Are Metal Gears viable?
>>69607029
Viable in what sense?
I'm sure they could find a niche role as siege weapons. Maybe have one in an armor battalion. To be useful, they would definitely need support, and a lot of it, but in theory they could work
>>69607029
I don't know why don't you ask /k/
>>69607029
As mobile nuclear launch sites and standoff artillery? Sure. Any other mission? Fuck no.
>>69607029
Only if we come up with stronger materials to build them.
>>69607029
Viable in terms of a mobile ICBM? Maybe. But something like Metal Gear Gekko would be more viable for traditional warfare
>>69607029
>a gigantic, heavily armored, fucking metal, nuclear-equipped dinosaur running around on the battlefield
>not viable
If you don't care about collateral, you can gleefully flatten everyone.
>>69607029
Nope. A tank sitting kilometers away could penetrate its armor and take out your mech legs and then watch it as it flails about.
Nuclear subs and Stealth Bombers can launch nukes anywhere in the world. So... why do you have to develop a giant walking tank?
>>69608174
You are implying that a tank with extremely mobile legs would be standing still long enough to get hit
>>69608174
>thinking you could take out Rex's legs with a single tank round
Also don't underestimate the power of "what the fuck is that thing?"
>>69608240
Psychology
>>69608347
>Walker
>>69608174
People always meme about 'lel vulnerable legs' as if a direct hit with an anti-armour weapon won't total every military vehicle currently in existence
>>69608240
it doesn't launch nuclear rockets. it shoots nukes with a rail gun. it's like a stealth nuke that can hit without a warning.
This discussion pops up on /v/ alot and the general concensus is even if it were possible it would be pretty impractical. High center of gravity, easy to topple, big target etc etc.
Rex is still sexy as fuck though.
>>69608998
A) rail guns are still experimental
B) metal gear REX/RAY could not house enough power to fire a rail gun
C) The alleged reason for the rail gun was not only a lack of detection of firing but also bypassing the START treaties since it would not be considered an ICBM
D) with a nuclear sub you could launch from anywhere and it wouldn't be easily identified that the sub was from your nation
E) You wouldn't see a stealth plane on radar either, you'd just get a couple minutes warning before the bomb hit (tops) and know that it was released above you
>>69609632
this whole fucking thread is hypothetical. stop shouting facts around. railguns are awsome.
Legs are unstable. Conventional suspension systems are far more viable and adaptable to most challenging surfaces.
To be quite honest the only reason animals don't have wheels naturally is because its physically fucking impossible to have appendages that rotate infinitely.
Plus the fact you can't fit a nuclear reactor big enough to power something like that, into something that small, respectively. You need the reactor, shielding, steam chambers, and a turbine/generator system to create electricity from a reactor.
>>69608490
but a tank doesn't cost billions of dollars
and doesn't have exposed hydraulics just sitting out
>>69607029
they are viable since there is nothing yet created to surpass them
>>69607029
Yeah they're called submarines
