Thread 64181362

Wouldn't mechs be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor and bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth, and tank traps that tanks cannot, with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?

No.

>>64181362 (OP)
Is this an autistic tic for you.

>>64181362 (OP)
The tank is able to have a thick front armour because it has a small cross section from the front and carries that weight on treads that distribute it evenly on the ground.

>>64181377
The thick front armour is useless when your enemy can attack you from above. That's literally how MBTs are getting smoked by drones

>>64181362 (OP)
>Wouldn't mechs be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor
You'd need to be right on top of the target.
>bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth
Sort of. Legs could handle terrain better but not enough to make up for the Cruising Speed of treads or wheels.
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction,
Better off to put arms on a tank
>reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks
No. BT style walking tanks have no civilian applications.

>>64181362 (OP)
Look I'm autistic about mechs too but they're retarded irl
>Wouldn't mechs be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor
possibly, but not before getting penned by the tank's gun from fuckoff distances
>and bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth, and tank traps that tanks cannot
possibly, but the legs would have more points of failure and tanks can just drive around those things or if something behind them needs dealt with, you can just bomb it from the air
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?
none of those things are done by tanks so are not relevant to a weapons board

>>64181383
And somehow you ignore it would take literal magic bullshit to create a mech that operates how it does in your head.

OP is a faggot

>>64181362 (OP)
>be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor
Drones, top attack munitions, and aircraft can already do this while being infinitely cheaper, safer, easier.
>bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth, and tank traps that tanks cannot
Those aren't problems normal militaries are incapable of overcoming.
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?
Modern tanks like Abrams and T-72s aren't really used for civilian shit but older tanks like T-34s, T-54s Leopard 1s, m48s, and m60s have been modified for civilian stuff several times now, like fire fighting for example, pic rel.

Got a really weird captcha when trying to reply to this thread.

>5billlion dollar mech vs
>Lets check
>500$ drone
Kek

>>64181390
>Zaku pic
Not OP but have you heard of the Hildolfr?

>>64181411
>T-54s
Is still modern tank comrade! Has been crushing all of the NATO in current special military operation.

>>64181362 (OP)
>Wouldn't mechs be able to bypass barriers such as perfectly flat ground?
No.

>>64181426
You can talk about it all you want when you take it back to /m/ where it belongs.

>>64181431
But it's a tank. Tanks are /k/

>>64181445
Its a mobile armor.

>>64181446
It's got treads and a turret with a big gun.

>>64181458
How has YouTube not taken this down lmao

>>64181427
>NATO
*HATO/NAFO

>>64181514
It took it down before, this is a different one

How many times has the same autistic retard made such a thinly-veiled thread about this shit on /k/, is it a same or different autist that remakes the same ones about 40k?

>>64181525
Found the slav!

>>64181539
>remakes the same ones about 40k?
We re different autists

>>64181362 (OP)
I get the feeling that if we ever see mechs it'll be more like engineering or recovery vehicles equipped with legs and manipulator limbs for operating in rough environments like the rubble of buildings, mountainsides or thick woods.

>>64181362 (OP)
>retard thinks a tank wouldn't shoot from 3 km
Enjoy your 0.3º of advantage at the cost of dying like a retard

>>64181383
Yeah, my point was more that you cannot have thick front armour on a mech. It's not gonna be a walking tank, it's gonna be a helicopter that can't fly. Somewhat resistant to small arms fire, but vulnerable to rocket launchers, FPV drones and indeed the main gun of the tank you're trying to engage.

>>64181617
So basically Patlabor? Makes sense considering how Excavators are basically 1/3 of a mech.

Mech? If you ask me, it's got to be a joke. Not only is making a mech a technical nightmare, but there's no point in making a mech to begin with.
Putting legs on a mech would raise its clearance, increasing its frontal projection area. It'd also be less stable.
Suppose the legs help the tank travel bad roads... I don't see the logic in that. Isn't that what treads are for?
I mean, anyone who'd seriously consider making a thing like that has got to be a wacko.

>>64181539
we have /ak/ and even furry /k/ storytimes

what's you problem with this thread

>>64181617
You’d be wrong. Because nobody is going to spend tens or hundreds of million dollars on a Mech when they can accomplish the same thing with a half-million dollar excavator.

>>64181659
Having legs means that the mech could cross rivers, walk over tank traps and other obstacles that tanks cannot bypass.

>>64181724
Combat engineers are a thing you know.

>>64181724
>Having legs means that the mech could cross rivers
Try to walk in the mud dipshit.
Legs are worse than tracks.

>>64181668
4chan, that's why

>>64181724
I don't think so.

>>64181724
>>64181754
Meanwhile...

>>64181362 (OP)
>Wouldn't mechs be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor
yes but it's in sorta niche conditions
i think you've gotten close to the heart of the problem that people are assuming the tank and mecha are fighting on even, open ground like conventional vehicles do
>and bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth, and tank traps that tanks cannot
really depends on how long the legs are, but you also have to take into account traps specifically designed to take out mecha
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?
you can do these with tanks if you really wanted to
you need to stop imagining the mecha competing with tanks or planes, the tanks and planes are the best at tank and plane things. mecha will have its own purpose

>>64181733
I've walked in mud I couldn't drive through.

>>64181731
Mechs would make excellent combat engineers. Just look at excavators.

>>64181997
Do you believe any of the complete horseshit you come back here weekly to spout.

>>64181383
Your not getting an angle on the top of a tank until you are within 20 feet
Meanwhile the tank sees your head sticking above the trees from 3 miles away
Height is a killer, tanks try to be as low as possible on purpose

That thing would get shreded by a baneblade.

>>64182014
I could ask you the same question. You keep jumping into these threads full of things you hate, try to shit on everybody's parade, and then get mad when we don't bow down to your hot takes. Every. Single. Time. Are you a Masochist?

Legs are wildly inefficient compared to wheels
>requires far more energy
>significantly larger and more vulnerable
>dramatically more complex with more failure points
>balance is a major concern
All of this requires massive technological leaps to produce a strictly inferior combat vehicle compared to what you could produce if you applied that same technology to a non retarded form factor

>>64182035
Do you Really want to bring 40k into this?

>>64182051
>nn..no u...
You are talking garbage, go back to your own board /m/anlet.

>>64181668
No, because its just one tard saying the same debunked things every time about how giant robots would be able to do everything just like in his anime and not have to obey the laws of physics in any way.

>>64182035
And the Baneblade would get shredded by Mechanicus Knight

>>64182059
Yes

>>64182093
>>64182094
This baneblade would shred a knight easily.
Same goes for the astreus

>>64182066
No. You go back to your own thread.
>Not even using quotes right
Tourist.
>>64182056
What about mechs on rollerblades? Have the legs flex to shift the balance and take advantage of Camber Angle and only use legs on ground too soft for wheels?

>>64182134
Are you even from 4chan?

>>64182134
>What is this, fanart for ants?

>>64182144
Are you? /a/ was here before /k/. /m/ was here before /k/. Complaining about /m/ just outs yourself.

>>64182185
Do these nonsensical counterarguments you keep throwing out somehow make sense in your diseased brain?

>>64182208
Look, if it's 2smart4u then you can go back to the Catalog but jumping onto a thread full of things you hate and complaining about it is true insanity.

Which would break down more, a giant robot or this.

>>64182258
Or you can go to the relevant board and stop getting your daily tism-fix making the exact same offtopic threads

What do you need tanks or mechs when you got drones?

>>64182134
>mechs on rollerblades
this is even more retarded

>>64182258
take this shit to /m/ and stop shitting up the board

>>64181362 (OP)
mechs are fantasy, but what about cramped mini-mechs with wide feet?

>>64182134
>Ground too soft for wheels
>Let's throw giant humanoid machines on narrow bipedal legs at them
Fucking genius right there

>>64182093
Knights don't belong to Admech you retarded triple nigger secondary lorelet

>>64181617
That's pretty much what happened in HAWKEN's extended universe.
>scientist discovers anti-grav alloy
>when layered into other materials it makes them much, much lighter but the final product is still pretty high volume for its strength
>revolutionizes industry robotics and such since it solves the square cube law but mostly stays relegated to glorified exos and forklifts
>it takes a nanomachine plague that requires breaking ground contact regularly for walkers to be all relevant in actual military matters, and even that's mostly bread and circuses for the masses of a doomed, quarantined planet

>>64182051
>Everybody's parade
There's only one person in this thread who thinks mechs aren't retarded and it's you, faggot OP. Stop shitting up the board and kill yourself at your earliest convenience

>>64181362 (OP)
>Wouldn't mechs be able to engage tanks by striking their roof armor and bypass barriers such as rivers, ditches, dragon's teeth, and tank traps that tanks cannot,
Yes obviously. Mechs in Battletech laugh at barriers that would prevent the deployment of conventional Vee's.
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?
Battlemechs and Industrial (or agricultural) mechs have very little in common with one another. IIRC they don't need more expensive tech like fusion engines and neurohelmets in civilian applications.

>>64182369
They both work in myomer but otherwise you're correct. Indy mechs are kind of notoriously stiff-leggeged because they do all their balancing on internal instruments instead of calibrating off of the pilot.

Theoretically you don't NEED a fusion engine to run a mech. There are some bargain bin militia mechs that run one ICE. But they are very cheap and mostly just to scare pirates off. The only actual combat mech I can think of that runs on ICE was the Reconquista which was something put together by a Periphery faction so backwater that nobody noticed when they devolved into civil war.

>>64182347
>There's only one person in this thread who thinks mechs aren't retarded and it's you, faggot OP
I'm not OP

Why does Jewish music sound like an Anime opening

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc8DnuSxJQA

>>64181811
See >>64181761
Wheels =/= Tracks

>>64182483
See>>64182143
Tracks can still get caught in the mud.

>>64182506
So can legs, especially when they belong to a giant mechanical object where all that weight is focused on narrow points.

>>64182517
Actually, the weight concentration helps with mud. Mud has a finite depth and rather than trying to float ontop it it's easier to sink through it to the harder, inorganic soil underneath.

>>64182570
Because there's no such thing as soft ground that extends beyond the immediate surface.

>>64182586
Dig deep enough and you'll always hit bedrock.

>>64182570
>>64182586
>>64182688
Ok, your mech foot is now 12' deep in the mud, now take another step

>>64182688
Big enough and your shitty toy won't even be able to stand up.

>>64182570
>>64182688
yes, instead of spreading the weight across as wide a surface as possible and only sinking a few inches, let's concentrate all the weight in two thin spots and sink down several feet! I'm sure that'll work. and then, even better : instead of having your motion be at least somewhat parallel to the ground, let's have the thing that's sunk several feet into the non-newtownian fluid extirpate itself by pulling itself upwards! that's how that works, I promise.

every time it's the same fucking shit, the same fucking points, the same fucking arguments. everyone proves you wrong but you stick your head in the sand, keep spouting demonstrably wrong bullshit and then come back to shit up the board with another thread like clockwork. should /k/ just go on /m/ and start posting non-mech guns? I'm sure the autists here will manage to spin it the same way you have and have jannies tolerate this behavior over there too.

>Wouldn't infantry be able to engage mechs by shooting at the very exposed pilot bay with an ATGM and travel longer distances by using wheeled/tracked vehicles at a fraction of the fuel cost without needing unobtainium alloys which would 100% cost more per ton than a tank would?

bam, one retarded thread ready to go shit up /m/

i always feel like the solution is wide feet but everyone always seems to imagine tiny feet, even the people building real mecha
in any case here's a physically impossible anomaly not sinking into the earth

>>64182706
Technically possible with enough torque. By contrast, it's impossible to power through mud as a tank simply because of the lack of traction.
>>64182709
And yet you constantly fail to address them.
> let's have the thing that's sunk several feet into the non-newtownian fluid
Mud does show non-newtonian properties so concentrating pressure would reduce sinking.
>Wouldn't infantry be able to engage mechs by shooting at the very exposed pilot bay with an ATGM
ATGMs and drones regularly kill tanks. By your logic even tanks are useless.
>and travel longer distances by using wheeled/tracked vehicles at a fraction of the fuel cost
Mech skates. We've covered this.

And if you're this pissed off then why are you posting on this thread?

Is the faggot making the thread just a shitposter or is he an actual fanatical believer in the idea of mechs and gets pissy with the fact they don't work.

>>64182825
I'd argue that going into a mech thread and shitting on mechs is the essence of shitposting and nobody should be surprised that a shitposter is now an acceptable target.

>>64181633
damn that's a comic i haven't thought about in a long time

What if your mech takes machinegun or rifle fire and is destroyed frontally?

>>64182878
You're just lashing out at everyone who points out to you the truth.

>>64182804
no, we regularly address them, you just refuse to listen.
>concentrating pressure would reduce sinking
when not two moments ago your argument was >>64182688 "dig deep enough and you'll hit bedrock", as in, you intend to sink in the first place. either you intentionally sink to the bedrock or "concentrating pressure would reduce sinking", pick a lane.
>By your logic even tanks are useless
no, you disingenous faggot, if you hadn't ignored the rest of the fucking argument you would've realized that even if a tank gets shot and disabled, at least you're not half a trillion in the hole from acquiring whatever bullshit alloys let you ignore the square cube law, hiring the engineers that managed to design and build this literal science-defying abomination and maintaining the damn thing, let alone fueling it.
>Mech skates. We've covered this.
YES! PUT WHEELS ON THE LEGS! EVEN BETTER! now you have all the downsides of legs AND wheels! get MKed by sinking to the bedrock and being unable to pull yourself free AND concentrate all your mech's weight on shitty axles while driving 10mph on whatever overpass-free road you can find!

>if you're this pissed off then why are you posting on this thread?
again, because it's always the same shit with you. I stayed silent and let you run your mouth for too damn long.

>>64182897
And yet you basically can't argue worth a damn. Perhaps you aren't pointing out the truth.

>>64182905
Maybe he's just attention-starved, keeps making threads and saying obviously stupid things because he's so desperate for any sort of human response.

>>64182943
the alternative is he's just genuinely THAT autistic, and I don't know which one I find sadder.

Giant robots are fun BECAUSE they are impossible action figures.
I just don't understand the mentally-ill people who feel the need to try and convince others these things are not just just realistic and practical but would be outright better in real life compared to conventional weapons.

>>64182134
rollerblades are sort of an ideological trap
shouldn't you just get an armored car at that point?

>>64181362 (OP)
your stealing my fun terrain argument from yesterday and got my concept completely wrong

>>64182988
What do you expect, he's not very bright.

Military robots will exist. Just not giant or bipedal.
Anyway, what does /k/ think of this?

>>64182973
exactly. I have no issue with them as a fictional plot point. they're not exactly my cup of tea (I like Metal Gears more as allegories than as actual machines) but I won't shit on anyone for liking mecha. I WILL however vehemently complain if anyone tries to pretend they are in any way realistic or possible without a serious change in how reality operates.

>>64181761
MT-LBs were specifically designed with wide, low-pressure tracks designed to cross dogshit terrain like deep mud, snow, or both. An MBT would get stuck in that.

>>64182996
the tilt point is interesting, i wonder if there's any potential in tripod setups like the yamaha niken
there's probably also different ideas about how the cornering profile should look

>>64182996
christ this is hard to read. is this translated from chinese by any chance?
anyways ironically this might be decent as a CQB pointman, depending on how cheap and expendable it is. a lot of this thing's "selling points" are whatever but I could see sending this thing in a building ahead of the actual entry team. in an open environment where flight is possible I just don't see this beating out regular ol' drones on pretty much every front.

>>64181362 (OP)
>Top attack
Mount the warheads EFP sideways with a nice fuse since tow 2b. Its laughable to relying on getting in 40 meter range on 20 meter tall mech to get 30 degree roof shots.
>Bypass obstacles
No issue since ww1 with minor engineering modification, just like the one laying those obscales.
>3
No usable mech to this day, this is the midnnight for the day of articulated leg but they are attached to robots. The same day birth rate, school and skills are knee deep in human sins.

>>64182995
He he, He's dedicated I'll give him that

>>64181724
AT-STs had other problems.

>>64183141
like being susceptible to logs...

>>64182115
Is that DAoT technology?

>>64183161
Nah, just garbage nu40kShit.

>>64182586
>Every planet ever is the La Brea Tar Pits
The Tar Planet would be the one time it's appropriate to mass-deploy hovercraft. Besides that, let's not pretend that mud is infinitely compressible.
While one would argue that BT as a setting bends to make 'mechs viable (because it does) the other thing to remember is that most planets (especially in the Periphery or on the frontiers of the Successor States) are quite underdeveloped outside of relatively small industrial centers. If you want to invade and capture resources (whether they be minerals, factories, or something else) you have to be able to operate without any real infrastructure and with limited logistics.

>>64182996
i get wanting to invest in mobility to get out of the armor-ammo design rat race but this is just silly

>>64181362 (OP)
Battletech has a mechanic for this that involves stomping directly on the head of the tank. You might notice it's a melee attack, that's because at a distance, the top armor is actually thick enough and at enough of an angle to induce ricochets in Battletech(not explicitly stated outside of a book or two but functionally represented by rules). Even in a mech-focused setting, tanks still have decent armor. The thing tanks lack compared to the mechs is the number of weapons they carry, and the more condensed area the armor is in. If you were talking fully flying mechs, you'd have a point, but Battletech is the one that handles it in the most 'realistic' way. The whole reason you see more mechs in battletech than tanks is because the mechs are usually lighter(because magic myomer), and thus are easier to drop onto a planet for mercenary action. They're actually much less armored than tanks of the same weight class, it's just that the tank is much, much smaller, and usually only has room for one gun.

>>64181362 (OP)
In most mecha settings the vehicle on the left is lighter than the vehicle on the right all while being more heavily armored from all angles.

>>64183322
>Narrator "Battletech does not realistically depict mecha in any way"

>>64183275
>detected
Yeah.
>expected
Not too unbelievable.

>>64181362 (OP)
if they got close enough. but modern warfare basically prevents that from happening.

>>64183365
what would constitute an expected projectile?

>>64182905
>pick a lane.
No. There's many kinds of mud depending on water and mineral content and we haven't even covered sand or large rocks.
>no, you disingenous faggot,
Why so mad?
>, at least you're not half a trillion in the hole
Making a lot of assumptions. If something is the size of a scope dog then it's plausibly made with 50 year old material science.
>t MKed by sinking to the bedrock and being unable to pull yourself free AND concentrate all your mech's weight on shitty axles while driving 10mph on whatever overpass-free road you can find!
So all we have to do is keep the weight down?

would you

>>64181724
It cannot cross any of these objects because it has legs, it can cross them because it is several times larger than the vehicles they are designed to stop, all while being lighter because .

>>64183393
...Your gut feeling?

>>64183393
A gun barrel pointed right at you? Near miss from a previous round? You've just done something to give away your position? We're basically talking about taking cover.

If you want to be able to hide from enemy tanks and still shoot them, or elevate your main armament to shoot downwards at them pic related is a pretty good idea.

>>64183405
Oh good, I wasn't the only one who saw it.

>>64181362 (OP)
I think spidertanks would be a great middle ground

A friendly reminder that the only location where mecha are remotely realistic is on low gravity bodies in space.

>>64184050
not even in your dreams mr. squarepants

>>64181423
>AMS blew it out of the sky
>if it hits it does less damage then a single LRM

>>64184180
>it costs way less than both

>>64183607
Dropfleet/zone has such cool models.

Mechs and mecha are cool because they are unfeasible at best and just outright impossible in the most fringe cases like 40k and evangelion. You people who argue about them are faggots

If we are going to discuss /m/ at least let's bring the best /m/ has to offer, how good is this loadout?

>>64181423
Doesn't that also mean that MBTs are useless?

If there was innovative generator technology that allowed combat mechs to walk nimbly, conventional tanks would be able to fly like the Haunebu.

why not tonk with arms

>>64184812

also has STuG mode.

where's the fucking kit bandai

Reject mechs. Embrace power armor

>>64184812
tank with crane maybe, i guess they already have winches

>>64181362 (OP)
We don’t live in the mech timeline so stop bringing them up it’s hurts enough as it is

>>64181362 (OP)
>with the added benefit of civilian applications like construction, reducing costs through a civilian market unlike tanks?
There's engineering vehicles based on tanks, but the armor that makes them viable on the battlefield makes them very compromised for the civilian market. Like even in Patlabor, the civilian labors are distinctly different models from the military models.

>>64184208
AMS in Battletech is either a CIWS or just a laser that fries stuff. It costs essentially nothing to run either.

>>64184806
that would just be a heavier attack helicopter i think

>>64185251
Even in Patlabor the military labors are shit and just exist to job

>>64185799
Aside from the helicopters, I don't feel like the regular military vehicles ever really do that much. It's either a combined arms ambush or mechs fighting mechs, and the prototype mechs are usually shown as absolute beasts. They basically have to send an entire force to stop the Hal X-10 in the series and the movie.

>>64185962
well yeah, it's mostly civilian scenarios

>>64181362 (OP)
Yes Mobil suits in particular can remove dragon's teeth by hand which alone makes them a weapon sytem superior to tank. Also they can carry an automatic assault weapon with a caliber comparable to that of tank's main gun.

>>64186234
They aren't real, retard.

You might as well say it doesn't matter since Superman would beat them all the mobile suits at the same time effortlessly.
Neither actually survives contact with real life.

>>64186269
>Not real
>Doesn't know about the Kuratas

>>64186417
>Kuratas
Would be more scared of the machines you saw on Robot Wars, at least those things actually fought.

>>64186417
Here's your Kurata, bro.

>>64184105
>Ball
>main thruster is on the bottom or downward facing
>always shown flying 'forward'
make it make sense

You know, this thread gives me warm nostalgia. A mech vs tank thread was the very first /k/ thread I clicked on checking this place out way back in 2012. And now guns are an autistic hobby of mine thanks to you guys. Good times. I hope this board cultural ritual goes on forever even if mechs are godamn retarded and I'm sick and tired of reading the same shitty arguments over and over again for over 13 years.

>>64181362 (OP)
>mech retard is back
Please God, i don't ask for much, just let a meteor find a way into this man's brain case and I'll never ask for anything again

>>64186705
Why do you keep coming back to this thread if it makes you this mad? You HAVE to be a masochist.

>>64186826
>this thread

>>64181724
>putting all the weight on one spot instead of distributing it evenly is better in soft terrain

>>64187089
>Distributing weight so the vehicle "Floats"

>>64187106
good idea

>>64181606
What do you think about the 11.5" PSA AR?

>>64181362 (OP)
How come minimally mechanized wheel barrel didn't become a thing to keep tripod mounted weapons attached to dismounted infantry? They are a thing for third world subsistence farmers.

>>64182804
> it's impossible to power through mud as a tank simply because of the lack of traction.
https://youtu.be/TCXwgPZXScM?si=fvOcbS5jlIldTD1f
Holy shit. America has figured out how to do something completely impossible!

>>64187475
They didn't power through. They backed up and found a path that gave them traction.

>>64181362 (OP)
Stop making these threads you sperg.
>>64181390
But while I’m here again, why do people keep insisting on the points of failure argument? It’s the weakest argument against mechs out of them all. Do you have any idea how many little pins are holding together the links in a tank’s track? There are hundreds of points of failure and tanks throw their own tracks often enough that examples are easy to find. This argument should not be parroted as often as it is, you only have to think about it for one moment to realise it’s complete bullshit but I see it come up every time because apparently people literally don’t think about what they repeat.

>>64187475
Wow it’s like they were expressly designed for this purpose or something.

>>64187543
More like he didn't even watch the video before trying to use it in an argument.

>>64181362 (OP)
mechs that i like>mechs that you like

>>64188462
real

All ground weaponry is arbitrary so mechs are just as feasible if you make them slightly smaller then weebshit and give them improved mobility.

>>64188553
so just make a tank??????

>>64187115
dzień dobry, this is Polish armed forces procurement office. We'll take 500 of these, kurwa

>>64187420
One more thing to maintain IG.

>>64181362 (OP)
Mechs operate on plot armor, they always have. Battletech mechs literally work because every other vehicle is made of explodium while the mechs are magically land battleships

>>64181362 (OP)
What exactly can a mech do that a helicopter or a plane can’t?
>inb4 loitering time
Mid-air refueling is a thing.

>>64189195
All ground vehicles work on plot armor. In meatspace they call them objectives.

>>64189303
Stop talking nonsense.

>>64184208
LMAO, no. LRMs are dirt cheap between technological advances making mass production piss-easy (they have no warhead, isntead the main missile body is made out of a metallic explosive that is just simply cast in two pieces and bolted together) and enormous efficiency of scale.

A ton of LRM ammo comes at 250 bucks per missile, if you treat the storage container that slips seamlessly into standardised autoloading systems as a free item with every bulk order of 120 of them.

>>64181383
A mech is the equivalent of a sniper sticking their barrel out of the top of a clocktower. Sure, they can see a lot and shoot it. But everybody can see them and shoot them back.

This is why it’s preferable to have a low profile.

>>64181362 (OP)
Nope. Unless you're using something like a laser that fires on a completely flat trajectory, having your weapons mounted a few meters higher up won't meaningfully increase your ability to attack the top armor of a tank at the ranges that vehicle-on-vehicle engagements typically take place at.

>>64181362 (OP)
Mechs require too many heat sinks.

>>64189731
>Unless you're using something like a laser that fires on a completely flat trajectory
Have I got news for you!

>>64189227
Dig.

>>64181362 (OP)
Everything that allows a mecha to exist would make all other current systems infinitely better.

>Light weight, super strong armor
>Compact power systems
>Advanced control systems that could allow you to automate certain functions.
>The ability to pay for any and all of this stuff

The only logical answer is power armor

>>64182570
That finite depth might be deeper than the total height of the mech

>>64189581
So mechs would be good for globohomo trying to subjugate Americans who only have ARs to defend themselves for the most part?

>>64192838
And funnily enough, anytging that makes power armor viable would be better spent on a full on robot without the unnecessary and weak fleshy 180lb human inside. And with the way AI is going, it can react and think quicker than any man

>>64193180
Human brains have the convenience of being immune to most EW.
>Muh AI
Currently fooled by cardboard boxes and actual clown costumes. And even when they can do these parts, you will need someone who can be held accountable for their actions, not a machine. Because the only way an autonomous robot will be able to be sent into special forces type missions, (the thing where power armors will undoubtedly be used at first), will be if it is truly sapient and able to make judgement calls about who to shoot or who to avoid. Sure you can make an AI sentry gun or missile/drone guidance system, but neither of those can comprehend what they're seeing in, say, a hostage scenario, nor would they give a shit even if they could since they are one way weapons.
So sure AI driven weapons will become more common, but for things like guard duty where they will already know that anything they see is a valid target, but if it is any kind of operation where fucking up means someone gets court marshaled you're gonna need a meatbag simply as a liability, since if you can't blame the boy who did it... Well, you have to blame the brass who allowed it to go on the mission in the first place. And are YOU going to take that risk to your career if you're a general or whatever?

>>64193180
That sounds as retarded as the missile spammers who argued you didn't need anything else.

An AI is good for a bomb, not for something that has actual mission objectives to achieve.

MW5 Clans on Turdborn difficulty is fucking bullshit. I still can't beat the Reckoning level after 4 days.

Mechs are retarded but power armour or suits makes a lot more sense

>>64192838
What about cheap and efficient limbs made out of synthetic muscle, and advanced automatic balancing systems?

Cause I'm happy if we give tanks arms, that's close enough for me.

>>64182314
>cramped mini-mechs with wide feet?
Snowshoes are not a requirement. Walking movement lifts the foot out of the mud and sinking a little into soft soil is not a problem. Ground pressure is a meme and streetwalking whores run stilettos through mud every night.

>>64182706
>your mech foot is now 12' deep in the mud, now take another step
Have you walked through knee deep or deeper mud? I have.

>>64193180
AIs have massive power and processor demands. You need a multi Megawatt data center to run them and no, you can't scale it down. The AI only works because you're massively parallel processing the problem to trial and error a working algorithm.

>>64195489
>you can't miniaturize a computer, they will always be giant
This anon crossposting from the COOL timeline

>>64193270
>And even when they can do these parts, you will need someone who can be held accountable for their actions
Why?

>>64197606
Because in first world countries armies are held accountable for their fuckups.

>>64194664
What exactly would the arms do? I would think arms like the loader from Aliens would be better overall then relying on muscle arms to use for logistical work.

>>64184650
Thanks to you I remembered where all the Symphogear threads went to, thanks!

At best we can get powered armor allowing to carry weapons powerful enough to destroy tanks in timely manner.

>>64197580
We're actually running into a limit for how small we can make circuits. Water molecules are only about .3 nanometers and we're already at 5. Eventually, the conductors will be so small they won't be able to conduct electricity.

Of course, this also ignores the power and cooling issues. That hasn't really changed since the transition to MOSFET.

>>64197640
NTA but BT Myomer is supposed to have some absurd energy efficiency and power to weight. It's literally the only reason biped mechs are so dominant. That, and ignoring the idea of hooking myomer to a crank shaft.

>>64198280
Then you'd have to construct things around a bipedal form picking up and moving stuff. Not to say you couldn't, or wouldn't, keep conventional moving equipment around because certainly mecha tech would make even cranes infinitely better then they currently are

>>64198320
Patlabor did the smart thing in not trying to out-tank a tank. Instead, they're modified utility subs trying to out-excavator the excavator. I know that sounds stupid but two arms for twice the work has some logic to it. This really sets it up as a Police story rather than a War story since the Special Vehicles unit is often doing crazy shit a tank couldn't possibly deal with.

Meanwhile, I look at the Hunchback and wonder how the hell it doesn't fall over every time it fires the AC/20.

>>64198367
I'm not the biggest fan of spider tank legs but Patlabor does the smart thing by making the actual tanks able to hover with considerable speed. You see this at the beginning of the movie and you see, what I presume, to be an older variant in the third movie where dude gets out of his UN labor.

>>64198379
Personally I think the best spider tonk design is this one that's only shown for like 3 seconds in GITS.
>Can drive low to the ground like a regular tank
>Can raise or lower itself to use urban cover
>Presumably, given robotics in that show can leap like fucking superman, it can not only climb up ravines or over walls it can likely just jump over them like a 100 ton flea
Silly leaping aside, the fact it has legs that are also treads means it can in theory still function with two out of four legs destroyed and still do traditional tank things ie; hull down without needing massive buildings to do it.

>>64197640
>arms like the loader from Aliens would be better overall then relying on muscle arms
Assuming this is wondertech where the limbs are much cheaper, stronger and flexible than their conventional metal-jointed cousins. If it costs you twelve dollars to slap a big pair of beefy arms on the side and they're so advanced they can used to change your own tracks or clear terrain, that's a good deal.
>>64198367
>not trying to out-tank a tank
tbf they're doing that as well.
>>64198379
Hal my beloved.

>>64198379
>>64198416
It's almost a given that mecha has wheels now if only because it saves on animation. On the flip side, it does mean a mech now has decent cruising speed.

>>64184841
based

>>64194264
I finally managed to beat it. Holy shit that was insane. I basically had to make an LRM boat (the Bullshark on the right) with literally everything stripped out for ammo storage. Lasers, heatsinks, armor, EVERYTHING. Then I was always engaging at max range or from behind cover. Even then, the final section almost got me because Timber/Dire Wolf torso cores are annoyingly resistant to LRM missiles (their lateral torsos act as top armor). Everyone died but me. This was so incredibly hard that I'm pretty sure it wasn't playtested for solo players on max difficulty. Still glad I stuck it out, though.

>>64198416
>show isn't even about mecha
>it makes the best design anyway
It's like an off-topic thread!

>>64184841
I'd argue that Power Armor is a subtype of mechs.

>>64199443
It's a testament to Masamune that his designs carry well and integrate well into the world.

>>64200092
The operator's arms hanging out of the torso feels like a design oversight, though. There's a lot of ways those arms could get broken.

>>64200120
That's how the master/slave system works to help control the arms.

>>64200120
I figured as much, but in most of these designs, they're covered by the robot's arms whenever the bot's holding a gun.

>>64198280
>crank shaft
They kept breaking.

>>64182292
Are they creating little tankettes, anon?

>>64195152
Yeah it fucking sucks and tries to steal your boots

>>64203427
And somehow the knee joints don't?

>>64187540
>There are hundreds of points of failure and tanks throw their own tracks often enough that examples are easy to find
Right, now instead of re-treading a tank in the field imagine you have to re-leg a mech. not all points-of-failure are created equally.

>>64205324
If your mech has arms it'll be a lot easier to re-leg it. Granted, if your tank has arms it'll be a lot easier to re-tread it. Might be a good argument for putting arms on a tank.

>>64205349
> Might be a good argument for putting arms on a tank.
It’s not.

walker gears are a neat conceptualization for small mecha, but considering it's probably battery-powered AND most of its weapons use up electricity the range on it has got to be dogshit
modern electric motorcycles already have a range problem as-is

>>64205349
You might actually be retarded.

>>64198280
This is just a meme created from the mechfag saying this repeatedly in the hopes that nobody can be bothered to contradict him.

>absurd energy efficiency
Literally the exact opposite, which means that the next point in layman's terms is also untrue.

>power to weight
Nonsense simply because actual power comes from engines. Myomers transmit power, so the property to compare to mass is energy efficiency not power (and the energy efficiency as mentioned previously is terrible). It makes as much sense as measuring the power to weight ratio of a crankshaft. Yes, they're light because they're made of plastic. Yes, BattleTech claims they're more powerful by weight than natural muscle (not a high bar to clear), but this is gibberish since unlike natural muscle, myomers don't generate power.

>Not mentioned but part of the meme
The meme idea that BattleTech myomers supplement armor. They don't, they're made of plastic.

>>64205324
This has always struck me as a disingenuous argument since right now I can go out to my barn and swap from a backhoe to an auger or other hydraulic system on my tractor in about 3 to 5 minutes.
>But what if the attachment joint is damaged?
What if the track's rollers or bogies are damaged?

Mechs are still impractical and retarded for plenty of other reasons.

>>64184816
there was a kit planned for this with even a prototype kit produced but it was scrapped
>>64185089
you're in luck

>>64181446
it was actually classified as a mobile tank

What are the strategic implications of an Eva? [spoiler]That is, assuming that the human instrumentality project fails miserably and some expose rapes the comically powerful peacekeeping authority of the UN.[/spoiler] What would Eva-Eva combat truly be like? What would Eva-Air and Eva-Ground combat be like? How would they factor into, say, a limited conflict between Japan and Russia in 2020 over the Sakhalin island chain?

>>64205876
>Military EV
When has this ever been a good idea?

>>64208146
In Metal Gear battery tech was more advanced after WWII than it is right now in reality. I didn't actually know this until I happened to hear it in a codec call in the new MGS remake, it's only a random throwaway line for a meme codec call but it still shows that they had biological batteries invented in the late 40s-50s. This also is the basis for how cyborgs can function at such bullshit levels, Raiden would be useless in Revengance if he had to use realistic batteries to operate his own body.

https://youtu.be/Qk8RS-EZ4hI

>>64205876
You can actually hear an internal combustion engine ticking over when you ride them. Also, the one Snake uses is straight up worst at combat, since it lacks the face shield. Snake will die before the Walker Gear does.

>>64199189
>>64194264
Is Clans any good? I gave up on Mechwarriors 5 because it was too hard and too tedious with the career mode. Doing more straightforward missions like Clans is supposed to be sounds appealing but I've also haven't heard anything good about this game. Seems like it's okay at best.

>>64208333
> I gave up on Mechwarriors 5 because it was too hard
Literally how? I’m a certified retard and I still had very little trouble other than the bullshit coyotes mod missions.

>>64208333
Clans has different difficulty settings compared to Mercs. I feel like it has a problem where hard mode is too easy, but very hard mode is downright insane, because it goes into bullet sponge territory and the enemies never miss. I go from passing missions with only 4% damage to dying halfway through.

If you play on any of the lower difficulties, the game is a breeze.

>>64208333
>Is Clans any good?
The story sneaks up on you. I thought it was weak and then halfway through, I suddenly was super invested because of an oh-shit moment. Otherwise it is what you say; A Mechwarrior game with only handcrafted missions and all your equipment is provided by the Clan (you still choose what mechs you use and how they're equipped). If you've played Mercs, then Clans is what you think it is.

>>64208886
I remember there was a mission where enemies just kept coming. They destroyed all my mechs and I think I had some money trouble because of that or was forced to play with a shitty mech I had left over. It just filtered me.

>>64210079
That's the kind of experience that made me come to love missile boats. Catapult, Archer, Stalker... my beloved. They kill from max range and behind cover, thus they don't take damage. It's far more optimal on the economy side of the game than rushing in with ballistic weapons and getting half your torso blown off.