- This topic has 344 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I know there has been many debates about mechs but would this be useful in anyway?
-
>2020
>Still no mechsWhere are the mechs?
We should have mechs by now
-
OP, there is no reason for mechs to exist. They’re just really badly designed tanks.
-
get a load from this guy
-
did an ant post this?
-
>It’s the scrotebrained "that’s what they said about this current technology" scrote
This has been gone over by people with sense already. Mecha are stupid and do nothing a tank or APC doesn’t already do for less money and less of a headache
-
>This has been gone over by people with sense already. cars are stupid and do nothing a horse or a mule doesn’t already do for less money and less of a headache
-
This is not a "stupid future prediction" thing, its a basic logic thing.
A box with some form of propulsion is better armed and more durable than any walking robot could ever be. You will never protect joints (or even full limbs) to not be vulnerable to a wide array of weapons, feet will never have the low ground pressure tracks do, and building an extremely complex bipedal machine will always be orders of magnitude more costly.
-
>You will never protect joints (or even full limbs) to not be vulnerable to a wide array of weapons,
The same is true of treads
> feet will never have the low ground pressure tracks do
But suffer less from sinking into the ground. I mean, you can just step right out of whatever pit you’ve sunk into rather than trying to roll up an endless muddy slope.You suck at arguing.
-
The treads are easier to fix is the point and the box is more mobile than the scrotebrained bipedal robot so those treads are harder to hit
-
No, your argument is woke af on stupid and baseless assumptions. The box is "more mobile" and therefore "harder to hit".
By what measure? Rolling along in a straight line at a higher speed? You think that’s going to help your dumb battle box not get hit? Especially now that the treads are exposed to the enemy where more than 50% of the whole silhouette is the "shoot me here to disable me" spot?
Meanwhile you trying to shoot at a running mech’s legs will definitely result in the exact same hit ratio as men with single-shot rifles trying to shoot at people’s legs. That is, you’re definitely going to die from missing all the damn time.
typical mechascrote
Ground pressure is clearly far beyond you because you are basically arguing dinosaurs couldn’t exist because they would have sunk to the Earth’s mantle and legs bad at mud. Clearly not the case when dinos lived in wetter times over millions of years with teeny tiny feet far smaller by ratio than even large walkers like giraffes and elephants.
-
>Ground pressure is clearly far beyond you because you are basically arguing dinosaurs couldn’t exist because they would have sunk to the Earth’s mantle and legs bad at mud
Dinosaurs, the creatures notorious for leaving large amounts of fossils because they sunk into bogs and tar pits due to high ground pressure?-
Are you actually that stupid? You infer that the intact fossils found in such places are there because they died stepping in a mud hole rather than because those conditions happened to preserve them better?
Smaller cross section woke af on which perspective? Your tank is a gigantic target from the air, the mech is not.
You think size alone determines hit probability, even for moving targets. Woke af on your logic a telephone pole is an easier target than a small cardboard box, because it is simply bigger. With a mech, which should ideally be bipedal, it is a tall and slim target rather than a short but fat one.
Here’s the problem: nothing on the ground is going to be moving up and down in the air. Anything trying to avoid your sights is going to be moving parallel to the ground, ie sideways. Being a tall target does absolutely jack shit to making it easier to hit, but being a thin target means the point of aim of a gun will pass across the target very quickly. A tank is a short target that has 0% chance of evading anything when it presents its smallest cross section towards you (the front) but becomes a massively fat target when it is presenting its side (which is the only way its going to have more than 0%). This wide target will catch shots that would have normally missed due to a bad lead and 50% of those shots are probably going to break a tread, effective mobility kill.
Meanwhile when you break a leg of a mech, all it does is fall over. The remaining leg and stump of the leg AND preferably arms means it can quickly scurry back to cover if you manage this feat. More likely however it would just return fire and kill you with a proper center mass hit instead of bumbling around trying to be fancy, then it can go scramble for cover.
Too bad when you use your piddly machineguns it doesn’t penetrate the multiple buildings that the mech is hiding behind. Then it peeks out around a corner for a few seconds to shoot you, and then its gone again.
-
Final (you) anon, I don’t think you even tried
-
Sure dumbshit. I made it impossible for you to respond because I brought out the hard physical truths and you can’t twist into a pretzel any further.
Fuck off and stop holding back humanity.
-
More like you degraded into autistic anime nonsense while ignoring major points that don’t fit your narrative
-
Not him but the only people sticking to autistic anime rules are people that say mechs will never be a thing, because yes, anime mechs will never be real because they’re dumb as fuck. Read the thread, follow robotics, it’s not unfathomable and there are real advantages
-
>nothing on the ground is going to be moving up and down in the air.
Bullet drop and basic spread might have something to say about that
>Being a tall target does absolutely jack shit to making it easier to hit
Being tall makes you easier to spot and have fewer things to hide behind. Thats kind of the reason even tank design takes height into account; you want to be able to go hull down as easily as possible.
>0% chance of evading anything when it presents its smallest cross section towards you (the front)
Tanks are not about avoiding shots, they are tanks. They are literally designed to take hits from the front. Thats their freaking job, you cretin.>Meanwhile when you break a leg of a mech, all it does is fall over.
> it can quickly scurry back to cover
"all it does" lmaoWant me to tell you how I know you’ve never even been inside an armoured vehicle on rough terrain? Because that will rattle your freaking bones, let alone a 10 foot drop in a direction you’re not expecting. Thats at the least breaking something, let alone dazing the occupant.
-
>Bullet drop and basic spread might have something to say about that
If your targeting computer has been made anywhere close to the 21st century and you aren’t using WW2 snubnose cannons, its really not an issue anymore.>Being tall makes you easier to spot
The cameras of a mech aren’t located in its feet. If you’re moving to engage each other over the horizon in a clear field all you’ll see of the mech is the tiny head at the top. Not really much of a difference if you’re using any sort of periscope on the wheeled vehicle so its just an even match here. No, you are not going to be stealthy with a tank ever, no matter how low to the ground it is.If you’re preparing an ambush the mech has many, many more places it can get to and potentially hide in while prone or crouching or standing. Hull down with suspension hydraulics gives you half a man’s worth of clearance at best. If a potential piece of solid cover is higher than that then another position has to be picked. The limited mobility of wheeled and tracked vehicles makes them more predictable and the valid places to find defilade are relatively small.
>Thats their freaking job, you cretin.
Which is the freaking problem, you idiot. Their job is OUT OF DATE. A modern cannon or missile with modern projectiles from any competent first world nation is going to ONE SHOT the tank from the front. The point is that the tank is literally doing it wrong because it has NO CHOICE due to its inferior mobility and movement options.>post too long
-
>1000th TANKS ARE DEAD post as tanks continue to do their job well and are looking to get even better with the advancement of APS
>Mechascrote cries that tanks who have proven to take APFSDS from the side just fine couldn’t take it from the front while suggesting a vehicle that couldn’t withstand 20mm
hehehehehhe -
>If you’re preparing an ambush the mech has many, many more places it can get to and potentially hide in while prone or crouching or standing
I’d like to see your proposed silhouette of your mech. Maybe the crew compartment as well. -
Just make it humanoid. There’s no need to make it more complex than that because its actually the optimum walker design. 2 legs is the bare minimum you need to walk and are in the most energy efficient configuration to support your weight while doing so, also more efficient to turn around with. Manipulators are always useful and it means that the vehicle can be used for *many* non combat purposes; just put the right tool in its manipulators (hands) at any given moment. A single pilot or two strapped in a very well cushioned cockpit near the center of rotation of the torso so that they don’t get swung around much when moving.
The absolute biggest problem with mechs is the control system, not materials science or power generation. The latter two we have technology far in advance of dinosaur bones and stomachs already. We don’t have AI good enough to control even a quadrupedal thing in combat, and there’s always concerns that the AI will not be able to interpret the pilot’s intentions correctly. For example, if he wants to intentionally unbalance himself to get out of immediate harms way (dolphin dive? falling over on his/its ass?), but the computer merely takes a well balanced step in the direction he wants to go.
So the most important thing it needs that doesn’t yet exist is a direct neural interface to allow for a human pilot (inside or remotely) to control it with his brain. It really isn’t going to work any other way unless we are looking far into the future of AI technology. Throw as much money as possible to Elon Musk because he’ll make it happen eventually with his Neuralink company, or do it as a government project.
I do have to go right now so any further replies will be late.
-
That sounds better as a frontline engineering vehicle more than any kind of replacement for a tank. Adding some ad hoc/specialized wheels/treads on limbs just in case might allow for better long range mobility. Also, it’s a good idea to have some kind of weapon mounted on it in a turreted configuration, it could even be mounted next to whatever sensor "head" you have. Just having something like a CROWS-J would be enough.
-
>Being tall makes you easier to spot
The cameras of a mech aren’t located in its feet. If you’re moving to engage each other over the horizon in a clear field all you’ll see of the mech is the tiny head at the top. Not really much of a difference if you’re using any sort of periscope on the wheeled vehicle so its just an even match here. No, you are not going to be stealthy with a tank ever, no matter how low to the ground it is.If you’re preparing an ambush the mech has many, many more places it can get to and potentially hide in while prone or crouching or standing. Hull down with suspension hydraulics gives you half a man’s worth of clearance at best. If a potential piece of solid cover is higher than that then another position has to be picked. The limited mobility of wheeled and tracked vehicles makes them more predictable and the valid places to find defilade are relatively small.
>Thats their freaking job, you cretin.
Which is the freaking problem, you idiot. Their job is OUT OF DATE. A modern cannon or missile with modern projectiles from any competent first world nation is going to ONE SHOT the tank from the front. The point is that the tank is literally doing it wrong because it has NO CHOICE due to its inferior mobility and movement options.>post too long
>Because that will rattle your freaking bones
Oh no the poor pilot’s bones are rattled, boo hoo. Maybe that’s because you’re sitting in an armored vehicle with shitty spring-woke af suspension instead of a pair of legs that can actually adapt its gait to the terrain. Imagine having to roll over a rock on the road and suffering from the bumps instead of just stepping over the rock as if never existed.If something goes out on a walker of some considerable size there will be plenty of time for the person inside to realize he’s going down and brace for impact. That includes using the mech’s limbs (which it should have) to cushion the blow. It’s not going to be some kind of instant death that you desperately imagine it will be.
Point is, you’re trying to argue that the legs present some sort of extreme critical weakness that will cause mechs to die in droves from trick shots to the legs and I’m fighting back against that. Why is it critical that I address this strongly? Because it is a way to stop the discussion from going to the actual important bits of tactical and strategic positioning and maneuvers that legs offer over wheels.
Why bother about discussing legs if ha ha they’ll just break and fall over in a stiff breeze? Never mind that the mech is using those legs to peek around corners and over the top of short buildings and then through a gap in terrain that you never thought you could be shot from, all in quick succession. You’re never going to get a chance to aim at those legs before you’re being shot from an odd angle you didn’t think to cover.
Once you start spending millions on armoured suits, it starts being feasible for your opponent to field weapons that don’t give a shit that you can hide in a ditch or behind a rock. It becomes cost effective to launch PGMs at you, large volumes of airbust munitions, or heavy artillery. Weapons that usually aren’t used against humans because there are targets better suited to them, but when they do they get turned into paste. Just like Mechs would.
There are much, much larger pieces of cover in the world out there than "a rock". You just never thought of them as cover for yourself because you are small, and never thought of them as cover for a conventional vehicle because they are unable to take advantage of them.
-
>trick shots
Nah, just regular fire from pretty much anything.
>Why bother about discussing legs if ha ha they’ll just break and fall over in a stiff breeze?
Because they’re basically all a mech is. They’re all that differentiates it from a tank, and they’re terrible.Go ahead and show me what you think this mech looks like, by the way. Will make it a lot easier to show how utterly scrotebrained you are
-
>Because it is a way to stop the discussion from going to the actual important bits of tactical and strategic positioning and maneuvers that legs offer over wheels.
Could you show specifically where these advantages would take place? Images of these areas? -
Please note that not every city is built on pancake flat land. Incidentally countries which seem to like legged vehicles more have cities in mountainous or hilly regions, so Japan’s relative love of them makes sense because they’d be able to take full advantage of them.
-
>Never mind that the mech is using those legs to peek around corners and over the top of short buildings and then through a gap in terrain that you never thought you could be shot from, all in quick succession
You do know that infantry can do that for much cheaper en mass? -
Infantry carrying 5.56 rifles en masse will be doing the same thing as a walker vehicle carrying 30mms as rifles. Yeah.
-
>he doesn’t know that infantry carry explosives, especially if they’re expecting enemy armor
-
Infantry with 5.56 can do house clearance and don’t cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each 🙂
-
-
>No, your argument is woke af on stupid and baseless assumptions. The box is "more mobile" and therefore "harder to hit".
Smaller cross section for same internal volume, lower height, higher armor/mass ratio, more efficient propulsion method..
>Meanwhile you trying to shoot at a running mech’s legs will definitely result in the exact same hit ratio as men with single-shot rifles trying to shoot at people’s legs.
Good thing we advanced from single-shot rifles a long time ago and the amount of armor you could put on a mech’s limbs and joins would be pitiful to say the least. M903 alone would fuck your day up and that would be a lot easier and cheaper to proliferate than your gay anime shit
-
-
-
>You suck at arguing.
Not only did you fail to address all the points given, you seem to be unfamiliar with how ground pressure workstypical mechascrote
-
And you don’t even know why ground pressure is even important. I’ll give you a hint, once you’re stuck spinning the wheels just makes it worse.
They do nothing a robot can’t do right now for far less money
Independent action.
So if a biped is so bad then what about a quadped like
take the tachikoma pill
?
-
All you’re doing is doubling down on stupidity and now you have more joints that need maintenance
-
If we’re going to count joint then why not count every single link in a tread? Certainly, a single broken link would immobilize the tank.
-
-
>spinning the wheels
Now you have a condition that makes you see "treads" and read "wheels"This seems degenerative, see a doctor
-
Treads suffer from the same problem just to a lesser degree. The mud mounds up in front of the tread and slows the tank down.
-
-
-
-
-
-
You’re freaking stupid because cars are less costly than a horse and carriage and this was acknowledged even when the technology was new
-
-
-
He’d probably give you a lot if you ask him.
-
-
>They’re just really badly designed tanks.
And tanks are just really badly designed attack aircraft.
-
>I’m gonna loiter for a day with my apache
>I’m gonna launch my warthog at $20k/hour to take out a single technical-
man america spends way more than 20k/h to kill a technical
-
-
-
Certainly not the 20 stories tall kind, but legged machines have a reason to exist and likely will be used in a military capacity. Stuff like the mule or uparmored spots with machine guns make alot more sense than tracked or wheeled vehicles of the same size
-
>Everyone’s gangsta till they see this thing going "whiiiiiiirrrrrrr"
-
-
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but i still think mecha are awesome visually.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but i still think mecha are awesome visually.
I mean every luddite sees stupid rule of cool mech designs and naturally thinks this, but when talking about real world uses I think we’ve already started to see the technology starting to develop that will result in a form of mechs. Something like the OP pic but much smaller and with a shrouded crew compartment is basically a fire support vehicle that can go anywhere troops can. There’s real value in legs over wheels and treads if done purposefully
-
-
>Soon
-
>batteries die on long op
>have to carry an extra 40 pounds of dead weightalso
>bionic knees and hips
>still pushing the extra force provided by bionic knees and hips through flesh and blood feet-
Total those prolly weigh at most 10-15 lbs including batteries.
-
>10-15 pounds of dead weight
If you’re already humping a 100 lb of equipment you’re not going to want anything that’s useless to you. -
You are smoking crack if you think that. Batteries alone will way more than that.
-
-
>batteries
HULC may or may not have a methanol fuel cell variant that has seen deployment. The whole exoskeleton can be removed and stowed in under 30 seconds, Berkeley Cyber used to have a video showing their dev unit before Lockheed bough them.Depends on how you define Mech.
-
By that logic we shouldn’t use vehicles as they are dead weight when they run out of fuel.
You are smoking crack if you think that. Batteries alone will way more than that.
Lithium batteries are becoming more and more energy dense as the demand for EV vehicles in Europe and the world has be been mandated.
My only concerns with logging around lithium is the chance of it catching Fire on hard impact.
>They want to use Methanol/ethanol race fuel on a backpack internal combustion engine
now that’s scrotebrained
-
Wow anon. I’m sure they never once thought of the problems you came up with during its development phase. You’re a 1 man think tank
-
-
-
As soon as we get myomer. As soon as that happens I’m building a Shadowhawk and stomping everything
-
>shadowhawk
>not a marauder ppc memes
>not a catapult for glassing grid squares
NGMI-
-
>catapult
It’s like you want to be cucked by archer pilots
-
The archer is runs so freaking hot that it won’t get more than a salvo off. A good Catapult-C4 with 2 LRM-20s will outlive and outfight any archer. Easy.
-
Don’t underestimate the value of jump jets on a fire support mech.
-
-
-
Probably the best variant itt
-
-
Vulture
-
-
>subhuman
>cl*nner
Yeeh nice one buddy, Did you remember to pay your bills to space AT&T? Or are you too busy fighting the wolverines?
-
-
-
>not building a Mackie
-
>shadowhawk
>not a marauder ppc memes
>not a catapult for glassing grid squares
NGMI>not engaging in glorious, thirty ton jihad
Sure smells like clanner scum in here. -
>Shadowhawk
Woke af of the woke af.-
freaking Copelians, RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
-
>Shadow Hawk
Is that all 55 tons can give you? Your doom is sealed, freebirth.
-
Your insults might sting more if you didn’t get cucked by Space AT&T.
-
Shut up Tex, and go work on your Marauder video
-
-
>clannerscum tries to talk shit after being BTFO by ComStar, literal space AT&T
Pay your HPG bills, Fucko
-
-
>tfw we haven’t reached the point where we start glassing entire planets from orbit and have to keep 300+ year old war machines running with lostech JB weld
-
Centurians and Hunchbacks are my Bread and Butter.
I tend to switch the AC/10 to UAC/5 with extra ammor, ammo and Heat management.
For the Hunchback UAC/10 with extra armor and ammo.
For speed I have a Wolverine and Quickdraw to chase fleeing convoy VIP’S.
-
Battletech mechs don’t make any sense even with Myomer.
-
Lights and mediums make sense when you remember that a lot of the worlds in Battletech aren’t developed. You could be in 10 feet of water one day and climbing mountains the next.
-
And I’d take a helicopter, a jet, or some dude humping it with a rocket launcher over a bipedal mech for those terrains any day.
-
Unfortunately, Battlemech exist in a world with laser weapons. Aircraft couldn’t count on their speed and maneuverability to keep them so they had to armor up. That added weight which meant that an aerospace fighter needed to compromise between firepower, maneuverability, and protection like anything else with the additional caveat that they had to remain light enough to fly.
On the flipside, fusion power came about so when I say "aerospace fighter" I mean a trans-atmospheric craft capable of getting to and from orbit under it’s own power.
As for infantry? Still a thing but infantry weapons lagged behind. Armor was designed ablative so an anti-tank rocket needed multiple hits to break through. A battlemech could turn it’s flamethrowers on any infantry trying to do that. It would be about four centuries before practical power armor was developed that could fight battlemechs and win.
-
-
-
-
-
Still waiting on energy tech to reach the levels to make them usable. Hint, you’re still going to be waiting a long damn time.
-
The energy is there.
Its just not safe to put in a tank.No reason to run a nuclear powered tank or walking tank.
A walkng tank is expensive in a way that even with an unlimited military budget its to expensive.
Bodies are cheap and the enemies are poor and out teched by decades.
There is no need for walking tanks as there is no need to walk armor up stairs, move threw allys or forests and mountains passes.
Will there be a time for mechs, maybe.
But for now there is no need for walking armor
-
-
We’ve given up science and replaced it with SCIENCE! which is the gay and boring and heavily influenced by liberalism.
-
Mechs are SCIENCE!, tanks are science.
-
-
the idea of mechs is that a human form is agile, but no human has been mobile while wearing an amount of armor proportional to an armored vehicle. by the time you get the miracle power source to overcome that, ALL war and weapons will be completely different. we have this thread a lot
-
Mechs are a scrotebrained idea
-
-
>occasionally been checking that channel since the fight
>guy released a video talking about the fight
>turns out to be mostly scripted
They weren’t even in the thing when it fell over-
https://i.imgur.com/j1jmoVg.gif
yeah it was a letdown.
-
>turns out to be mostly scripted
Was that not obvious enough from the video? Did you think they would actually record themselves chainsawing into the bot with someone inside?-
That did happen though
-
-
-
>the Japanese builds a Mech because it’s cool
>the American builds an elevated tractor to dick wave, ask for donations, and make promises of destructive capabilities that was never allowed in their publicity stunt to begin with
>the actual fight was like watching scrotebrains collide
it hurts just a little bit.
-
-
>Battleships
>Mechs
>Gliders
Like freaking clockwork its always one of them.-
>gliders
Haven’t seen that thread before tbh
-
-
Forget that. Check out the new Boston Dynamics video. These things can DANCE now. Give them a year or two, and they’ll know kung fu.
-
I just want my little titan man
-
we have mechs. open your eyes boy
-
[…]
While full body muscle suits would be cool you’ll likely see more exo-skeletons first as they would be easier to don/doff and they would best serve logistics rather than direct combat until it involves moving around heavy equpment.
-
>exoskeleton
>doesn’t cover the body in armored skeletal platesLOL
-
-
Sorry, another 120yrs
-
Battlefield 2142 demonstrated the vulnerability of such war machine. I rarely piloted them, opting for armor or an IFV instead almost every time.
-
I miss that game, mowing down filthy PAC scum with those dual-gattling guns.
-
-
the only real use for a machine that looks similar to what people would consider a mech and not just some kinda odd plane or tank is traversing absolutely ruined urban areas or fighting in space
-
>Mechs
Never, too impractical, tanks are better.Now power armor and cyborgs, yeah those I can easily see arising, especially in response to robot troops.
-
>tanks are better.
Not in space-
cos legs makes so much sense in 0g you colossal scrotebrain
-
They let the mech swim like a fish through space, scrotebrain.
-
look, i understand your are attempting humour (sarcasm?) but how about just don’t ?
-
-
Magnet feet and big jet packs
They let the mech swim like a fish through space, scrotebrain.
They actually would in a pressuried 0G area
-
-
You’re scrotebrained if you think space combat will consist of anything but drones
-
I wasnt talking about that, im simply stating the fact mechs would work better in 0G than tanks
-
-
Then how would a freaking mech be? If you’re in space, then the better item will be a SPACE ship. Take a sci-fi space fighter and there’s your tank for space. Give it a troop compartment and heavy guns and there’s your dropship. Real life isn’t anime.
-
I think he means on world’s with low-grav like Mars for instance. It’s a very rocky planet with lots of debris, and I could absolute see tracked vehicles having a tough time on the surface because they don’t have the weight to crush or brush aside small rocks.
I’ve seen images of the surface and some of it looks like it would be hell on any vehicle bigger than the tiny rovers they’ve been sending. Can’t pave the whole planet, so walking vehicles might be a better option.
Now, would they be used for combat? That’s a different story. I doubt warfare would be on the mind of martian colonists for the first 100 years or so but, I could see it if we started colonizing similiar planets at a rapid pace, which would naturally precipitate fighting for "dibs" on new real estate.
-
>the tiny rovers they’ve been sending
The one in your pic (Sojurner) is from 1997 and was basically a proof-of-concept. The ones sent in 2003 (Spirit and Opportunity) were about the size of those electric toy cars for kids to run over their siblings with. The most recent models (Curiosity in 2012, Perseverance in 2020) are nuclear-powered and about the size of a small SUV.I see the possible advantages of legs in that kind of terrain, but a pretty sizable vehicle becomes viable just by giving it the six-wheel, high-wheelbase, independent suspension, AWD setup that the rovers have. Look up video of JPL testing the more recent ones. Admittedly the rovers have to move slowly, but that’s mostly because they’re semi-autonomous (it takes a few minutes to send/receive radio signals to/from Mars) and if they did flip or get stuck, there’d be no way to fix it. By the time there’s combat on Mars legged vehicles and drones could be superior, especially with the potential for self-righting, but it’s not necessarily a guarantee. I imagine you’d see both legged and wheeled units for different purposes (probably no tracks though).
-
Active suspension is just simpler legs. After a certain point of improvement you might as well concede that you’re just making legs and focus on making them right, plus having wheels for secondary fast movement on any relatively flat terrain.
-
This. Add on excavator arms and you basically have a mech.
-
Honestly this is the most realistic implementation I can think of. Six-wheel rover-style vehicles which can alternate between walking/climbing and driving with the legs as independent suspension, intended mostly for operations in very rough terrain.
-
-
Too slow, too much energy transfer losses due to overly complicated driveline, poor mobilisation reaction times due to electric charging taking hours on end. The only reason to do this design is maximise its independence without needing assistance from outside forces. I.e being alone on a planet millions of miles away from support
-
>too slow
Only because they need to be 100% independent. There’s no reason they couldn’t be faster, it just doesn’t matter for an irreplaceable research probe.
>complicated driveline
Meh. It’s necessary to get over the rocky terrain. What would be the point otherwise?
>electric charging
Did you miss the part where I said the modern ones are NUCLEAR POWERED? Learn to read you freaking mongoloid.
-
-
-
-
Anon im talking about tanks vs mechs, in 0G mechs would win
-
-
space is just gonna be missiles lmao
-
-
-
Give it another 200+ years and maybe mechs will be used in combat. We’re more likely to see mechs in logistical or construction corps long before combat, working out the kinks of movement, balance, stability, and durability. If a mech can survive in a warehouse or on a firebase as a tool while being handled by your average dumb grunt, than it might be able to work on the battlefield. If it survives that is.
What we’re more likely to see is "powered armor", ala Starship Troopers. Their units operate solo, or with limited combined arms. They carry ungodly amounts of ordinance for infantry, and primarily function as elite raiding units that "bounce" across the AO with jump-jets on their backs, allowing them to cross distances that regular infantry couldn’t. Power up the suits and let them run buckwild across the battlefield, throwing mini-nukes and high-powered rounds at anything that moves. They also would have enough armor to shrug off modern conventional small arms like they were BBs.
As it stands though, there isn’t much use for such a unit in modern warfare due to collateral damage and civilian casualties. Unless the doctrine of US warfighting changes to include war-crimes, you won’t see powered armor being used (especially like that) anytime soon. The risks of using such armor for extended sorties would also pose a problem, as the enemy would then potentially have access to the tech and being able to reverse engineer it unless severely outmatched technologically.
The future, at least so far, appears to be leaning on drones both air and land deployed to augment existing battlefield doctrines and focusing on SIGINT and other Intel strategies to more easily determine friend from foe (because war-crimes are bad). We’d see "hover" tanks/APCs armed with railguns LONG before we’d see powered armor
Now, if we end up having WWIII, that might change but then again. Everything will change after that.
-
apart from all the other scrotebrained shit you just said, how is a suit not much larger than a person going to carry ‘ungodly amounts’ of ammunition, or enough energy to jump around a battlefield lmao
-
Ungodly for infantry both in weight and variance of the kinds of munitions. The Hardiman, a rudimentary exoskeleton increased the wearer’s strength 25-fold, to where lifting 240 lbs. felt like lifting 10 lbs. Even if you consider size, a power armor suit could carry more ammo just on strength alone.
As for energy source, that I have no idea how to solve but if I did, I’d be a billionaire. The main point of having jump jets is to deal with the problems of mobility that a powered suit would have. As far as the "jet" system itself, I read about a system that used microwaves to energize compressed air into a plasma and shoot it out like a jet using only electricity. Sounds very much too good to be true but if possible, that would pave the way for "jump jet" armor, provided there was a power source. Graphene combined with nano-materials of various kinds have shown promise not only for electromagnets but batteries as well. Plenty of fodder for science fiction but nothing concrete yet.
My point though, was that we would see powered armor before we would see "mechs" on the battlefield.
-
-
>literally just copy pasting Starship Troopers powered armor POU and casting it as your own OC
So this is intellectual ingenuity
-
-
>he doesn’t read aussie-darpa research papers
I’m here for it
-
>kamikaze snakebot claymores
>M72-volleying, GMG-spraying fire support
>robodogs hardened against EMP/HPM
>quadcopters with blinding lasers
The future is a beautiful place. I wish you could see it-
-
Because if humans are taken out of the equation it will make more war more likely. Just push a button and robots will enact your geopolitical philosophy on the rest of the world at gunpoint.
Also hackers and countermeasures. Never create an army that can be subverted with a few keystrokes…Or at least not without fail-safes and humans nearby to stop that shit from happening.
And let’s not forget that the enemy can always build more robots. If two sides that are robotic fight it out in a battlespace with squishy humans in the middle, well…It won’t end well, period.
Without humans risking their necks, it’s not war, it’s just a game.
-
-
-
What on earth is a "snakebot"
-
-
freaking shit mate
-
freaking CIA is gonna send snakebots up your ass.
-
-
-
Hint: Its unclassified because it not actually a good idea and a purely theoretical product of a think tank.
-
>66/84 mm HMG
uhhh… woke af?
-
-
Mechs have greater surface area to volume so they require more armour by weight to carry the same ammo, passengers, or power it requires. They are also useless at providing cover for supporting troops and pose a sectionally massive target compared to traditional fighting vehicles. The closest you may ever get is some form of autonomous legged dog robot that will provide fire support or carry ammo.
-
take the tachikoma pill
-
They were the worst part of gits by far and make it impossible to take seriously
Why does anime have to shoehorn in """cute""" shit like that-
The same reason humans shoehorn cute into real life robots, scrotebrain.
-
It’s not a freaking roomba someone put a Santa hat on dipshit, it’s supposedly some elite state of the art combat robot that inexplicably has a cutesy personality
Its completely scrotebrained and makes the show, like most anime, unwatchable-
>Being filtered this hard
-
-
-
pleb filtered by cute talking spiderbots.
-
-
-
anon have you ever seen an RC car?
the problem with that thing is aggregate mechanical complexity. i lost count of how many complex joints it has.
-
-
GITS spider tanks are the best example of a ‘walking tank’ out there in a practical setting.
-
Those tanks don’t walk much. They use little wheels on their legs.
-
Thats what makes them practical.
-
But is it still a mech?
-
Is a guntank more or less scrotebrained than a mech?
-
More. Much more. Worst of both worlds
-
-
-
Yeah but the arms help with logistics tasks and can perform combat engineering.
-
They do nothing a robot can’t do right now for far less money
-
-
-
-
That’s…not a guntank. Not sure if you knew.
-
Nah no idea, i know they are tanks with a upper body so just assumed that was one
-
So this is a Guntank. Recoilless cannons on the shoulders, missile launchers on the hands, one driver in the base and one gunner in the head, Limited jump jets for getting in and out of White Base.
-
Got it anon
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I’m surprised the military hasn’t thought more into this. This would revolutionize scout military vehicles
-
>btfo by basic anti-material rifles.
Not viable.
-
Advances in armor counter that threat.
-
No scrote, they don’t. If you plate up a sufficiently sized hydraulic cylinder then it will no longer be able to lift the freaking weight, which means you need a bigger cylinder, which means you need more armor, ad infin
You dumb fucker, you can’t cheat physics, and this machine would have to cheat physics to be more viable than a freaking armored brick with wheels designed explicitly for going FORWARD and a turret that can freaking swivel.
-
Not really. Spaced armor and hard ceramic tiles can protect a vehicle more efficiently than solid steel plate alone.
-
WHEN THE FUCK DID I MENTION STEEL? JESUS freaking CHRIST THE SPACED ARMOR PLATES ARE STILL REALLY freaking HEAVY, LOOK UP HOW AN ABRAHMS ARMOR LAYER IS DESIGNED YOU DROOLING scrotebrain.
Certainly, you could pierce that armor with a 20mm AM rifle but you could also pierce the armor of most non-tank armored vehicles with a 20mm AM rifle. Most APCs are only rated up to 14.5mm.
However, because of the electrical motors and odd design it’ll be very difficult to knock out a Y4 with a single hit. Shooting out a leg would slow it down but each leg has it’s own engine so individual hits would do very little. Killing the driver would work but he’s deep inside the hull and the rotational symmetry makes picking out his position difficult. Being battery powered means there’s no central engine and destroying a single battery pack would mean very little.
Honestly, you’ll need multiple hits with an autocannon to take this thing down. Probably high explosive rounds to destroy the legs and crack the cabin.
THE ANSWER IS freaking YES, ITS bonked, IT’S FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED. BATTERIES DONT EVEN HAVE THE ENERGY DENSITY TO ATTAIN A DECENT AMOUNT OF RANGE COMPARED TO HYDROCARBON FUELS. WHAT tHE FUCK IS STABILITY, ITS NOT EVEN A freaking STABLE PLATFORM TO FIRE FROM. IF IT LOSES A LEG ITS bonked AND YOU CANT ARMOR THE LEGS EFFECTIVELY
GTFO OUT WITH YOUR BATTERY POWERED LEG BULLSHIT.
YOU CANNOT BEAT AN ARMORED freaking BOX WITH A TURRET THAT TURNS.
-
Yesh, you’ve got anger issues. Is it really so bad we didn’t crumble like wet tissue paper to your hottakes?
>WHEN THE FUCK DID I MENTION STEEL?
Doesn’t matter. Technology can make armor more weight efficient, protecting more while weighing less.>BATTERIES DONT EVEN HAVE THE ENERGY DENSITY TO ATTAIN A DECENT AMOUNT OF RANGE COMPARED TO HYDROCARBON FUELS. WHAT tHE FUCK IS STABILITY,
And yet the Tesla Roadster.>YOU CANNOT BEAT AN ARMORED freaking BOX WITH A TURRET THAT TURNS.
You don’t have to. Tanks are good for the head on assault but that’s not always the best idea or the needed task. If we’re talking search and destroy missions then you want something that deals with rough terrain better. If we want hit and run tactics then treads are actually a liability. There are actually questions about the long term viability of tanks as anti-tank weapons and air power become more common. Powered exoskeletons could very well be the death knell for tanks simply by saturating active protection systems.>IF IT LOSES A LEG ITS bonked
Not only is this incorrect and addressedbut tanks suffer from the same problem as a broken tread immobilizes the tank.
> WHAT tHE FUCK IS STABILITY, ITS NOT EVEN A freaking STABLE PLATFORM TO FIRE FROM
Moreso than a tank as the legs can spread for better balance.>YOU CANT ARMOR THE LEGS EFFECTIVELY
Medieval armorers would like to disagree. By comparison, treads are outright exposed.-
>the legs can spread for better balance.
>Medieval armorers would like to disagree. By comparison, treads are outright exposed.
mechs are cool but that doesn’t change the laws of physics-
And how does physics apply here? The Y4-360 actually uses physics to it’s advantage, altering it’s center of balance and ground clearance to adapt to the terrain. Physics actually works against tanks as their shear weight and inefficient treads makes them expensive to field.
-
>And how does physics apply here? The Y4-360 actually uses physics to it’s advantage
‘physics’ doesn’t count when you’re comparing a fictional vehicle to one that’s been constantly combat tested for 100 years
>Physics actually works against tanks as their shear weight and inefficient treads makes them expensive to field.
legs are not the solution to that. look at the UDES XX-20 to see what happens when you go in that direction -
>’physics’ doesn’t count when you’re comparing a fictional vehicle to one that’s been constantly combat tested for 100 years
"It’s the best because it’s what we’ve always used" is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
>legs are not the solution to that. look at the UDES XX-20 to see what happens when you go in that direction
I see you’re swedish tank destroyer and raise you an American all terrain transport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUnRmbcI3oM -
>Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
my point is that there’s a reason that any tank design that tried anything other than tracks or wheels never entered mass production -
-
Second, the Tesla Roadster indicated that high efficiency electric motors are now economical.
Second,
Holy freaking shit you’re scrotebrained
If it’s not going to be "used as a tank," what purpose are you envisioning?
-
-
That’s Singaporean you scrotebrain. Also basically just a Hägglunds Bv206/202 with extra steps, so the Surströmmingscrotes still win.
-
>’physics’ doesn’t count when you’re comparing a fictional vehicle to one that’s been constantly combat tested for 100 years
"It’s the best because it’s what we’ve always used" is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
>legs are not the solution to that. look at the UDES XX-20 to see what happens when you go in that direction
I see you’re swedish tank destroyer and raise you an American all terrain transport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUnRmbcI3oMI wouldn’t classify either of those vehicles as mechs. Bipedal legs will always be pointless, and if those vehicles are any indication even quadrupedal mechs are already obsolete.
-
But you can’t describe why?
-
I’m using the popular conception of a mech for this purpose, like the picture the OP used.
-
-
>Physics actually works against tanks as their shear weight and inefficient treads
The weight comes from being heavily armoured, you’re not magically making the armour any lighter just because it isn’t a tank. As for the tracks, there’s this thing called ground pressure. Switching to four wheels might make things efficient on the highway, but if your enemy isn’t kind enough to restrict himself to fighting on hard ground… -
And again, you’re seeing a competitor for a tank rather than a vehicle in it’s own right. Why the strawman? Are all military ground vehicles tanks?
-
-
-
-
Even if you had a good point, screaming like an autistic child is not a viable manner in which to make a persuasive argument
-
-
-
-
-
Well, yes and no.
Certainly, you could pierce that armor with a 20mm AM rifle but you could also pierce the armor of most non-tank armored vehicles with a 20mm AM rifle. Most APCs are only rated up to 14.5mm.
However, because of the electrical motors and odd design it’ll be very difficult to knock out a Y4 with a single hit. Shooting out a leg would slow it down but each leg has it’s own engine so individual hits would do very little. Killing the driver would work but he’s deep inside the hull and the rotational symmetry makes picking out his position difficult. Being battery powered means there’s no central engine and destroying a single battery pack would mean very little.
Honestly, you’ll need multiple hits with an autocannon to take this thing down. Probably high explosive rounds to destroy the legs and crack the cabin.
-
-
Nice, but not a mech.
-
-
>bipedal
Automatic fail. -
-
>three-wheeled commode
Thought I’d seen everything.
Realize I was wrong!
-
-
-
What about for urban combat, they could use cover better (would it be concealment since it would be against anti armor weapons?) since it can lean around buildings
Pic semi unrelated-
>lean
kek
-
-
Honestly the idea of a nuclear walking battle tank that can cross any terrain and launch a nuke from anywhere on earth would probably interest some countries if there was any reason to develop nuclear weapons anymore.
But I’m convinced the sheer MANLINESS of giant robots fighting it out with samurai swords, rocket punches, giant revolvers and robotic martial arts would convince every country on earth to ditch their current military research and go all in on mechs.
-
>But I’m convinced the sheer MANLINESS of giant robots fighting it out with samurai swords, rocket punches, giant revolvers and robotic martial arts would convince every country on earth to ditch their current military research and go all in on mechs.
That is literally the plot of Battletech.
The Inner Sphere saw the Mackie for the first time and went: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mVLPViGRI
Also, I’m like 60% sure a certain someone is lurking in this thread.
Also Metal Gear.
-
>Battletech
The name is vaguely familiar, is it western ?-
Yup, you probably recognize it under the name "Mechwarrior" though
-
-
Battletech nerds are closer than you may think.
-
I’ll never understand how Infantry exist in the Battletech universe. The Elementals, I get, but just plain infantry? Who the fuck signs up for that suicide job?
-
My understanding from lore was that frontline infantry are trained heavily for anti-mech combat. Common tools are grapple sticks that they use to latch on to the mech before planting a satchel charge on a knee or hip joint. Additionally they often use napalm rockets to cook mech jockeys alive in their cockpits. But just like now, there are plenty of times when you can’t send a jet, or a helicopter, or a tank to do the job.
-
Pretty much. I hated how the lore made it seem like the Gray Death Legion was the "first" to figure out C4 and mech leg actuators don’t mix.
-
-
Theres jobs the mechs can’t do. But on the other side, Infantry are really good at being incredibly cheap, especially with field guns. Numbers go a really long way.
-
They’re cheap, and they can sneak in close and lob rockets or satchel charges at the knees of mechs. And fuck up traditional armored vehicles, which can actually be a major threat to mechs.
-
I played a megamek campaign as a combined arms company. Used IFV’s and motorized infantry with field guns, rockets and such alongside mechs for mobility and tanking. It worked extremely well, and the campaign AI tends to fill out BV with shit tons of vehicles, so the dozens of ac2’s and ac5’s I’d have would immobilize and destroy them before they’d even get in range. Shit was cash
-
-
Infantry are always important, as they fulfill more rolls than just straight up fighting. They can enter buildings, capture VIPs , occupy territory. That being said, front line fighting would be a terrifying experience. Imagine being a grunt and seeing an ATLAS
-
One of the more recent books has a point of elementals (five) backing up a platoon or so of entrenched infantry ambushing a pair of light mechs.
It’s a freaking horror show. Foxholes beign stomped into paste, men launched by the arms of a pissed off mech, mechwarriors bonked up by elementals while foot infantry blow their mechs knee actuators out.
-
-
Like many others have said, there are dozens of roles that you simply can not preform with armor, drones, aerospace or mech assets that you need your standard rifleman or more specialized trooper to deal with. In combat? well they are a hell of a lot harder to hit, hide, and fully get rid of then anything else. That and a half dozen jump troopers coming off a nearby roof or rappelling from a VTOL onto a mech with angry playdoh tends to spell the end for that mechwarrior. Eh basically just ambush fighters. Manpack PPCs, AC2s, and medium laser field "guns" and other "light" anti mech weapons are popular too for assisting direct combat.
-
Because nobody had battle armor before battle armor existed and nobody told infantry they couldn’t continue doing their traditional millennia-old job afterwards. Not every vehicle is equipped with anti infantry weapons either, though its still often a suicide job for at least some of the squad.
You need an actual human player to see them properly used. Megamek’s AI is far too dumb to use or counter them.
Also occasionally you will see a Space Nippon cut open a battle armor with his vibrokatana. Maybe that makes it all worth it.
-
-
They always are. That’s why I love the community.
Simple. There aren’t nearly as many mechs as the materials make it out to be. Lore-wise, they are fairly uncommon compared to modern military equipment. The average soldier in the US Army may have seen an M1A1 Abrams but have they been in combat with one or seen it while operating? Probably not. Same with Battletech. On base, you might see some Centurions, Locusts, or a Hunchback or two but have you ever gone out on patrol with a lance? No.
The infantry do all the humdrum boring work that battlemechs aren’t necessary for. Also, Battlemechs can’t police a population, run checkpoints (except for maybe light mechs), do ordinance/IED disposal (safely), collect intel, run raids with mininal civilian casualties, etc. Infantry will always be necessary in any space where securing and holding territory is concerned.
They just can’t stand up to mechs in an open fair fight, which is what inferno missiles/rockets,autocannons, VTOLS, tanks, and artillery make up for. In the rules I think a full infantry platoon can create the effect of being hit with an AC/2 or Medium Laser if at full strength. Nothing to scoff at if you take it in the rear or have exposed internals while engaged with other stompy boys.
And then there’s jump infantry, which is just silly.
-
Infantry in the tabletop are significantly more scary when they are played to their strengths. I fear walking into a city with a company of mechs without my own infantry because I know that I’m gonna lose a lot of mechs to ambushes and booby traps.
Kind of a copout, yeah.
-
>Infantry in the tabletop are significantly more scary when they are played to their strengths.
Welcome to the 3rd Succession War. Without intel and combined arms, you’re bonked.
-
Honestly, I’d rather be infantry facing a mech than a vehicle crew facing a mech.
-
Until AP Gauss rifles enter the picture. Then it’s scary to be on the battlefield period.
-
Bad enough that they started putting anti-personnel mines on the legs.
-
-
You guys have fun down there, i’m going to be up in orbit ignoring the ares convention just like the SLDF did.
-
Thanks for leaving your wife and daughters in my safe hands.
-
-
-
-
-
-
🙂
-
there’s Dozens of us worldwide! Dozens!
-
https://i.imgur.com/PCpwjsE.gif
Everything for the league!
-
-
-
And that´s AWESOME!!!!!
-
-
>That is literally the plot of Battletech.
Well, the Mackie also completely mulched it’s weight in enemy armor during it’s debut battle. Even while being the overweight-but-charming shitbox that it is.>Shadowhawk
Woke af of the woke af.As soon as we get myomer. As soon as that happens I’m building a Shadowhawk and stomping everything
Woke af Shadowhawk posters. It was one of my most successful mediums back when I still played MWO. Named her chatterbox due to how the UAC/2s would fall out of synch.
Still waiting for a Battletech/MW game that doesn’t devolve into a tonnage race so I can actually get to use her outside of milk runs again.
-
Woops. Dropped my pic.
-
Pretty mint
-
-
-
-
-
-
>I feel we should postpone the robot uprising for a wee while…
-
chaos wins again
-
Which one is on our side?
I’m guessing it isn’t the tesla
-
-
Are people really still having this autistic argument? The closest we’ll get to a mech will be human sized power armor. There is no use case for mechs in any scenario. have a nice day
-
>SOON
-
-
>mechs
You can just store shitloads of explosives in the paths the mechs are sure to go through, or make big enough artie to the shit outta em-
Huh, excellent point. I wonder why we don’t just do that for tanks.
O wait…
-
-
If you have the ability to hover why would you build something complex needing to be ambulated
-
only just now are the stabilization systems competent enough
two legs are not a good load bearing choice, better to go with 4 or 6 or 8 as a matter of redundacy.
even then any mass added to the platform has to be accounted for by the stabilization systemhovering is not very energy efficient
maybe mecha could carry a little more weight but not much more tbh
idealy one would make a legged system that does not much exceed 0.80 kg/cm2 average ground pressure,
and a peak ground pressure of between 1.10 and 1.50 kg /cm2.
more legs would allow a smoother distrobution of load as the mecha moves
-
-
[…]
You’re a triple scrotebrain and you should donate your body to science so they could see why you lived.
-
its easier to make things roll than walk, so the engineering effort to make something walk on a large scale is unlikely. Things like boston dynamics are being shown off BECAUSE of how hard it is to get a robot to walk effectively. But no, at most we’ll have exo-skeletons, maybe "power armor" but even then its unlikely. Not unless we reach another world war to kickstart conventional arms technology, because as long as nukes are in play we won’t be getting radically new military hardware.
-
the only things were legged machines could be usefull is in areas where wheels or threads are horribly encumbered. in citiy rubble, in mountainous areas, deep snow, thick forests, etc.
and there the legged vehicle would have to be small enough to still be mobile.a mech would function like a helicopter in this area, concerning mobility, weapons and armor, but with way longer on target times/ loiter times (standing around with mechanicaly locked knees takes basicly no energy) but a lower top speed. a niche, support and pioneering tool.
Everywhere else, conventional movement is just more efficient.
-
>function like a helicopter in this area
Then you would use, you know, a freaking helicopter> citiy rubble
Cities are the worst possible place to use something that’s tall and vulnerable.
>in mountainous areas
What are helicopters and fixed wing aircraft?
>deep snow
Good way to sink all the way up to your ass and be utterly useless
>forests, etc.
If it’s thick enough that you can fit a tank, you aren’t going to fit a mech either-
a maech would be limited to maximaly 5 meters tall. a mech should be thin enough to fit between trees and short enough to fit behind buildings.
a tank in a forest is limited by track obstacles and not being able to move lateraly. a mech is not encumbered like this.
a mech has longer loiter time and on target time than a helicopter. it is also likely quieter and slightly better armored and armed (no need to fly).
a mech can feasably wear snowshoes. sinking in is as little of a problem as it is for humans.
-
>a mech can feasably wear snowshoes
So can tanks
-
-
-
-
-
If it ever comes to the point of needing power armor/mecha in combat, it only means that there is a greater threat out there like genocidal aliens
-
Everything is going to be in space soon. Just glass it from orbit. Only mechs would be like body armor or robots to get into the little nooks and crannies after you glass it.
-
>i don’t understand the continuum of force now let me tell you some stupendously stupid bullshit
-
Are those welds on the side of that missile? Or something like that adhesive shit they use to bond car body panels? I’m embarrassed looking at that mess.
-
it’s a missile, not a 6th gen stealth fighter
-
Why? It’s not like it was designed to survive the mission.
-
Yeah but it has to get to its target while flying at high speed. Just seems too sloppy for the requirements. The wings of a plane don’t look that rough, which is why this stood out. Guess it works though.
-
-
>missile probably assembled in the 80s
>heat shield needs thick plug and butt welds
>doesn’t look very pretty
I’m not really surprised anon. Most things built for ruggedness aren’t very fine looking.
-
-
-
-
>in space
Maybe
>anywhere that has more gravity than the moon
No -
-
-
maybe they took inspiration from an anime
-
-
Imagine the Ambulance with gun port windows…Mobile Bunker
-
It’s name translates as "baby carrier"
-
-
-
-
-
-
Until you can make a mech that can reliable stop a tank round, theyre just an easier to see tank
-
What is the point of a mech? It’s like a tank that’s even easier to hit with AT
So why exactly are you under the assumption that you would place these mechs standing still out in the open? Why would you spend brainpower to consider the concept of putting legs on a vehicle so that they have ungimped maneuverability, but then your thoughts stop short of having them use that to their tactical and strategic advantage, instead just filling them in place of a tank?
-
Mechs as im guess OP is thinking, tall humanoid robots, would be essentially a worse version of a tank, higher centre of gravity, easier to spot because theyre tall as shit, most likely less armoured and armed because placing a ton of armour and guns at the top of something is a great way to make it easy to tip over
-
-
-
>implying they aren’t already
-
What is the point of a mech? It’s like a tank that’s even easier to hit with AT
-
Until you can make a mech that can reliable stop a tank round, theyre just an easier to see tank
Realistically you aren’t going to have giant humanoid robots ever, because you don’t have giant anythings except for ships. Mechs would take the form of smaller, probably 4 legged gun platforms comparable to the size of a man or essentially tanks with legs. Legs being a more agile and potentially more efficient form of propulsion that wheels or tracks
-
You could use them for construction like in Patlabor, at that point you have to worry about mechs doing crime which leads to mechs being used for law enforcement. I think it’s a good idea because if you have a problem with crime in your cities, having the police patrol in armored vehicles just makes them look intimidating whereas a full blown walking robot is just so surreal people won’t mind.
-
Same thing happened in battletech. Any mech before the Mackie was an industrial mech first and foremost.
-
Honestly industrial mechs might be useful for construction, they’d fit in with all the other power tools.
-
Exoskeletons are already used in the auto industry. These will become more main stream in industry for sure. Probably in military logistic applications more so than on combat infantry. Maybe the ammo humper will get one. I am always concerned about them suddenly failing the harm it can cause to the user. IE you are lifting a 120 lb piece of equipment that feels like 12 lbs and the system suddenly fails.
-
-
-
-
-
I bet they already exist, and America is just waiting for the next peer conflict to flip the table and throw them at the enemy.
-
a mech itself is very heavy and has a shit ton of moving parts as well. if we ever get shit like SW/gundam, then it would be a pipe dream because they could easily be taken down
-
If mechs are ever a thing they will be a peacetime project designed exclusively to transfer public money to a politicians donors that will be abandoned immediately as soon as they’re actually deployed.
-
If they were it wouldn’t be bipedal, it would be more like a one man operated IFV with a wide field of view headset and Vidya style controls so he can drive, target and shoot at the same time.
-
I don’t think they’d be useful in the sizes mechwarrior or gundam have but I think one per squad that’s more of an exo skeleton would be useful. Something with more offensive capability than the pack mules they’re developing
-
Why is the image so pixelated?
-
Wake me when Mackies are rolling off the assembly line and are bend deployed.
-
Short answer no. Unless we start using mechs for space construction (plausible, excavators are basically a mech arm on treads) then the small niche for combat walkers is taken up by powered exoskeletons.
That being said, there’s an argument for putting arms on a tank.
-
we’re too busy giving all our money to shitholes and scrotes while funding endless wars in israel’s sandbox
you don’t need mechs to blow up goat farmers
-
Military funding is what will make mechs a reality, dumbo
-
-
domo arigato archer roboto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqSvbkTLevQ -
-
penis gat
-
-
We won’t get mechs but we will get belter scum, if we ever get into space…
-
No. Limited benefit and extreme cost. Please stop asking this again and again and again.
-
Just build a freaking tank instead.
-
I will continue to ask it until I see something
-
U gay and so are mechs.
There’s a whole board for fuck puppets like you to jack off over bipedal tanks.
>>>/m/
-
-
-
Huge mechs ala Battletech? No. Smaller battlesuits also ala Battletech? Yes. As ATGMs and drones get more effective, MBTs will become obsolete. But armies still need boots on the ground and mobile firepower. The solution is battlesuits or battlearmor where a single soldier will be armed like an AFV, with a carried 25 mm autocannon, ATGM launchers and 0.5 caliber MG. The bottleneck now is power storage/batteries. My prediction is as hydrogen fuel cells get more developed and smaller, it would be viable to power these battlesuits.
-
Japan : "Soon."
-
"Mechs" aren’t being made because geopolitics has prevented the advancement of heavy fortifications.
Mechs will be comparatively slow so unless their target is static their low speed is major disadvantage.
Mechs won’t be bipedal instead they will have 8 legs like a spider which the vehicle will use to aim its fixed primary weapon just like the S-Tank.
That will allow a mech to carry a larger gun and proportionally more armor than a tank of similar weight with greater off-road mobility.-
I do wonder just how far we can go into active protection fortress while neglecting passive fortifications.
-
To be fair most fortifications that manage to get built nowadays are the kind that benefit from secrecy, There’s no advantage to disclosure of command centers, supply depots, ammo dumps, and bunkers.
On fortifications made for combat there are advantages and disadvantages to disclosure, Really so much about active fortifications is tied into geopolitics because much about a fortification comes from its location location location.-
well to be fair a fortress’s primary concern through the ages has always been location
-
-
-
>geopolitics
funny way of spelling nukes
-
If you have to resort to dropping nukes to defeat a fortification then it has successfully served its purpose several times over.
-
>safeguard.jpg
What is it? Sauce?
-
-
-
-
-
I want my Atlas
-
-
Only thing I could see is some short term shock value, sometimes on battlefield seconds mean everything and releasing couple of these fucks
would make enemy look as in:" WTF!??!" while sharpshooters take them one by one…
And that trick can work many times if there is no one left to tell the story.Logically, from actual warfare perspective, lower to the ground you are, longer you live. So, why the fuck would you make an slow, walking barn where everyone, even the blind guy who cooks can make pot shots while cooking.
And, let’s take scenario where USA attacks another sheep herders who have only WW1 weapons that can’t penetrate the armor, you still have way better, efficient and cheaper solutions..This whole concept is scrotebrained and childish, you either have mobility with light(er) armor, or more armor and firepower.
But both concepts work better with tires or tracks…
Protip: Air is where it’s at.
If you want to see why not mech, check Boeing AH-64 Apache, that shit comes, makes hell on earth and disappears, having high mobility, solid armor and one hell of a payload..
this whole thread is idiotic…
Even "power armors" are dumb idea IRL, they just attract firepower…-
>Logically, from actual warfare perspective, lower to the ground you are, longer you live.
Because you’re still living in WW2. Nobody has weapons inaccurate enough to miss a slow moving box no matter how low to the ground it is. It’s even worse when its a top attack guided missile.Armor is thickest on the front of a tank because it is the facing that is preferably shown to the enemy, yet when the front glacis is towards the enemy it means you have literally 0% chance to avoid any attack, as you can only move directly towards or away from an opponent. To try to move perpendicular to an opponent’s aim to avoid it is to show the sides of the tank, which ironically makes it easier to be hit because it is so long. Therefore there is simply no choice but to accept being hit and just present the front armor as much as possible. It is the worst possible Catch 22 with a compromise solution that is both dumb yet the only option available.
The way to survive is to not be in a position that the enemy expects you to be and to minimize direct exposure in line of sight. You cannot do this properly with wheels because the places you can go are super predictable. You cannot clear urban corners with any sort of wheeled or tracked vehicle without being a hilariously easy target.
It is exactly like comparing a healthy soldier to a man in an armored wheelchair. You HAVE to armor up the wheelchair because it has terrible mobility. That doesn’t mean its actually better at fighting than the man who still has use of his legs, otherwise we would have naturally selected for legless wheelchair bound soldiers by now.
I’d like to see your fuel bill for having two Apaches rotating on station 24/7 in the same spot for a week. Also I’d like to see your report card for English lessons.
-
-
-
>crew still exposed
shit design -
Any Chromehounds chads in this thread?
-
rocket pod scrote here
-
That takes me back. I remember some guys had builds that let them glide huge distances
-
Does it hold up? Was thinking about picking it up for cheap on steam or w/e, but I don’t really remember it (never owned it, just played at a friend’s house) and I’m afraid it’ll just be janky shit.
-
-
One of the things about Mechwarrior/ Battletech is both the targeting systems of real weapons today, and the munitions we use completely render the idea of using that universes technology to fight in armed conflicts scrotebrained. For example, the main gun and targeting system on an M1 abrams could easily cockpit shot an Atlas at over a mile away while the tank is moving. The Abrams tank can toast a lance or star of gaus and LRM/ ATM equipped mechs before their targeting systems register where the tank is all while moving in the tanks direction. that being said, If we made the mechs today they would most likely have that tech or better. I imagine the limiting factor is the nero helmet and myomer muscle not being a thing yet.
-
I always thought that the archaic sensor and targeting systems of battletech (which were obviously just a gameplay thing) were really incongruous and made it difficult to get into the lore. But they sort of try to explain it by saying that everything has some form of electronic warfare that renders traditional means of targeting and such obsolete. A really piss por attempt at hand waiving reality but there you have it
-
You also factor in that all the ranges for ballistic weaponry is a fraction of what it should be (I mean if they made it realistic no one would use missle or energy) But hey, the games and lore are still fun to engage with so its whatever.
-
-
Protip:
The ranges in battletech are an abstraction. Authors bonked it up when they wrote novels because they’re stupid. Optional rules to play the game with correct ranges exist, and it essentially requires a freaking high school gymnasium to play, with EVERYTHING being in range if it’s in line of sight.
[…]
Wait, Battletech has Mimovski particles?>minovksy particles
No. One explanation occasioanlly used is that there’s a fuckload of ECM going on all the time. To the point that if you dropped a 1950s armored battalion onto a battletech battlefield, their radios would explode.The better explanation is that Stackpole is a scrotebrain.
-
-
>I imagine the limiting factor is the nero helmet and myomer muscle not being a thing yet.
The limiting factor is that there’s no need for it. -
> For example, the main gun and targeting system on an M1 abrams could easily cockpit shot an Atlas at over a mile away while the tank is moving.
The main gun of an abrams is so ineffective in setting that it’s represented by the heavy rifle.
The heavy rifle does 9 damage. It weighs 8 tons.
A medium laser does 5. it weighs one ton. Infantry platoons can haul them around, as do some battle armor. Light mechs mounting four of them isn’t unusual.tl;dr
No, the abrams would get shit on. -
You can shoot the cockpit of a typical mech with your cannon (Heavy Rifle to be generous) and it would strip the armor but not penetrate, even on the weakest point. You don’t seem to understand that Battletech is a universe where defense has surpassed offense. You are also making the assumption that you are fighting a very slow mech that is obliviously standing out in the open, rather than a sprinting, bobbing and weaving 86 kph (53 mph) monster.
The ranges of aerospace weapons are measured at a more realistic scale due to not needing to be constrained by tabletop dimensions but they’re still warped woke af on the scale of the board map they’re on. Yes, ground ranges are only absurdly short because they need to be playable, with EW explanations only tacked on for ground warfare. A "short ranged" medium laser at the low-altitude aerospace scale would have a 3 kilometer effective range, or 54 kilometer range when on a high-altitude or outer-space scale map.
That piddly short ranged medium laser that weighs one metric ton, if we’re allowing ground units to use the aerospace scale, would be a 3 kilometer ranged unlimited ammo cannon about equivalent in power to a late 20th century tank gun, except the 86 kph monster mentioned above carries ten of them. Nothing we have currently realistically stands a chance.
-
Idk man, one of the things that never gets talked about is the actual brinell hardness ratings of the armor on the mechs and velocities of projectiles. The key to punching through armor is velocity paired with either high heat explosive compounds or just a really fast moving tungsten sabot. by that real world concept, the AC2 would be the best weapon for punching through armor. Current tanks use sabots with hardened steel tips and depleted uranium shafts at about 1,555 m/s (5,100 ft/s). the only velocity numbers I can find game wise are from mwo so who knows if they changed stuff for balance.
-
It never gets talked about because Battletech armor doesn’t work that way. It is 100% ablative to an extreme degree and very few technologies allow for directly penetrating it despite the fact that it is practically paper thin. Even a hypersonic magnetic gun firing 125 kg slugs can only hope to shave off a ton of armor per shot. Let the unholy thru armor crits rule be memory holed for now.
Bigger ACs just do more damage. An AC20 can also be firing small hypersonic needles in a long burst, so as long as it does exactly 20 damage in 1 turn which is 10 seconds. An AC2 can operate by the exact same mechanical principle just with 10 times less projectiles fired. The ranges getting shorter as damage goes up are purely for gameplay reasons and best described as the 20 damage gun firing so much that its inaccurate and unwieldy compared to the controllable 2 damage gun.
-
Ok Anon, I get it now. It is more about breaking the armor with energy transfer rather than punching through it. Got it.
-
There is an armor-centric rule about energy transfer and penetration. Barrier Armor Rating is meant to represent the "quality" of an armor type. If a unit is made to "modern" military standards in Battletech (BAR 10) it is just assumed to have perfectly ablative armor to almost everything. However civilian commercial armor exists for non-combat jobs and its BAR may be lower than 10. If a weapon does more damage than the BAR rating then the vehicle needs to roll the dice for whether the weapon penetrated the armor and hit something internal. For example, a particle cannon (10 damage) has a chance of shorting out the engine of some random low-tech coast guard boat in one shot even if that boat technically mounts enough armor points to resist the hit.
The SPG isn’t able to go into the mountains nor will it be able to use cover like a human, or at least like a living being if its multipedal. The lack of armor is made up by superior positioning, exactly the same way an able man with all limbs intact is a better overall fighter than a man in an armored wheelchair.
-
Humans are effective on the battlefield because they are relatively cheap and logistically light. Getting behind a rock is great while all your opponent has is an AK, that superior positioning will do you well.
Once you start spending millions on armoured suits, it starts being feasible for your opponent to field weapons that don’t give a shit that you can hide in a ditch or behind a rock. It becomes cost effective to launch PGMs at you, large volumes of airbust munitions, or heavy artillery. Weapons that usually aren’t used against humans because there are targets better suited to them, but when they do they get turned into paste. Just like Mechs would.
-
>cheap and logistically light
Depends how you mean. Individually, tactically, ya probably. But when you aren’t looking at infantry in a vacuum, they’re the most expensive and most logistically demanding part of a military
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Most bonked up thing in this thread is that some of you actually have real weapons at home..
-
Hey mechscrotes! Youz ever looked into "hydrostatic rock crawlers"? More articulated than mars rovers, man operated and actual real vehicles with legs and wheels.
-
Add some real world mech "feet".
-
Maybe some pneumatic airbags in the right spots.
-
Give it some ghetto hops.
-
Maybe think of them as parkour dirt bikes not tanks. Reinvent dragoons? Ride them like war horses.
-
-
-
-
Climbing buggy that can lift its legs into better position. Rips trails that are technical climbing routes.
-
Add some real world mech "feet".
Maybe some pneumatic airbags in the right spots.
Give it some ghetto hops.
Maybe think of them as parkour dirt bikes not tanks. Reinvent dragoons? Ride them like war horses.
https://i.imgur.com/8RCs9aN.jpg
Climbing buggy that can lift its legs into better position. Rips trails that are technical climbing routes.
Jussayin guys
-
-
>steps on IED, falls over
>can’t take an RPG
>literally just a slow, walking gun
Mechs suck in every way, humvees and tanks ftw-
>>can’t take an RPG
Says who?
-
>Says who?
Anyone with a functioning brainstem
-
-
>steps on IED, falls over
This is considered favorable compared to what happens to pre-mrap vehicles.>can’t take an RPG
harder to hit with an RPG. It’s movements are less predictable.>literally just a slow, walking gun
So…a tank?-
>So…a tank?
More like a SPG because its armor isn’t going to stop shit except expensive rather than cheap aka the entire point of an SPG -
>It’s movements are less predictable.
That’s not as significant as an advantage as you would think when the target is several meters tall.-
Why would it be several meters tall? This assumption everyone makes about mechs necessarily being 3m+ tall is woke af on media and not reality
-
Wouldn’t it be less of a mech and more of powered armor if it’s 2 meters tall? There’s a person going to be in there, after all.
-
I guess it depends on what it’s for, and it’s not really a hard line to draw considering the difference is strictly fictional. The reality would be different, with powered armor being just that, and anything one could consider a mech being a legged vehicle. Take op’s pic, for instance. Its a crewed gun carriage mounted on legs. It could be half that height, still be a mech, and be alot more feasible
-
-
>woke af on media and not reality
ah yes, unlike mechs which are entirely founded in reality-
>What is hypothetical theory crafting
Would you begrudge a woman for postulating the particulars of taking your virginity? No, of course they aren’t real. We’re talking about how they would fit in reality, and when you’re making assumptions about their function and form woke af on how they fit in fantasy, you’re guaranteed to arrive at the conclusion that fantasy is where they’ll stay. Its like if pre-flight people discussed the possibility of flying machines and everyone insisted it was impossible because you can’t have a machine light and articulate enough to flap it’s wings and modulate its tail-
>We’re talking about how they would fit in reality
and yet nobody has responded to the multiple people asking for rough dimensions or shapekeeps it nice and abstract so mechascrotes can hide behind it being big sometimes and power armor the next moment
-
>nobody
Literally yes they have, many posts have been talking about what form they may take. -
-
-
-
-
Thank you! Real life "mechs" will be the size of small 4×4 trucks with 4x the mobility and used like technicals. Modular and adaptive multi terrain weapon platforms that can also use a powered paraglider, jump shute and repel harness.
Machines walking with feet is scrotebrained. Driving adaptive wheels on the end of articulated dynamic shocks (legs) not.-
>4x the mobility
If you ditched the wheels, it’s not going to have nearly the operational range-
Disregard post, I’m illiterate
-
-
Wheeled legs do seem like a best of both worlds scenario, and would give you redundant locomotion as well as improve operational mobility. I don’t see why anyone thinks they’re mutually exclusive
-
-
-
One of the advantages of legs is the ability to adjust height as needed.
-
-
-
I’m tired of these threads strictly because scrotes come into a 300+ post thread and make the same thoughtless reply discussed ad nauseam before they came in. Its like bursting into a room that says "hypothetical discussions" and proudly announcing nothing they’ve been talking about is real
-
-
Japan is slowly building them up
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.