What kind of invention would we need to make mechs realistic?
Huge arcologies that are basically an entire city in one building.
When you need to fight inside one of those then small mechs or power armour become useful.
>>46773797
It's not the technology, it's the usage.
You unfortunately used the word "realistic" which means that you won't be able to have mechs. You've seen the arguments so many times that I won't rehash them here, but on the modern and future battlefield mechs are an idea that won't work. Mechs =/= realism.
In a support role they might work for cargo lifting and logistics, but combat, no.
>>46773797
Viable mechanical legs.
Wheels work better, hold more weight, and are way cheaper.
>>46773797
A workaround for the square cube law.
Also miniaturized power plants.
Even then, I'm not sure what advantages a legged vehicle would have over a wheeled or tracked one outside of mountainous areas.
Mecha are inherently unrealistic. Trying to make them realistic is a fools errand.
Instead, you need to build a setting where Mecha making sense, as an assumption, isn't too jarring. Technobabble can help with this, but the more detail you put in, the more it can be torn apart by people who obsess over such things.
>>46773797
Nothing can really make mechs realistic at this point.
But I like fun, so to make them more practical, synthetic muscle fibers that can be used in place of slower, bulkier hydraulics (unless bulky Battletech Mechs is the goal), plus a power source that is compact, stable, and powerful enough to power the whole thing.
>>46773880
But anon, battletech mechs use synthetic muscles, not hydraulics.
The problem isn't that you can't build mechs. The problem is that, regardless of your tech level, "big humanoid robot" is never the best design.
You can invent better armor, better motive systems, better power supplies and weapons, but there's just no reason to add legs and arms. Any techonological advancement that improves mechs will also improve tanks and helicopters.
Don't get me wrong, mechs are great and cool. But they're not practical. If you want them in your game, just accept that your game is not super realistic.
How about war as entertainment? The goal is more viewers and sponsor money like formula one rather than killing the other guy, in which case giant robots fighting is more interesting than tanks doing hull down and duking it out.
Basically the setting for Virtual On.
>>46773797
>>46773853
The problem with mechs is not that we don't have the technology to make them, it's that even if we invent the technology to enable them, they're a retarded use of that technology.
Anything larger than power armour/man sized robots is a really dumb idea since they're just going to essentially be tanks that are way easier to destroy.
Land-bound heavy weapons platforms need to hunker down, not stand up and ask to get shot.
>>46773797
Direct neural control; it's not a nice thing to say, but a definite peripheral benefit to the US's long uptick in military engagement in Western Asia over the past 13 years is that a lot of money is being funneled to development of prosthetics, and, connected to that, neuronal control of said prosthetics. I know our department has plenty of government research contracts in related fields, especially since 2008.
There's an ancillary benefit to this methodology: while elucidating the processes behind a lot of neural schema is pretty hard, treating it (temporarily) like a black box and just applying its outputs is something that's managable in the near term.
Of course, it's unlikely that this technology would be used to actually make mechs; at most we'll have remotely-piloted mechs under neural control so that the end-user will have fine motor manipulation of a mech in some dangerous work environement while the pilot is back home safely.
>>46773797
>>46773797
Minovsky particles
>>46773939
>lets build humanoid fighting platforms because they're easy to remote control neurally because people are used to moving around in humanoid bodies!
Sure, and lets build tanks with a giant punching arm for a weapon since they're easier for people to pick up and play with than the guns are.
>>46773797
Smaller more long-lived power supplies, an alternative to hydraulics, lighter and more durable structural materials. I don't think that mechs would be very useful in warfare, although powered armor might find some uses and even that would still be somewhat limited. I can easily imagine a soldier wearing powered armor well protected enough to be basically invulnerable to small arms fire, but various explosives would still be beyond a man-sized armor suit's protective capabilities.
I can imagine small mechs/powered armor being used for construction, disaster relief, deep diving, stuff that would require a human being to carry a great deal of weight or be exposed to hostile environments.
>Motion control and stabilization
>Compact power sources
>New servo/stepper systems in case that you want it hi-tech and don't want to see any hydraulic pipes hanging around
And the main problem is still in motion control. Living creatures have a shitton of neurons around their bodies that help them percieve pressure and control balance. It's a very hard task when we're talking about 5-10 tonn robot.
>>46774067
No, not for combat, silly (though presumably someone, like you, will think to do so). But having fine motor control for lifting things that would otherwise be done by humans but cannot be for whatever reason (chemical spills in a plant, treating patients in a outbreak clinic), it's useful. Disaster relief, in particular, sees quite a investment in this field.
>>46773848
>>46773797
Doesn't Battletech handwave this by saying that everyone uses mechs for cultural and religious reasons rather than practical ones? That would work. People will do pretty much any stupid thing for cultural or religious reasons.
>>46774309
>But having fine motor control for lifting things that would otherwise be done by humans but cannot be for whatever reason (chemical spills in a plant, treating patients in a outbreak clinic), it's useful. Disaster relief, in particular, sees quite a investment in this field.
The anthropomorphic construction is more of a problem than a blessing. Soviet engineers in Chernobyl have proved that simple wheeled/tracked designs are just enough to hande technological disasters.
A highly sophisticated suite of software to automate the same functions the human body does, to control balance by making micro-corrections to movement of all pieces of the mech in unison, and react to obstructions, wind, level of terrain, etc. at as close to instantly as possible.
>>46774309
thing is, the humanoid shape is only efficient and useful at human size
things like say Power Armor, robots with animalistic locomotion etc. are all being seriously researched
its just that when you reach mecha size there is no longer any reason what so ever to include a human shape, at that size there is very little use for a hand given that all objects that could be handled by the "mechs" would need to be specifically constructed for the mechs, at which point its much easier to just include various points for other types of grabbing units to attach to.
Honestly the only reason I could see anyone use mechs is in the far future if it becomes technologically possible to turn the idea of mech combat into a sport.
>>46773797
You need a reason to avoid using wheeled/tracked vehicles instead.
In the game Hawken they have a few fluff justifications for their mechs, but one of the big ones is that the planet is being slowly eaten by some sort of nanite super-virus or some shit (it's not really explained in detail, they just call it the Hawken Virus).
The way the Hakwen virus spreads is through direct contact with infected material, which means the longer you're touching the ground in an infected zone, the more likely you are to pick it up. For incursions into infected zones they use walkers, as tracked or wheeled vehicles will pretty much always pick up the Hawken Virus, where with walkers it's only sometimes.
There's more reasons than just that, but it's probably the one that justifies walkers best in the setting.
>>46774373
>Doesn't Battletech handwave this by saying that everyone uses mechs for cultural and religious reasons rather than practical ones?
It was a technological dickwaving-contest in the beginning, with SPACEAMERICA basically demonstrating that THEY COULD so that everyone else would have to go along with their dumb plan.
But if the rules are a somwhat accurate representation of how shit works in-universe, mechs turned out to have the best weight-to-everything else that matters in a war machine ratio, which made them the best pick among all ground weapon system you could load onto intergalactic transports.
>>46773797
1.) Extremely efficient power source
2.) A lightweight alloy or material that not only cuts the weight tremendously but is also several times stronger than any other natural metal.
>>46774373
This. Have a HRE equivalent - emperor banned usage of weapons in fights between his subjects, but due to a legal technicalities a bit oversized power armors are ok.
A superpower of yore was so far ahead of its competitors it used mechs to mock their enemies. They are long gone now, but their technology still can't be surpassed.
Human form is considered perfect by the church and so mechs are considered blessed.
>>46774373
It does, but that's handwaving. OP asked to make mechs Realistic, which is, unfortunately, impossible.
>>46773797
Really broken terrain, and an atmosphere or forest cover that prevents airborne options.
>>46775884
>Really broken terrain
Will affect feet and legs as well as wheels and treads, this is best terrain for infantry. Otherwise you'll need a quad or more legged machine for stability which will be mechanically more prone to break down and the legs will be full of weak spots for AT weapons.
>atmosphere or forest cover that prevents airborne options
Won't affect ground forces and trees will cause as much issue for walkers as it will other ground vehicles. Ideal for infantry with man-portable AT weapons.
Fuck mechs, where are my Bolos?
>>46776196
>Otherwise you'll need a quad or more legged machine for stability
I was assuming we were lumping all legged vehicles under "mechs", not just two-legged ones. If just talking two-legged ones, then yeah there's not much use for them.
>>46773856
You saying you've never wanted a tank that can fall over?
Space combat and amazing ECM.
>>46773797
Efficient enough powertrains and hydraulic systems to make something the size of the Scopedog practical. Once you gain the ability to field tank-sized guns using sub-tank-sized platforms that only require one dude to operate, you have an option that's mostly better than tanks.
>>46773797
Here is a collected list of reasons why a mech would not work.
>High position of balance, causing it to be prone to tip over, one would have to combat this with balancing mechanism of some sort which would take room from armor, computers, ammo or pilot
>Upon failure of a system it is literally crippled, say you lose an arm, you lose half of your combat potential, if you lose a leg, you lose not only mobility but also your ability to stand up and properly position your weapons
>Large amounts of power are needed to move the beast of steel around, more so than what a simple track or wheel utilizing vehicle would need
>Due to its form it must be armored heavily from all directions so as to assure pilots safety, but this in turn creates more stress to the engine and to the legs supporting it
>Due to all of its weight being concentrated on two relatively small spots (expecting this to be a bipedal mech) it is more likely to step through floors, create holes on the pavement and sink through any less solid grounds
>Much maintenance is required to keep the mechanisms of arms and legs operational
>The system with which you observe your surroundings shouldn't be a head shaped object with cameras on it, for this would limit your sight and give enemy a single great target to aim for
>Depending on armament a mech would have to keep its spare ammunition outside the mech in magazines which would be easy targets for enemy fire
>Depending on mechs size its weapons would range from anti-personnel machine guns to few anti-armor missiles on perhaps a larger than normal RPG system, though both could be easily mounted on a tank, even up-scaled and ability to store more ammunition more safely
Thus i conclude that a bipedal warmachine is not worth the effort.
>>46773797
First, define what you mean by 'mechs' and 'realistic'.
>>46774377
To be fair, that robot died out due to xboxhuge amounts of radiation it faced on that room and so they had to use people to clear that shit, they worked on one minute shifts and wore thick lead lined clothing which caused them to sweat profusely while performing their lightning minute of duty.
>>46775723
Though with those you could make more efficient tanks or >>46776489
>>46776692
>room
meant roof.
>>46773797
>power plants small enough and light enough to fit inside and still provide enough power
>ultra light materials that are lighter than aluminum but stronger than steel/titanium
>artifical muscles capable of articulating limbs/torso for long periods without wear and tear.
>computer systems that can act as an autonomic nervous system of sorts, automatically correcting ballance/foot placement/allowing for rapid changes in facing and stance while still being small enough to fit.
>ultra light armor that provides a significant advantage over conventional MBT armor
>weapon systems that can give a bipedal robot/power armor a significant advantage over AFVs
TLDR major advances in computing, material and weapons technilogy
How justified do you want to make them?
Power supply, actuators and control systems are the obvious ones. Mini nuclear reactors are probably the most likely power units, simple electromechanical actuators for the limbs, and some mix of neural interface and haptic controls for the control system.
The next question is how effective they are. If you're staying more realistic, probably just loaders, maybe special units like modern air cushion vehicles. Slightly more optimistic might mean infantry support or anti tank. Or go all the way and assume that Mecha units are everywhere.
It depends on mechs. For gundam sized mechs nothing, never, ever justifies them except ceremonial reasons.
Powered armor, spider tanks (although these have not much advantage over tracked tanks) and stuff like that are easy to justify and arguably already within our technology by a stretch.
>>46777148
Or making them for space fighting. That cuts out all the materials stuff.
>>46773797
A few things.
First, we need to overcome the square-cube law.
Second, we need to make a power source as potent as a nuclear reactor but safer and more compact while also being mobile, and if we ever made that then we'd never need mechs because we would literally eliminate war by doing so.
>>46777308
There is never a reason to take anything but a drone or ship into zero gee.
And if you say "AMBAC" I will rape your fucking face.
>>46777347
>Implying that wars and national disputes won't then be settled by elaborate mech duels
>>46777299
if we could break the battery barrier we'd have power armor logistic troops already, its entirely possible with today's technology as long as you find a constant power source capable of sustaining them for a decent period of time
>>46777362
Well no shit you make it a drone, unless there's some Minovsky bullshit that keeps you from doing that.
AMBAC isn't completely stupid though, turning around with just the batteries instead of using up gas would probably be handy if it actually worked.
>>46777448
a humanoid shape makes literally zero sense in any form of space related anything
>>46777394
>GUNDAM FIGHT.... GO!
G-Gundam was absolutely retarded but also the funniest fucking shit for that exact reason.
>>46777148
Why not take all of those advancements and make better mbts/afvs/apcs/etc?
>>46777497
>implying they make more sense in gravity
>>46777523
Well that's basically the problem with mechs in general - they require so much shit to work and at the end of the day even if it all existed the technology would still be better on something else that's not a tank on legs.
>>46776489
For the honor of the regiment!
>>46773856
>Implying the space in most mechs wouldn't be empty space.
>Implying just because one hipster kept saying "Square Cube" that it wouldn't effect something like powered suits.
come back when you have a more compelling argument.
Also the pic in OP's first post is about as close as you're gonna get, armored exoskeletons. We just need power sources to match the ambition.
>>46777448
Yes, AMBAC is completely fucking retarded. You get the same effect slapping on a few reaction wheels to any craft without limbs that stick out and need a dozen actuators to control.
>>46777394
The closest you could get could be the "Clean Wars" of Heavy Object. But then again we all saw the clusterfuck that world was too.
>>46773797
Micro fusion reactors.
>>46775839
It's not like people choose the single most practical and efficient way to do things all the time, or even most of the time. Culture and psychology are powerful forces.
>>46777702
I did enjoy Heavy Object. It was still sorta dumb, but it did a lot of work and worldbuilding to make the setting feel authentic, and having a mecha-esque show focus on the actions of the poor fucking infantry was quite nice.
>>46773797
Magic energy generator
magic heat radiator
magic ultra strong ultra light metal
magic super efficient super high torque electric motors
something that prevents tanks and helicopters from existing, likely magical in nature.
So basically a whole lotta magic bullshit or handwaving.
>>46773903
Like the old heavy gear animations that was a great show.
>>46777742
99% of the time they did.
>>46777753
Oh yeah and i forgot Magic Ground to hold the thing up because the legs would sink or slip in most terrain.
>>46777744
Yeah but a freaking nightmare if you put two braincells into it. Your this little guy in a world full of weapons that could level a megaopolis, piloted by individuals who half of their number have more mental issues than I'd care to think of, and about 10% are outright insane.
Completely and utterly a nightmare.
Even Hime-sama had her issues, although compared to the other Elites she was the sanest in the room.
>>46777824
A good deal of science fiction has civilian-owned starships capable of light speed travel, any one of which could wreck a planet just by flying into it.
Settings almost never appreciate unintended consequences.
>>46777753
I like that after specifying all those magic materials you STILL need to magically make tanks and helicopters not exist because otherwise mechs still wouldn't be used
>>46777812
Question.
How did Brontosaurs, or even Elephants today manage? It seems nature did a far better engineering job than most of the engineering degree graduates in the room.
>>46777858
True.
That and for well-engineered weapons of mass destruction, Objects sure have their flaws...
>>46777858
depends on the type of FTL
if it bypasses physics rather than breaking it and uses one of the various "shortcut" methods space ships in that setting might be completely incapable of even reaching 1%c thus largely eliminating their use as weaponry
>>46777861
They're not made of metal, they move ungodly slowly and will die from a short fall, and their feet are exceptionally wide to spread their weight.
Might as well just use a tracked vehicle if you want to get across most terrains with equipment to rival a tank. if you're carrying less than that, TOW humvee is still better. Less than that and a fireteam with a recoilless rifle is still better.
Mecha are a thematic choice to have a single protagonist be important. Otherwise joint forces would steal all the glory.
>>46777685
How would you strap guns on those though?
>>46773797
My favorite explanation for mechs is from Armored Core.
It's set far enough into the future that all the technical problems can be handwaved, but no one said "let's make mechs because we can", they used that future tech to make better tanks first.
Eventually tanks could move and aim so quickly that they couldn't be controlled consciously, and wiring them into the pilot's brain requires a humanoid shape.
All the mechs in the setting are literally vertical tanks, born from a necessity of a coincidence that's only useful until the next big thing comes along to counter them, which is precisely what happens.
I'm not saying it's realistic, but at least it doesn't pretend that a humanoid shape is inherently better for a tank's purpose, just the only option to keep improving tanks while still having human pilots.
>>46777861
Elephants don't need to worry about surviving a modern battlefield. Mechs do.
>>46777861
first of they are quadriped rather than biped
secondly on average animals tend to have a lot less mass than equivalent sized machines (the brontosaur, despite its size of 22m would only weigh 15 tons maximum, spread over 4 legs)
thirdly in the case of dinosaurs various methods of fossilization do require said creature to first sink into the ground
>>46777958
Irl we'd just use autonomous drones, not people.
But people don't like stories with drones as the main protagonist.
>>46777919
Odd, why is it then we can't design something that borrows from nature.
Oh wait... WE DO.
Extremely agile, great on terrain, REALLY hard to knock over.
Now give it ten years when we start refining carbon fibers and graphene derivatives.
>>46773856
>A workaround for the square cube law.
No you GOD DAMNED FUCKER. The square cubed law refers to biological constraints. For tech it's right the fuck out the window.
Also I love how people are trying to defend their position by moving the goalposts.
>>46778006
Google sold off boston dynamics for a reason.
turns out a machine that goes WEEUHHHWEEEUHHHWEEUHH whenever it moves is bad for the battlefield. Gasoline is one of the most energy dense substances on the planet, next to nuclear sources, electric motors cannot be 100% efficient, so that engine and actuator noise is not going away.
>>46778026
Why is that? Does a cessna need as much thrust as a 747 for takeoff?
>>46778051
Weird... when all that needs to happen is some way to either insulate the noise producers, or work on more efficient motors.
Try moving the goalposts more. Mecha are generally noisy as fuck too. They're not stealth vehicles.
>>46778006
hey look an object that borrows from a dog actually stays the size of a dog what a surprise
humanoid machines the size of a human would make sense
its sizing up humanoid shape several times that gives problems
>>46778094
There was a larger model. And it moved decently well. Thing is this isn't even the "Model T" of a mecha.
Then again there is Subodashi's Kuratas, which is a closer one.
What I'm trying to say is we're CLOSE to a combat usable exoskeleton.
>>46778131
and what I'm saying is nobody ever argued against exosuits
we're arguing against mechs
>>46778092
So add Weight and cost to the thing that's already a logistical nightmare?
What is the role of a mecha, and how do helicopters, tanks, and infantry not do the job better?
The important thing to take away here is that if you're using anything but remote-piloted or autonomous drones - built as low-profile as possible and preferably completely disposable because anything that can be seen can be hit and anything that is hit is killed - in any sort of of future or near-future conflict, you are objectively wrong.
No, warfare is not "fun". You are wrong for wanting it to be. Future warfare is about shooting first, and overwhelming your opponent with robots. Humans, heroism, and interesting stories are not part of the equation, assuming we care even a little bit about realism.
>>46778131
We're close to a plug in exosuit for freight workers in some very rich areas, that's about it. Power supplies limit any cordless applications.
My setting has Hawken-style small mechs, but they're only used for navigating otherwise impassable terrain, cargo lifting, etc.
For actual travel the limbs fold under the body and they become hovercraft. Because the arms go into sort of a Superman position in ride mode, the weapons are mounted on the arms, if they have weapons at all, so they can be aimed while moving.
>>46778173
No tank ever jumped up and down on another tank, nor was able to punch a 50-foot tall alien in the face during a boarding action.
>>46778211
Hovercraft exist but they need mecha to cross some magic terrain?
>>46778147
Thing is Exosuits ARE Mecha. The term MECHA is anything MECHAnical. Mecha was shorthand in the Japanese Animation business for anything mechanical. In fact they'd have whole departments at one time when things weren't 3D generated dedicated to animating that shit.
>>46778206
Batteries should catch up possibly within our lifetime.
>>46778228
I think you missed the point of the thread. "Realistic" Mecha. Not this shit.
>>46778228
Do you realize how ineffective that would be? You'd wreck the machine doing that.
mechs that turn into jetfighters.
>>46778249
lets not try to turn this into linguistic nitpicking
everyone involved in this thread knows that the usage of the word mecha refers to huge humanoid shaped piloted machinery
>>46778249
>I think you missed the point of the thread. "Realistic" Mecha. Not this shit.
If 50-foot aliens were found to exist, then this becomes realistic (insofar as we'd need to combat them, because humans need to combat everybody and everything).
So, define "realism" for the purposes of the mecha setting. Because it hasn't been defined, up until now.
>>46778211
Forgot to mention, only bandits do this. Civilized folks just use drones, lots and lots of drones.
>>46778240
Yes? The terrain is very rugged and if the hovercraft tilts too severely the magnetic "bubble" it's riding will slip out from under it and "pop". It can ignore small disturbances on the surface but a steep incline will confound it - those have to be passed just like humans do it, by careful footing and pulling yourself along.
It's a hovercraft that can squat down to go REALLY off road, like climb a mountain off road.
>>46777347
>Second, we need to make a power source as potent as a nuclear reactor but safer and more compact while also being mobile, and if we ever made that then we'd never need mechs because we would literally eliminate war by doing so.
>he thinks solving the need for power will solve the rest of the world's problems
>he thinks anything, ever, will solve the problem of assholes existing and being good at gaining political power
Welp, this thread is now a shitposting thread.
>>46776651
>>High position of balance, causing it to be prone to tip over, one would have to combat this with balancing mechanism of some sort which would take room from armor, computers, ammo or pilot
Uh, no it could actually be super fucking minimal and effectively not take up space. A rugged gyroscope and a decent computer should easily be able to compensate for normal movement.
>>Upon failure of a system it is literally crippled, say you lose an arm, you lose half of your combat potential, if you lose a leg, you lose not only mobility but also your ability to stand up and properly position your weapons
Because noone on the fucking planet can stand up with only 1 leg right? Jesus fucking christ. My god, you'd think losing a foot means that a human can't walk and just lies there unable to move.
>>Large amounts of power are needed to move the beast of steel around, more so than what a simple track or wheel utilizing vehicle would need
Well, yes and no. If the mecha version of walking is more akin to falling forward much like our own method of locomotion, it's not that energy intensive.
>>Due to its form it must be armored heavily from all directions so as to assure pilots safety, but this in turn creates more stress to the engine and to the legs supporting it
Yeah, because that's entirely how they armor tanks now. Not most of the amor on the front and little on the sides, top and back, right? Depending form, there's a good chance you might actually have less surface area to armor.
>>Due to all of its weight being concentrated on two relatively small spots (expecting this to be a bipedal mech) it is more likely to step through floors, create holes on the pavement and sink through any less solid grounds
Like everything else you've said, you are again a fucking retard. Seriously, you fucking suck at this, and while there are reasons, every one of your shitty ass-pulls is not one of them.
>>46778249
>Batteries should catch up possibly within our lifetime.
Based on what? An unrelated technology's progress?
>>46778288
>So, define "realism" for the purposes of the mecha setting. Because it hasn't been defined, up until now.
Our world as we understand it, right now, with all technological and physical principles in play as much as they are in the real world, and with no technology that doesn't work completely within and according to those principles as we understand them on 19 April 2016.
>>46777523
Because those can't fight good in arcologies and space colonies
>>46778228
Well then, call me when we find 50-foot tall aliens.
>>46778344
>A rugged gyroscope and a decent computer should easily be able to compensate for normal movement.
The reaction wheels would have to be nearly as big as the torso.
>Because noone on the fucking planet can stand up with only 1 leg right? Jesus fucking christ. My god, you'd think losing a foot means that a human can't walk and just lies there unable to move.
The metals would likely not be self-supporting at that point. The ground certainly wouldn't, and again, you'd need a massive reaction wheel or greatly over designed actuators.
>Well, yes and no. If the mecha version of walking is more akin to falling forward much like our own method of locomotion, it's not that energy intensive.
Swinging our legs is the most energy intensive process and they're not made of military-grade metal and electric motors.
>Yeah, because that's entirely how they armor tanks now. Not most of the amor on the front and little on the sides, top and back, right? Depending form, there's a good chance you might actually have less surface area to armor.
A humvee with a TOW missile would be cheaper and more effective in most situations.
>Like everything else you've said, you are again a fucking retard. Seriously, you fucking suck at this, and while there are reasons, every one of your shitty ass-pulls is not one of them.
But why are you mad?
>>46778421
why not?
>>46778450
Tanks cant climb stairwells
>>46778362
Battery technology is one of the keys to the technology. The research and development is coming from the fact we need batteries to store power from wind and solar power as it's generated, and with greater efficiency, storage capacity, and lifetime.
>>46778364
So you're saying that as of 19 april 2016 the collective knowledge of science cannot dismiss any possible branching of technology? We know nothing of limits? We know nothing of constraints?
because you can use that argument to justify literally any belief.
>>46778465
Yeah, so? It'd be nice to have infinite energy as well. Does that mean it'll happen one day, or are there physical limits preventing such things from being made?
>>46778506
>Implying you can have rational conversation on a 'chan
Do you know where you are?
>>46778531
>Implying I said anything about infinite energy.
>Implying I don't know anything about physics.
>Implying using a sarcastic strawman against my intellect is the height of debating.
>>46778067
Which takes more force to move, a 15 lbs bowling ball or an inflatable yoga ball?
>>46778593
What takes more to move? A 15 pound bowling ball, or a 15 pound weather balloon inflated with regular air?
>>46777860
>>46773898
>helicopters
Yeah, right. A 12,000 pound hunk of metal supported by nothing but air? Even the ground can't always support that much weight. There's a reason we don't see any 12,000 pound birds, anon. Learn to physics.
>>46778658
You really, really had to open your mouth to prove how stupid you are.
>>46778464
Neither can a mecha, unless it's so small that it's just a suit of armor, which people here are saying don't count as mecha.
>>46778713
And those people are shitposters, as exoskeleton suits are considered mecha... at least when the 40k neckbeards bitch about the Tau.
>>46778448
>The reaction wheels would have to be nearly as big as the torso.
You really don't understand how you'd use a computer to stabile something do you?
>The metals would likely not be self-supporting at that point. The ground certainly wouldn't, and again, you'd need a massive reaction wheel or greatly over designed actuators.
So, the thing that moves on 2 legs... using 1 leg at a time... magically can't support it's weight on 1 leg if it lost the other leg... Riiiight.
Second yeah, the ground could support it just fine if the feet were properly sized, even if it only had 1.
>Swinging our legs is the most energy intensive process and they're not made of military-grade metal and electric motors.
You really don't have fuck all of a clue on any of the physics involved here do you?
>A humvee with a TOW missile would be cheaper and more effective in most situations.
Nice straw man. Of course, this new start man doesn't explain why we still use tanks... does it?
>But why are you mad?
Because my life is filled with enough fucktards that don't get put in their place for being fucking stupid and wrong and that their idiocy just grows and spread, much like the faggots that have fuck all of an idea of what the square cubed law is and how to actually apply it.
>>46778713
There's some mechs that are barely bigger than power armor, dude
i think a better question is how do you realistically incorporate mechs into a standard army? would they support tanks as fast moving artillary or support infantry in place of light tanks
>>46778750
generally speaking the term exosuit is utilized to distinguish suits that enhance human mobility with mecha being used for suits large enough to be piloted
which is an important distinction to make
>>46778814
OKAY PEOPLE! /TG/ DECLARED IT! TAU AREN'T WEEB ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY DON'T PILOT MECHA!
Really you are an autist.
>>46778812
exosuit types?
logistics and general support, to valuable for use in direct combat situations unless far future warfare where mechanically enhanced mobility has become the standard
piloted suits?
no military applications known
>>46778750
Which tau suits are you talking about? The ones all the soldiers wear are suits because the arms and legs have the wearer's arms and legs inside. The big ones are mecha because the arms and legs are purely mechanical and the pilot is in the torso.
>>46778812
Probably to load artillery with external magazines and such, so they could fire faster and cover more area with their fire.
>>46778841
alright, Space Marines are also mechas and thus weebshit
>>46778841
>aesthetics
>armor
they're different things, i still think the tau are a tad weebish, but they do use mechs AND exosuits
>>46778883
And now everyone in /tg/ has been rendered hypocrites.
>>46778841
Since when did understanding the definitions of words mean someone was an autist? Are you just mad?
>>46778895
You're only saying exosuits because of this thread. Before then every neckbeard called them mecha.
Backpedal harder.
>power armor
>not mecha
Wow, you're a stupid fucking faggot, aren't you?
>>46778929
then what's the difference between a suit of plate armor and a zaku II
>>46779100
The plate armor isn't a exoskeleton mecha.
Triggered yet, senpai?
>>46773903
I would say something like IGPX would probably be where mechas would be used in the future, if not used in industry.
>>46779142
i may have misunderstood what some were saying, but i interpreted them as saying that exoskeletons and piloted robots were the same thing. the first time i got into mecha it was explained to me like this: mecha is the genre, mechs are piloted and exoskeletons are worn. i could be wrong, but i feel these distinctions help categorize things pretty nicely
Depends on the size. Huge mechs will never be realistic. Anything bipedal over, I don't know, 10 feet, or anything with more legs over the size of current armored troop transports.
It doesn't matter what technology we come up with, it would be better suited for another vehicle format. Some kind of hyper efficient muscle simulating motor? Would still be better attached to cranks like pistons to move wheels or turbines. Ultra accurate feedback and tracking mechanisms? Really good for gun turrets built into vehicles, or for human size robots. Weird practically magic gravity assisted ceramic lattice compound that can defeat the cube square law? Still no reason to put them on giant humanoid mechs instead of just large aerial gunships or tanks.
The only way that humanity would actually use giant robot form factors is when they're using alien blackbox technology that we don't understand well enough to take apart and rebuild into a more viable platform.
Now, human scale power armor or a bit larger than human scale armor is a much more realistic proposal, that I'd say OP's image is right on the upper limit of; I would be a little surprised if no military or police force ever fields something in the vein of Masamune Shirow's Appleseed's Landmates as an urban combat or anti-terrorist vehicle. It's basically a person with much heavier armor and weapons. For those, we need a battery or generator that is both more energy dense AND with higher power output than any we currently have. No battery is dense enough and miniature nuclear generators have low power output. We also need more efficient and powerful actuators, ideally linear ones. There's been interesting research in artificial electrical "muscle", but nothing manufacturable yet.
>>46779281
If mechs could fly they might take up some intermediate position between tanks and helicopters. Limbs enable extended operations and movement in close terrain (like a very versatile landing gear). No armour to speak of.
Some type of jetpack maybe.
>>46778929
GTFO imperial scum
We all know you're here to steal tau tech and sell it to the mechanicus
Also centurions are exosuits, as are tau stealth suits.
>>46779142
What about power assisted plate armor that' is 50% larger than the user?
i think it'd be funny to see a small millita try and use their construction mechs to revolt and get rekt by tanks and artillery
>>46779550
I think that's the plot of Power DoLLs.
>>46779428
But the question was Plate Armor. It's too late to backpedal now, senpai.
At best you'll see heavy infantry power armor and that alone requires a small compact and powerful energy source, new composite materials most likely artifical to use in the suit itself and then figure out the engineering behind making an actual suit of powered heavy armor. On top of THAT it has to be practical and durable to justify the cost. Course I'd find a bullet proof shock trooper able to heft heavy machineguns like a rifle pretty worth it. One hell of a force multiplier.
It's just scale with the old classic giant robots making it impossible, or if it is they'll be so damn slow and cumbersome you could basically fit all that firepower into a group of smaller, easier to use and build attack units. The tech involved in even getting a working giant robot could easily create a new breed of combat vehicle able to handle all but the most daunting of combat zones and deliver extreme firepower all the same.
I mean, giant robots fuck yeah but ask an engineer to design one that actually makes the cut in a combat scenario and he'll go fuck no.
>>46779600
looks neat
>>46779812
Yea, it's a pretty decent game, except for how wimpy the softcore it rewards you with is.
>>46773797
Can't, but "realistic" doesn't mean that it isn't possible it won't be used in the setting anyway: I mean, you had people still using swords in WWII, that whole 100 years where everyone fighting with rifles also wore outfits that make modern dress uniforms look modest, all the wunderwaffen of the Nazis; hell, China still uses traditional cavalry.
Tradition and rule of cool are one hell of a drug.
>>46778051
Google sold off boston dynamics because they do not want to have military projects on their plate. Boston dynamics was bought for its IP, and sold because of its commitments to the DoD. Google got what they needed and bounced.
As for noise, do some research next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
it keeps getting quieter.
>>46776727
That's true but in most of the fictional settings a mech is very modular and can be retrofitted for a variety of roles in reasonably short times. Theoretically speaking most of those settings with mechs tend to have a good doctrine of mobility, flexibility and firepower in areas a tank couldn't fulfill in that regard. Instead of trying to find 20 or so odd people to crew multiple tanks, you could have 3 capable pilots that could do the job of 3-4 people inside one tank.
One thing that helps is getting rid of powerful explosives. If your best artillery shell filler is black powder, you'll have a much harder time punching through the steel armor of a mech.
This seems like it requires an odd schizo tech mix, but actually, almost every explosive beyond black powder requires a fossil fuel industry; TNT can't be produced without touline from petroleum or coal, and picric acid can't be produced without phenol, which also comes from fossil fuels. Dynamite and Poudre B are available without fossil fuels, but neither is stable enough to be fired out of a cannon(rocket warheads are doable though)
So, assuming you have a setting with no fossil fuels, and one that never had fossil fuels(so no one could get the idea for similar explosives that might not need oil or coal byproducts) mechs become much easier to justify, because anti-mech weapons are harder to make.
Of course the same applies to tanks, so you gotta justify why tanks aren't used. Good luck on that one.
>>46773797
Simple.
Them not being retardo-huge.
There ARE quite a few advantages to limbed movement. It's just that all the good parts of what mechs can do/be completely fall apart when you scale things up to more than around 3m.
Any technology mechs have over regular vehicles in nearly every setting is entirely arbitrary in its "mechs only" assignment. Not as in "why can this only work with bipeds" but rather "what the fuck political maneuverings did Anaheim Electronics do to remove any and all alternatives from any and all budgets for decades?"
Yes, even limbs on an antigrav unit would end up working better as turret and canada-space-robot-arm limbs than shitty humanish arms and legs. There's literally no reason the big reactor couldn't be used on something that isn't bipedal. There's actually several reasons why that new armor alloy would be better spent on a fighter or tank than a mech. And there's literally no reason, again, that the new secret beam cannon wouldn't be, once again, better fit on the new space-A-10-with-cannon-arms-instead-of-wings-or-legs instead of a biped.
Basically, powered exoskeletons very yes (in fact we're working on that right now), gundams never.
>>46773896
Except just like hydraulics, these would ACTUALLY be far more efficient and effective if used to slither or run some wheels (at worst a crankshaft or flywheel)
>>46778712
I... think he was being sarcastic.
After all, an old Hind's empty weight is already 50% over that 12k
>>46780960
>And there's literally no reason, again, that the new secret beam cannon wouldn't be, once again, better fit on the new space-A-10-with-cannon-arms-instead-of-wings-or-legs instead of a biped.
You mean like the Dendrobium?
>>46781028
If he was, his sentence structure certainly didn't show it.
>>46779999
better version
>>46773797
Much better batteries or much better portable generators.
Stable walking tech. This one isn't too far off.
Armor that wouldn't work for tanks but would on a mech.
Weapons are a different matter, since a tank will carry much better versions of anything short of a 20 meter mech.
>>46781254
Mein sides.
>>46773797
First and foremost, incredibly dense power storage. Chromestrike does this with "Supercapacitors," unspecified material science advances making 3-4 meter mecha viable.
We're developing things that could possibly make solid-state "muscles" that would be great if they turn out to be more mass-efficient than hydraulics. You can't make it combat effective with electric motors even if you have room-temperature superconductors. Badass newfangled solenoids would be great if you could shield them with high-reluctance materials.
Then you need to beat God at his own game make a support structure than can handle it and remain viable at that mass, and find that sweet spot where you distribute that mass on enough surface area you don't sink your machine so far it needs to wade in the desert sand.
Which isn't too bad because you want your upright profile to be not much higher off the ground than a tank's so you're not a big expensive target visible to every Achmed, Hakim and Muhammad in the village.
>>46774395
This exists already though, haven't you seen all of those videos of the roboticists kicking their robots over and the robots stumbling then correcting themselves?
The problem is the idea of big fightan robots are still not viable for combat.
>>46779413
The problem with jet packs is that they just can't hold enough reaction mass to keep their loads aloft for any length of time. You could use propellers or something else that uses air as reaction mass, but then you've just got a helicopter or one of those vertical takeoff jets, and you've got no need or desire for legs anymore.
>>46773797
>What kind of invention would we need to make mechs realistic?
Developement of better gyro
Miniaturized generator
New alloy
Viable singlemanned cockpit and control (like fighter)
And from our lord and savior Albert Einstein, a goddamn fucking imagination
For god sake, this whole "Realistic" thing is one retarded argument of a downer. The thing you must understand, that real world is NOT REALISTIC, it full of shit and wonder that we dont understand, some thing that is downright magic in own current level, until we understand what is behind them.
Hell, if we stay in this state of thinking, like we all do in this thread, we all still in medieval age now.
>How the fuk iron bird is viable, its very heavy and to big, its not REALISTIC.
And then, we got airplanes.
>How the fuck we send whole page of message in lest than one day, we must consider the food, the weather, blalalalala......
And then, we got Internet.
>Talking to people in different continent without message is not POSSIBLE, only stupid people twill ever imagine that..
And then, we got telephone
>>46783066
Here's the thing, and this needs to be repeated.
Mecha is not unrealistic because it's an impossible goal, as it's not. The technology is there to make working, albeit supremely shitty, Mecha.
It's that, outside of one or two particular niches, exoskeletons come to mind which conviently are the ones getting funding, there's no reason to build them. After all, why spend trillions of dollars inventing and refining the technology in order to maybe have Mecha in thirty years, when you can instead use that money to further refine what you already have?
>>46773797
>TG fails to understand war and tactics in any possible sense
Mechs are cool
They won't be used in space though as ships will be duking it out at distances far beyond what we can imagine, or not at all.
Metal Gear was fucking awesome
But it was a portable ICBM platform
Giant suits of armor duking it out with aliums would be a sight to behold
But tanks and heli's work far better
Powered Exoskeletons will be the standardized future because they're an immense force multiplyer
But giant mechs are terrible when it comes to power consumption
Best that can be expected is tanks with treads that may have the highly specialized ability to be bi pedal or quadrupedal for extreme mobility and to have the ability to climb so that they could have better range to snipe long range targets, if drones are not able to fly within range. We don't know how this will play out however.
>>46783169
Because we want them negros, do you think developement of airplanes, internet and space stations dont takes trilions of dollars to begin with?
And, do you think you know what and not what will needed by human in the future?
And, do you think human will care anyway?
There is nothing impossible with human , only kekes and ballsless fags who stop in a wall of impossible.
>>46783319
>Airplanes
>Conquered the skies
>Tanks
>Conquered the earth
>Ships
>Conquered the seas and is now virtually pointless because of helis and jets
What do mechs bring to the table, is the issue?
Greater firepower?
Strap it to a tank, jet or take the warhead and slap it onto a missile.
Greater mobility?
We're improving tank treads and will probably switch back to wheels soon. If not, Helicopters work just as well. Tanks can also turn 180 degrees in both directions. Improved motors can make this rather quick with more power.
Greater survivability?
How? Mechs have more crippling weak points that put the damn thing out of commission. Armor can be slapped onto tanks, jets and helicopters as well. Better generators or micro fusion reactors can be applied just as well.
WHAT DOES A MECH BRING TO THE TABLE?
>>46773797
As you get bigger in size, assuming the terrain was suited for mechs in the first place, mechs would become less and less human-like.
6-10 feet tall; humanoid exoskeleton or small, piloted mech
10-16 feet tall; quadrupedal of some sort that can hunker down as well as sprint, all the while maintaining stability
16-32 feet tall; hexapedal of some sort; if you're building a warmachine at this size it's likely going to be rocking some seriously heavy kit, and is going to be needing a lot of stability if treads wont do.
32+ feet: probably the absolute limit of technology; if you positively, absolutely need your mobile forward base to be able to scale hills, you're probably going to be looking at 8+ legs
Personally; I like humanoid exosuits / support vehicles, quadrupedal main battle mechs, and hexapedal heavy/support vehicles.
>>46783457
Urban combat superiority and infantry support capability
Nothing. Any energy dense technology would be better served by making a more maneuverable tank. Mechs are nonsense.
>>46773797
Mechs are stupid because of the square cube law. No invention will ever make them practical.
>>46783624
>Urban combat superiority and infantry support capability
To fit into buildings easily, it's not even a "mecha", it's either power armor or robot soldiers.
>>46773797
power armor will eventually be viable, slightly larger load lifters will probably be used in niche rolls eventually. everything else is probably useless.
>>46783457
>>46783457
Maybe you have a point but i have some disagreement.
>Great Mobility
>We're improving tank treads and will probably switch back to wheels soon
If you walk much, you will know that even with the most advanced threads, tanks even in wheeled, will never outmaneuvered legs.
Tanks also easily crippled easily by large obstacles, since even with large bodies, you cannot literally smash throught it, you'll be stuck somewhere in the middle by random jutting stell debris.
Tanks also cannot go over literal level difference much.
Also, turning 180 degree with tanks takes time and space, well thread maybe can make that kinda instant but it require the tank to go full stop, which is, makes them a very big target.
Also, tanks cannot engage enemy in different level of leverage, since he cannot stand and prone much.
>>46783653
Mecha doesn't have to be 17-20m+ gundam m8
at 6-10m range, you have bipedal armored robot that can go throught urban sprawl and walk over any building debris with tanks equivalent firepower.
Also, with legs, they can go sideways easily without change facing.
What if it is a planet with less gravity?
>>46783624
This is true. Mechs will probably never get bigger than smaller cars, but the applications for a "heavier" infantry is obvious. I imagine them being issued with some kind of wheeled vehicle that they can extract themselves from when entering urban or other dense mobility restricting environments such as jungle or mountains.
>>46773797
>more efficient motors
>more efficient battery's
>a reasonable control system
>an environment where mechs would be better than infantry or tanks
>years of research and effort
Just a few of the things we need to make mechs.
>>46783842
>at 6-10m range, you have bipedal armored robot that can go throught urban sprawl and walk over any building debris
And whatever the fuck you're using to power it could run a tank with modular treads at double the speed. Or one that could just ram through debris with impunity.
>>46783653
The mech doesnt have to fit unto buildings dummy, It can pivot in place, twist its arms/torso reach the higher floors of buildings and move in any direction relative to forward face.
Just imagine trying to ride a suped up mobility scooter through a series of tight maze like corridors compared to walking through a series of tight maze like corridors. The advantage a mech has in a dense urban environment is obvious
>>46783968
Same guy. They would also be great utility laborers for a military, able to dig trenches much faster than a normal grunt, lift and carry heavy objects, and even utilize trenches and walls for cover themselves.
Also, in an environment like a jungle a Mech can operate in an environment that lacks air support, enemy tanks, and accurate heavy fire support. If mechs could be made fast enough threats like RPG's could prove to be less than ideal countermeasures due to a fearsome weapon load out far above what a human can carry with speed and computer assisted missile detection and avoidance (legs can accelerate very quickly over short distances and in any direction, things wheels simply can't emulate).
>>46784044
Tanks can pivot in place by spinning one tread the opposite direction of the other tread
>>46773797
Really cheap super strong materials and artificial muscles that can hold the weight
>>46784008
>Double speed
>Ram with impunity
>In Urban Scene
That "speed" is useless if all that obstacles are around you anon, you cannot go anywhere.
And how you Ram something with impunity, ram the debris? you only makes matter worse by makes all that obstacles anywhere, and now you get stuck by debris burial. There's reason why everyone use excavator hand at clearence anon.
>>46784089
With arms and legs a mech would be great at performing any conceivable labor. It might not be as optimized for some things as a purpose built vehicle but in a pinch it could fill any support role quickly and ably.
>>46784102
And it has to go slower or at full stop
Good luck by giving all those Ahmed a change to RPGing you to death
>>46784122
If you have enough power to stomp around a super heavy machine on legs (unless it moves atrociously slow) then you probably have enough power to bulldoze the debris across the city
>>46784212
And when that bulldozer busy at clearing that debris, the mech ar just waltz over all that debris in full speed
>>46784248
No, you don't get that the bulldozer in this scenario is a tank. Well, rather than a tank, it's a multi-purpose all-terrain mobile battle station. Because that kind of power core is ludicrous.
Also unless it's flying, a mecha would have to slow down on treacherous terrain or risk tripping, like any bipedal would.
>>46784122
You just don't comprehend the amount of power it would take to get a machine to stand up, perpetually stabilize itself in a combat environment, and run all of tha various systems and doodads that would be necessary for it to operate in a modern military.
>>46784340
>No, you don't get that the bulldozer in this scenario is a tank. Well, rather than a tank, it's a multi-purpose all-terrain mobile battle station. Because that kind of power core is ludicrous
And it will not save them from all that debris, since even with all that armor or cannon, ramming the tanks only damage it futher, or outright flatten them. Or even damaging her crew as a result by all that tremmor.
Also, that multiterrain thread cannot works on steep differential of levels, like most urban scene would.
>Also unless it's flying, a mecha would have to slow down on treacherous terrain or risk tripping, like any bipedal would.
Eh, better than to have ramming the tanks to oblivion with minimal or damaging result.
And chache of tripping is minimal with a good pilot.
There's also a reason why most tanks crew chose to avoid obstacle if possible anon.
>>46779100
Scale.
>>46784529
Even the most well coordinated people trip sometimes. The difference is, you're risking a lot of money and man hours on the possibility that tripping won't be an issue.
>>46784340
At some point synthetic muscle fibers could be created to be incredibly strong and incredibly energy efficient as well, reducing the need for such a ridiculous power source.
Nanotechnology could create materials with amazing properties, such as strong synthetic muscles, light and strong materials for the "bones" of a mech, and efficient batteries well beyond what we know today. Just advances in a single science like nanotech could open the doors to moderate sized mechs that could fulfill battlefield roles somewhere between tanks and infantry, while also remaining threatening to APC's and Tanks. Legs would allow a mech to be able to thrive in adverse environments like jungles, forests, urban centers, mountains, and even space where inevitably boarding actions and space station seizures will eventually occur, even if they remain obsolete maneuvers in the context of a conventional space war.
Their are many environments where mechs would be "apex" predators on the battlefield, simply because conditions can make bigger less maneuverable threats risky to use. They would remain niche tools however I think and the primary problem with mechs in my opinion is finding validation for the use of human pilots instead of AI.
>>46773797
The invention of mecha combat sports.
They would never be realistic, practical military units. Use them for games and circus where they belong.
I could see urban bipedal guns., that are man sized, with optics and targeting of course. Can't think of much use for arms. Maybe a single collapsible arm for righting itself
>>46784668
You would make those quadrupedal and mount things like GPMG's for infantry support. Eventually I bet things like that will supplant human infantry entirely.
>>46784668
Maybe arm can be use to removing small obstacles in her way, and also carriying heavy objective that normal infatry cannot bear.
Also, if we use handheld singlehanded cannon as weapon (like AC), arm will be most helpfull.
>>46784820
Better off just merging the cannon with the mecha as a bipedal tank.
And any grasper-limb modifications could be given to tanks as well.
If you're going for realism, you'd get Mechwarrior long before Armored Core or Gundam.
>>46784102
Allow me to literally draw you a picture of why a mech is better at turning than a tank, since you cant seem to visualize simple concepts in your head
>>46779350
did you really just se that old horseshit meme? ( I agree with you but still)
>>46779302
personally I'm thinking kinda like lost planet, fuck I loved that game, yknow, tiny mechs and exo suits, power armor, that sort of thing
>>46784619
You also risking alot of money to if you keep that tank ramming any obstacle they sees, and putting expensive powersource on such fragile and and an obvious vulnerable big target that can be crippled more easily than mech is stupid ways possible, and will do more harm as a result . And also, no study can be done from such stupidity, it can only be said that the crew needs to stop being a retard.
Mech, by the other hand, can be studied by their act of tripping alone, a study about stability control and gravity shift, that can be use in other different way.
>>46779600
fuck those mechs have birthing hips
>>46784873
Those are some big claims for (you)
>>46784872
Eh, using a merged weapon only makes the maintenance cost goes higher, IMO, and you cannot swap weapon easily that way.
>>46784873
Pivot the gun you fucking retard
>>46784873
Make a tank with spherical wheels. Boom, free continuous movement.
>>46785054
And that's just a fact of life that if you want a new cannon you order a new tank or refit the whole damn thing.
Making "giant guns for mecha to hold" is stupid as all hell
>>46778051
Dude the M1 Abrams has a 1,500 HP turbine engine that sounds like an angry god, punctuted by the clatter of steel treads and a soft rumbing of the street. Not that silent stealth is a big priority for a multi-ton armoured war machine in the middle of an active battlefield filled with explosions and gun fire and screaming and more explosions and more gunfire and more screaming
>>46773797
the one and only invention to make mechs anything similar to cartoontard delusions of them is an invention which gives ork psychic powers to all humans.
Then, by everyone believing that mechs can actually do the things they do on tv, the psychic powers will override the dozens of laws of physics and engineering and structural mechanics which prove mechs are worthless in real life combat.
Just like when the guardsmen destroyed the engines on their ships so orks couldn't steal them, but the orks, believing the ships could fly, flew off in a stolen fleet with non-functional engines.
>>46784993
>/k/ being this defensive on their threaded waifu
>pulling accuse of last resort, since he don't have any argument
/k/ is really a holy ground of autism, beside /v/ that is.
Direct neurological interfaces which somehow offer drastic performance boosts over ordinary piloting systems but only work for bipedal vehicles.
>>46785093
Eh, not really, giant gun for mecha to hold does't require the whole frame to be changed, also can be done by strong enought mechanism on both arm.
Also it can be swapped if the weapon dont do good in some theather, makes them more versatile.
Not all concept of mech must be based on BT thingie you know.
>>46785108
>filled with explosions and gun fire and screaming and more explosions and more gunfire and more screaming
you mean the crew of Abrams burned alive and be shooted to death by Ahmeds after get rekt by hidden RPGs?
Yeah thats pretty accurate
>>46780991
>synthetic muscle snake tanks
Well dammit, now I need this in my life.
Why would anyone build a mech? Basically pic related.
There's not really an advantage to a mech over a tank, as far as battlefield presence goes. Sure MAYBE a smaller mech might be able to turn a little better in an urban conflict, but that just means they would be put in a supporting role. That's a major investment to ask for something minor that could be filled out with relative efficiency by other means.
The only real reason is to scare the hell out of someone. Military's have a history of doing stupid shit for no real reason other to scare the other side, whether that's switching from bombing military to civilian targets in WWII (both sides), to just US soldiers putting Ace of Spades playing cards around the jungle in Vietnam.
I don't think I could buy that a country would invest in anything larger than a door frame for pure combat purposes. I'd totally believe it for intimidation purposes.
>>46773797
>realistic
I'm sure you've gotten plenty of decent answers by now, but I'd like to throw my hat into the "fuck realism" pile and say the more fantastic you make the setting the better if you want to include humanoid mechs in your setting. I feel that a strict adherence to arbitrary "realism" will only hold back humanoid mechs from their intended purpose: To be some flavor of ridiculously over-the-top bad ass.
Otherwise, why bother?
>>46785273
It's easier to get around terrain on legs, and you have a height advantage.
Also in the star wars universe at least, there isn't really any thing like say a howitzer that could knock over a tall walking vehicle.
>>46773903
Now i want to run a campaign similar to one man rescue, with sponsored corporate armies duking it out for resource rights
>>46785066
>Mech cant pivot its guns as well
>while also strafing sideways
>While also rotating its forward facing position
Sorry m8, tank has literally no advantage over mech in terms of manoeuvrability aside from speed, which is relatively unimportant in an urban infantry support role
Do you need a flash animation to wrap your head around this
>>46785070
This however is a good point. Though the smaller horizontal area of the mech still give it an advantage in a confined urban environment
what about a mech that mimics the human body with muscle like hydraulics on extremely hard, yet flexible super-alloys, with flexible joints?
>>46785306
hydraulics make terrible artificially muscles what you really need is a martial that can contract when a current is passed through it.
>>46785302
So make a really compact tank. They don't gotta be the same size as modern MBTs if we're making them out of magic.
And whatever magic you're using to armor your skinny-ass mecha can probably shield a simpler box better.
>>46784993
First stand up and walk in a straight line while turning around. You did it? Good.
Now, walk in randomly changing directions without changing the direction you are facing. Did you do it? Good job.
Congratulations you have just proven the claims of bipedal locomotions mobility. Now go try the same two things in a bulldozer and tell me how it goes
>>46785402
If we use magic then that mech will be more armored than a crazy german tanks scientist can do with their special snowflake threaded box.
And remember the skinny ass mecha mean its more difficult to shoot at and can have more agility than tanks could ever did.
>>46785456
Nah.
The magic ideal of a tank would essentially be this car with spherical wheels and a cannon on top with the speed and maneuverability of a sports car.
It would not be easy to shoot at and would be ludicrously agile.
And I defaulted to magic because whatever your skinny mecha is made of, it will be invariably easier to destroy than an armored box. Any actuating joints or otherwise moving parts simply cannot have as much defensive ability as fixed armor.
>>46785428
Try the same things with your soul weighed down by gravity (read: Square Cube Law)
>>46785516
I would make it a bit wider and lower, but yeah, that's basically the ideal.
That being said, I've always thought that wheeled spider tanks like fuchi/tachikomas make for a reasonably believable compromise. Low profile, maneuverable, single-operator vehicles designed to fill a niche somewhere between tank and police cruiser.
>>46785302
>Mech has to rotate its torso and run sideways while also shooting behind it
Real humans who have lived and moved around in their bodies for decades struggle to do this competently, let alone controlling a bipedal machine that has to do jt
>tank gunner turns the tank around, driver drives forward
Tank wins you dipshit
>>46785516
And that tank will be to vulnerable in steepe road since they cannot handle their own top weight if you use that picture.
And spherical wheel meant they cannot handle things like obstacles and laddered terrain, so thight urban still be a death sentence to them.
And spherical wheel take spaces you know, so you'll be missing some parts of your own equipment.
And if tou making them small wheel, then you cannot use them in roughish terrain.
And as you know sports car are not as maneuverable, they are stupid in thight road and cannot take a quick detour and turn as easily as normal car since mostly they are to wide and to low, and t their wheel are too thin and slipery, also make them not suitable in most type of road.
And actuating joint only be vulnerable if they were slow as fuck or on stop, since it a small spot to target.
>>46785539
Ah, a meme law
The thing that said when bipedal example like human and chicken that are more top heavy exist.
And they just roll with it.
>>46785402
As long as the tank has treads and not glorious spheroid locomotion or some form hover mode, then mech still has an inherent and drastic advantage in terms of mobility making it better suited to to role of urban combat. Also armoured personnel carriers already exist.
I dont know why you cant accept that your tankfu isn't the undisputed king of every form of ground combat. In fact dense urban combat is where the MBT struggles the most, specifically because of its huge bulk and poor manoeuvrability in tight maze like streets where it can easily be ambushed by a guy with a grenade in a 3rd. People have literally walked up to tanks and tossed grenades down their gun barrels in modern battlefields. I think the trade-off in armour is more than worth it for an agile, dedicated close infantry support vehicle. Mechs will never replace the MBT as an MBT but you have to accept that there is at least one role they would perform better
>>46785539
Isn't this whole thread assuming that the mech in question has some sufficiently advanced tech that allows it to overcome the gravity problem, thus allowing it to move like a person on a much larger scale? Isn't some bullshit (realistic) excuse to make that possible what OP is asking for?
Yes, it requires far more energy and special materials that we don't currently have access to in the real world, but the idea that those factors can be accounted for in an imaginary setting is the core concept of this thread.
>>46773797
In my fantasy setting, people use magical constructs extensively. General labor, machines of war, shit like that.
Since it's much easier for the artificers to copy biological forms (because magic) most constructs walk on legs, and resemble bipeds in some manner.
>>46785837
The problem is though that with all of the effort you would put into a working, combat viable mech could go into a tank with the same purpose and you'd get better results
>>46785881
Purely conjecture. Then again I suppose this entire thread is purely conjecture.
>>46785803
Do you understand torque and momentum?
Nevermind, obviously not
>>46785933
The idea that you could even MAKE a combat viable mech is conjecture.
>>46785962
The whole point of this thread is to come up with a creative excuse for the existence of a combat viable mech. You're not here to teach a science class, anon, you're here to make shit up so OP can play pretend.
So, what would it take to let a giant robot jump around like a coked up gymnast while firing a beam rifle? Use your imagination. Sky is the limit.
>>46785767
Bipeds are ALSO vulnerable in steep areas for similar reasons. Far more importantly however, their center of gravity is well above what would be the goddamn roof for other vehicles. Few things tip over quite as easily.
>and spherical wheel take spaces you know
AND LEGS DON'T? Proportionately speaking they're goddamn HUGE. Far larger mass, amount of materials and moving parts, as well as additional cabling and reinforcement.
Where sports cars have difficulty maneuvering when on an appropriate terrain is at velocities that other forms of transport cannot handle at all. Yes, you're not all that maneuverable going 230 on the autobahn, but ED-209 stopped being able to keep up and tripped all over itself going 15 in the first curve.
Actuating Joints are extremely vulnerable. Even when they are "protected", all that means is you have a highly vulnerable point you therefore had to expend a large amount of materials on reinforcing and protecting (ie; you armored the legs and knees). Nevertheless, this is a consistently highly stressed piece of equipment subject forced to continuously withstand stresses that on other vehicles are *only* seen when fired at with powerful weaponry.
Those powerful alloys making the mech's skeleton could instead be used to outright actually protect a different form, or may even simply not be needed, despite the alternative vehicle having similar performance metrics or better.
>>46777600
manly tears every time
>>46785756
Now you're just making some blatant assumptions and weird leaps in logic.
Firstly, a mech =/= a human. There is no reason it cant be designed to rotate its entire torso 360 degrees like a turret, there is also no reason it wouldn't have gyroscopically stabilized weapons just like any modern fighting vehicle meaning the only thing the pilot would need to do is hold a direction and line up his crosshairs. Just like millions of people do in online shooters everyday. Secondly, how do you think they are piloting these things? With their minds? Are you imaging powered armour instead of a mech?
No sir you are the dipshit
>>46785934
Are you?
Please explainwith atleast 10 references
>>46775884
So, like, glaciers?
>>46785837
Though there's slightly better sudden side mobility and possibly a thinner horizontal cross-section, do remember that a vertical mech will be significantly taller, which in vehicular combat is extremely dangerous.
Whenever it isn't prone, it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other units of similar mass and capability, expends more power and computing capability towards REMAINING upright, and its RCS is more pronounced.
These are all things vehicle designers attempt to minimize as much as possible, because a little sensor boom extending 10m up is helpful, while a giant torso 10m up is targeting heaven.
>>46786066
Remember anon, you area a biped. Do you fall aver every time you encounter a 45 degree incline. No, because you have legs, with joints, that can shift your centre of balance to account for uneven terrain, or even when physically shoved off balance.
Legs sure are convenient things arent they
>>46773797
Space stations.
What? You think I'm going to stick to ground combat?
A mech suit works well enough in space due to dexterity and grabbing implements. Typical concerns such as ground pressure etc are not there.
>>46786137
Thats why you dont stay in one place anon
MOVE THAT MECHANICAL ASSES
>>46786137
This is true, but the mech would ideally avoid vehicular combat and be no taller than 25 feet, which although significantly taller than a conventional fighting vehicle is less important in tall obstruction dense terrain.
The mech shouldn't be a replacement or addition to armoured fighting vehicles but a machine designed to fill an poorly fulfilled facet of modern warfare. Dedicated close infantry support. An A10 Thunderbolt of the ground if you will.
>>46786364
>A-10 Thunderbolt
Referencing an obsolete plane that fared worse than its contemporaries against obsolete air defenses manned by idiots isn't helping your analogy
>>46786282
The same applies to ALL vehicles.
"move or you're fucked" is in no way unique to any kind of mech.
>>46786144
Remember anon, you are a tracked or wheeled vehicles. Do you fall over every time you encounter a 60 degree incline. No, because you have grip, brakes and traction control, and can simply stop where you are or apply power to account for uneven terrain. Your extremely low center of mass ensures that fuck-all happens when physically shoved.
You know what DOES require far more energy and processing to remain standing on uneven terrain? That thing with the legs and joints that's currently using them to stay upright in those conditions.
>>46786196
I actually hate the sudden addition of "totally not titans guys" to the Tau in 40k. The best part of their dealing with the fucking things was that they *were* the only race to go "wait a minute. for those same resources we can stick railguns on three starfighters and now each of them's got just as much gun as that walker but infinitely more mobile.
>>46786364
Pick very much related
>>46786395
Airforce-koolaid much?
The A-10 has fared extremely well in the CAS role it was designed for, and only those pocketing all that F-35 debacle cash up in the brass want it gone.
People flying it and people it's being flown FOR fucking LOVE the Thunderbolt II, bathtub of the skies.
What's next, you'll claim the Raptor's better at SEAD missions for its price than a Block-52 Falcon?
>>46786449
>Air Force Kool-Aid
I'm referring to its empirical combat record in Desert Storm.
What evidence do you have other than anecdotes?
Fuck this /k/ekkes level autist debate
Titan Vs NEXTs (AC4/FA)
Whos gonna win?
>>46786485
I would tend to give Titans the edge
>>46786449
>le f35 is trash meme
The A10 is on it's way out, you need to accept that, the thing it was built to counter will never happen, the airframes in service are fucking ancient, and the maintenance costs will very soon render it not worth it. CAS can be done with helicopters, or with AC-130s, or even with the F35. The A10 is obsolete and redundant, take Pierre Sprey's cock out of your mouth and get on with your life.
>>46786401
>You know what DOES require far more energy and processing to remain standing on uneven terrain? That thing with the legs and joints that's currently using them to stay upright in those conditions.
More than a fair trade-off for having fucking legs. Bonus points for having more that 2 legs
Also what the fuck are you talking about, flipping a tank is actually quite easy. You can even flip a t95 by drifting it
