Search Results
7/3/2025, 5:20:49 AM
>>63926321
>>63931172
If mechs were used, it wouldn't be a weapon for peer forces but rather a counter-insurgency (or insurgency) weapons system. Their advantage is the ability to mount multiple weapons on hard points and swap them out on the fly, the ability to maneuver and travel over adverse terrain, and their height which would give them an edge in MOUT environments, despite making them a bigger target in an open area. There is also an often ignored 4th advantage and that is morale.
I don't care how "hard" a man is, seeing a multi-meter tall giant robot carrying a big gun would make him shit his pants in fear. And if the ambient noise and sounds of this thing walking around is as intense as I think it would be, the sheer rumble of the thing coming towards you would give any soldier pause. Hell, the rattle and report of heavy weapons systems is enough to cause long term damage to a soldier in various ways, a stompy robot would be even worse. By the same logic, it would also make it perfect for stopping riots and crowd control.
All of those factors make mechs perfect for crushing insurgencies and revolutionaries.
If there was a real timeline for mech development, it wouldn't be a large high-tech military using them to fight other peer forces, it would be a private company using tech they already have to crush uppity villagers who try to throw molotovs at their company vehicles or set oil wells on fire. The versatility of the mech being able to drop its rifle and dig a set of ditches in a urban environment to keep any heavy vehicles from closing in is something to consider as well, along with a mech being able to maneuver past said defenses much more easily than a vehicle or tank.
Or just kicking an insurgent or protestor into the stratosphere with its foot.
I think a better question is, what advancements in technology would the average person be able to utilize to stop a mech? And the answer to that is jack and shit.
(2/2)
>>63931172
If mechs were used, it wouldn't be a weapon for peer forces but rather a counter-insurgency (or insurgency) weapons system. Their advantage is the ability to mount multiple weapons on hard points and swap them out on the fly, the ability to maneuver and travel over adverse terrain, and their height which would give them an edge in MOUT environments, despite making them a bigger target in an open area. There is also an often ignored 4th advantage and that is morale.
I don't care how "hard" a man is, seeing a multi-meter tall giant robot carrying a big gun would make him shit his pants in fear. And if the ambient noise and sounds of this thing walking around is as intense as I think it would be, the sheer rumble of the thing coming towards you would give any soldier pause. Hell, the rattle and report of heavy weapons systems is enough to cause long term damage to a soldier in various ways, a stompy robot would be even worse. By the same logic, it would also make it perfect for stopping riots and crowd control.
All of those factors make mechs perfect for crushing insurgencies and revolutionaries.
If there was a real timeline for mech development, it wouldn't be a large high-tech military using them to fight other peer forces, it would be a private company using tech they already have to crush uppity villagers who try to throw molotovs at their company vehicles or set oil wells on fire. The versatility of the mech being able to drop its rifle and dig a set of ditches in a urban environment to keep any heavy vehicles from closing in is something to consider as well, along with a mech being able to maneuver past said defenses much more easily than a vehicle or tank.
Or just kicking an insurgent or protestor into the stratosphere with its foot.
I think a better question is, what advancements in technology would the average person be able to utilize to stop a mech? And the answer to that is jack and shit.
(2/2)
Page 1