If somehow mech became true, do you think they would be as difficult to run than helicopter ? (3 hours of maintenance for on hour of flight)
Anonymous
>>6402638 see
>>6402637 this time you get to HURRR.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>6402035 >So you think NEXT ACs are "realistic" because they're basically jets. I consider them more as heavily armoured jet/helicopter hybrids with ground combat abilities but pretty much YES, that's why they are realistic.
We could, right now, build battleships that dwarf those from WW2, gigantic ships with more fire power than a small nations army. Do you know why no one builds something like that?
It's simply because we don't need it, we have the technology for it but we know that the concept of a battleship is flawed, so we have abandoned it.
Kinda the same with walking mechs, we know that the concept is flawed that's why we will never ever build them.
The human walking mechanism doesn't scale well, we will never see giant walking robots because they would be SHIT. They would be slow as hell, they would have retarded maintenance costs and really fucking obvious weak points.
No military in the world needs something like that, there is absolutely no point in building it, that's why they are unrealistic.
HELL, if you can't see the flaw in a GROUND-BOUND-SLOW-MOVING-MACHINE-ON-THIN-LEGS-WITH-A-HUGE-TARGET-PROFILE then there is something seriously wrong with you.
HOWEVER we already use jets and we know for a fact that jets are really fucking awesome because they can attack shit that's really deep in the enemy territory.
We also use helicopters those are pretty awesome too, sure they might go down to small arms fire but they can dodge attacks and give tactical ground support like no one else.
And we use tanks, tanks are just as awesome as the other 2 because they are impervious to anything smaller than a fucking rocket and even then they won't go instantly lolboom.
Anonymous
>>6403171 This is wrong.
We have never built a successful walking mech because its only been very recently that computers have been capable of handling the task of handling the sheer number of servos at speeds fast enough to make it walk.
You are also wrong is assuming that a production mech will be slow. You are correct that until they can run, and can fall and get up again, they won't be mass produced, but your quite wrong in saying they will never be able to do that.
Tanks and trucks have a major handicap in that they cannot climb mountains. Aircraft and helicopters cannot physically occupy them after they shoot them up. Only infantry can occupy the mountains, but then they are limited in the weapons that they carry since they have to man pack everything. And that is a big limitation when the people holding those mountains are dug in in caves and bunkers.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6403806 Still doesn't mean "mechs" though.
More likely we'll instead see systems similar to stair-helpers on wheelchairs: A tank or other vehicle that uses those servos and stablization to lift itself over things with extended suspensions.
At least, until we get VTOL tech efficient enough to replace that shit entirely.
Anonymous
Honestly Mechs aren't very practical. They'd be easy targets for RPGs and any heavy weaponry they would be able to haul would work just as fine mounted on a tank or Humvee. The only place a mech would have a realistic advantage would be in the forest.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Fuck, why aren't there teams of super rich weeaboos currently trying to make real mechs right now?
Anonymous
>>6404265 Erm, some have.
They're only impeded by being virtually impossible to use. Like that walker that could only shuffle.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6404273 I'm obviously no engineer but I'd really be interested in learning more about why it's proving so difficult.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6400706 Not just the forest, but urban and mountain terrain as well. Mechs allow for the application of infantry tactics to armored warfare. I believe that mechs have the most value for use in ground-based surgical strikes against armored targets in built-up areas where an air-strike is not an option (like say the target possesses formidable anti-air defenses, for example). They would function as an infantry strike team. Basically, imagine this but with mechs using buildings or rock formations as cover:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFDDhNGUP94 Anonymous
Quoted By:
I have chill every time I hear that Armored Core is "realist".
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
BTW, /m/. I remember the first time I posted this, you said the design of the ordinance of the anti-tank shotgun wouldn't do shit against tanks, but what if it instead fired sabot rounds that delivered multiple flechettes as opposed to a scaled-up shotgun shell that contained a bunch of 22 inch cannonballs?
Anonymous
>>6404943 Why not have a shell that fired a slug and have that slug be a APFSDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
>>6405098 The entire point of the shotgun is to take out several armored vehicles at once by firing several projectiles in a spread with one shot. An APFSDS would have better use in a mech-scale sniper rifle, but someone said that sniper mechs are a stupid idea, so instead I have the railgun-equipped Naval vessels act as the snipers with the mechs serving as spotters.
Anonymous
>>6405213 The problem there being that shotguns don't actually have much penetration power. So they work well against personnel, but even a scaled up shotgun wouldn't faze an armored vehicle very much.
Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
Quoted By:
>>6404943 The point of saboting is to allow a relatively smaller round to be propelled with far more propellant than normally possible. You are wasting your time if that force is spread out across multiple projectiles.
Anonymous
>>6405213 Here's part of the thing.
Shotgun: smooth bore gun that a person carries, that can fire various types of rounds
Cannon: smooth bore gun that a vehicle carries, that can fire various types of rounds
At that scale, the difference is pretty much a visual thing.
And the another problem: firing shot capable of penetrating multiple armored vehicles would only be worthwhile if all your enemies sit there bunched up together like total idiots. Stand off distance for vehicles when they aren't parked in a motor pool is measured in meters.
If you want it to maintain traditional buck/birdshot shotgun functionality, the most reasonable solution is just have them pack canister rounds for infantry and such.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6405694 How about using the spread to defeat patches of RA?
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
>>6406186 Most of the time they'll be engaging targets in a built up area like a city or a forest. Tanks are notoriously horrible at fighting in close-quarters like that because they have to expose at least half of the vehicle in order to establish line-of-sight for direct fire, while a mech can simply aim its weapon around the corner. I would imagine that the mech would make use of the shotgun to engage a large group of armored vehicles that are fenced in by a narrow street as they approach the corner the mech is hiding behind just waiting to ambush them.
Anonymous
>>6406500 But even in that situation, they're still not going to be sitting close together. There would still likely be 5-10 meters between each vehicle at the least.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
Quoted By:
>>6406516 Eh, I guess you're right. The minigun would be more effective against a large group like that (I changed the caliber to 20mm, btw).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6406500 Right now though the US is fighting a war in mountains.
The urban warfare in Iraq is largely over- but when it was tanks worked just fine, they just had to get used to going back to their WWI role as a seige engine for infantry support. Which required more training than reequipping.
Can a mech work in a city? The smaller powered armor types probably, but I think larger mechs would have trouble protecting their feet and legs.
Even if they didn't have such a problem, its hard to imagine what they could do in a urban enviroment that tanks and APC's backed by helicopters cant allready do
Belisaurius
If you want to go with realism, start with VOTOMS.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6404216 And forests and mountains are where the US is fighting in Afganistan right now.
Forests and mountains that straddled the Cambodia/Vietnam border thwarted the US in that war too.
It is possible to make a mecha too big, but as log as it can move well enough to get prone and back up again it should be able to dodge most RPG rounds.
But if we can make a vehicle that has the same hill climbing ability as an infantryman while carrying the weapons of an IFV and needs a direct hit from an RPG to stop it- thats an improvement over what we have now.
Anonymous
Belisaurius
Quoted By:
>>6406618 :)
>>6406500 The same principle could be applied to swamps or forests. Likewise, since all the weight is near the center of gravity, it's easier to turn in place.
>>6400513 If AC 4 is the closest you've got to practical, then you haven seen much. Nexts worked because primal armor let you skimp on physical armor. You'll notice that without it even the chain guns on helicopter gunships can kill you.
Furthermore, Armored Cores in general are just too damn big. Too much profile, too much mass, too much squared cubed law for practicality.
Pic related. A far more practical scale.
Anonymous
I hate it when people claim that mechs would be effective in a forest.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6406666 Just have a mech that can knock down trees. Problem solved.
Belisaurius
>>6406666 I did it on rollerblades. It was too easy on foot. Lots of sideways movement and circling. Tricky, but very useful. It's way easier than driving a quad through. Use your hands and the "trees" actually improve agility.
I noticed that the hip joints would be important, but that's expected.
Then again, I am a fencer, sideways movements are the norm.
Anonymous
>>6404943 It CAN do shit to a tank, I'm afraid to say that this isn't as much of a deal as it was before.
You could destroy one with RPG/Rocket/Missiles barely scaled up to the size of those too-huge-to-work-soon Mech.
And your gun is basically the size of a Tank's one.
I don't mind Zaku sized Mech but you need a reason why Tank can't be as evolved. (Gundam's reason was the minimal size of Minovsky drive if I remember)
Also : SHOTGUN ?
1) It will need to be inside town (why call it "artillery" then ?)
2) Even in town there is rarely space to have more than 2 tanks, unless you are somehow attacking during a Military Parade.
The Minigun is ridiculous.
>>6406666 Belisaurius
Quoted By:
>>6406666 Oh, and that forest isn't nearly as bad as it could be. Most of the trees are mere saplings that wouldn't stop a man in power armor, never mind a mech. The others aren't close enough to inhibit mobility.
There's actually an ecological trend of how trees can't grown beyond a certain density without crowding each other out. Larger, more sturdy trees take up more space.
>>6406822 The shotgun has two advantages over a typical autocannon. The first is that super-buckshot would hit like an entire infantry section worth of .50 cals. Very potent anti-air and effective against anything short of an IFV. The second is that a shotgun is a smoothbore weapon which means you can load it with APFSLP rounds without ball bearings.
The tank is always going to dominate open spaces. Statisticly, the concept is formidable, a mass of armor carting around a gigantic gun. Head to head, it's going to beat anything of similar weight and price. The problem is that the tank is so straightforwards that it can only engage an enemy head to head. You can try flanking, but that exposes the weaker side armor. You can try an ambush but a multi-ton MBT is hard to hide. It's too simple to take full advantage of the terrain and too big to hide behind anything smaller than a barn. The mech is a more flexible machine, capable of taking some foes head to head as well as sneaking around or taking cover.
>I won't pretend that Mech can do better but eventually Over-sized power armor may do better. Honestly, thats the doom of any ten foot mech. Anything they can do, armored infantry can do, often more efficiently. The only reason to use a mech then would be that you couldn't cram everything you want into a man-sized package.
Anonymous
if a mech is going to go head to head with anything heavier than a hummer, it's going to need one very important piece of equipment.
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
Quoted By:
>>6407028 All good reason why power armor might carry a ballistic shield.
However why use mechs instead power armor?
To be frank any function you could name as a "niche" for mechs is already filled by infantry. We already have infantry weapons (crew served & personal) that can kill armor, choppers, even the odd jet that flies low enough.
Power armor by the same token could fulfill the same roles and give the armored infantry a better chance to stand up against whatever comes their way.
I don't see powered infantry as a definite "leap" in how warfare is fought like motorization has been (ie. tanks) or flight (ie. bombers, jets), only as a force multiplier (ie. gunpowder).
One more thing: why the hell would a mechanized tanks need actual arms? I believe that a more versatile suspension - even legs - on a tank could be useful every once in a while - however why arms?
The tanks would still only have a single main weapon and a turret is just so much stronger and stable than a limb.
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
>>6407513 I doubt he hates them, he's just pointing out what they are:
Pure fantasy.
PS.: Patlabor mechs are fairly realistic. They're under armed and the only time they're in a war like situation they get killed... by a bunch of infantry with RPGs and a lone Shilka (anti-air gun that can be used ad-hoc against less armored ground targets), not even a MBT.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I would kill to pilot a real mech.
Anonymous
>>6407501 Like I said before, I believe mechs have a very VERY narrowly defined combat role, which is in ground-based surgical strikes against armored targets in built up areas where an air-strike is not an option (like say the target possesses formidable anti-air defenses, for example). They would essentially function as the armored mobile artillery equivalent of the Special Forces.
Anonymous
>>6407526 It's funny to see some /m/en squirm under the weight of how unnecessary and impossible mecha truly are even under the best of circumstances, though.
The closest thing to mecha we will ever see in our world will be a something akin to Appleseed's landmates, and they would likely be incapable to such free flight, and might barely provide protection against most small arms. Prolly be easy to disable to with a 40 mike mike to the chest, and be death traps in the face of snipers with anti-material rifles.
The technology to fight a war is a proverbial race between the sword, and the shield. The sword has been outpacing the shield for quite some time, and will continue to do so unless new technology/materials come out of nowhere to change that. Even then, soldiers/combatants are resourceful as all hell. The mighty M1 Abrahms can be disabled by a simple IED or RPG to the treads. You can't predict what people would do to overcome walking armor, but rest assured they will find a way.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6407548 Why spend the money on something so limited and clearly expensive to produce when infantry can do the same thing?
Air strikes 'not an option'? We've made such advances in ranged armaments, we can still hit said targets without risking manned OR unmanned fighters.
Keep in mind, if the technology to make viable battlefield mecha suddenly appears, it would coincide advances to every other pieces of vital battlefield technology.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6407513 I am actually a good defender of oversized PA for Infantry fighting, anti-PA action, more sensor and more realistically : for logistic capability
Supposing PA and vehicle armor evolve to a point where the adapted equipment is too bulky for "PI" and their Big Dog mkII, Mech may fit.
I'm mad against the guy who think he can justify FMP-like mechs, and more generally against all those who place mech as anti-tank unit.
If somehow Mech where made first, I would build Tank to hunt them.
>>6407526 It is, but I wonder if with today's active protection (aka : anti-missiles) they couldn't have survived a more realistic number of missiles/RPG.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
> Due to some bug, I've been trying to post this since a while now. >>6407513 I am actually a good defender of oversized PA for Infantry fighting, anti-PA action, more sensor and more realistically : for logistic capability
Supposing PA and vehicle armor evolve to a point where the adapted equipment is too bulky for "PI" and their Big Dog mk2, Mech may fit.
I'm mad against the guy who think he can justify FMP-like mechs, and more generally against all those who place mech as anti-tank unit.
>>6407526 It is, but I wonder if with today's active protection (anti-missiles) they couldn't have survived a more realistic number of missiles.
Belisaurius
>>6407393 A ballistic shield should, in combination with the armor, repel 50 cal rounds for a while. Remember, the shield is at the very least doubling the armor thickness.
>>6407465 Visual laser com falls apart to fog or rain while tight beam radio can be spoofed by mortar launched chaff.
Robots don't need to sleep or eat, but they still need power, ammo, and repairs. They need controllers to guide them or AIs that fall on a spectrum of stupid to citizen.
>>6407553 You're still stuck on the idea that tanks define warfare.Get rid of it. Air power destroys tanks. This was proven in WW2.
Load a VOTOM up for ani-air and you've got a plausible mech.
Add some radar absorbing material and you've got an effective AA platform.
Hide it out in bad terrain and add a 4-6 shot missile rack to the shoulders and you've got a dangerous mobile SAM site that can't be engaged by armor.
Anonymous
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
>>6407604 SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) was performed long before our radars were advanced enough to handle targeting ground forces.
There's a reason why their motto is YGBSM (You Gotta Be Shitting Me!): they'd let the AA lock onto them, and fire their HARM, go evasive and pray they did it "just right", so they'd evade the SAM while own missile homed in on the AA's radar and took it out.
...in this respect a Mech is no better than a conventional vehicle as far as surviving SEAD goes.
(Networked SAM systems *are*, but that has nothing to do with whether the carrier is tracked, fixed or a mech).
>>6407553 - is stuck on armor because it's a force multiplier of ground warfare and sometimes you can't just call in the airforce, you have to go in on foot and take 'em out one by one, fight house to house.Granted this is the job of the infantry, not armor, however the side with armor *and* infantry will have the advantage.
Belisaurius
>>6407633 Ah, but that's where the stealth and bad terrain comes in.
The mech runs passive infrared for a while, observing enemy air forces. Then, once it spots a worthwhile target, it stands up, paints the target, fires off a missile, then sits down, shuts all active scanning off, then relocates. The mech was already somewhere unexpected, a forest or swamp for instance, and firing off missiles far more powerful than MANPADS. The mech has a detection advantage over aircraft as the surroundings generate as much radar cross section as the mech. As such, the air to ground missile is going to miss. The ground to air missile might hit and might miss. The odds are more dependent on the quality of the missile and the countermeasures of the aircraft than what the mech is capable of, but that's another matter. The point is that the mech got a shot off and avoided retaliation.
The entire plan is to counter Wild Weasel tactics.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
Just to clarify, considering the materials involved I would expect a 7 meter tall mech to have a top speed of 95 mph, able to perform vertical leaps of up to 6 meters and horizontal leaps of up to 30 meters (though a friend of mine from college who was majoring in chemistry and new a lot about carbon composites believed that they may even exceed those figures!). A shorter mech would have a reduced stride length, therefore reducing its top speed. I estimate that a 4 meter tall mech like a TA or Scopedog would have a top speed of around 64 mph, which is just barely faster than most of today's MBTs.
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
>>6407995 Excuse me, but what's wrong with putting wheels on a mech? You know roller skates, or just plain wheels if the thing has at least 3 legs.
>>6407682 I see no reason why a mech and only a mech could be built like that. A plane would also use the very same tech...
...and finally no, SAMs don't work like that. How do you detect the plane in the first place? (You *need* a search radar.... hence we speak of SAM *systems* consisting of several vehicles a singele instead SAM launcher) We don't have missiles that can do homing all on their own, until the terminal phase they have to be guided by a more powerful search radar. (Even the AMRAAM).
Also the plane has several advantages: it's faster and it's higher. Both of those factors increases the effective range of its missile. Any ground force would have to use bigger missiles with stronger engines and more fuel to compensate...
Current SAM missiles are already pretty big. If you strap a big honking long-range search radar onto it, it's going to get even bigger. Current SAM launchers are already honking big tracked/wheeled monstrosities.
...I just don't see how you can cram all of this onto a mech (much less with *several* missiles) and keep the thing fast and mobile.
Anonymous
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
Quoted By:
>>6408025 Clarification: I meant that the planes would be stealth too. How in the hell would a mech carry a search radar that lets it locate them fast enough? (As their RCS is so much smaller in the X-band).
...and no, Ku-band (longer wave) radars are huge.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>someone saying the District 9 mech/power suit was bad.
Anonymous
>>6408025 >SAMs don't work like that. How do you detect the plane in the first place? (You *need* a search radar.... hence we speak of SAM *systems* consisting of several vehicles a singele instead SAM launcher) We don't have missiles that can do homing all on their own, until the terminal phase they have to be guided by a more powerful search radar. (Even the AMRAAM). Couldn't a SAM just use use an Low Probability of Intercept AESA radar?
Flaser !!kWYEewwmdrm
Quoted By:
>>6408087 The Russian S-300 & S-400 SAM systems already use such radars, yet I don't hear them touted as "unbeatable", "invulnerable" air defense systems.
All a low probability radar does is make the system harder to detect and home in on with earlier systems. This is doubly true for military hardware where improvements take years to come, decades to materialize as actual systems.
However modern, digital RWRs (Radar Warning Recievers) and homing radars *can* go toe to toe with such systems and eventually engage them... especially if they've been locked onto in which case they have a lot easier time to figure out what tricks the other radar uses.
Belisaurius
Quoted By:
>>6408025 The detection system is thermal imaging. All jet aircraft and many prop driven ones generate massive amounts of heat from fuel combustion. Infrared is a well accepted means of tracking enemy planes.
The Rapier SAM missile is well suited for this, it's darkfire module is capable of homing in via thermal imaging alone.
The aircraft has greater engagement range, but that's irrelevant as they will not have a chance to fire first.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The only way mechs would suddenly a viable combat platform (to the degree found in Gundam, Macross, Front Mission, and even Votoms) would be if some sort of magical burst of technological advancement occurred, and then we somehow forgot to apply these awesome new things to everything else that already has been proven to work.
Anonymous
I keep telling you guys: a realistic mech is an anti-infantry unit. It is a walking guard tower, not a walking tank. The only advantage it has over a helicopter is fuel consumption. Humanoid shapes are only useful for demoralizing the enemy.
Anonymous
>>6408377 Or anti-mecha.
Which could already be done by said infantry. Or by anything else on the field. We make man portable anti-tank missiles. Not RPG's. Missiles. Honest to goodness armor penetrators that are capable of killing M1's. Mecha wouldn't stand even half a chance against that level of firepower.
Mecha are anime. Power Armor is the only thing remotely close to reasonable in the near future. Again, barring magic science upgrade desu desu.
Kusuha Mizuha !!J2o813flNlN
>>6408393 >Honest to goodness armor penetrators that are capable of killing M1's. Which have obviously obsoleted M1 tanks! I guess we won't be seeing those on the field anymore.
Wait.
Anonymous
>>6408403 You still haven't really justified why any nation would want to spending money researching and building something not only inherently flawed, but the job it supposedly would do is already done more than adequately by existing systems.
Tanks have a purpose. IFV's have a purpose. Aircraft of various kinds have a purpose.
What is the purpose of mecha? Please don't saying 'demoralizing the enemy'. Just don't.
Mecha are nice to fantasize about, but there is just no need for them to exist. Augmentations to existing weapons, augmentations to individual soldiers, these are far more likely and far more efficient uses of resources.
Anonymous
>>6408393 >Or anti-mecha. I specifically said anit-infantry. Meaning anti-flesh. Not even anti-kevlar. If you are fighting something that is as well armored as you, it's time to bend over and spread your checks. And like a guard tower, mecha wouldbe rear guard and not front line combatants.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6408403 Interestingly enough, there's work going on at DARPA to turn out an AFV that is far more maneuverable that traditional AFV's, while maintaining the same kind of punch found in a modern MBT.
>>6408439 Or you know, you could post guards in the rear positions like we always do.
It seems like an awful specialized job for something so complex. It simply wouldn't be cost effective. We already have ways of guarding logistics that don't require mecha!
Anonymous
Anonymous
I never get why we have these threads. Why do people do this? Fantasy fans don't have debates about whether one day evolution will produce dragons. /a/ never talks about the probability of becoming an autistic girl in a j-rock band. Or is this /k/ getting pissy about incorrect military tactics and logistics again?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I'm with most of the realists right now, given our current technology and current battlefield tactics a mech suit would have limited applicability and that's being generous. So given what we know now, no it's not likely to happen.
>>6408550 I believe the fantasy equivalent is to argue about whether fantasy weapons are realistic or not.
And /tg/ goes through an unfortunate number of threads on if a particular weapon is accurately represented in whatever system, or shit like "what was the most effective polearm: the halberd, fauchard, glaive" etc
tl;dr every group has frivolous people.
Anonymous
A plausible mech might be one that could act as a kind of IFV that could move with and go where power armor equipped infantry could.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6408839 >Use of synthetic musculature instead of mechanical joints is an example of a technology that would benefit mechs and powered exoskeletons but not so much traditional war machines. Ah, the joys of carbon nanotubes.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Belisaurius
Quoted By:
>>6408421 As I've said, anti-infantry and anti-air.
40Kfag from /m/ !!rthE8hgFXea
>>6408619 Every once in a while /m/ needs a full thread ultimately reminding everybody why mechs are a bad idea (until we can come up with magical bullshit to make them work) and power armor is a feasible idea that will see limited combat deployment at best in the future.
Meanwhile I'll try not to think of a BigDog that can run as fast as a bulldog with a gatling gun mounted on its back fighting wars for us in 20-30 years.
Anonymous
>>6409046 Maybe replace that gatling with a gauss cannon.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6409062 FIDO!!!!
who's gonna fuck up some cores, who is, who is, yes you are, YES YOU ARE, so adowahuggable, c'mere
Anonymous
>>6407548 You call for overspecialization and you missed something : Delivery.
Attack-copter flying low would be way faster and only slightly less armored which doesn't matter as we are targeting armored vehicle.
Anyway we are speaking of Mech : If they were somehow invented first, I would build Tank to hunt them.
>>6407995 If that so your MALP mech won't have a gun capable of destroying Tank. Even less a shotgun.
>>6408550 Why ? Because that's the only alternative to Seed, 00 magic particle or more coherent series like Strike Witches.
Joke aside, some of us find Mech even more awesome when they have to fight the laws of physics.
Super-robot like Gunbuster wouldn't exist if somebody didn't bothered with physics.
Anonymous
Anonymous
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
>>6409659 >MALP That's MLAP and most fighter aircraft use 20mm vulcan cannons and I think a few pilots have managed to do a gun kill on a tank. However, after doing some research I think a better caliber would be 30mm, which is the same caliber used by the gattling cannon on the A-10 Thunderbolt aka the "Tank Killer". Also, they have other weapons that use higher calibers including an assault rifle that fires 75mm rounds in three-round bursts and a semi-auto hand gun that uses 105mm rounds like the rifled cannon on the M1 Abrams (I figured higher calibers would be easier to handle with semi-auto than full-auto).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6409701 holyfuck thats some freaky shit! and quite possible in the future too!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6409776 105s are SO 1970s.
Unless you're from Russia, at which point they started ditching those in the 60s.
Anonymous
>>6409776 Your standing MALP will fall over if it tried to fire a 20-30mm cannon in anything but short bursts, and would be unstable as fuck firing while moving. Unless, of course, magic particles/tubes/overtechnology has that accounted for. Jesus, you even assume it could move at 95 MPH and leap buildings. No. NO.
Meanwhile, an attack helicopter like the Apache can pack more ordinance on a more stable platform and strike from more directions at once, preferably outside the limited engagement range of your MALP.
A single man can fire a Javelin and kill your MALP before it even saw it coming.
Mecha in the real world cannot POSSIBLY hope to be maneuverable enough to outweigh their comparatively light armor that would make them even remotely possible. They'd carry less ordinance, and it'd be an inherently less stable combat platform to begin with. A group of riflemen with 40mm grenades could conceivably knock your mecha over, having expended considerably cheaper ordinance to take your expensive, maintenance heavy machine out of the fight for long enough to bring in something more decisive (a LAW or RPG, because you'd certainly not have the armor to resist that, much less anything heavier).
You would need to deal with recoil from tank-killing/people-killing weapons, the weight of ammunition, armor protection from small arms. You would need to address basic stability of movement, and firing while moving.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
>>6409861 The high tensile strength and light weight of the carbon nanotube aerogel muscle and carbon fiber reinforced polymer endoskeleton give it an extremely high power-to-weight ratio that helps to compensate for the square cube law allowing it to perform the feats I described. As for how I came up with those figures, my formula was simple: peak human performance x (mech height/human height). For example, the fastest recorded human running speed is 27 mph, the mech height is 7m and average human height is 2m. Thus 27 mph x (7m/2m) = 94.5 mph. I was inspired by how someone pointed out how the torso movement of a mech would be multiplied by the ratio between mech height and human height, which would bring any pilot to nausea (I sidestep this by having a cockpit suspension system that keeps the cockpit stationary in relation to the ground while walking). As for dealing with recoil, the control system automatically puts the mech in a more stable stance when the pilot brings the weapon to the ready (by default, weapons are held pointed down or off to the side until the pilot presses and holds the "aim" button on the joystick that makes the mech point the weapon at whatever direction the pilot is staring at on their screen and then fires by pressing the trigger button on the same joystick) and pulls the arms back as it fires to absorb the force from it.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
Quoted By:
>>6409941 Also, a Javelin might be able to do one in if they manage to hit an unprotected section (as you can see in my sketches, my MLAPs only have armor in certain locations) which are only protected by a one-inch layer of buckypaper. However, if it were to hit an armored section, which is made of ablative titanium, it would only shave off a chunk of the armor plating while leaving the internal components intact. The pic here illustrates the concept behind how they are constructed.
Belisaurius
>
Anonymous
>Realistic mecha thread >No Spider Tank from ghost in the shell
Anonymous
>>6410023 ...It's an AFV with 4 wheels. Not exactly the sort of BS Nex is proposing.
DARPA is working on AFV's with bigger guns than the one in that picture, so...uh...yeah? Unless you're saying that thing is now capable of dodging anti-tank ordinance once its active protection systems are depleted.
Your postulation has long been ignorant of actual real physics, and real technology. You're too focused on what might be possible if everything comes together in a way that is beneficial to mecha even existing on the battlefield.
Even assuming we had mecha, we'd be more likely to see IFVs like the ones at the beginning of Appleseed first, and your magic mecha would somehow have to have the ability to resist that level of firepower first.
Anonymous
>>6410073 Tachikoma's already been posted.
>>6408031 Anonymous
>>6410086 Not the same thing.
Anonymous
>>6409776 The A-10 have a Turbine dedicated to deal with the recoil of its gun.
Your MALP may be capable of firing it ONCE precisely but not even in a short burst unless it weight heavier than it look and that's certainly won't be good for maneuvrability, speaking of witch
>>6409941 > The high tensile strength and light weight of the carbon nanotube aerogel muscle and carbon fiber reinforced polymer endoskeleton Stop copypasting technobabble and just answer the question.
I think you watched too much FMP.
For example about jumping and else, I invite you to do the math about how many G a human can survive and what distance you dispose of for your shock absorber.
Belisaurius
>>6410076 >Even assuming we had mecha, we'd be more likely to see IFVs like the ones at the beginning of Appleseed first, and your magic mecha would somehow have to have the ability to resist that level of firepower first. Actually, a mech would come first due to miniturization issues. Power requirements ,for example. for a Redeye style assault armor would be extreme and a diesel-electric engine can't be fitted on a man-sized platform.
>Unless you're saying that thing is now capable of dodging anti-tank ordinance once its active protection systems are depleted. It doesn't have to. Legs allow ducking which can be used in tandem with terrain to avoid incoming fire or just minimize profile.
>Your postulation has long been ignorant of actual real physics, and real technology. So you developed a counter-argument? Care to remind me what that counter argument was?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6410337 >Actually, a mech would come first due to miniturization issues. Power requirements ,for example. for a Redeye style assault armor would be extreme and a diesel-electric engine can't be fitted on a man-sized platform. Less power just means shorter operational time. We can deal with that, and there are several means to solve this in the long run that we understand.
Building a large and heavy land based war machine, however, brings its own problems that the inboard generator can't balance out. Yes, you now have a reliable power supply, but you also bring far more extra mass that you have to deal with. Things like locomotion become so much more difficult with a giant structure, that I think I would put my bets on miniature power supply being the easier problem to solve.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
Quoted By:
>>6410314 I know a human can withstand up to around 5 upward g and 9 downward g, 17 g of forwards acceleration and 12 g of reverse acceleration. As for how much displacement I first need to find out how much the human torso moves about during locomotion (google isn't much help right now) and then apply the ratio formula to it, but it probably isn't much more than a foot because the shocks on a car are around that length and manages to keep its occupants from hitting their heads on the ceiling (not too much, anyway) when driving on rough terrain.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
A nuke and a Power Armored infantry would be better
Anonymous
Quoted By:
A loli-bot would be better
Anonymous
>>6410110 Tachikoma~
How aren't they the same as the massive spider tank from the GITS movie? I mean, aside from armor, size and payload? They share the same premise of being spider tanks, just built to fill out different roles.
Also, now Fuchikoma tiem.
I sincerely believe the most realistic we'll see in terms of deployed mecha are going to be power armors, UAVs (ZOMG GHOSTS EVERYWHERE) and if tech permits I think spider tanks help solve the problems inherent with tread based war machines.
Quoted By:
>>6410557 The same way that a HMMWV and an Abrams aren't the same thing. Sure they both have wheels and can mount a gun.
Tachikomas are small and agile, designed for scouting type missions. Whereas the Tank is big and tank-like, designed for point defense and attacking heavy targets.
Anonymous
>>6410557 How would real life Tachikomas even survive in the combat? They certainly couldn't cling to walls to fling themselves even a quarter of the distances you see in GitS: SAC. Not to mention, they would suffer greatly on uneven terrain without that huge jumping capability, they use wheels too.
So you have an extremely specialized anti-personnel weapon...that is extremely vulnerable to everything said personnel can field in their own defense.
Anonymous
>>6410601 >They certainly couldn't cling to walls to fling themselves even a quarter of the distances you see in GitS: SAC. Have they ever explained in detail what technology the Tachikomas use to attach themselves to surfaces?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6410727 It could be some sort of dry adhesive that utilizes Van Der Waals force, which is the same force that allows geckos to cling to walls.
Anonymous
>>6410337 >>Actually, a mech would come first due to miniturization issues. Power requirements ,for example. for a Redeye style assault armor would be extreme and a diesel-electric engine can't be fitted on a man-sized platform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle Reality has proved you wrong. DARPA has been working on improving the speed, survivability, and firepower of IFV's for some time now. We are definitely more likely to see modular A/IFV's with greater firepower than ever, than we will see mecha, much less armored suits for infantry, within the next ten years.
>>It doesn't have to. Legs allow ducking which can be used in tandem with terrain to avoid incoming fire or just minimize profile. This is so monstrously stupid it explains this next bit of yours.
>>So you developed a counter-argument? Care to remind me what that counter argument was? Anonymous
>>6410809 continuedYou should stop reading up on things you can't even make sense of by yourself, and then combining said things with your ridiculous obsession with mecha in anime.
"Legs allow ducking" you say? So it doesn't have to have the ability to perform significant evasive action to avoid incoming fire? Really now? Considering the multitude of threats from ALL directions anything on the battlefield faces, this mindset of yours is akin to asking your pilots to sit inside their coffins just because you think tanks with legs sounds cool. Ducking will NOT help against artillery barrages, anti-tank missiles such as the Javelin, against tanks (most can actually aim at angles below the horizon, meaning ducking will only make you a sitting duck ((lol)) against any proper MBT), against attack helicopters, against attack planes, wire-guided man portable missiles, and the list can go on and on and on.
We spend lots of money on making current armored vehicles survive more punishment as firepower grows in lethality. If mecha can't be armored to survive direct hits after their active protection is depleted, and they lack in mobility (unless, as has been said before, these are magical super mecha that can jump from building to building ((LOL)) or have riot shields that not only magically protect them from direct hits, but also keep them standing upright), their usability in the field is extremely limited.
What, exactly, can mecha do, that isn't already covered by currently existing technology, future enhancements to said technology, and can be countered by said technology? Nothing. Not one thing.
Maybe fifty years from now, we'll see some form of powered armor. At best. But the dreams you have for mecha are those of a person that does not actually have an understand of how warfare works, much less an understanding of the sheer power of modern ordinance.
Anonymous
>>6410811 A mecha switching position or form doesn't guarentee immunity, but that doesn't mean doing such is completely useless. It can increase survival rate. Just like infantry, going prone or staying low and out of sight can increase survival rate. Sure, it's not 100%, but in a battlefield, you do what you need to survive.
Anonymous
>>6410860 Mecha are considerably larger than a person. Going prone means they are not moving, which means they are dead. Unless we once again delve into the bullshit world of Arm Slaves, and we can move so fast we can't be tracked, the moment you stop moving in a mecha is the moment you've pinned yourself down.
For mecha to stand a chance in an active combat environment, movement is life, just as much as it is for people. If you are crossing a street and are suddenly shot at, you don't just stop moving where you are, you find the nearest cover that is in the direction of travel, and you book it there. If that's not possible, sorry, you were probably already fucked before you were even shot at, they were waiting for you.
Not to mention, mecha have a considerably more limited field of view than a person does, even with all the cameras they tend to get mounted with. Dropping prone means anything forward facing on the torso is out, and the head cameras are now furthest forward, and are now a more prominent target.
A tank or IFV might miss a person going prone, smaller targets after all. They are far less likely to miss a mech.
The other problem is then making the mecha capable to getting into and out of prone quickly, and being able to sustain the impact of throwing itself at the ground. Dropping prone means exactly that, you drop, quickly. Your life depends on it. You don't have time to slowly lie down.
Anonymous
>>6410888 >Mecha are considerably larger than a person. Sure, but that really depends doesn't it.
>Going prone means they are not moving, which means they are dead. What
>If you are crossing a street and are suddenly shot at, you don't just stop moving where you are, you find the nearest cover that is in the direction of travel Not always possible. Sometimes the best and quickest cover is going low.
>Not to mention, mecha have a considerably more limited field of view than a person does, even with all the cameras they tend to get mounted with. It depends, on what types/amount of sensors or cameras there are. You said it yourself.
>A tank or IFV might miss a person going prone, smaller targets after all. They are far less likely to miss a mech. Yeah sure, but enviroment can also play into the factor. A relatively small sized mecha can definitely benefit from reducing its visual depending on the enviroment.
Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>6410888 >A tank or IFV might miss a person going prone, smaller targets after all. They are far less likely to miss a mech. That person had better be hiding behind something. The IR we had on our vehicles was sensitive enough to tell apart the leaves on trees. Additionally, pray the guy isn't part of a large-enough group; we were taught to use the main gun on infantry detachments.
Anonymous
>>6410899 >Sure, but that really depends doesn't it. It does. Most mecha in this thread have not been small by any stretch of the imagination, and nearly all of them rely on the dream that every other piece of battlefield tech would not evolve alongside of them.
>What You're still pretending stuff like Wanzers and ArmSlaves are possible or at all reasonable. Sitting still with a larger target profile is an extremely dangerous prospect. Other armor can and will target you easy, infantry with anti-tank weapons can do the same.
If tanks are entrenched in a given area, they are also given paths to retreat to other prepared locations by engineers, in the event the enemy starts to get too close. Even tanks rely on the ability to move to present more difficult targets, and the nice thing about most tanks is they already share much lower profiles than most mecha would likely be able to achieve without sacrificing the ability to get the hell out of dodge in an emergency.
>Not always possible. Sometimes the best and quickest cover is going low. But most mecha are too big just to 'take cover' anywhere. At best, they'd survive in city environments just a bit longer, but considering they could likely be tracked through most buildings via IR, a tank could fire through said building to score a kill.
Why do you think infantry sprint from cover to cover? Why do you think they are cautious around open spaces? For many of the same reasons a mech would do the same thing.
Anonymous
>>6410973 >It depends, on what types/amount of sensors or cameras there are. You said it yourself. Indeed. But you can't have cameras absolutely everywhere, and that a mecha relies on cameras for so much of it's ability to navigate and engage targets, these are even greater vulnerabilities based on their more delicate nature.
You can design a battery of cameras that can cover all the necessary angles for a given mecha, while surviving combat maneuvers and potential battle damage, but for less money, you can field more traditional armor and accomplish the same objectives more efficiently.
>Yeah sure, but enviroment can also play into the factor. A relatively small sized mecha can definitely benefit from reducing its visual depending on the enviroment. Once they stop moving and go prone, they are still larger targets. Why do you persist in not seeing this vulnerability for what it is? Is it because you think a mecha will have the ability to spring up from a prone position to move to a better/safer spot in the same way that a human would? Maybe powered armor could, but certainly nothing along the sizes we see in Arm Slaves or Labors.
Anonymous
>>6410938 This right here says it all.
If modern IR can pick up a lone man in cluttered backgrounds, imagine a mecha? They may as well put up a sign that says 'Please hit me from a mile away with a 155mm round!'
Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>6410978 >155mm round 120 in most cases. If the reports are to be believed, Russia's next-generation tank will be sporting a 152 though. Since they already have a working vehicle-mounted EMP generator IRL, I wouldn't put it past them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411001 Guh. I don't even know where I got 155 from
Anonymous
First of all, the pilot must be safe and protected against bullets or he will be easilly killed and a Mecha is worthless.
Anonymous
>>6411129 Funny thing is, the AMPs in Avatar are supposedly more enclosed back on Earth. They just had to resort to using windows because Pandora's magnetic field fucked up their tech.
What I heard, at least.
Anonymous
>>6410975 >Is it because you think a mecha will have the ability to spring up from a prone position Well, thats exactly what I believe. If the mecha has the right combinations of limbs and whatnot plus said limbs have the right movement ability, a fairly small sized mecha should be able to use this to get up from prone or from a position it may have taken after it had a minor fall.. Limbs have been proven dependable by nature for millions of years.
There is absolutely nothing saying that a fair sized mecha with the right limbs cannot use these limbs to right itself. Limbs can do more than hold a weapon, it can help do additional balancing, removal of obstacles, right itself up, the list goes on.
A small humanoid shaped mecha actually makes alot of sense if you think it this way. The human form is very versatile.
Anonymous
>>6411210 The human form is also very mediocre and pales in comparisons to almost every other mammals.
In other words, a mecha shouldn't be designed like a humanoid. That's the surest way to increase production cost and inefficiency.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411135 even then thats a pretty dumb excuse
especially considering the only real tech that you'd need is closed circuit camera feeds. And if you can't shield that from interference, than fuck, NONE of the tech should have worked.
Its just a lame excuse to give the actors more face time, thats all.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Silliest thing about mecha use in fiction is how they explain "It's possible because of this awesome new technology", while ignoring the fact this technology could simply make existing traditional weapons far more deadly and efficient.
Anonymous
> Mechs will always just look awesome, but won't have a real use.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411485 Hahaha! I wish.
You can bet I'll take my firstborn to watch that kind of stuff.
Anonymous
>>6411410 >Human form pales in comparision to other mammals/animals Definitely, but you see, those animals are mostly 'specialists'. And I said 'versatile' for a reason. A human would definitely pale in comparision when it comes to swimming vs. a dolphin or fish. But heres the beauty; dolphins can't go on land and start walkin'. I mean they can pop up on land, but they'd get stuck and it'd be very clumsy. Human form aren't as good as dolphins in swimming, but at least its possible.
Climbing trees? Humans can do that too. Some better than other humans but of course we would get outclassed by monkeys and other shapes like bugs etc. But its really not about mastering it, its about versatility. A jack of all trades.
Anonymous
Woah. Discussion's up for 5 days already. Impressive!
DT Mk. III
Quoted By:
>>6411701 That's tribes of bushmen in Africa, actually.
Anonymous
>>6411723 >We better worry about how complicated walking is to program Particularly the brakes. Slamming on the brakes on wheeled or track vehicles can make them lurch pretty good (TCs don't enjoy eating machine gun mounts BTW, metal > teeth), do that in bipedal mech without some shit to decelerate you decently, and your ass is on the ground. Or rather, your face is.
>>6411745 Yeah, we usually go over this subject about once a month or so at best, so they last a while.
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
Quoted By:
>>6411745 Yeah, gotta remember it's mostly rational/m/ saying "NO FUN" mixed with jackasses going "BUTBUTBUTTECHNOBABBLE"!
Seeing that pic did give me an idea. With a plate knee joint you can have enough articulation to get an 8m tall mec roughly the same height as some IFVs (about 3 meters) when kneeling. Problem with a plate/ jackob's ladder joint is that it wouldn't be particularly stable, and getting it to articulate right would be a massive pain in the ass.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411547 Dolphin don't have to compete with torpedo.
>>6411635 Sonar Operator don't just see "oh look something big, must be a whale"
They also listen to the sound and I frankly doubt whatever "high tensile strength and light weight carbon nanotube aerogel muscle" you use a Mech will sound like a Whale.
You better pretend it use some sort of mini-submarine using sonar-diffusing material and sound absorbing hull that pretend it can "swim and look like a Whale"
Also, if you aren't a moron who stop at cool sounding = realist, you won't use claw to attack hulls, you would just use it to PLACE BOMBS.
>>6411720 Tank where built to be moving gun position from the start.
But the analogy with civil tech or say Recon Airplane can work but don't count much on it.
Just stop trying to Real and make your story interesting.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411762 have you not been watching the Boston Dynamics videos on youtube? Even a top heavy biped is able to walk up to 4.4mph.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
Quoted By:
>>6411701 That makes a lot of sense, actually. If you think about it, human locomotion relies a lot on conservation of momentum. When we start off into a run we first lean forward so gravity starts pulling and turning potential energy into kinetic energy and gain momentum. Right after that, we start pushing along the ground to redirect that momentum forwards allowing gravity to supply us with the kinetic energy to propel the bulk of our mass and keep ourselves moving forwards while spending little energy moving our legs. Even if the mech is top-heavy like
>>6411664 mentioned, it would only serve to increase it's energy efficiency by providing more momentum to work with. It's quite an efficient design and even helps to justify why biped mecha are better than multiped mecha, at least when it comes to moving at high speeds.
>>6411762 Braking is accomplished the same way humans do. When we stop, we place a foot forward while simultaneously digging the other foot's heel into the ground. The mech's control system will make it do the same thing when we slam on the brakes, though it means we'd have to reinforce the mech's heels so it can take the sheer amount of friction.
Anonymous
>>6411726 But Jolt or Jerk don't matter in any vehicle except for comfort.
Anyway it's stupid to talk about G-force with Mech because you have to wonder if the design is useful at all.
Speaking with NexAngelus405 is like talking to an advertising bot.
He start by throwing in your face what he want you to believe in your face and when you try to answer him he just keep on the same way.
BTW : this is a forest, only thing optional to go through : a chainsaw in front of a Tank
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6411701 Endurance, acquired over time. Also, chasing down something across the Savannah in the way ancient humans did was the only way we could capture fast prey. It's not particularly time efficient.
It doesn't change our other limitations. A leg injury pretty much keeps us out of our daily routine. In ancient times, it was almost a death sentence.
In mecha, leg damage, via enemy fire, or simply traversing terrain, would render the entire platform worthless. A tank or IFV with tread/wheel damage is still able make the the most use of it's primary weapons.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6411862 I'm pretty sure he really is like 13 or something.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6408839 Also I don't think a someone would just design a mech for this purpose. More likely power armor would come first and would be enlarged multiple times to better utilize larger equipment.
It would evolve into a mech.
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
>>6412013 No, I have Autism.
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
Quoted By:
>>6412138 Makes sense. Know what to do with your posts now.
>TENSE stempr captcha you read me like a book. LIKE A BOOK I SAY
Anonymous
Anonymous
Why are American real mecha so dull and lack personality?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6412298 Because they're tanks with legs and there's nothing fantastical about them. They're the epitome of real robot in that they're just machines and not OH JESUS GIANT ROBOTS ARE SO AWESOME LET'S HAVE THE ENTIRE SHOW/MOVIE REVOVLE AROUND THEM!
They have no personality because they're not designed to stand out. They're designed to just be there.
Anonymous
>>6412298 Because mass produced science fiction "novels" written by cheaphacks who only want to whore out their poorly written uncreative stories for all they're worth.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6412316 Wow, someone's got a chip on their shoulder.
Anonymous
>>6412316 ...I feel discouraged from writing now.
I guess the idea of an alien race of doll-sized people piloting mechas against an imperialistic empire wouldn't be liked.
Maybe if I focus more on the idea of the doll aliens being aided by a Tesla-punk planet full with USSR people and sexy cosmonauts.
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
Quoted By:
>>6412325 Don't make it too real, or at least acknowledge that you'll have to make concessions to make mechs workable. Flavor's always good.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6412316 So your argument is that uncreative writers try to whore out their stories by giving them deliberately down to earth and dull looking engines that won't attract attention even from most of the small amount of people interested in mechas?
Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
> ...I feel discouraged from writing now. Don't be, the guy's a faggot with personal issues with the industry by the sounds of it. Your two ideas sound decent enough that good execution will make them worth while so concentrate on that instead of listening to someone with an axe to grind.
Anonymous
I am amused how so many are insistant a mech has to be humanoid. It dosnt have to be a spider tank either, think of Crying Wolf from MGS
Anonymous
>>6412658 Also totally unfeasible. Try harder.
Anonymous
>>6412752 I was talking about the shape not the feasibility, dont be an ass.
Anonymous
>>6413031 ...Shape is still a big part of feasibility? And the shape is ridiculously unfeasible.
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413041 The only real reason I can see for a humanoid mech is something that needs to operate in space and around/in/on delicate colonies, space stations, and spaceships. A ball with legs. Manipulator arms at that point just seem like a logical extension.
Even then it's pretty flimsy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413152 Basically, the Zeong was probably one of the more reasonable MS designs while it was incomplete.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
oh boy the second half of this thread gave me some good laughs
Anonymous
>>6413041 >And the shape is ridiculously unfeasible >quadrupeds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ derp de durr
Anonymous
>>6413316 >>derp de durr >>posts bigdog video >>thinks it's relevant No. Just stop. Having legs means you're going to carry less ordinance than anything tracked or wheeled. At best, MAYBE an anti-personnel weapon. Maybe even anti armor. Even so, hardly stable as a weapons platform as your own video shows. While it's fighting to maintain balance after physical strikes or even while traversing bad terrain, it can't hope to fire weapons accurately. Making it a liability in the face of more stable platforms.
You don't really understand combat do you? You just lurve your mecha so much you wish the whole world could just fight with giant robots, don't you?
It doesn't matter that your legged machine can maintain it's balance, you fucking dolt. What matters is that it has to fight to do so, and that renders it combat ineffective in that moment. If a mech can't aim straight while under fire, then what fucking good is it going to be against a tank or IFV? Particularly when technology for those things will be advancing alongside of mecha?
Jesus fuck, /m/.
Anonymous
For a mech to be feasible, it'd have to have some sort of purpose to it. Have something that it is capable of doing that couldn't easily be done be a conventional armored vehicle.
Anonymous
>>6413408 Probably the most reasonable proposal, right here.
Thing is, once you admit that you have to scale down mecha to this level, you're making them more vulnerable to infantry, despite their ability to cover themselves. By the time we have mecha of any kind, imagine the lethality of man-portable anti-armor weapons?
It's a vicious cycle.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I still feel Heavy Gear was pretty reasonable. Feet had wheels in them so they could essentially rollerskate over the battlefield. While they were impressive things, they're more along the lines of IFVs, tanks can and actually will still slap their shit. They also scale-wise aren't particularly huge.
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
Quoted By:
>>6413408 like this and will steal it for the mech story i've been throwing around
the mechs i've been horribly drawing are like >8 meters tall and when hull down(kneeling) are about 3, 3.5 meters tall - big IFV size with relatively tiny silhouette
one gets hit by a tank main cannon in a botched orbital drop op and gets totally preforated in the process. Like shards of futureDU completely tearing it apart after going through a shield and arm. It'll be awesome
NexAngelus405 !!66nQjbyX73j
The reason for having humanoid mecha is to apply infantry tactics such as CQB to armored warfare (do you think a dog or spider with a cannon on its back would be able to check corners and clear areas?) and because human locomotion, at least when sprinting, is more energy efficient since running for the human body is simply a controlled fall.
Anonymous
>>6413388 >I am amused how so many are insistant a mech has to be humanoid. >You don't really understand combat do you? You just lurve your mecha so much you wish the whole world could just fight with giant robots, don't you? No really, your nerdrage fueled assumptions are hillarious. How is any of what you posted really relevant to a question of bipedal vs quadrupedal(or more).
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413445 Alright, let me just say this one last time.
>The reason for having humanoid mecha is to apply infantry tactics such as CQB to armored warfare THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO.
You need to develop completely new tactics for bipedal/articulated leg armored vehicles. You'll be taking pages out of conventional armored warfare tactics and the unique advantages of articulated manipulator arms, like peekfire that someone mentioned earlier. You cannon apply conventional CQB tactics at mechscale.
Anonymous
>>6413445 >do you think a dog or spider with a cannon on its back would be able to check corners and clear areas? Mental image of a mech head peeking around a corner.
>because human locomotion, at least when sprinting, is more energy efficient since running for the human body is simply a controlled fall true but as I think has been mentioned, the leg joints would not be able to handle the stress of running full gait unless you handwave some magic material
Anonymous
I don't understand why this debate keeps coming up. Mechs are just fantasy, probably always will be. All of these walkers you keep linking to are for purposes that don't involve lugging around a gun. This is coming from someone who pops a massive nerdboner for ''real'' robots. Do people in /co/ argue about how plausible it is for someone like Batman to one day exist and fight crime?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413467 based on weight that is
Anonymous
>>6413446 And still, your insistence on 'legs' proves that you're still to goddamned retarded to actually carry on the debate.
Legs are far more complex and fragile things than people giving them credit for.
Not to mention, almost every spider tank shown in GitS has wheels to help move quickly over smooth terrain. But if said terrain is not ideal, you can't use that system effectively. What you'd be left with is a slow, walking target that can be just as easily disabled as any wheeled or tracked vehicle. Hooray! Now you can spend even more money on something that faces the same issues as it's cheaper bretheren!
Robots&Racecars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413467 Peekfire with like a 20-30mm autocannon with integrated optics (please god have integrated optics) to check around buildings and ruin whatever might be out there.
Infantry notices movement on top floors of five story building? Oh shit, our IFVs can't elevate that high! BUT MECH CAN! Hey ground pounder light that shit up!
Basically every mech advantage in urban combat boils down to that. If it's not surrounded by friendly boots, it's dead.
Keep in mind that's true for ANY armored vehicle.
Anonymous
>>6413424 well thing is modern (modern being the operative term, RPG7s don't count) man portable systems are as deadly as they are now, primarily because for the most part, active defense systems are still in their relative infancy. A few companies and countries have developed them, but they really haven't seen full blown implementation just yet. However, as their value is pretty much undeniable, you can definitely expect them to become cheaper, lighter, more efficient, and more a part of your average vehicle loadout in the future.
As AMS/APS systems become more common place, its going to become much harder for a single guy on foot to take down a vehicle with a decent ams. anti tank teams will probably be forced to have multiple people firing simultaneously to overwhelm such active defenses or get in dangerously close, which will make things harder for them. Either that or going back to the m202 flash style of shoulder fired rocket with the quad tube setup, but that'd be bulky as fuck.
TL-DR single ATGMs being easy modo vs tanks may not continue to be the case as AMS tech improves.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
An awful lot of you mech defenders don't seem to be factoring in how hard it'd be to streamline these sorts of things for mass production.>ndsaevig baffucked
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413490 also, just a funny aside relating to battletech regarding AMS i just remembered
>Combat historically originally involves smacking each other with powerful ATGMs, it is effective >AMS introduced to make smacking each other with ATGMS ineffective. >AMS is countered by using lots of smaller missiles instead, to overwhelm AMS >Over time as succession wars went by, AMS goes the way of the dodo, and no one really cares cause everyone uses shitloads of cheap missiles and AMS only really makes a dent int he numbers. > 300 years later everyone still smacking each other with lots of crappy lil babby missiles even though there really is no ams around anymore, cause dammit if thats how grandpa did it, it must be right. pic related
Anonymous
>>6413490 Why bother with missiles when we could spend money on making cheaper kinetic penetrator rounds that fly at speeds beyond what missiles traditionally can achieve?
Active protection, as you say, is still in it's infancy, but it will take more than active protection systems to deal with a 30mm auto-cannon. To survive that kind of punishment, you need armor beyond that of most tanks, armor that mecha could not possibly hope to mount without becoming heavy, slow, and vulnerable to massed fire.
>>6413483 What makes you believe that if mecha become a factor, we wouldn't make IFV's and tanks that CAN elevate that high?
Peekfire around a corner with a 20-30mm? Hey, future IFV, put a 150mm round through the building that thing is peeking around. Oh. Snap. Motherfucker.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413480 >Unable to grasp the context of a post >Get fixated on legs vs no legs >Calling someone else a retard here, enjoy a tacticool tank
40Kfag from /m/ !!rthE8hgFXea
Quoted By:
>>6413455 Applying CQB tactics to mechs looks awesome in fiction; but completely unrealistic in actual warfare when you're talking about the realities of total or near-total warfare. One of the primary weaknesses of "real mech" discussions is that one side is talking real, proven combat facts, tactics, and logistics while the other side is talking theoretical applications while looking on the bright side of things.
Nevermind how it cost the US military and the defense-industrial complex loads of money just to get all our tanks, IFVs, planes, bombers, naval ships, etc. to the level that it current is at now over 70 years of advancement. The Abrams tank didn't just appear overnight.
>>6413469 I don't know, /co/ seems to be more about ponies than anything else. Also, there are masked crimefighters in Seattle already - even if they just deal with petty crimes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413529 Pop pop, watchin' muthafuckas drop!
Anonymous
>>6413529 >Active protection, as you say, is still in it's infancy, but it will take more than active protection systems to deal with a 30mm auto-cannon. To survive that kind of punishment, you need armor beyond that of most tanks, armor that mecha could not possibly hope to mount without becoming heavy, slow, and vulnerable to massed fire. GAU-8 Avenger here, just failing to penetrate anything less than the view ports or engine covers on the very tank I'm designed to destroy.
Seriously, a 30mm gun isn't going to do anything to a modern tank.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413529 A gun with high elevation needs to be exposed (ref. any turreted gun ever)
Exposed turret = armor weakpoint. Not something you want on an armored box with treads.
again, literally the only thing a mech has going for it.
Anonymous
>>6413564 Except the turret of a tank tend to be the most heavily armored part of a tank.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413557 30x173 will DESTROY tanks from above. Top armor is typically quite thin. You likely won't be able to mount a 30x173mm gun on a mech though. Probably a variant on the Apache's chaingun (more than adequate). From above a mech with a 30x113mm gun could pepper a tank and maybe score a mobility kill, and possibly destroy the tank, thanks to an innate "from above" firing position that makes it essentially top attack, but if it's caught, it's totally fucked. Mechs will not like main cannon fire.
30mm autocannon fire will only be ineffective against the frontal arc and glacis of modern tanks, which is not where you want to be facing anyway.
That being said, you have to be retarded to send mechs against MBTs.
Anonymous
>>6413557 Except that it has been demonstrably effective against most tanks being fielded? You ask the Iraqi army how ineffective the GAU-8 is, both times they ran up against it.
Also: ONLY the viewports and ONLY the engine block covers? Gee, I guess you don't care too much about the crew, much less being able to move.
Anonymous
How about that fast crab, spider like mech from Gungriffon? Any of you guys know it? Strikes me as a good design? i mean low profile, mbt gun or artillery piece, could walk on difficult terrain, but usually just slide down the field... dont know what a beast of a engine or maintenance problem it could be...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413557 Pretty awesome, huh? A tank can physically tank that sort of abuse. Too bad mecha never could.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413584 A high elevation turret needs to be an open turret. Open turrets are not something you want on an IFV or MBT.
A large bore gun needs to be mounted high up on it's mount to elevate high enough to hit the upper floors of large buildings. Look at that fancy Russian thing where they stuffed a couple of autocannons on a big-ass RWS and replaced an old tank turret with that. That's the idea. The only advantage a mech has is that it doesn't need to expose itself entirely to achieve the same effect.
Also who would put a 150mm gun on an IFV jesus christ what are you thinking terrible idea unless it's a demolition gun
Anonymous
>>6413602 Fine, give me the test results of a GAU-8 vs. the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, T-90, T-80, and other such modern MBTs that is being fielded now. And the T-72s that the Iraqis fielded were pieces of shit, no seriously, I don't even think you could call them T-72s just because of how much spare junk they used to cobble them together.
>>6413591 Don't know what you're doing firing your pea-shooter 30mm at a tank where killing hits are going to be far and wide as opposed to killing the bastard from a mile away with an ATGM.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413610 Its this one. Maybe some changes could turn it into something useful. speed, could peek out out of cover. dont know.
Anonymous
>>6413613 Damn, my bad. Kinda misread your post as the turret simply exposing itself to enemy fire. Don't know, but quite a number of IFVs do have unarmored gun turrets like the Russian BMPT or IDF Achzarit, so I guess there's no real way of getting around it. Unless you're the Ukrainians, add larger crew compartment to a T-80, designate it as an IFV, and then call it a day.
>Also who would put a 150mm gun on an IFV jesus christ what are you thinking terrible idea unless it's a demolition gun I'm just waiting the day when the Russians come out with a modernized ISU-152 to solve the woes of urban combat.
Sniper in that building? Take down the entire building with the bastard with a nice big 152mm shell.
Anonymous
>>6413625 I'm pretty certain that every single tank you listed would suffer being disabled by the GAU-8. Defeating a tank doesn't mean you blow the whole thing to pieces in a single run. As armored as they all are (in particular, the T-90, in Dagestan witnesses saw one take 7 RPG strikes and still stay in the fight), you can still expect them to suffer pretty severe damage from a burst of 30mm. They are hardly invincible or impenetrable.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413625 to the first point, not gonna happen any time
soon - westen tanks are too expensive to test like that at between 1.2 - 3 million a piece and up. Lion of babylon is still a junker, yes, but remember - top tank armor is typically less than 80mm think (iirc glacis plate of M1A1,A2 abrams is about 80? mm thick or so, Chally2 is thicker but not by much) Top of turret is usually the thinnest piece of armor on a tank save for I believe the Merkava series which is designed for suppression not direct emgagement of Soviet frontline tanks. It's a weight thing.
Within a half a click a single 30x173 round like that found in the GAU8 will penetrate approx 80mm. With a ROF of ~4000 rpm cyclic and you can see that'll fuck up just abouy anything.
As far as mech vs tank - An ATGM loadout would be better for tank killing, but there isn't a point - an infantry antitank team will do a better job (infantry portable AT weapons are nasty nowadays with their multiple warheads and such) while being way cheaper and more survivable. Sending a mech against a tank is a suicide mission for the poor sap in the mech, no matter what he's armed with.
Pardon the typos, tired and typing from phone
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413529 well, the reason we bother with missiles now is because they have nearly no recoil, can be made to guide themselves, can pack a hefty punch, can vary in payload significantly without modifying the launcher much if at all, and can be pretty much tacked onto anything for relatively little weight and without all that much engineering.
Their drawbacks are low ammo count, backblast, unsuitability for close range, and they can technically be intercepted.
Kinetic penetrators are great at killing enemy armor, but the weapons firing them are often big guns and are for the most part direct LOS weapons, and you can't just tack those onto anything. Even smaller autocannons have to deal with ammo feeds and servos and such.
Each has its purpose though. You don't want to just ditch missiles for KEPs or KEPs for missiles.
As for 30mm vs mechs, yeah, hitting a mech with a bunch of 30mm rounds would likely put it down, but its a far cry from being summarily blasted to a million pieces by an ATGM and a bit harder to do.
Peekfiring can still be pretty effective, even if a round is penetrating cover. Since against HEAT shells the copper jet gets released harmlessly early if it strikes a building and kinetic penetrators might potentially deflect or lose some energy, making them a bit less likely to score a direct killshot.
As for high and low elevation firing its easier design wise for a machine that has its weapons mounted on the sides of its turret/torso and a lower chassis that is technically smaller than the turret to rotate its guns on the y axis a full 360. Conventional armor has a larger body under the turret and centrally mounted weapons, which limits its range of motion. 360 aiming this isn't some huge advantage or nothing mind you, considering most of your shooting would be within your front arc, but its a neat little perk of having a vertically based chassis.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413625 You do realize that it wouldn't be a single 30mm round hitting the armor, but rather dozens?
The integrity of the armor would definitely be compromised on a modern MBT. That, and combined with rather high accuracy the A-10 has exhibited with the weapon, you can be certain a fair number of rounds within a given burst would be falling within the same area.
Thanks for the amusing derail. It doesn't change how fucked mecha are, however.
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
>>6413648 Regrettably there's no big total war on the horizon where people would be okay with that. It would solve a lot of problems for CQB and city taking - just level the city.
Anonymous
>>6413700 >Regrettably Come on, war is cool in movies and all but come on.
DT Mk. III
>>6413680 >Top of turret is usually the thinnest piece of armor on a tank WRAWNG! Tank armor is thinnest on the bottom!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413714 .....
SUICIDE MOLE BOMBERS.
GET ON IT DARPA
Robots&Racercars !Q4mJE0tSXg
Quoted By:
>>6413702 It's a joke dude.
But Russia had some crazy ideas for taking town in the cold war if things got hot. Terrifyingly crazy. "Roll through the mushroom cloud" crazy. "Secure the crater that marks where the town train statiob was" crazy (that part is almost verbatim)
Besides, big explosions are cool, and you need big guns and big missles for big explosions.
Anonymous
>>6413670 >>6413680 The problem with using something like the GAU-8 on a tank isn't the killing power behind each round, it's actually trying to land enough rounds onto the fucker to actually do anything. Hey, you just wasted half of your cannon's ammo trying to score a mobility kill on a tank when there's other targets about. Seriously, just a shoot a missile at the fucker.
Quoted By:
>>6413714 Not from what I've seen.
Then again neither of us are working off manufacurer figures, they're classified for a reason I'd assume.
Polite sage.
Anonymous
>>6413737 pretty much this, Gau 8s are not exactly precision instruments. They are area saturation, and mostly for killing stuff with either really shitty armor or no armor at all. Your average iraqi t72 counting as really shitty armor.
Now there's no doubt in my mind that a gau 8 can definitely damage a modern tank, but reliably score a kill on one with a single strafing run would more than likely involve using some type of guided missile instead,
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>6413756 The accuracy is rated at 80% of shots fired falling within a 20 foot radius. That is pretty damned accurate for shooting at something the size of a modern tank.
Mission Kills, almost certainly. Salvageable, but the target tank would be out of the fight. Assuming it didn't get hit by something worse while it was stuck in place.
