Try an example of a land vehicle for a fair comparison.
Clearly depends on the features of the mech, and what you have available to you. Are you a single tactical person using whatever stuff you can carry on your person, or are you making a plan for your village of people to repel it. Can you trip it with an oil slick? Can you hit it with a car off a ramp to knock it down? Well is it sturdy enough to not be damaged and only knocked down? Or is hitting it hard enough to topple it enough to fuck it up beyond artificial dents? Can a hypothetical sticky expanding material reduce its movement? Will stepping into a pitfall trap filled with water and using liquid nitrogen trap it without damage the circuitry, or could it just destroy whatever is encasing it? Can I strap a couple of rockets to it and shoot it into the sky and wait for the pilot to pass out from oxygen deprivation and or sudden pressure change? Can the opening be pried open? Is it like Evangelion where they are connected to a power source that can be damaged? Unless it operates on a closed internal computer network there must be a way to hack it.
Can I use a sci-fi sound emitter cannon on my spaceship that resonates at a frequency to specifically damage the gray matter in the brain, instantly killing the person but leaving the machinery completely unharmed, which is designed for this purpose exactly? Oh, and this technology is extremely common, all you need to do is switch out the crystal focus on your laser gun with another gun that only costs 200 of the universal galactic currency?
>>44182754
Sure, sure, I was just pointing out that if you're using wireless communication in any way, then there's a chance for someone to fuck with it. Say a mech has drones that it can launch to scout ahead and feed data wirelessly to the mech. An enemy, if they're lucky, could hijack the signal and monitor you, feed false info through the drones, etc.
Creating new encryptions and communication technologies is a thing, but also cost money. And there's always the danger of such things being cracked or specifics leaking/getting stolen. Having to redo all your encryptions and shit isn't cheap nor fast.
>>44182765
I'll do you one better. I'll give you a military ground vehicle where the engine is, from the front profile, literally at the center. Just point your RPGs at it and it's a goner.
>>44182754
>One of the big vulnerabilities of modern drones is that many use [...] a very common coding language, like C++, for their programming.
>If they start using a custom designed coding language
Do you have any formal training in programming at all? Because this is some serious bullshit you're arguing. Knowing what language they coded in gives you no leverage, not at the level of a remote hack. You're throwing garbage data at them and hoping they don't treat it as garbage or that it leaks into the rest of the system. If either of those things happen it's because the design was flawed or the programmer fucked up, and none of the auditors caught it.
>>44182764
>>44181146
>divine
>>44182929
It's a land vehicle with an exposed engine, I'll give you that. You'd have a reasonable chance of disabling it with lucky small-arms fire too.
It's also got no guns except for maybe a MG mounted on the roof, and using the RPG to take out the engine is like kicking a hornet's nest as the survivors disembark to shoot you. Might as well just shoot towards the rear to try and kill the troops inside instead.
>>44183092
>no guns except for maybe a MG
Or a grenade machine gun. Or a TOW. Or just a whole battery of missiles.
>>44183139
Slowly drifting away from combat vehicle to fire support there, though.
>>44183220
>fire support
How is that not "combat"?
>>44183267
My arbitrary distinction is that combat vehicles are in front and expected to be shot at, i.e. active combat. Fire support is in back out of direct harm.
>>44183383
>My
Oh anon, you know your opinions are no good here...
>>44178841
destroy it's radome with a stinger, which would blind the pilot, and force him to open the cockpit! It's external armor may be impregnable but the interior's a different story.
>>44183432
You intentionally designed it with a weak point?
>>44183511
It's not a weak point! It's a character flaw
>>44183575
Did you buy it to min-max your other stats?
>>44183620
How else was I supposed to mount a free electron laser and a railgun on it?
>>44182271
The engine "backpack" is armored as well. Totally encasing it in armor would provide more protection, but the power-to-weight ratio you'd had to sacrifice wouldn't be worth it.
>>44183432
>destroy it's radome with a stinger
>stinger
Goodness Anon, Stingers are anti-air. You want an AT-4, RPG-7 (or -29) or SMAW if you are looking for man portable anti-vehicle.
>>44178841
Just stop it really fast. Like a football player, you'll smash the pilot's brain.
>>44179087
Sheeyit, she has more freckles than face
>>44178841
Have another pilot tackle it until he passes out from the G-forces
Apply any significant g-load to it until the pilot expires, like a centrifuge
>>44178841
Impale them with weapons that damage the soul.
Order them to get out of the mech with psychic powers.
Fry their brain with mind blasts.
It's not that impossible, really.
Just do what Tobia Arronax did.
>>44186883
sonova pic related.
>>44178841
bash em in the face, grab the mech and run.
my mech now cunt.
>>44178841
Either nerve gas or shoot pilot when he stops to take a shit.
>>44182929
AFAIK humvees were not built for frontline combat.
>>44184062
>not getting the reference
>>44180973
Not the guy you're talking to, but without some decent AA capability on the Mech and without air superiority your walking mech becomes a nice big bullseye for any overflying fighters.
That being said, I could see some MANPADS launchers being rigged up to a Mech. Though I'm in the 'they're impractical, vulnerable, and can't do anything mechanized infantry can't' boat, I like the idea of a Mech being a platform for several various weapon systems designed as a hard-kill against other assets: flamethrowers/incendiaries/grenade launchers for infantry, TOW rockets/HEAT missiles for armor, and guided SAMs for anti-air.
Keep them supported by infantry and they could be neat to have in a firefight, particularly if they're kept small and somewhat automated (controlled remotely by external operator, perhaps?)
Really, as long as you aren't trying to pass it off as hyper-realistic and let Rule of Cool design your setting a little bit, I see no problem bringing Mechs in. I'm just not gonna entertain the possibility of them ever being used in real life, ever.
>>44178841
>How might a man kill the pilot of a mechanical bipod without damaging the hardware?
I don't get where the problem is. Just shoot/gas/flame/mortar them?
>>44182929
>>44188151
They weren't. They were meant as a rear-line, light , and affordable transport for troops and materiel through non-combat zones.
Then some dumbass decided to over-armor them and send them on combat patrols- not only is the amount of armor still insufficient for anything other than asymmetrical combat (and as you mentioned, it's easily taken out by RPG's and IED's), but it's way more than the vehicle chassis can take. Armored Humvee's literally drive themselves apart and are retardedly maintenance heavy.
>>44180982
>How do you hack hardware that isn't connected to any external sources and even if it did, you wouldn't know how to access them
Wifi and tcp/ip
>>44188614
What part of not damaging the hardware do you not get?
>>44188795
Wifi IS the definition of connected to external sources.
What 'isn't connected to any external sources " means is something called 'air gapping'. i.e there is physically no connection to other devices,
Would small scale mechs like Elementals with jump jets be practical?
>>44188815
Jesus christ I was making a joke about a retarded open-topped mech design where you can literally just shoot the pilot in the head without blowing the whole thing up.
I mean you could jump it and go full GTA and just throw him out.
>>44188876
Power armour makes sense for small scale conflicts, urban fighting and all kinds of situations where we use infantry because we need to access places where big vehicles are impractical and that we don't just want to completely flatten with bombs. Power armour makes infantry better at all their jobs, better protection for close in firefights, better breaching and obstacle navigation, ability to care more supplies and heavier weaponry without negative impact on the normal infantryman activities.
Jump jets also seem super useful for roof hopping etc, but an elemental is a LOT clunkier than an infantryman and literally weighs a ton. You're going to be falling through a lot of roofs and be pretty big and visible, while being unable to fit in a tunnel, door or narrow alleyway.
>>44178841
Disable his weapons first and foremost. Then disable his movement. Then you wait.
I was once in a similar situation where we had to fight four 'Jabba the Hutt' ACPA in cyberpunk. It wasn't the fact that we couldn't simply destroy the hutt armor it was the fact that it was a top of the line power armor frame covered in layers of concrete and additional armor with nanobots repairing any gaps in the armor with quickcrete. They were EMP shielded And we had depleted our EMP grenades on the fights to get here. It was also piloted by a Gemini Borg inside a bomb suit. Suffice to say we didn't have the ammo to kill all four of them. We killed one the old fashioned way. We tied the rest up with quickcrete bots after diasabling their weapons(they were equipped with weapons you don't have to aim such as flamethrowers and miniguns because their agility was already in the shitter from armor stacking) and threw one off the corporate tower we were ascending. The last two panicked and ejected. They were reduced to paste.
But yeah. Isolate the pilot and capture him. Obstruct his sensors, disable his weapons, maybe kill a few of his friends while he's helpless. Our enemy machines couldn't move very far or very fast so you'll have to find a way to limit your marks agility. Quick expanding foam does the trick well enough. EMP would be the business though.
>>44178841
hard to say. More specifics needed on the mecha. Something that has to be airtight is gonna be a lot tricker than somethng that assumes it's going to operate in the same environment as it's pilot breathes.
Very difficult to come to any conclusons without knowing specifics about shielding, life support, etc.
>>44178841
The same way you'd do with a tank
You don't.
>>44183139
I didn't know the west was using technicals now, that's sad but hilarious.
>>44188957
>You're going to be falling through a lot of roofs and be pretty big and visible, while being unable to fit in a tunnel, door or narrow alleyway.
Worth it for the Goomba stomp.
>>44189153
How so?
The recipe of light, mobile chassis + weaponry has been proven to be viable for a long ass time. The SAS fucked up Germans in North Africa in jeeps with mounted machine guns, you can find them in pretty much any urban combat zone ever (particular those with irregular fighting forces involved). They're cheap, dangerous, and make for good recon vehicles.
I don't see how using a light/medium vehicle chassis to bring fire support is sad or hilarious.
Ion cannon
>>44189153
>using technicals now
>now
Nigger the Army has always had a light mobile vehicle in service, and the HMMWV has been in service for decades. What fucking planet have you been living on? Have you never seen a war movie set after Vietnam?
>>44182135
This is why /k/ should not be allowed to design anything - that fucker will never fly, it will just SHOOT ITSELF INTO THE SKY.
>>44190455
>implying shooting itself into the air isn't a form of flight
>>44181534
underrated post
>>44178841
Take shit from the Char Aznable playbook and see if it works.
>>44182135
It's just like a helicopter boss from one of those japanese arcades I played in childhood.
>>44178841
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLMjHrb_w4
340
Cause the robot to overheat?
>>44182357
you seemed to solve the problem, but then went on to cause what I expect will be an even bigger one
>>44182873
But that's the thing, those systems are all self contained.
Strykers have comms, a targeting system, computers to control the tires, computers to monitor and control the engine, computers to work the IR cameras, and a computer system that gives maps and GPS stuff, and every single one of them are totally separate from each other(and everything but the comms and the computer are all hard wired).
So you might be able to fuck with one of those things, but you can't just get into the Strykers system and have possession of everything it does. At best you can cut comms or fuck with their navigation.Which wouldn't do much anyways, since half the time that stuff was broken or fucked up anyways.
>>44188657
Not only mechanically either.
They're an absolute bitch all around. I've seen more uparmor vees with broken latches on their doors than I care to remember.
>>44178841
Figure out how to cut the power, do so, and wait.
Don't have mecha in the first place?
Mecha aren't at all practical, and will never be a thing in real life. Even in fiction, the only way a mecha could possibly be viable is if the world collectively refuses to acknowledge the efficiency of literally any other design made in machines meant for combat.
>>44198879
>I'm a faggot please rape my face
Everyone know that already, asshole. You aren't telling people a great truth, you're pissing all over yourself and informing everyone of the fact like it's something imperative we know.
>>44178841
It's gotta be openable from the outside, somehow, for the pilot to get in, and you don't shoot yourself in the face if a spider or fly gets on you. Drop down on top of the mech, or get close to the hatch, force the hatch open, and shoot the pilot in the face.
Done and easy.
>>44178841
Using your psychic mental mind powers to destroy their mind.
>>44178841
is it airtight
gas the fucker out
>>44178841
Weaponise a gamma ray projector and expose him to about 15 SV of Gamma radiation.
You may need to hose out the cockpit after.
>>44202594
There's such a thing as combat locks, anon.
It might take some doing, but I would favor concussive force to rattle the pilot. With any suit or suit of armor, if you can manage to shake it like a paint can, the pilot inside will suffer far more than the machine. Just be prepared to possibly hose out the cockpit.
>>44189627
>after Vietnam
How about during WW2? M6 GMC, for example, a Dodge truck with a 37mm gun on it. Or those SAS trucks that were stripped down to make them light and then packed full of machine guns and fuel, so the dudes could drive deep into enemy territory and strike hard on enemy targets.
Taking a thing and putting a gun on it is as old as guns themselves.
>>44188657
Funny thing, from what I can remember, Gears were built from civilian powerlifters.
>>44178841
plot armor
