Realistic mechs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
Being sick of those improbable and surrealistic mechs, i want to see some sanity and sense. Like Battletech or 2142, something like that.
>>11079842
>realistic
>more prone to fall apart or fall down than weeb mechs
BT a shit.
This thread's going places.
>>11079844
Battletech mechs have the balance of a moeblob.
>>11079842
Are we gonna do the "mecha aren't realistic" thing again? Because I"m going to get it out of the way, no shit, no mecha is realistic.
Well, the AT-ST makes sense. Kinda.
>>11079842
OP, you are looking for "gritty, land-locked" mechs.
also, in b4 inigomontoya.
>>11079861
Yeah. Mechs that look like actual military-grade. Without fanciness.
>>11079842
Done. Enjoy!
>>11079870
There's nothing military-grade about OP's pic, or anything like sort, for that matter. Any professional member of any military would laugh them off.
>>11079842
>Shorter is better
>Low COG
>Weapons mounted high so cover can be maximised
Chromehounds fits the bill somewhat.
>>11079842
Start off by scaling things down to the size of armored suits.
>>11079871
The Front Mission games had the right idea with keeping the Wanzers somewhat under a reasonable size, leaving them sluggish, and having it so they supplement instead of replace other military hardware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pH08Nb8AkA
>>11079842
But only those improbable and surrealistic mechs canstomp your infantryandtear apart your punny tanks
>>11079842
There's no such thing? It's not practical as a war machine and never will be?
Or do you mean "more realistic than X"?
>>11079842
you misspelled "boring"
I present to you the LS209 Exoskeleton from the Killzone series. Fairly realistic, and despite it being called an exoskeleton, it's prett fucking tall.
>>11080125
On the much less practical side, have a MAWLR.
>>11079842
If you want absolute realism with mechs, then you should accept the following fact.Tanks >>>>>>>>Mechs, what one of these mechs of yours can do a tank can do it far better.
In fiction though, i got absolutely nothing against mechs, they ARE the coolest thing since space ships and Orion slave girls.
>>11080302
Don't people just use assorted missiles now instead of tanks?
>>11080310
Because missiles are pretty bad at holding positions, providing support for mechanized infantry and raiding enemy positions. Tanks cover a great variety of tasks, while missiles are only "blow up designated target".
>>11080128
That's way too big. Just hit the joints and laugh at it
>>11080310
more UAVs / drones i think, at least for the developed nations.
lesser ones just slap whatever weapon they can find to an infantry and let them run.
tanks/mechs would probably be much less economical to produce and supply/maintain generally.
>>11080112
Yeah, the moment in 4 when a normal tank took down one of my wanzers, I just smiled.
>>11080417
I appreciated the inclusion of tanks and helicopters in that franchise.
That being said, tanks in Front Mission might be a bit "too" strong. Either these are the most well-armored tanks in the history of fiction, or someone underestimates the power of scale.
>>11080423
I like to to think that with technology revved up enough for giant robots, tanks got just that much better. Besides, if they didn't take a bazillion hits, they're be no way in hell one could ever actually get a clear shot on you.
>>11079887
Nobody is knocking Xamel over, at least.
>>11080430
Xamel is basically a big cannon with arms to punch with just in case something gets close.
>realistic
>mecha
Pick one.
>>11080427
>I imagine their tanks are super sugoi as well.
Well, yeah. I'd expect them to have been upgraded. They're just so small by comparison, and in terms of mass they would absolutely be destroyed by melee. But they wanted tanks, so they put them in. Oh well.
>>11080439
To be fair, I like the Ghost in the Shell/Cyberpunk 2020 approach. Instead of being the size of office buildings, they're more like large houses.
>Realistic mechs
>Being sick of those improbable and surrealistic mechs
>i want to see some sanity and sense
>Like Battletech or 2142
do you realize how retarded you sound?
>>11080464
>they're more like large houses.
that sure doesn't make them any more realistic
>>11079842
IF you like Calcium frame, then Humans are realest mech/robot I have ever seen.
>>11080302
>what one of these mechs of yours can do a tank can do it far better.
Even scaring the shit out of enemy soldiers?
>>11080477
Tanks are fucking scary. Don't think for a moment that a tank on a battle field won't make people shit their pants.
>>11080477
Are you fucking retarded?
>>11080545
>not posting superior Hidolfr
Step it up.
>>11080545
Look at that dinky fucking waist. Look at those shitty lower half altogether. How can one shit be this awful?
>>11080555
My nigger.
LONG LIVE THE HILDOLFR
>>11080556
guess what, it can even quickboost faster than my lightbuild NEXT
>>11080580
Whoopdy fucking doo, it would break down in real life.
>>11080472
>unrealistic as fuck
If you think that bipedal machines the size of houses is unrealistic, then I think your concept of reality is out of touch.
Certainly where powered armor is concerned there's no contest. What about the idea of powered armor that's larger than a human being though? Something around the height of an average house? The question shouldn't be about how realistic it is. The question to ask is: What role would it have?
Powered armor will be something utilized in the future, as it's already desired now. Even with the increased carrying capacity offered a tank still poses a huge threat. Rockets and missiles are going to be the only equalizer at that scale if they would even get past their defensive systems. A house-sized mech bridges that scale gap by having the mass necessary to field larger cannons, missiles, or even railguns (with enough miniaturization). It lacks most of the drawbacks of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, while allowing for more versatility in terms of armament and maneuverability.
Comparing it to a modern AFV such as a Bradley, the only real downside evident is the lack of troop transport capabilities. Plus, it doesn't have those shitty tracks to contend with.
>>11080576
He is fucking awesome! Still can't get used to his controls in Gundam Extreme VS Full Boost tho. But I fucking love it.
>>11080302
>Orion slave girls
On Orion powered ship?
>>11080590
>he
...dude, what are you doing to our Hild-chan?
There's got to be some form of real life mech in development, even if it's just for novelty. It doesn't have to be giant or man-operated, even.
>>11079842
>>11080599
Err.. I didn't lurk on /m/ for quite a while... 3-4 years to be exact.
To be fair today is first day I post here actively. So I wasn't aware of it... (is there some cute personification of Hild-chan?)
>>11080627
Go back lurking and never post again.
>OP doesn't like humanoid mechs
>everyone else shits all over them
it's not so much a question of "what's the most realistic war machine possible?" as it is a question of "if all you're doing is animating shiny people, complete with ignoring the scale of your machines at all times other than showing people entering them, why the fuck didn't you just make a show about powered armor?"
anyway, here's the Garpike from Steel Battalion, and here's a video of what piloting it is like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-1jWbe8io4&t=5m25s
>>11080627
I wish it was. One can only dream.
>>11080632
oh fck off, we all were newfags once.
>>11080632
You make me sad, anon. Why I'm unwelcome here? I love mechs. And paint them from time to time.
>>11080605
http://www.youtube.com/user/BostonDynamics
http://youtu.be/wE3fmFTtP9g
Behold, the Wildcat and the Bigdog, along with many other strange, dystopian mechanical monsters.
>>11080641
That's sad, I love cute personifications. But I found cute SD variation on pixiv.
>>11080392
There's an entire campaign mission in Killzone 3 dedicated to taking that fucker out. To kill it you have to shoot cooling vents or some shit
>>11080641
>fck
No, you go fuck off.
>>11080646
>paint
>using shitty digital tools
Get real painting equipment. Then come back with a real painting and we'll talk.
>>11080640
>Why not just make a show about goddamn power armors?
The only show I know with a sorta-good portrayal of power armor is Bubblegum Crisis.
This is a valid question though. Why don't we have more anime about cool power armor, instead of that exoskeleton bullshit like in IS.
>>11080640
>that body shape
>those LEGS
>those FEET
That's far from being realistic.
>>11080692
i see you read my post
>>11080687
The easy answer is that you've got a viewer culture that supports this "giant person acting like a regular-sized person" shit.
Honestly, I used to have the biggest hate-on for humanoid mechs in general, but after watching The Big O I realized my issue isn't so much in the fact that they're humanoid in the first place, but that every series sells the basic features of mecha (size, being mechanical, being piloted) exceptionally poorly. I'm a Mechwarrior/Hawken/Steel Battalion/etc. fan and I enjoyed watching a mech with a fucking FACE fight other mechs with faces with its goddamn hands and it's all because it was more legitimate mech action than I've basically ever seen before from anime.
>>11080684
You'll post your impressive "real paintings" if you aren't a shitposting faggot, anon.
>>11080687
Blame Popy. Probably. Gundam was supposed to be about power armour initially, but they changed it to giant robots at some point.
>>11080684
>Suddenly Photoshop and graphical tabled which used by most professional artist is not "real" because anon on the internet said so.
Well, fuck you too. Thanks for good welcoming here anon. And I though /m/ is somewhat more decent than other boards, but I guess shitposters like you are everywhere.
Best of both worlds?
>>11080704
It's board where Battletech is never spoken of and super suits that aren't even power armor are talked about constantly, it makes no fucking sense, you just have to live with it.
>>11080704
It's 4chan, the only reason why anyone's here is because they haven't found better places to be.
Here's the Scare Face, also from Steel Battalion. It's a direct fire support (ie: sniper) mech. It's a "first-gen" mech (Steel Battalion has three "generations" of mecha, each one obviously being more advanced and powerful than the last). Here's a video of three of them beating a second gen and two third gens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnYP1XW97L4
>>11080716
atlas is doomed to look like shit forever
>>11079842
Here you go, OP.
>>11080716
It's like an Atlas and the EZ-8 got down and dirty
>>11080725
Honestly, the HAW-206 from the second episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is a better example. It had the decency to pack wheels, an anti-tank weapon, and machineguns. Also it was unmanned.
>>11080717
I'm okay with that.
I just didn't expect to meet that shitposter first day I started posting here.
>>11080721
>It's 4chan, the only reason why anyone's here is because they haven't found better places to be.
Guess how the hell I end up here? Same shit. Tired of other places.
>>11080716
Do those skulls on the shoulders burst open and reveal I-fiel...errr, I mean, AMS's? I really hope so.
>tanks vs mechs
Why not both
The Power Armor and Mobile Weaponry in Short Peace were the most practical I've seen in a while. I can actually see those being built and used in a few years.
>>11080587
Except it's huge, expensive, will require ass-loads of maintenance, is a massive target, will be slower then a comparable amount of firepower spread over a troop of armoured vehicles (which in turn means that if one vehicle is knocked out, you've still got 75% of the troops firepower while with that thing, you've got 0%).
As for maneuverability, to this date, the premier means of propulsion over rough terrain is tracks. They also help to keep the vehicle low to the ground. A house sized vehicle is a house sized target and the name of the game is currently trying to keep as low a profile on vehicles as possible. This is unlikely to change unless there's a revolution in armour or protection technology.
If your concept was sound, we'd be seeing the same thing being built but with treads. We don't.
remember
>>11079842
sorta related
US. Marines are beginning field tests for Big Dog
>>11080803
for what purpose
>>11080805
Riding it into battle naturally.
>>11080776
>except it's huge
A two-story house isn't huge, so I think your sense of scale might be completely off. In terms of silhouette, you're looking at something comparable to an Abrams with arms, except vertical.
>it would require ass-loads of maintenance
If you're trying to say that it would break down frequently, my response is that they wouldn't build one unless they overcame those issues. If you're trying to say it would need a lot of maintenance, then I guess I'm not seeing how it differs from existing tanks so much. Let's not even talk about aircraft.
>If your concept was sound we'd have these, except with shitty and unreliable movement methods
As much as I hate to sound like someone who can't take criticism, that comment was stupid. They built the F-35, and yet the concept of small tankbusting mech for urban environments isn't sound, and the proof is in the lack of an existing one.
I say urban because I realize that I neglected to mention something. The concept of a mech really doesn't work that well outside an environment with lots of cover. It goes without saying that a purpose-built anti-vehicle vehicle will always be the king of large swathes of desert and plains. Forests, both the tank and the mech lose there. Urban environments are where death happens though, for tanks and for infantry. That's where you'd want this. In that environment, its vertical clearance isn't going to be a problem like it would be in an open environment.
>>11080805
humanity's most powerful weapon
>>11080805
Just to shoot the breeze a little:
Mount weapons on a turret on its back, and you have an unmanned drone that can attack enemies without any of those pesky "wounds".
Use it to carry munitions and other heavy shit into battle.
Put sensors and shit on it and it's a scout drone.
Strap a bomb to it and it'll probably be a more reliable bomb platform than the F-35.
>>11080112
I want a portable version of FM4, 3, 2, and 5 just as an excuse to own a VITA. And, the ability to create generic pilots for a vs. mode, no New game+ irl penalties for spending time in the skill shop (It really did feel like a penalty in FM4), a secrets list that would tell you how to unlock item for consecutive play-throughs after you discovered them, and vs mode only parts lists for competitive play among other balancing with little power creep. You could also gain access to tanks and large units
I can dream...
>>11080814
>A two-story house isn't huge, so I think your sense of scale might be completely off. In terms of silhouette, you're looking at something comparable to an Abrams with arms, except vertical.
Anon, you do realize there's a reason soldiers keep their heads down when they're under fire, right?
>If you're trying to say it would need a lot of maintenance, then I guess I'm not seeing how it differs from existing tanks so much.
Tanks don't have 50 robotic joints.
>The concept of a mech really doesn't work that well outside an environment with lots of cover.
Which again makes the vertical shape a detriment.
> In that environment, its vertical clearance isn't going to be a problem like it would be in an open environment.
So the only purpose of it is that it could maybe step over more uneven terrain than a tank? Then what's the purpose of the arms? Why not just put legs on a tank that can pop out when it needs to get over shit?
>>11080834
>soldiers keep their heads down under fire
Your point is what? Does an Abrams tank in a city hide when it's being shot it? No, because it can't, because it's a tank.
>tanks don't have 50 robotic joints
>50
Neither do mechs.
>the vertical shape is a detriment
Not when you're surrounded by vertical cover. It's no more detrimental than an Abrams or a Bradley in a street. I have no problem admitting the fact that it's more of a target because of its vertical size and width, but any vehicle in an urban environment is a moving target already. I'm just not seeing it being terribly relevant as a counterpoint.
>so it's only purpose is that is can step over things? Why not put legs on a tank?
The ability to traverse terrain that wheeled and tracked vehicles can't, coupled with the ability to move sideways.
>why give it arms?
Who said anything about giving it arms? You could if you wanted to, or you could make a system to allow for its weapons to be interchanged like they have for planes.
>>11080658
Now if they could just change out the engine for something quieter.
>>11080856
>if they could
it would be easy for these engineers to dampen the sounds of that engine, but it's completely frivolous for the sake of a prototype.
>>11080850
>>so it's only purpose is that is can step over things? Why not put legs on a tank?
>The ability to traverse terrain that wheeled and tracked vehicles can't, coupled with the ability to move sideways.
You didn't answer the second question.
>Who said anything about giving it arms?
>you're looking at something comparable to an Abrams with arms, except vertical.
Go home anon, you're drunk.
>>11080883
>>11080890
>>11080877
>what about the second question
...
>why not put legs on a tank?
Why not just make it a walker then? AKA a mech.
>You're drunk
OK, fair enough. I actually meant shoulders, as in it would have additional horizontal features beyond its torso. You get what I'm trying to say, hopefully.
![Patlabor_the_Movie_2_(1993)_[720p,BluRay,x264]_-_THORA[20-21-43].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vgxk11h.jpg "Patlabor_the_Movie_2_(1993)_[720p,BluRay,x264]_-_THORA[20-21-43].jpg")
>>11080892
As for Mecha, PA to 25ft robots are the most realistic, and variable weapons load-outs, guns with cameras built-in, and arms with human-like or above posing/articulation will be plenty realistic and advantageous.
Though manipulators will have some crazy designs, and human-likes will be made due to popularity big mechs or familiarity for 1-1 movement. Manipulators may facilitate a need for various sensors and a like sense of touch, which might make hands wonderful for rescue work.
![Patlabor_the_Movie_2_(1993)_[720p,BluRay,x264]_-_THORA[04-47-46].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nKfvlQT.jpg "Patlabor_the_Movie_2_(1993)_[720p,BluRay,x264]_-_THORA[04-47-46].jpg")
>>11080894
>>11080893
Here's a picture to add to that. There's a literal walking tank for you.
![(G_P) Patlabor TV 20(x264 720p)(A54B7866)[17-42-51].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1yicQ8O.jpg "(G_P) Patlabor TV 20(x264 720p)(A54B7866)[17-42-51].jpg")
>>11080897
>>11080900
>>11080905
>>11080909
>>11080310
Used to mainly because armour development lagged so heavily behind weapons development. It didn't matter how much armour you had when a simple explosive or handheld rocket could pierce it. It didn't help that tanks are notoriously difficult to maintain making often a UAV more practical.
Tanks are only starting to come back into fashion because of some of those new composite ceramic armours they've cooked up which are able to take hits.
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if in the future tanks simply become obsolete and your standard land heavy artillery is a hybrid walker/roller like the Tachikoma.
>>11080914
>>11080923
beautiful
>>11080923
>>11080927
>>11080934
>>11080927
i started watching votoms but maybe i should have watched dougram instead.
>military anime with not just japanese and white people
>same real robot sensibilites, if not as realistic with sizing
>>11080934
the Destroid Defender, Destroid Tomahawk, and Destroid Monster are all pretty awesome designs.
Thanks for this dump.
>>11080942
>>11080943
no prob.
>>11080934
>>11080947
>>11080953
>>11080959
>>11080961
>>11080967
>>11080974
>>11080976
>>11080979
>>11080985
>>11080725
It doesn't look as boxy or awesome in real life. Still cool.
Goliath online.
>>11080716
I actually like this version of the Atlas better.
I'd mention Titans if it wasn't for
>Hands
>What is ammunition storage?
>>11081436
Are hands really that bad?
>>11081593
Not necessarily, but to me it just sounds as if it brings a whole lot of problems. At least if the idea is for it to actually HOLD weapons, plenty of BattleTech mechs still has hands but they mount the mlas or whatever on the wrists.
First of all, hands are "complicated". In the sense that there's a lot of moving parts and that means a bigger chance of failure especially if they're used for melee combat. Then there's this thing where a lot of mechs with articulated hands will use upscaled handheld weapons with magazines for whatever reason when it really ought to be more practical to just have some sort of direct ammo feed. Suppose it depends on the scale of the mech since internal ammunition storage probably takes up a whole lot space.
On the other hand if a mech design is meant to primarily use handheld weapons it probably gives it some more flexibility and/or ease of production since you only need to work with one chassis instead of producing several different variants or having to refit and rearm it entirely. At least, that's what I can think of at the top off my head.
>>11081630
Unnmounting and remounting weapons could probably be done in a much easier way than a hand assembly. You could just have latches and maybe a control/power cable or two at the elbow.
Hands could help the mech do other things, like improvise melee weapons or just help out around field bases where auxiliary equipment to haul around mech-sized supplies might be sparse. If a mech weapon is large enough I'm thinking it could possibly be beneficial to hold it with both arms, but a lot of mech designs have some pretty huge weapons as it is. Still a possible canonical reason to have, which you could supplement with the mech carrying backup weapons on its back. (Not that these weapons couldn't just be affixed to the upper torso on turret mounts, mind you...)
>>11081683
Yeah, that's another thing that bothers me. Whilst it is cool as fuck, when you got secondary weapons like the weapon bays in the recent Armored Core or pic related "securely attached" really isn't a phrase that comes to mind.
>>11081746
Mechs with capes make my blood boil. A gross violation of >>11080640 .
The best sheath/holster/etc. for a mech would probably be an actuated clamp. Mech grabs handle or some other part of weapon, pressure from hand + proximity to clamp (you'd want a sensor) releases clamp, mech swings weapon forward for use.
>>11081766
Or you could just not have holsters at all and just mount several pairs of arms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVv3xkjWXag
>>11081837
Well, if you end up getting to the point where you want multiple arms, you might as well just have multiple turrets. Less articulation to mess around with and you're probably not as concerned about manipulators. (Or you have two manipulators already, and thus extra ones wouldn't really be easy to control anyway.)
>>11080717
Battletech shows up all the damn time.
>>11080893
Because as soon as you bring legs into it, you have a mode of locomotion that is far more complicated, far easier to damage, to this date and potentially in the future far less effective then treads and cannot be as well armoured.
You're looking at a logistical nightmare that won't perform as well, yet costs more. You'd have to follow your units with more engineers, which need more supplies, which costs more both in terms of equipment and men. And you'll also need transportation for them AND you'd need more units to screen these engineers with the only benefit being 'they can take advantage of vertical cover' only to be brutally honest, when you're talking about cover that can stop AP munitions, you're basically talking about ground; hills, ridges and such because modern AT munitions aside from missiles will go right through most buildings. And missiles would have an easier time of hitting your house-tall machine because it would be around three/four times taller then a conventional vehicle.
Now comes the other question; if you're not using these in an armoured role either for manever or for urban combat, then why are they useful at all? Remember, the role of an armoured fightingvehicle is to carry a weapon and protect the crew. If you strap a ton of weapon systems to a vehicle, then if that vehicle goes up, you've just lost a large amount of firepower which for the commander of the element, his boss, his boss' boss and the bean counters running things is bad.
>>11080717
>>11081918
Just remembered, it's actually got a reasonably frequent General over in /tg/. Check around there if you're interested.
The problem with mechs as a whole, at least the way I see it, is that in order for them to be practical, you'd have to advance various scientific areas (material science, computer technology, figuring out how to control it, ect) that would provide just as much, if not more benefit for traditional fighting vehicles. That and the fact that mechs are only really useful in certain, overly specific situations, means that it's not really worth the development cost.
I like those discussions, even if we have some unimaginative strawman or simply troll insisting that mechs could only be 18m tall tumbling machine with gold-plated gear made of glass for added fragility.
Of course we have to make a few assumption when we try to imagine a realistic mech
(1) The technology evolved : Right there we have those who think the material able to take the stress don't exist, and those who think it's mainly a problem of power-source and/or control system
(2) There was a shift in military doctrine : I think it can easily happen. If we are concerned about mech being more fragile and bigger, does it really matter when modern bombs/missile/cannons can hit target to the centimeter ?
(3) Lastly, they are compatible with the rest of the army : They do not fight alone, think combined-arms.
After, what we need is to forget assumption and try some lateral-thinking. So we don't propose another FMP-like spetnaz-mech to kill tank SWAT-like with fictional plasma-gun (aka hot gases sprayer)
Can't say I have the answers to the ideal realistic mech. However I see a few argument in favor :
- Combat engineering, the ability to lift heavy weight for both troops, tank, and logistic vehicle
- Greater cross-terrain capability, because tracks do not nullify obstacle and there's other needs than blowing shit up.
- The ability to install heavy weapon/equipment in inaccessible place.
-...etc
Also I'm tired of some old assumptions :
- Why would a mech be built only to match tank ? as if every other units were also in-fact tanks.
- Why would a mech cost more than a tank ? Have you seen how complex a tank suspension and drivetrain is ? Mech would be robotic, fortunately industrial robotic, which is robust.
-...etc
>>11082028
>Have you seen how complex a tank suspension and drivetrain is ?
Not nearly as complex as the drive system on a mech would be. Not to mention it's a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper!) to replace a broken track or road/drive wheel then it is to fix a broken leg or foot.
>Mech would be robotic, fortunately industrial robotic, which is robust.
If by this, you mean a mech would work well because industrial robots work well, then you're just wrong.
There's a BIG difference between a robot that does one or two things over and over in a clean-ish facility, and if it breaks can be fixed almost immediately, and a mech that's in the dirt and grime, being shot at, and can't always be maintained on schedule.
The way I see it:
humanoid mech = infantry + security (this mainly replaces the role of infantry in keeping the peace, taking prisoners etc, and allows them to not feel horribly exposed while doing these essential jobs)
non-humanoid/not necessarily humanoid mech = firing round corners and through awkward gaps (in this case mech essentially just means "tank with arms")
>>11082153
In fact, regarding the concept of a tank with arms, once you have arms it may be practical to give it legs as well, for more stability and flexibility in finding new firing positions. Obviously these legs would be 4+, and probably retractable or convertible to wheeled locomotion in some way.
do I count?!?
>>11082565
Did Giger design that or what.
>>11082406
>>11082153
One ied that costs $1500 dollars will ruin your warmachine that costs 20 million.
You do not take tanks into towns because infantry will utterly fuck it.
There's nothing a powered armor can do that a tank can't, except the powered armor will always be less effective than a tank.
>>11080803
Reminder that they gave Big Dog a "face."
A "face" designed to throw bricks.
Also it doesn't sound like a lawnmower being raped by a chainsaw anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvLalY6ubc
>>11082565
Calling it now: they're gonna start air dropping armed Big Dogs from the drones soon.
>>11082582
I had this same discussion when titanfall came out. There's literally no benefit of armored walking machines that isn't better served by infantry, tanks, and CAS.
/thread
>>11082625
They never needed those. They have this.
The terminators are for terror, the HK is for combat.
>>11082565
If you can transform into a humanoid mode, you count.
>>11079842
What's that smaller mech on the left? I like it.
>>11082140
You are making a lot of misguided assumptions.
> Not nearly as complex as the drive system on a mech would be. Not to mention it's a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper!) to replace a broken track or road/drive wheel then it is to fix a broken leg or foot.
Nowadays tank's suspension have a level of finesse that make them equivalent in complexity to what you would find in a helicopter (I work in aeronautic). And those tank design originated during the 80's.
You have first to define the mech before attempting your mandatory "real mech such" speech. I admit it's hard when the common denominator from animes use upsized hand-held weapon (that can shoot tank) aimed through 6 successive joints. That's why I insisted that you had to forget what you've learned here.
About "fixing" a tank, after it's obliteration by <insert cheap weapon> the word you seek is "scavenging".
I'm not implying maintenance don't happen, I'm putting things in perspective.
> If by this, you mean a mech would work well because industrial robots work well, then you're just wrong.
There's a BIG difference between a robot that does one or two things over and over in a clean-ish facility, and if it breaks can be fixed almost immediately, and a mech that's in the dirt and grime, being shot at, and can't always be maintained on schedule.
Do you have a big interest about the inner working of the infrastructure running our own society ?
You've got example everywhere of industrial machine that have been working in worst condition, non stop, without more than basic maintenance for years and doing job of great precision. The high cost of aircraft and helicopters for example aren't due to over-technology as much as red-tape, and trying to extend materials limit.
In short :
Do not confuse the absence of a "working mech" (anime-like in any case) for an fundamental flaw in the concept. Some techs just come later than other.
>>11082699
The point of a tank is armor, range, and armament.
You cannot have the same effectiveness in a walking vehicle. If you took a mech into a town it would step on a mine or get shot in the back with an rpg, or trip on debris or anything designed to stop tanks.
It's not practical, and advanced tech will just make it more impractical.
>>11082699
So your argument is that science fiction is prophecy of the future?
You know why mechs are popular? They're just a sword for a hero. Tanks are multi-person and much harder to give the glory to a single protagonist.
Hence, gundam.
Does this count?
>>11082744
that's a tank.
>>11082713
Even tanks in an urban environment need infantry support. And in mountain warfare something small and light like powered armor of even a small mech like an AT would be useful.
>>11082768
>Even tanks in an urban environment
Wait, what now? Are you talking about the second world war now?
You NEVER take tanks into an urban environment. You leave them on the outskirts where their armament is useful and they can't be picked off by infantry with manpads.
>And in mountain warfare something small and light like powered armor of even a small mech like an AT would be useful.
Or just infantry, because that's affordable and doesn't attract heat seeking missiles.
Mechs have no use other than in fiction as the sci-fi equivalent of a sword. It's meant to be the hero vs. the badguy.
>>11082713
replace the gun with hypervelocity missiles
replace the armor with active defenses and sensor-dominance so that height is now an advantage
now your points are obsolete.
I'm a tank purist, but you need to step it up. Besides, in a fictional setting, as long as most things look plausible, ou can handwave the rest.
>step on mines
Increased leg length and flexibility improves operator survival rates versus blast mines through energy diffusion according to the inverse cube law, rendering mecha the ultimate in hypersurvivable counter-IED warfare.
I'll say this as a reminder: mechs have uses beyond bipedal terrestrial warmachines.
Hell, we literally have a car-sized science robot on another planet RIGHT NOW.
>>11082787
>realistically speaking, a mech would have at least three operators, the same as a tank crew, for the same reasons.
>but this defeats the purpose of having the protagonist win.
>feet are better than tracks
Ever walked in mud? Tracks are hard enough to keep clean, a mech would experience mechanical failures almost instantly in any sort of combat environment since it's a billion times more complicated than it needs to be to bring weapons you could easily mount on a jeep or LAV.
>>11082796
>replace the gun with hypervelocity missiles
The tank could carry a bigger one with better range, or many, many more smaller ones.
>replace the armor with active defenses and sensor-dominance so that height is now an advantage
What the fuck does that mean? You think chaff countermeasures work on hypersonic missiles? Hypersonic missiles would nullify anything because nothing could react fast enough.
>the machine would still be operational after an ied blast.
I don't think you know anything about metallurgy or physics. You're telling me this thing can walk on dirt while weighing as much as an abrams because it has the same armament and armor as one?
If not, it's less effective. Come on man, stop making excuses for thematic devices not intended to be taken seriously.
>>11079842
>realistic
>mechs
LOL
>>11082798
so a roomba is a mech?
>>11082582
>You do not take tanks into towns because infantry will utterly fuck it.
You now realize that tanks were employed heavily in Fallujah to great success, mirroring previous successes in jungle warfare during Vietnam and urban warfare during World War 2.
Using tanks in urban warfare is basic western tactics, because that's the whole purpose of a tank: direct fire support in complex conditions. Of course, they're more vulnerable than on a flat plain, that doesn't mean they are some easy prey, or useless.
>but muh Grozny
Retarded Russians making the worst possible mistakes, ones that the greenest 2nd lieutenant in a western country would not dream of, do not disqualify nearly a century of success.
>>11082796
So because you can imagine a completely crazy and implausible tech, mechs will always be superior?
>>11082816
It's a robot, is it not?
Roo/m/ba.
>>11082817
Oh, so we're assuming that mechs will only ever be deployed against greatly disadvanted foes with a massive gap in technology, logistics, and organization?
I guess that makes your argument a lot easier.
>Even though armored, tanks and mechanized infantry units also face dangers in confined urban areas due to limited all-round observation and restrictions to maneuver capabilities. This places them at an especially severe disadvantage when operating alone. During urban encounters by US armored elements in Iraq, troops reported several effective tactics used by insurgents, including sniping and dropping grenades from rooftops or upper floor windows, in an attempt to attack vehicle crews and commanders through open hatches. Other tactics included simultaneous attacks on both flanks from alleys, allowing the insurgents to fire RPGs from close range at these relatively weak areas of the tank’s armor.
>Tanks and other armored vehicles are not invincible, especially in urban terrain, where they are vulnerable to attacks from close range by man-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs. Since the urban scenario has no "frontline", attacks can come not only from the front, where the tanks are heavily protected, but also from above, and from the flanks or the rear, aiming at the vehicle's weak spots. Attacks by IEDs and mines can also come from below the surface.
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-urban-armor.htm
>>11082826
Except with mechs, all the insurgents would need is a steel cable tripwire. or light arms fire against the joints.
No matter what, a mech will be lightly armored. You can't put 60 tons on two spindly posts and not have them sink into the ground.
>>11082826
This. Tanks are easy enough for primitives to destroy, the army isn't going to field a vehicle that costs three times as much and is far easier to incapacitate.
>>11082810
>bigger ones
What are optimized salvo-model combat numbers? Hint: bigger ones, or more on the same frame, don't confer an advantage. You'd build more frames instead.
>chaff is an active defense
Now I know you're not conversant in the technology of the post-1980s armor world.
Spoiler: active defense means shooting down bullets with other bullets (ok, occasionally directed blasts), not chaff. And yes, they can react fast enough, AMAP-ADS for example reacts in microseconds.
>caring about the machine
Seriously. Noone cares about the machine in a post-nuclear democracy. It's a mechanism to preserve the operator first. Then comes keeping the machine functional in the short-term - e.g. adding multiple legs, so if one is blown off, it keeps fighting instead of being recovered by a wrecker.
Cost is not a factor, because there will be two dozen spare legs ready to bolt on back at the forward base, and a pair of spare robots.
>weighing as much as an abrams
The point of active defenses is reducing your inert armor down to the HMG to autocannon-resistant range, while retaining full protection.
Something like a Gekko, for instance, is most logical. Or something slightly larger, with a cockpit. This would be in the 10-15 ton range, not 70-80 tons. And this is long before bringing other tech, whether well proven like UHMWPE semiablatives, in prototyping like CNT-doped titanium, or scifi stuff like nanotube sheets.
>>11082841
>What are optimized salvo-model combat numbers? Hint: bigger ones, or more on the same frame, don't confer an advantage. You'd build more frames instead.
Vehicles cost less than ordinance now? So many strange rules in the future.
>Spoiler: active defense means shooting down bullets with other bullets (ok, occasionally directed blasts), not chaff. And yes, they can react fast enough, AMAP-ADS for example reacts in microseconds.
Show me a video of one defending a hypersonic missile strike.
>Seriously. Noone cares about the machine in a post-nuclear democracy. It's a mechanism to preserve the operator first. Then comes keeping the machine functional in the short-term - e.g. adding multiple legs, so if one is blown off, it keeps fighting instead of being recovered by a wrecker.
So how many legs do they have and what combat effectiveness does the vehicle have when totally disabled? A tank can still fight even detracked. What can a mech do laying on its side?
>Cost is not a factor, because there will be two dozen spare legs ready to bolt on back at the forward base, and a pair of spare robots.
Oh so magic replicator infinite money future economics for the sake of storytelling?
>Something like a Gekko, for instance, is most logical.
Are you this fucking bad at knowing what's possible with engineering?
Is this "less fake" mechs or realistic ones? because you're talking about making something more expensive and less practical than the f-35.
>>11082841
It's not realistic if everything depends on proven impossible nonsense.
>>11082841
I'd love to see this guy try and play wargame, just massing tanks and helicopters everywhere and losing them all to cheapass rpg's.
>>11082819
None of these techs are crazy, or implausible: everything I mentioned has working prototypes over two decades old. Nor do they make mechs superior. They simply make mechs plausible.
>>11082826
>Oh, so we're assuming that mechs will only ever be deployed against greatly disadvanted foes
Straight answer: probably. 90% of wars are that way.
>urban armor
War is dangerous, wear a helmet.
None of these are some special sauce. On the contrary, the proliferation of RPGs, and multitude of city hiding spots has been a critical element in the reintroduction of heavy armor to cities.
A tank can carry more armor and HE than people, and go faster; and every pair of tanks (tanks never travel alone) is customarily supported by 30-40 infantry.
Tanks in cities is a basic American combat technique, that's been executed successfully in every war American's have had tanks.
All these things you mention are cinematic tricks. Indeed, if the tankers are retards, and the hunters are geniuses, and the tankers fail basic tactics forever, then it can be pulled off.
The other 99.99% of the time, combined arms rape face.
>>11082874
>None of these techs are crazy, or implausible: everything I mentioned has working prototypes over two decades old. Nor do they make mechs superior. They simply make mechs plausible.
A prototype means it's practical? Where is my zeppelin cruise ship?
>Straight answer: probably. 90% of wars are that way.
And all your future tech won't balance anything?
>a tank can carry more HE
Than a mech. End of story.
A jeep would have about the same maneuverability as a real mech, why not strap a bunch of guns to that lightly armored frame so a guy with a 50 cal can ruin it's lightly armored legs?
>>11082874
>All these things you mention are cinematic tricks. Indeed, if the tankers are retards, and the hunters are geniuses, and the tankers fail basic tactics forever, then it can be pulled off.
I cited combat reports, asshat. Are you calling them stupid for following orders to go into places where an rpg can fuck them in an instant with zero warning?
>>11082888
In his mechanimus, people disobey orders all the time, so he probably does.
>>11082713
Well, who said mech must replace tank ? How do you define that "effectiveness" mister Armchair General ?
Are gunship replacing tank ? Are troops-transport replacing tank ? That's tunnel vision, anime certainly don't teach people to think outside archetype.
My opinion is that most arguments regarding cost and complexity are bound to evaporate as we eventually start developing "walker", carve its niche, and then forget why Walker could have been seen as a bad idea.
>>11082717
Prophecy would imply we can recognize the result as close of the original but I doubt our descendant will realize they'll live in a world that is SF to us.
If we go back 50 years earlier no SF author really guessed right how technology would turn out.
Arthur C Clarke came up with the concept of geostationary satellite, and in his "2001: Odyssey" book he actually described....... a Smartphone !
Yet Internet came out of the blue, we don't have flying car, we don't do lot of aerobic, there's no colony on Mars, and I'm expecting an HUGE boom of "Augmented Reality" that looked "crazy exaggerated stuff" in anime like "Denno Coil".
>>11082787
> Or just infantry, because that's affordable and doesn't attract heat seeking missiles.
Until the day you expect any soldier to carry a suit of sensor able to localize any enemy soldiers through mean you didn't knew existed.
The army is working right know on a way to network helmet with micro to localize gunshot by sounds.
> Mechs have no use other than in fiction as the sci-fi equivalent of a sword. It's meant to be the hero vs. the badguy.
Haha ! That's so childish.
Yeah, sure, there never was any fiction with a grey morality or a greater attention to realism.
>>11082896
If you have tanks, CAS, and infantry, what unique role does the mech serve?
Nothing. It's the equivalent of a jeep made of tissue paper.
>My opinion is that most arguments regarding cost and complexity are bound to evaporate as we eventually start developing "walker", carve its niche, and then forget why Walker could have been seen as a bad idea.
Oh, so you believe in the nonsense of exponential returns? Nothing i can do to change that opinion, i know.
>If we go back 50 years earlier no SF author really guessed right how technology would turn out.
Argument from ignorance?
>Until the day you expect any soldier to carry a suit of sensor able to localize any enemy soldiers through mean you didn't knew existed.
The army is working right know on a way to network helmet with micro to localize gunshot by sounds.
The US military? Oh you mean the same ones who think the F-35 is good?
Oh yeah, we should trust them, it's not like they're bad with budgets or anything, clearly overcomplicating everything is the solution.
>Yeah, sure, there never was any fiction with a grey morality or a greater attention to realism.
Maybe once or twice. But Gundamn Build Fighters defeats your point on its own.
>>11082888
You're talking like risk means that something is useless. That's not how armies work.
Nor is your pat description how tanks work in cities. They blow up strong points that could attack infantry which are several blocks ahead, then the infantry flanking them clear the buildings up to that point so the tanks don't get shot from the side or behind, repeat.
>>11082925
>the military doesn't care about soldiers
Oh fuck off you bleeding heart hippy.
>>11082925
So it hits a mine or a tank trap. Then the snipers wait for people to show up at the tank.
It's bad news, and mechs won't change anything because they MUST be lightly armed and lightly armored to be able to move at all.
Not to mention the stresses on the frame would be a maintenance nightmare, as well as getting shit in all the servos.
Engineers do not make things needlessly complicated. That's what artists are for.
>>11080738
The spider tank from the first GITS movie was unmanned too though.
>>11082896
>My opinion is that most arguments regarding cost and complexity are bound to evaporate as we eventually start developing "walker", carve its niche, and then forget why Walker could have been seen as a bad idea.
Here's the thing though. Mechs, in a stand alone environment, aren't really that bad of an idea.
The problem is that tanks and traditional fighting vehicles are a thing. They will never stop being a thing. They are such an important thing, that no sane entity (whether it be a country or a corporation or whatever) will spend the billions and billions of dollars to develop something to replace those vehicles.
"BUT, they won't replace tanks!" I hear you say. Alright. Fair point. What niche can they fill that isn't already filled?
Also, I say again that any technological advancement that would make mechs viable would be just as useful on a traditional AFV.
>>11082940
And it used magic servos and a magic power source, neither of which are actually possible.
>>11079842
>i want to see some sanity and sense
pic not related I presume? Because you are retarded if you think chicken legs and top heavy designs with fixed "arm guns" are more realistic than your standard humanoid mech.
>>11082932
Backwards, bright spark.
The military uses tanks in cities because it massively reduces risk compared to clearing rooms by grenade, which in turn is better than clearing rooms with small arms.
This is basic military history. If you don't believe me, which is understandable, since basic knowledge in most fields is counterintuitive to the ignorant, I suggest reading any semi-detailed book on industrial and post-industrial war, be it historical, tactical, operational, memoirs, or plain cheat sheets, AARs and white papers.
Haha, this thread again
You dumb motherfuckers.
>>11082947
So what unique roll do mechs fill?
How fucking hard is that?
>muh armchair military commander
And where did you do your tour?
>>11082944
>magic power supply
Check.
>magic servos
Regenerative electric motors can do that, though.
>>11082953
>So what unique roll do mechs fill?
Figher jet that walks like a man
>And where did you do your tour?
Space shuttle door gunner, 101st chairborne
>>11082957
>Regenerative electric motors can do that, though.
There's no electric motor that can move something with a useful armament at any appreciable speed, nor is there likely to ever be one because the universe wasn't designed for us so there's not a solution to every problem we've seen solved in science fiction.
Oh wait, wait, don't tell me, artificial muscles? Because metal gear solid did it?
Do you people see fiction and you just can't tell the difference? I remember people saying your generation wouldn't have that ability.
Sad to see that's the case.
>>11082964
>Figher jet that walks like a man
So a useless thing? Oh, let me guess, you're citing your ace combat experience? The only thing jets have going for them is speed.
now if only the game wasn't terrible, and the mech designs were a little less stupid.
No good pics of the HVT though.
Soulless machines are boring, lame and unbelievably uncool. Anyone who disagrees is a disgusting turbonerd who probably reeks of Cheetos and ass sweat.
>>11079842
>Bipedal walking tanks
>Realistic
Don't get me wrong, I love giant robots as much as the next guy, but to say its realistic is silly.
>>11083016
>Crew compartment filling with smoke
>Reach to pull the cabin ventilator chain thing
>bring up the control panel by accident
>put it back away
>Reach for ventilator again
>Give gunner a hand job, then rub the jizz all into the loader's hair.
>crew dies of smoke inhalation.
Better with Kinect
>>11083059
I was so disappoint when i tried the demo.
So i watched the let's play. Missions barely last over fifteen minutes, unless you're braindead.
Plus i don't think i saw this little guy wandering around the game.
>>11082913
Answering your shitty insult would waste my time, kids.
>>11082943
Hoping you are not the fuckwit above, the problem is the assumption that everything is based on "niche". Military doctrine change with technology and over 60 years there's been fundamental change in things that look the same.
We abandoned Destroyer warship for Missile-warship and Aircraft-carrier
Air-fighting and bombing is not done at visual range.
Tanks themselves acquired complex targeting-computer and autoloader. Light and Heavy class were abandoned for Main Battle Tank. And themselves mostly hold up because of inertia.
Helicopter themselves have their own class, between recon, transport and gunship.
If they weren't "unmanned" by definition I would expect drone to become their own sub-corps.
But worst is this this hopeless eagerness to hail "mech" as being outside the realm of physics, as if they were exotic anti-photon particles hard to obtain...in a parallel fictional-universe.
Which bring me to OP, this is not because it ain't gonna happen anytime soon that we have to abandon all hope of seeing hardish military SF.
>>11082966
Actually what I said was that (if) in 50 years we do create things (like artificial muscle and build robot or say prosthetic), the next generation might not understand we didn't thought of it sooner.
Or they'll find something even more awesome and will look at us old-geezer as funny creature who though Batlle Tank would continue to be used eternally, just like sword and bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvbLij4AaPE (go further than the railgun)
for the fun : http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3406#comic
>>11082966
>Artificial muscles
These actually exist. I've seen one before in person, and in action. Basically a tube with pressure valves on it that expands and contracts. Whether what currently exists would even be useful I can't say, but the concept of an object that acts like a muscle exists. There's only up from there.
>there's no electric motor that can move something with a useful armament at any appreciable speed
Yet again, things that already exist: This.
>>11080830
>Use it to carry munitions and other heavy shit into battle.
>having your own lil BigDog to carry all your junk, so you don't have to worry about running around with that heavy ass pack on your back anymore
that sounds so kawaii :3
Armored Assault Infantry, like the M.I from Starship troopers.
kinda like this guy >>11082153
/thread
>>11083830
>talking about heavy support infantry role
There are people that, for some reason, think that the military would never have use for small-sized mechs with anti-infantry weapons and better anti-tank weapons.
In my experience, the people who feel this way typically don't understand the military in general, and as it was previously mentioned, the concept of combined arms.
That being said, here's a picture of something the U.S. military uses for some strange reason. You tell me: Would you rather have a 12-25' bipedal or quadrapedal mech armed with various anti-infantry, anti-tank, and support weapons behind you, or would you prefer an MGS Stryker?
>>11080802
>>11082656
It's a raptor from this kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mechafront/mecha-front-miniatures
I really like the goshawk (the one on the right in this pic)
>>11083872
id prefer a striker and a few troops getting support from a couple M.I.s
>>11082798
A nuclear-powered laser-toting car-sized science robot, at that.
>>11079887
does the hildofr count? its like 60% tank 40% mech. im bretty sure the xamel was the hildofr's successor.
>>11082966
Horseless carriages are a preposterous fancy invented by useless daydreamers. Nothing human science can produce will ever surpass the strength or weight-pulling capability of a well-bred horse.
>>11082966
>artificial muscle
i got news for you champ. they are real. early versions, but real
>humanity fuck yeah
>>11082582
A tank can't fire round corners without exposing itself
>>11084252
IEDs will cripple a mech even better than a tank
>>11084261
>IEDs will cripple mechs more than tanks
Actually that's unlikely.
An explosive's ability to damage a tank hinges on it being located UNDER the tank. Being anywhere else significantly reduces its effectiveness. This is because the underside of a tank is a small pocket of air between the ground and a somewhat flat sheet of weaker armor. In other words, it's heaven for an explosive. On the sides, an IED is likely to total a tank's ability to maneuver.
So basically an armored mech would be just as capable of being demobilized by an explosive as a tank, but would have a higher chance of surviving because of its shape and because of pressure.
Explosively-formed penetrators don't care about either and will destroy them equally.
>>11083814
It would only be traditionally cute if the drone had an appropriate head attached, to facilitate proper emotional bonding.
>>11084313
they can put a kawaii shotgun on top so it can save its squadmates from IEDs like a trooper.
#neverforgetBigDog
>>11084313
>attach a human head
becomes a perfect drone of terror
>>11084315
What kind of shotgun would that be? A pink shotgun that shoots daisies?
>>11084325
Let's try a differen head type, something more fitting for a four legged beast, like a mule or a bull
>>11084300
>This is because the underside of a tank is a small pocket of air between the ground and a somewhat flat sheet of weaker armor. In other words, it's heaven for an explosive.
You have quite literally no idea what you are talking about.
>>11082913
>The US military? Oh you mean the same ones who think the F-35 is good?
>Oh yeah, we should trust them
Well I was about to agree with you, then you went full retard.
>>11083872
You would likely be able to buy several MGS Strykers for the cost of a single 12-25' mech, all the while having drastically heavier firepower per vehicle.
>>11084381
>drastically heavier firepower per vehicle
And drastically less usefulness.
>>11084367
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>Pictured: Exactly what was quoted by the post, except they bolted more armor to the tank for the exact reasons specified.
>>11079847
They have the sense of balance of a normal-ass human, actually.
Neurohelmets, nig.
>>11084402
>And drastically less usefulness
lel, no
>Pictured: Exactly what was quoted by the post, except they bolted more armor to the tank for the exact reasons specified.
Something you wouldn't be able to do to a mech without impeding its ability to move, nevermind the fact that the size of an IED's that armor plate is meant for would turn a mech into unrecognizable pieces.
>>11084436
>lel no
Oh, so they've added grenade launchers and machinegun turrets to the Stryker MGS now?
>ARMOR PLATE IS SO BIG BECAUSE IT MUST
That armor plate is that big because it's a stop-gap solution. They literally bolted on as much armor as they could get away with without causing the Abrams to bottom out excessively.
Any IED that can take out an Abrams would naturally take out a mech as well. It's easy to forget that the armoring of an Abrams is angled or flat, and not curved. It's very likely the geometry of mechs would be focused on using curved armor wherever possible to allow it to withstand more.
Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that an Abrams has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever, because we're talking about realistically feasible mechs that would support infantry, and not MBTs.
>>11084462
>Oh, so they've added grenade launchers and machinegun turrets to the Stryker MGS now?
A 12-25' mech would not have grenade launcher and machine guns and a 105mm gun either unless you drastically increased the weight to a point where a Stryker MGS is a inappropriate comparison.
>That armor plate is that big because it's a stop-gap solution. They literally bolted on as much armor as they could get away with without causing the Abrams to bottom out excessively.
Because dealing with IED's that consist of hundreds of pounds of explosives is not normal, and required stop-gap solution. Nevermind that these stop-gap solutions allow a tank to survive far larger IED's than a mech would be able to.
>It's easy to forget that the armoring of an Abrams is angled or flat, and not curved. It's very likely the geometry of mechs would be focused on using curved armor wherever possible to allow it to withstand more.
Composite armors are more effective when they are flat.
>because we're talking about realistically feasible mechs that would support infantry, and not MBTs.
Not according to the series of posts I initially responded to.
>>11084490
>a whatever would not have all these things
Of course it wouldn't have a 105mm gun. It's not a tank. You'd give it some anti-tank missiles and call it good. Or better yet, a railgun, because by the time a machine like this were feasible that would be a legitimate option.
As you say though, there's no reason to think that a mech that size couldn't fit a 105mm cannon if it were a quadraped. You could probably go larger with ground piles and the like, if you wanted it to be nothing more than an artillery platform. That would be kind of pointless since it wouldn't be an IFV at that point.
>Dem IEDs are deadly shit and would sooner destroy a mech than a tank.
Well to be fair they'd sooner destroy any non-tank than a tank.
>But I was talking about people talking about mecha MBTs!
Who? The more recent well-informed posters have been talking about why mechs aren't really feasible past infantry support because tanks are already specialized for blowing up armored vehicles and there's no need to evolve beyond them.
>>11084436
The guy have a point.
The underside of a tank is a big flat slab that will take IED full strength let alone military-grade shaped mines. The shockwave have nowhere to go but through the metal. If you looked at the picture, know there's videos of 50tons tank being hurled in the air, not just light armor.
This is why special truck were in fact made with an hexagonal underside for the express purpose of surviving IED and that's also why we try to pre-detonate RPG even a few centimeter away from the armor.
Where Mech enter the reasoning is that hypothetically they could have far less surface in direct proximity with known explosive device and more open space for the explosion to diffuse harmlessly. Obviously it wouldn't make them immune but only experience can tell us if it work.
Some people here have to realize that military vehicle aren't made perfect for their expected mission and have design flaws the army just go with, because the enemy WILL exploit them anyway, the goal of the game is to keep changing the rules.
>>11083872
> You tell me: Would you rather have a 12-25' bipedal or quadrapedal mech armed with various anti-infantry, anti-tank, and support weapons behind you, or would you prefer an MGS Stryker?
Their design would call for different jobs, can the striker traverse very rocky terrain in high altitude ? Can they do heavy lifting ? Switch weapon ?
Saw that earlier >>11081683
> Except with mechs, all the insurgents would need is a steel cable tripwire..
Funny thing, that's the very reason the army used to put blade in front of jeep. Also, last I heard tank were not cost-effective anti-insurgency weapons.
> or light arms fire against the joints
Gotta love how critics expect every single soldier to become all marksman and anti-armor specialists when there's a mech around.
If I was in the military in charge of mechs, I would leak to the enemy that joints are extremely vulnerable and armor them (if even necessary)
>>11079842
The most realistic mecha I've seen so far is the Knight of Sidonia ones (specifically the mark 18 and Tsugemori)
>Derived from mining units
>Only functions in space. Mark 18s can't stand up in higher gravity
>Legs are actually boosters, so they have a reason to exist
>Arms are multi-purpose tools and to carry spears
>Head is actually a gun
>>11084555
That reminds me, I can't fucking stand the Tsugumori MK2. It ruins the aesthetics of the Type 17 and is basically a super robot in the middle of one of the most real robot franchises out there.
>>11084402
>Pictured: Exactly what was quoted by the post, except they bolted more armor to the tank for the exact reasons specified.
And look at that. problem fucking solved!
And then when they aren't just rolling around in a desert for over a decade waiting for the unfixable shitstorm to come to it's inevitable conclusion, they can take that extra armor the fuck off.
You can't fight a war with mines. You can annoy an occupation, which might pan out over a dozen years or so, but if someone wants you shit wrecked, ain't no amount of land mines going to stop them.
AT mines don't counter tanks in the same way that regular mines don't counter infantry. They just slow their movement through a given area for a little bit. They might actually blow something up from time to time, but in the big picture, in a real war they're just a cheaper version of a tall and sturdy concrete wall.
>>11084373
>Liking the F-35
It's a waste of tax dollars.
Barely an improvement over other contemporary aircraft, higher upkeep cost than most contemporary aircraft and the US will end up footing most of the R&D bill alone, since many states that initially had interest in the programm jumped ship and went for cheaper alternatives.
Hurrr, /m/ thinks it knows war.
Go back to guessing the genders of your favorite gundam pilots.
>>11084705
How about we shift gears a bit:
Mechs in sports: are they viable, and if so, what form might they take?
>>11084716
We IGPX now?
>>11084513
>heavy cannon on mechs, and recoil
Naturally, any 'realistic' mech is going to have a role different from a tank, something closer to a fire-support AFV or ground based attack helicopter. But the height of a mech, ironically, negates the problem of recoil by making it safe to use recoilless/rarefaction-wave cannon around infantry.
>>11084716
The problem is that you're really only going to find existing sports and put mechs into it. So racing, WITH ROBOTS! Polo WITH ROBOTS! Extreme Ironing, WITH ROBOTS.
Unless you can find a unique sport for robots, they're going to be there for the spectacle. It'll be the professional wrestling of the motorsport world. Which might just be enough to draw in crowds.
>>11084639
>Barely an improvement over other contemporary aircraft
the F-35 is a huge improvement over the aircraft it is replacing, you have to be willfully ignorant to say otherwise
> higher upkeep cost than most contemporary aircraft
not really
>since many states that initially had interest in the programm jumped ship and went for cheaper alternatives
this is a flat out lie, if anything orders are increasing
>>11085044
Well, drat. It looks like mechs are unlikely for sports, too.
Maybe there's no place for mechs of any sort in this world. Not in construction, not in service, not in toys, nowhere. They always remain twinkles in the eyes of animators.
>>11085245
>implying that the F-35's maintenance requirements aren't extraordinary.
Third-party to the conversation here.
You're fucking full of shit. You really are. Even the F-22 has higher maintenance requirements than its predecessors by quite a margin, and the F-35 development is a damn nightmare by comparison.
You take your bullshit, and get the hell out.
>It's a huge improvement! NO REALLY I SWEAR!
The aircraft it's replacing are several decades old. If they had managed to produce a plane less capable than what it was meant to replace, it would be a blunder worthy of history books.
They fucked up, but not that badly.
>>11085268
>not in construction
What? Who told you that lie? Mechs would be very useful in construction and other civilian fields. Hell, the exosuit from Aliens. Someone will build that some day, I guarantee it. Hell, NASA made the ball from StarWars that Luke practices against.
>>11085268
Things aren't always made with the same purpose for which they eventually are used.
Tanks, for instance, were built as mobile gun and supply carriages for infantry. Slow, trundling boxes, bristling with machinegun, constructed more to ford trenches than to travel overland.
Now look at them; how they're designed and what they're used for is radically different.
As long as people WANT mecha to happen, they will happen, because what humans want, humans make.
Nerve-controlled bionic limbs exist.
Augmentative exoskeletons exist.
Hell, KURATAS exists. That should tell you enough that practicality doesn't necessarily enter into it; humans love what is cool. Spectacle IS enough.
>>11085326
In fact (samefag), KURATAS is by definition the most realistic piloted mecha - because, a priori, it exists.
>>11085341
There's also that lumberjack robot, Timberjack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzaXMzYFtSM
It exists, it walks, apparently works as intended if this staged ad is to be believed, all that good stuff.
>>11085301
>your full of shit
>but I dont know any actual numbers to prove it
learn how to make an argument before you make a fool of yourself again
>>11085434
>saying I need numbers to prove it.
>instead of just looking it up himself to blatantly see that the maintenance hours per flight are significantly higher than even the F-22.
>The F-22 has taken all of these years to get maintenance hours per flight down to a level that's 'acceptable' by military standards.
This is starting to feel more like bait than anything. It takes real stupidity to accuse someone else of providing a sup-bar argument when your original comment was nothing more than
>I like the F-35, it's better than its predecessors. Eat shit.
My recommendation is that if you're going to try and argue about something, at least have even a slight idea of what you're actually arguing about.
>>11085477
>instead of just looking it up himself to blatantly see that the maintenance hours per flight are significantly higher than even the F-22.
Note how this anon avoids posting the numbers, since it would prove him to be a liar.
It makes his repetition of knowing what you are talking about all the more amusing.
>>11085558
>Note how the specimen fails to provide evidence.
The most recent maintenance manhours per flight hour estimates I can find for both craft:
The F-22 was reported to be at 10.5 in 2009.
The F-35 is harder to determine, but I'm seeing reports that it's 1.2 to 1.4 F-16s.
The best estimates I can find for the F-16 places it at around 10.
The number they want is <12.
The fact of the matter is, the F-22 is the only plane of the three that I could actually find a real estimate for from a .gov link. Since the F-35 is built off of that technology, it's reasonable to assume it has similar maintenance characteristics. However, the F-35 has additional features that create more critical failure potential like its SVTOL capability.
Oh, and as an added bonus: The F-22 was 30 manhours per flight hour because of its stealth. The technology was improved with the F-35 and those numbers have since come down. Regardless, the stealth alone jacks up maintenance costs significantly compared to conventional warplanes. In addition to that, the F-35 has that wonderful SVTOL which drives its costs up even more.
Regardless of where you look or what you look for, it's pretty much impossible to find real, concrete numbers on how much maintenance time is needed per flight hour for military craft as a civilian by looking it up on the internet. If you look at costs that's a different story entirely, and it goes without saying that those two planes are very expensive to maintain.
>it would prove him to be a liar
It proves you to be a lazy moron who can't do his own research, or tried and failed.
Either that or you're a master baiter, and if so I respect your talents.
At the end of the day I'm not even posting these numbers to make you eat your words, Anon. I'm actually curious to see if someone who knows better can actually provide concrete numbers that I missed to the tune of maintenance time per flight hour.
>>11085739
>Regardless of where you look or what you look for, it's pretty much impossible to find real, concrete numbers on how much maintenance time is needed per flight hour for military craft as a civilian by looking it up on the internet.
Thank you for admitting you are talking out of your ass, was it that hard?
Pictured : another timberjack mech, I've never seen video of this one in use though.
About the F-35 clusterfuck, don't forget that maintenance is just the icing on the cake.
The whole project is made of conflicting requirements
- Stealthy & supersonic
- S/VTOL jump Jet
- And capable of close ground support
This link will explain better than me the problems of this plane.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
No wonder some people here believe that even a small mech would require untold budget when they try to pass this plane as normal.
>>11086430
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awai1MxwbCA
Together we can save the /m/!
I love the idea of mechs don't get me wrong here. I have a massive raging boner for them but I'm going to have to be real here. Would they ever happen. Not without warfare Drastically changing.
I'll attempt to bring light to how.
Silhouette: in a hostile environment a low wide shape is far easier to camouflage and far harder to hit.
Ground pressure: this is the main deal breaker for mechs. The weight divided by area at base ie footprint or tread pattern. If you have a wide low shape like treads you spread the load over a much wider area. Think of walking in thick snow then consider snow shoe improvisation same idea. There are 10 tonne tanks that have lew kg per metre than a human at 200kg now make a 10 tonne human and see how fast it sinks into any surface.
Recoil: think levers here. Recoil happens where the gun is however if the centre of gravity isn't low then what happens. Try your groupings with a rifle stood or with a rifle prone to understand. Lower you are better braced by extension fire a .50 cal round stood up. Then try prone. Feel the difference in kick. A mechanism wouldn't be able to use very heavy weapons due to this.
The only use of mech is for space battles only. Not necessary for land.
>>11087456
>talking about ground pressure
You're not wrong, but you're not right. You're severely exaggerating the issue by thinking that a 10-ton biped would sink into the ground at some sort of alarming rate. You would leave a deep impression and nothing more.
An Elephant is 7.5 short tons. 15,000 lbs. An M1 Abram s is 60 short tons. I would ballpark that a bipedal mech would be anywhere from 10 to 30 tons.
>recoil
Again, both right and wrong. Yes recoil of large caliber weapons would be more of a concern. How much of a concern? Not much of a concern, since you're probably not going to be mounting heavy anti-tank cannons like the 105mm or the 120mm. Ultimately it depends on the mass of the mech you're shooting with, and what you're shooting.
Just as well, I don't know why grouping seemed like a good example to you. Cannons don't typically get shot with grouping as a concern. Any change in alignment from recoil from a cannon will take about as long to fix as it takes to reload the cannon. Not a big deal.
Interesting things to mention though.
>>11087480
They are useless in space to the exact same degree.
Don't give me any AMBACS bullshit either. You could do that with reaction wheels much easier than any limb would allow.
>>11086430
>The whole project is made of conflicting requirements
>- Stealthy & supersonic
>- S/VTOL jump Jet
>- And capable of close ground support
None of those conflict with each other, especially considering we are talking about 3 separate but very similar aircraft in which 2 do not have the STOVL requirement.
>>11086430
>This link will explain better than me the problems of this plane.
>https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
Holy shit this clickbait article is full of crap right from the start.
>The price tag —currently an estimated $1 trillion to design, build and operate 2,400 copies—is steadily going down.
Notice how the article leads the reader to believe that a trillion has already been spent by leaving out the detail that the "price tag" is a estimated 55 year cost.
>quoting Wheeler
A man who is as much a fraud as Sprey or Kopp.
>The F-35's inferiority became glaringly obvious five years ago in a computer simulation run by John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue, two analysts at RAND
This never happened and RAND themselves have said so.
