Are mechs viable as weapons?

Are mechs viable as weapons?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, square cube law. For frick sake, stop spamming this thread. We literally had this conversation yesterday

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >square cube law
      dinosaurs existed moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So a T-Rex shaped mech would be perfectly viable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dinosaurs were not made of metal let alone covered in centimeters of steel armor plating.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How well would a dinosaur withstand modern weaponry moron.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        more oxygen then than now, doubletard. can't believe this wasn't mentioned

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >square cube law
      light materials moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >square cube law
        dinosaurs existed moron

        You have massively more surface area to try and armor for any given amount of volume to store engines, weapons, and personnel
        There is currently no viable power source for them but even if you could, you would be far better off putting into a conventionally shaped vehicle that can be much more efficient with armor allocation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >square cube law
      here moron
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure
      >Commercial semi truck/Lorrie 793
      >Road racing bicycle 620
      >M1 Abrams tank 103
      so mechs are very well possible and ground pressure isn't an issue you fricking moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They would just require no armor at all. Meaning a 30mm would frick up a leg and make them unusable. The bradley would be a better weapon than a mech.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The square cube law is brought up because of material limits, not the ground pressure you fricking idiot. Mechas doesn't work like people want to weeb it out and for the size tanks are more efficient with armour and mobility both.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They would have to be 5 meters or less and be less armored than a tank according to US Army studies. And the only use case for them is mountains and they probably wouldn't be bipedal.
      They just are too niche irl.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's been doing this for months, if not years. At this point, it has to be terminal autism.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And you've been complaining about every one. There are over a hundred other threads on this board, go to one of them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incorrect. Dinosaurs existed and elephants, rhinos and giraffes are nimble and able to jump.

      Ground pressure is a total misunderstanding of how traction is generated. Dirt can support a hundred pounds per square inch. Water supports nothing. A mud puddle is a few inches of water with compacted dirt underneath.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dinosaurs did not have to be able to survive ATGM's. Good luck sufficiently armoring all that pointless surface area on your unnecessarily large target and still maintaining mobility vs tracked/wheeled vehicles who get to take advantage of the same power source technologies that would drive a mech

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >large

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Considering that's the size of an IFV except tall instead of long (objectively worse) while having way more surface area and way less internal volume (clearly cannot fit more than just the pilot), I don't know what point you're trying to make because this seems like a giant piece of shit

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's 6.5 metric tons and can paradrop. 82 kph max speed, 6-14mm of armor, and zoom, wide angle, and infrared vision mode. The scopedog mounts either a 30mm autocannon, 50mm grenade launcher, or 60mm recoilless rifle. It's a glass cannon but well suited for swarm tactics.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/271iqxN.jpeg

                >large

                Gotta hand it to VOTOMS, they have the most realistic depiction of mechs in fiction.

                ?si=hmR9bwEkkOtihgfa

                >Get used in moronic meme strategies
                >Get slaughtered en masse
                >Serve as nothing more than a goofy distraction
                >A conventional force accomplishes the actual objective and wins the day

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                These stats are fake and gay
                If you took whatever could make that thing move that quickly and put it in a conventional vehicle platform you could have something that wouldn't evaporate on contact with autocannon fire
                Paradropping it is so stupid too

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >tall instead of long (objectively worse)
              Why is it objectively worse? It can crouch behind cover and expose only it's shoulder missile launcher. A mech could be designed to go prone.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a larger target the overwhelming majority of the time. I doubt very much you are going to get a large mech to work prone and even if you did all you've accomplished is recreating the tank, which will operate far more effectively low to the ground because it was designed to be there.
                A tank can simply hull down into cover and only expose the turret, and do so with much lower levels of cover.
                Again, these are things that actually exist and capabilities they actually have being compared to something that does not exist because it is not currently possible to make work. The idea that you can just recreate gundams or battlemechs and none of that tech is going to also work on conventional vehicles is dumb.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Only certain components are armored. On a tank the tracks and cannon aren't armored because they can't be. The roof and engine deck are minimally armored. The crew compartment itself is what's actually armored.

          Nothing in a mech other than the pilot really needs armor. Some component's might have minor armor against small arms and machine guns as well as shrapnel protection. This is 2024, we're watching tanks get sniped by drone dropped 40mm HEDP grenades.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nothing other than the pilot needs armor
            getting mobility killed by a single 30mm round to the legs seems like a pretty big flaw for being combat viable

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A 30mm to the treads would also immobilize a tank. Are you saying tanks are impractical?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tank treads don't go several meters off the ground and are vastly easier to armor by putting a skirt over them. Legs are far larger, more complex, and harder to armor in a weight efficient way without magical anime bullshit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tank treads don't go several meters off the ground and are vastly easier to armor by putting a skirt over them.
                The skirt can never completely cover the treads or it'll collide with the ground. On the flip side, there are centuries of leg armor to base mech armor off of.
                >Weight
                Utility vehicle.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >centuries of leg armor
                We've gone from "only the pilot needs armor" to "10 meters suits of gothic plate"
                >utility vehicle
                So it isn't combat viable then

                Tracks and wheels aren't armored at all, and they're a significant portion of a vehicle's side profile. You're forcing a silly requirement. you're requesting kneepads, not Gothic plate.

                The side profile is also far lower to the ground and easier to put into cover than massive legs that will always be a large target and difficult to armor in a weight efficient way because of how much more surface area they have.

                It's so tiring arguing about the benefits of a weapons system that doesn't exist in real life against one that does, mechgays will always point to how they operate in fiction unconstrained by reality while demanding that conventional vehicles be shackled by realism.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >10 meters suits of gothic plate
                5 meters. At 10 meters you start looking for fusion power.
                >So it isn't combat viable then
                Combat engineering. Bridge laying, mine clearing, tank repair, etc.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We've gone from "only the pilot needs armor" to "10 meters suits of gothic plate"
                Now you're just fricking lying, The claim was that tracks could be armored while legs cannot be armored meaning tracks would be tougher than legs.
                An unarmored leg could be more durable and reliable than even the most armored track system because even a broken leg is somewhat functional.

                >mechgays will always point to how they operate in fiction unconstrained by reality while demanding that conventional vehicles be shackled by realism.
                Meanwhile the anti-mech gays just shitpost with strawmen bullshit like a "10 meters" height while pretending they understand let alone actually care about the nuances of what a mech would or would not be.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you seriously trying to argue that multi-meter long legs are a smaller target than tracks like these?
                Legs have much more surface area and require much more weight to armor up equivalently. They also don't work in real life remotely well enough to ever apply to a tank/IFV sized vehicle so idk what you're even trying to to argue here.
                >a broken leg is somewhat functional
                Mechs don't exist, you cannot claim functional capabilities as benefits for something that isn't real
                >strawmen like 10 meters tall
                Incredible that you can pull capabilities like "broken legs still can be functional" or "mechs can go prone" straight out of your ass but as soon as someone else makes an assumption about your fake and gay mechs it's strawmanning
                Don't pretend like these threads aren't full of people unironically discussing the combat capabilities of mechs like that, see

                https://i.imgur.com/OFjNqTm.jpeg

                It's 6.5 metric tons and can paradrop. 82 kph max speed, 6-14mm of armor, and zoom, wide angle, and infrared vision mode. The scopedog mounts either a 30mm autocannon, 50mm grenade launcher, or 60mm recoilless rifle. It's a glass cannon but well suited for swarm tactics.

                Considering they aren't real and there is no way to make them real without massive leaps in power plant miniaturization that would dramatically impact other vehicles there is no point in trying to have a nuanced discussion. What is there to talk about? It's like discussing the practical capabilities of flying saucers or godzilla, you can't even begin without making so many assumptions that are untethered from reality

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Mechs don't exist, you cannot claim functional capabilities as benefits for something that isn't real
                Pic rel.
                >Incredible that you can pull capabilities like "broken legs still can be functional"
                As long as the hip joint is working then you can peg-leg it out. That's not even counting multipeds. Why would they care about a severed leg, they've got 3+ more.

                >or "mechs can go prone" straight out of your ass
                Can a human go prone? Why would a mech designed around a human form be unable to go prone?

                >but as soon as someone else makes an assumption about your fake and gay mechs it's strawmanning
                Because saying "I defined this thing to be impossible and now prove it's impossible" is just tautological masturbation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you seriously trying to argue that multi-meter long legs are a smaller target than tracks like these?
                Are you seriously trying to argue against things I have never said and points I have not made?
                >Incredible that you can pull capabilities like "broken legs still can be functional" or "mechs can go prone" straight out of your ass
                God you are fricking moronic, The linked video literally proves that broken legs still retain functionality so it can't be something I made up.
                Saying a bipedal mech would need to have the ability to go prone to be useful is a conditional requirement just like saying a tracked combat vehicle needs to be able to move under its own power to be useful.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tracks and wheels aren't armored at all, and they're a significant portion of a vehicle's side profile. You're forcing a silly requirement. you're requesting kneepads, not Gothic plate.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Dinosaurs did not have to be able to survive ATGM's
          Tanks don't survive ATGMs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      You have massively more surface area to try and armor for any given amount of volume to store engines, weapons, and personnel
      There is currently no viable power source for them but even if you could, you would be far better off putting into a conventionally shaped vehicle that can be much more efficient with armor allocation

      Actual morons, as bad as the autist that made this thread. You have the law exactly backwards. Volume and thus storage/carrying capacity grows much faster (cube), compared to surface area (square). For example, a cube 10 times taller/wider will have 1000 times the volume, but only 100 times the surface area that needs armouring (this is also why biological cells are limited in size, because eventually surface area is insufficient for substance exchange with the environment). The real reason mecha are a dumb and imparactical is because legs are shit for moving compared to wheels or tracks (if you have to fight in mountains, you just use aircraft), it’s a concentration of resources and firepower into a single spot making it easy to target, and it’s tall which also makes it easy to target

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You misunderstand my point
        The surface area increase is because you go from a box (tank) to a humanoid shape that now has limbs
        This has dramatically more surface area for the same amount of volume vs a traditional tank design

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hence

          https://i.imgur.com/Z5GnCo4.jpeg

          Not as combat platforms. You're essentially trying to out-tank a tank and a tank is a very efficient combat platform.

          On the other hand, an Excavator is like 1/3 mech already. 2/3rds if you count spider excavators.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, Japanese compensation for loss of the war and two (at the time) experimental weapons disintegrating two of their cities...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Power armor, mayhap, but still in the end, no.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God that .jpg has gone through some real shit. The modern internet is hell

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why even have power armor when you could just have people remote pilot cheap armed humanoid robots from the other side of the world via communication satellite?
        Once you have that (and at this point we almost do) why even have human boots on the ground at all?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          1: No not really
          2: Drones/ Teleoperated humanoid robots render them obsolete before they are even invented
          3: If you just want to speculate/ post drone art have at it but understand that it's as fantastical and impractical a concept as lightsabers.

          drone-gays don't think jamming is a thing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s way easier to make an autonomous drone that won’t be hacked than it is to make a mech that would be useful

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Hack nothing. Just cut their comms and the drone falls dead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >autonomous drone
                >comms
                The entire point is that it's AUTONOMOUS.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ahh...so you want a drone so stupid it gets outsmarted by crayon eaters?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Once again, it’s way easier to make a smarter drone than it is to make a mech that would be useful.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are You Sure About That?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That machine doesn’t use those legs to move. It is a glorified folding chair.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Doesnt matter how smart a drone is, when you need leverage, legs are pretty tough to beat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes. I want maximum fun.

                https://i.imgur.com/licLYJk.jpeg

                Are You Sure About That?

                hey look we made a tank that can very very slowly get itself into a position where it can flip itself over.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, of course, but only mobile suits.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Any technology you put into a mech can be put into a tank to make it even better.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/g3bXqu4.jpeg

      No, Japanese compensation for loss of the war and two (at the time) experimental weapons disintegrating two of their cities...

      https://i.imgur.com/xhitFFC.jpeg

      No, but I don’t care.
      I want to shout “For the Emperor” while laying waste to everything in front of me.

      they are viable in mountains, forests

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wow, really low effort today huh? Not going to post the spider excavator that still uses wheels to move around, or the prototype forestry equipment that was so slow they only made two?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they are viable in mountains, forests
        Not really. In mountains they'll just trip and fall and in forests they'll trip over a vine or tree stump.

        >inb4 "my future technology will make them not do that"
        Then put it in a tank.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          just make tank fly

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nope. Hope the jannies ban you for these shitposts

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So are tanks.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, but I don’t care.
    I want to shout “For the Emperor” while laying waste to everything in front of me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based and yelling-40k-Dawn-of-War-voice-lines-through-a-loudspeaker-while-turning-everything-in-a-10-mile-radius-into-a-desert pilled

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        40k is science fantasy with a 2 drink minimum.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no, they're janky slow center-of-mass-nightmares with exposed weak points

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who says mechs aren't viable is a moron

  9. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    The bipedal ones that look like they belong on PrepHole will not be practical. Some weird-ass looking eight-to-twelve legged designs will probably replace tank treads for very rough terrain.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for very rough terrain
      Gunships?
      Or, here's some world class military thinking:
      A bomb big enough to remove Very Rough Terrain?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You’ve never been in a war on rough terrain.

        https://i.imgur.com/8tuGSG0.jpeg

        So are tanks.

        You’ve never been in a tracked vehicle.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And you have never been in a mech, what's your point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But I HAVE been in a tracked vehicle and I have been in combat in rough terrain.
            Tanks would really kind of suck for a lot of that.

            The 10th Mountain Division uses helicopters and tracked vehicles because they're the best for fighting in mountains. The experts in mountain warfare say wheels and helis are the things to use.

            The 10th Mountain doesn’t really do mountains anymore.
            Fricking 4th ID sees more mountains than them and their 1st Brigade ditched Mechanized and became a Stryker Brigade:

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Tanks would really kind of suck for a lot of that.
              Depends on the tank

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The 10th Mountain Division uses helicopters and tracked vehicles because they're the best for fighting in mountains. The experts in mountain warfare say wheels and helis are the things to use.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A bomb big enough to remove Very Rough Terrain?
        Things like that tend to replace Very Rough Terrain with Even Rougher Terrain™.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wow where's this art from, seems a little more Grim Dark than most Battletech art

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    probably, at least if they are biped. A mech versus a tank will use less energy in movement and can deal with a lot more adverse terrain than a tank due to biped walking being more like a series of controlled falls. A tank will need to move a lot more, as well as quadruped walkers. As always however, we have nearly all the tech, but the big issue is power, but we have miniature reactors in development.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not how physics works. The most efficient method of movement for a biped is to use a bike, and at that point you're better off just making a tank.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tell me what animal in the animal kingdom has the market cornered as well as the rock chucking armsrace.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >tell me what animal in the animal kingdom has the market cornered
          Humans because we invented the wheel.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >humans couldn't hunt anything without the wheel
            I know your beet red diabetic ass can't comprehend walking more than 10 feet without experiencing the vapors, but humans are literally built for endurance. The modus operandi of human hunting was to walk after prey until it got tired, then cave it's skull in with a rock. A mech would have this principle by having a series of controlled falls be its form of locomotion, rather than generating more torque than needed to get stuck in a patch of mud. In short, frick yah muddah.

            https://i.imgur.com/WNipRFb.jpeg

            I feel ya.
            I want an AT-ST

            https://i.imgur.com/hUdfAIR.jpeg

            Hopefully EVERY time.
            Seeing the negative response has caused my Oppositional Defiance Disorder to activate and I will now stan for battle mechs, and no, I’m not OP.
            I’m going with the AT-ST.
            Iron out a few of its flaws and it’s a great system.

            I see your ATST and raise you an M29 Salem.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >but humans are literally built for endurance
              You know what makes humans travel even farther with less energy spent? A wheel. The most efficient form of locomotion a human can use with their two legs is to power a bicycle.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only on hard ground. Bike on hard ground and you'll become very familiar with the term "Rolling Resistance"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                On soft ground skis are more efficient.

                Until you have to go uphill*
                Or through mud.

                Nah, going uphill is still more efficient with wheels, you just shift to a lower gear.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Skis mounted on legs.

                >Nah, going uphill is still more efficient with wheels, you just shift to a lower gear.
                I find it's more efficient to walk a bike uphill than use even the lowest gear.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nu uh, because it feeeels easier to me

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And what proof do you have that a bike is more efficient uphill?

                Note that it's still faster than any legged solution.

                Faster, maybe, but far less stable. The Marion 7820, for example, has a far bigger footprint than any wheeled vehicle.

                >Skis mounted on legs.
                Snowmobile.

                So treads? Why bring up skiis when you're going to prove it with treads?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Same proof you have of it being easier to walk it up: personal conjecture

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then the point is moot and we are at stalemate.

                >Faster, maybe, but far less stable
                Highly doubtful any legged solution would be more stable, just look at any person trying to walk through mud and falling over themselves.

                You should at least look at the Marion 7820 before making that kind of statement.

                More than that, you see people trip in the mud but almost never get stuck in the mud. Meanwhile, we see cars and even tanks get stuck in the mud all the time. You can blame this on scaling but it's more that legs suffer less from sinking into the mud. A smaller footprint means the foot sinks deeper and if the foot sinks deep enough it passes through the most fluid of mud, sometimes to the gravel and bedrock underneath.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You should at least look at the Marion 7820 before making that kind of statement.
                An extremely slow vehicle that is only used on dry, flat ground?

                Might as well just use treads at that point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, it's an incredibly heavy vehicle on very soft ground. They tried using tracks, then treads, then gave up and used legs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Try putting it in soft ground and pic related is what you get.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well pic related was using treads so I don't see how treads are supposed to be an improvement.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pic related was the Marion 7820 you were talking about so I guess they use treads after all then.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you see any treads on pic related?

                every single fricking day with this shit?

                Sounds more like you're a whiny b***h that can't ignore one measly thread on a board of over a hundred threads.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/7F1KaAM.png

                Doesn't really look the same to me, anon.

                >Do you see any treads on pic related?
                Do you see any treads here?

                https://i.imgur.com/yMhNQgw.jpeg

                Try putting it in soft ground and pic related is what you get.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes, I do.

                That's not what I asked. You said they are operating in soft areas, and I pointed out I can only find one operating in a not-soft area. The one you posted is also not on soft soil, but hard packed dirt. So again, am I missing a record operator of a Marion 7820-M in soft or muddy terrain? I dont what theoretical, I want an actual operator

                ?si=gYf36RHkWZfE7OEm&t=116

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see it operating in any muddy areas.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No true scotsman.
                Adding Muddy to your terms now?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't research the big muskie at all before you posted that as a gotcha, did you? It required a specially graded road built with a timber bed just to move to a new pit, as it would sink into the ground otherwise. Not operating on soft soil at all

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                get new material mongoloid, care about something better than kids robot toys scaled up that firmly lay in fantasy only. The answer to your question is always and will always be no, stop asking it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're just mad that we aren't bowing down to your hot takes. Nobody is forcing you to post and there are plenty of other threads so I think you tried to troll us and bit off more than you can chew.

                Don't feel too bad. Someone just like you shows up on every thread.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and idiots like you are born every second.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nice, but ultimately all you've done is make yourself angry.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't really look the same to me, anon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, I am not finding anything about the Marion 7820 working in soft soil areas, just a limestone quarry with a well packed gravel floor out in PA. Is there another operation using one I'm not seeing?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mostly, you look at the design. The 7820 lays it's entire belly on the ground under most circumstances which gives it much more surface area for weight distribution.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But that's not soft soil it's on. Do you have any pictures of it operating in soft soil?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's on the side of a cliff. A lose cliff made of gravel. Here's one right at the edge of a river.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wheels handle gravel just fine though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not at the edge of cliffs, tho. That much ground pressure will trigger a landslide.

                You didn't research the big muskie at all before you posted that as a gotcha, did you? It required a specially graded road built with a timber bed just to move to a new pit, as it would sink into the ground otherwise. Not operating on soft soil at all

                > It required a specially graded road built with a timber bed just to move to a new pit, as it would sink into the ground otherwise.
                Because, in the interest of speed, they put the walking dragline on treads. If anything, this is an argument of legs over treads.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Big Muskie was a walker you absolute fruitcake. There are no record of them putting treads on it during it operating life. It was posted as proof that walker drag lines could operate on soft soil, which it couldn't

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then explain

                Pic related was the Marion 7820 you were talking about so I guess they use treads after all then.

                For that matter, explain why you think Big Muskie needed log footing for moving from place to place?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1. The Marion 7280 is different from the Big Muskie
                2. The one posted, as another anon pointed out, is not a Marion 7280
                3. If you did the most base level of research instead of just grabbing anything with legs from your ass, you would know that the immense size of the big muskie ment that it needed specially reinforced roads to avoid sinking due to it's ground pressure. That is part of the reason it was even built as a walker
                When it was getting scrapped, they had to move it across interstate 70. They had to layer dirt over the asphalt to avoid Muskie damaging the roadway as it moved over it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Didn't they put Big Muskie on a trailer to get it down the interstate?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, because big muskie only ever operated, and was scrapped, in Ohio. Unless you like naming your pictures wrong, that is a way smaller dragline moving to a New Mexico mine

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still, we know Walking Draglines were developed to solve the ground pressure issue so the idea that a walking dragline crane couldn't use the interstate strains belief.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because, as stated previously, Big Muskie wasnt just big, it was fricking massive. It weighed over 12,000 tons. Even with it's massive feet and belly flop movement, it was too much for a regular asphalt or unsupported ground to handle during movement. Another fun fact, big muskie required a power cable supplying 13,000 volts just to function. Fricking thing ate enough power to supply a suburb while it was working

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but Big Muskie apparently clocked in at 13,500 short tons or 27m pounds. Your average U.S. interstate is only rated for 40 tons/80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That much ground pressure will trigger a landslide.
                That's a function of weight, not locomotion, wheels weight less than legs and would be better for this function anyways.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Close, it's a function of ground pressure and in this case the walking dragline has less of it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what I asked. You said they are operating in soft areas, and I pointed out I can only find one operating in a not-soft area. The one you posted is also not on soft soil, but hard packed dirt. So again, am I missing a record operator of a Marion 7820-M in soft or muddy terrain? I dont what theoretical, I want an actual operator

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Faster, maybe, but far less stable
                Highly doubtful any legged solution would be more stable, just look at any person trying to walk through mud and falling over themselves.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tire chains or spikes do not increase surface contact area. Off road tires are knobby specifically to pierce into the ground where it is a little more firm a not just slip in the mud, slush or ice.

                Surface pressure calculations only work with the same tread or contact type. Racing slicks are slick on everything except the racetrack where the flat rubber has a large contact patch to develop friction with the flat and clean road. Any amount of small gravel or sand and these high surface area tires will lose grip.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Precisely why wheels are so much better.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                On flat hard ground and nothing else. Wheels get worse and worse the farther you get from paved roads.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wheels are good, but it is important to know why they're good ans what happens when they fail. If you spin wheels in mud, they resistance of the mud below the wheels is less than the force needed to lift the wheeled vehicle up and forward. The wheeled vehicle doesn't sink into the mud, it literally digs the mud away from under its wheels without making forward progress. Same for tanks. They chainsaw themselves downward.

                A person or animal in mud just lifts the leg out of the mud and walks forward.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So what we really need are legs with wheels on them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Wheelie shoes
                Can't fault the logic. If you apply brakes to roller skates they're easy to walk in.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                An electrical drive train makes it easy to engineer. Put the power plant in the torso and you can wire the power to motors in the lower leg.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The same thing happens to people, that's why you see them falling over themselves in muddy terrain.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So treads?
                So treads are still more efficient than legs.

                >And what proof do you have that a bike is more efficient uphill?
                Physics. Bicycling is roughly 4 times more efficient than legs. This includes hilly terrain, since although bicycling uphill is roughly 35% less efficient, going downhill is 'free' in energy compared to walking.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Skis mounted on legs.
                Snowmobile.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Until you have to go uphill*
                Or through mud.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only on hard ground. Bike on hard ground and you'll become very familiar with the term "Rolling Resistance"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Note that the tires resemble paddlewheels.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Note that it's still faster than any legged solution.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I’ll see your Salem and raise you an AT-MP.
              A missile platform, plus it has a Gatling blaster, because spinning barrels make every gun cooler.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A 6 liter diesel straight 6 is enough to power the hydraulics of a 50 ton crane. It generates more than enough mechanical force to run the hydraulics of 2 legs of a give or take 8 ton walker. The combustion engine is simply the most cost and weight efficient way to generate any sort of required power.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The answer is no. Ball treads will be the future.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Riding on a machines balls
      Gay as hell ngl

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In any case mechas are too niche for their complexity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then make them simple.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes obviously and I want my fricking timber wolf god damn it why is it taking so long I’m getting old

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel ya.
      I want an AT-ST

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A very kino design nice choice

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why is it taking so long I’m getting old
      Mechs didn't even become a thing in that setting until the 2400s, and it was another 500 years after that before the Timber Wolf was designed.

      You're gonna be waiting a long time, anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This makes me sad and I’m not even the same anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Expedite the process nerd. I want my
        Timber wolf but I will settle for a king crab with double gauss rifles if that is too difficult for you.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Forgot image for your reference just build me this it should be easy

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no, now frick off
    what are you, a fricking goblin?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >janny-sama save me!
    >they're discussing fictional weapon concepts on /k/ again!
    https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Rad_Grenade
    Anyway, what do you guys think about rad grenades?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think they are pretty rad

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’m not into 40k but they seem like an interesting design but wouldn’t they just start shooting their comrades that got hit by the radiation to put them out of their misery quickly? Isn’t the war hammer universe pretty brutal? I guess that would be good as psychological warfare but I don’t really see a point for them. Unless it drove people out of cover because of the radiation then that could be useful

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but wouldn’t they just start shooting their comrades that got hit by the radiation to put them out of their misery quickly?
        >Isn’t the war hammer universe pretty brutal?
        As long as you're physically able to fire a weapon you won't be put out of your misery in 40k since you'll still potentially be of use. "Putting someone out of their misery" is something the Tau might do but not really anyone else

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what the grenades are just to make them suffer before they die a horrible death? Kek what a fricked up universe

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It depends, you'll get given the emperor's peace if your just a human shaped blob of cancer cells suffering constantly because a rad made went off next to you. They'll try to make you useful but they know their limits

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >same thread every day for the last 10 years i've been here
    It's just so tiresome. Answer is still no just like the previous 3700 threads before

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, square cube law. For frick sake, stop spamming this thread. We literally had this conversation yesterday

      >Complaining about thread
      There are 150 other threads on the board. You're only here because you're trying to troll.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not as combat platforms. You're essentially trying to out-tank a tank and a tank is a very efficient combat platform.

    On the other hand, an Excavator is like 1/3 mech already. 2/3rds if you count spider excavators.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't care about out-tanking a tank Anon, i just want to crush machine scum!
      01 ruined our economy! Kill'em all!

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Post model collection

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How many times are the mods going to let mechatard post this thread

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hopefully EVERY time.
      Seeing the negative response has caused my Oppositional Defiance Disorder to activate and I will now stan for battle mechs, and no, I’m not OP.
      I’m going with the AT-ST.
      Iron out a few of its flaws and it’s a great system.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In space? Yes.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only indoors

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tank vs mech thread on PrepHole
    Alright. Which one of you autists did this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously the mechgay, since PrepHole doesn't give a shit and the incredibly obvious samegayging gives it away. I guess previous mentions of PrepHole and /m/ made the autist mad and go for Round 2 but with more effort.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    every single fricking day with this shit?

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares? You just wanted a stupid fantasy thread. Frick off to a gaming or fantasy board with that garbage.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's wild that there's literally a board devoted to mecha and these morons still would rather shit up /k/ for the 1000th time

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who cares? You just wanted a stupid fantasy thread. Frick off to a gaming or fantasy board with that garbage.

        It's wild that with a board of 100+ threads you're complaining about 1.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Go back to /m/

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DEEEEEP BREATH...WHUUUUU...

    "TANKS ARE PRACTICAL!"

    "MECHS ARE COOL!!!"

    "WE CAN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THEY'RE BUILT!!!"

    "WE NEED FUSION/MIRACLE BATTERIES TO BUILD THEM!!!!"

    "MECHS STILL SUUUUUUCK!!!!"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I HATE FUN

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No depiction of any military mech moves like this anyways so it's fricking irrelevent. Notice that the reason it has less ground pressure is because it's basically belly-flopping across the ground. Not exactly useful when speed is important.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We addressed this here

      https://i.imgur.com/Is4tXgQ.jpeg

      So what we really need are legs with wheels on them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We call those tracks.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          On legs

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Sinks into the ground because of ground pressure

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Sinks through the mud
              >Feet hit bedrock
              >Walks just fine on the bedrock.
              >Switches back to treads when the ground firms up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is why mechs are moronic. By transforming into legs, the mech is literally having more ground pressure than if it had just stayed in its tracked form.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Thats actually a benefit. Tanks try to Float on mud but that means they're always dealing with the wettest and least stable mud. What you want to do is sink deep into the mud until you hit the C horizon mud which is mostly sand and gravel. This offers much more traction than A or B horizon mud which could be anything from mildly squishy to effectivey liquid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Sinks through the mud
                >Feet hit bedrock
                >Walks just fine on the bedrock.
                >Switches back to treads when the ground firms up.

                Assuming you ever actually hit that solid ground without just drowning in it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Topsoil is usually only 5-10 inches deep. There are exceptions like Ukraine where it's 60 inches deep but that's the exception rather than the rule.

                Go back to /m/

                But I'm having so much fun here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Topsoil is usually only 5-10 inches deep
                Coincidentally that's also much shallower than tank tracks.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet tanks keep getting stuck in the mud.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which isn't going to be fixed by making something that sinks even deeper.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sinking is inevitable. It's the ability to get out of the mud that matters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What you're asking for is something moronicly specific and niche. You want a vehicle that will handle more than 4 feet of mud, which is already way more deep than is usually encountered, but which will also not have to deal with whatever arbitrary height of mud you set the wienerpit to be at.

                It's like thinking that the solution to infantry getting stuck in the mud is to give them fricking stilts.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Mud is niche
                >Big reason why Russia couldn't take Kiev in 2021 was their convoys were clogged on the few available roads and avoid the mud everywhere else
                Mud isn't a problem until it is. This whole mud argument is to show why ground pressure is a meme.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you have more than 4 feet of mud, the solution is a fricking helicopter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The solution to a tank stuck in the mud is to lose helicopters Russia can't afford to lose to widely proliferated MANPADS.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, legs are far more versatile than that but the conversation was focused on mud.

                You can extend or contract them for making use of a hull down position,
                You can fold them up for easy shipping.
                You can step over obstacles like boulders or dragon's teeth rather than trying to bulldoze through them. (Real, cemented in place dragon's teeth, not those Russian prefab copies)
                You can stretch them out to act as stabilizers.
                Losing one isn't a complete mobility kill. You can still crawl as a biped or just shift the positions of the other legs for a multiped.
                You can extend the legs to get more ground clearance. Useful for river fording both with and without snorkels.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can step over obstacles like boulders
                Unless they're too tall.
                >dragon's teeth
                Unless there's more than one.

                Legs suck and that's why vehicles don't have them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Unless they're too tall.
                Still better than treads.
                >Unless there's more than one.
                Then you step between rows.

                Only two out of six and not even successful at that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Then you step between rows.
                What if they didn't conveniently leave enough room for you to do that?
                >Still better than treads.
                No it's not. It's not at all.

                Unless your machine can think for itself, it is vastly inferior to treads or wheels. If it can think for itself and balance in real time, it's vastly more complex than it needs to be and still will produce the same results as wheels. This is why a grand total of zero vehicles use legs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What if they didn't conveniently leave enough room for you to do that?
                In that case you can walk along the tops of the Dragon's teeth.
                >No it's not. It's not at all
                Can do a thing is better than can't do a thing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet for all those 'advantages', there's numerous disadvantages.
                >Legs are very loud and give away your position
                >Legs take up a lot of energy
                >Legs require much more maintenance
                >Legs slow down the vehicle greatly
                >Legs require more resources to build

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mostly fixable with electrically driven wheelies.
                >Legs are very loud and give away your position
                So are most combustion engines.
                >Legs take up a lot of energy
                Only on terrain you can't use wheels on. In that case it's 10 KW/h per mile vs ∞ KW/h per mile
                >Legs require much more maintenance
                In terms of moving part count it's actually less than treads
                >Legs slow down the vehicle greatly
                Only on rough ground.
                >Legs require more resources to build
                Eh, probably but the Sinews of War are Infinite Money after all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Only on terrain you can't use wheels on.
                No, on pretty much any terrain. Just having the legs makes the vehicle heavier and results in more energy usage.

                >In terms of moving part count it's actually less than treads
                The 'moving parts' on treads are far less prone to breaking since they're not made up of electronics that require active power to work.

                >Only on rough ground.
                See above. You're adding weight just including the legs.

                >Eh, probably but the Sinews of War are Infinite Money after all.
                "We have infinite resources so frick wastefulness" is not how you win wars, it's how you get wunderwaffe shit like the Maus.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Energy usage
                I think energy efficiency got tossed out the window once I suggested mechs as a utility vehicle. In that case it's armor requirements dropped and we now have to argue if MBTs are worth being 60 tons.
                >The 'moving parts' on treads are far less prone to breaking since they're not made up of electronics that require active power to work.
                Actually, a lot of modern tanks use active suspension to deal with uneven terrain.
                >"We have infinite resources so frick wastefulness" is not how you win wars, it's how you get wunderwaffe shit like the Maus.
                The question is if you can do what the mech does but cheaper and can you do without it. In this case the mech is replacing about half a dozen utility vehicles and ultimately saves money in exchange for a hearty initial investment.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which isn't going to be fixed by making something that sinks even deeper.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > C horizon mud which is mostly sand and gravel
                >https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/293965be23a0/3
                >There is no set order for these horizons within a soil.
                This is like werhbs trying to justify Bismarck's shit armor scheme by saying it was intended to fight in the 'stormy' north sea (it wasn't).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tanks try to Float on mud
                They don't. Tanks sink in mud.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >mechs
              Sir, this is a quadvee.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Damn Spheroid Freebirth Barbarian, QuadVees Are Mechs.

                ...just not Battlemechs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/Is4tXgQ.jpeg

            So what we really need are legs with wheels on them.

            So, tachikomas

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nobody mentions obsolete
    its over...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Exposed wienerpits are moronic. Even for non-combat purposes falling-over risks crushing the pilot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >didnt watch obsolete

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I did not. But what you posted has an open top wienerpit, so checkmate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It actually doesn't. Well, the base model does but everyone mods it for an enclosed wienerpit as soon as they have the resources to do so.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/VvceBgx.jpeg

      Exposed wienerpits are moronic. Even for non-combat purposes falling-over risks crushing the pilot.

      https://i.imgur.com/oN9RYBt.png

      >didnt watch obsolete

      >Obsolete
      Now that's a name I haven't heard in years...

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How has no one posted the indian mech yet

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can do you one better.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no for a many reasons, but biggly tracks > wheels > 8 legs > 6 legs > 4 legs > 2 legs > your mom

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If mechs were practical the military would've built them already.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All the people talking about legs not being able to handle mud due to ground pressure don't understand that legs and wheels work by completely different principles, The only valid argument against mechs is that they are too slow.
    This however reveals what the viable role for a combat mech would be: Assault guns.

    When you just have to defend a position or your target is an immobile fortification a low top speed doesn't really matter , Firepower, armor, and cross country capacity are the most important performance aspects.
    Using multiple pairs of legs a mech/spider tank could both eliminate the turret and the gun elevation mechanism which has multiple consequences that relate directly to the above characteristics.
    The entire vehicle becomes much smaller which makes it lighter and easier to up armor, A larger gun can be installed with a simpler, safer, and better performing autoloader.

    The result is that a mech following the above design principle would likely outgun and outarmor any weight equivalent tank design while crossing worse terrain, It wouldn't ever be fast enough to not be a niche vehicle however.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Might as well use giant robot arms to reload the main gun then.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This however reveals what the viable role for a combat mech would be: Assault guns.
      If this was true with is the M10 Booker still using tracks?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because practical high torque electric motors only recently became practical with the Switched Reluctance Motor and it's industry taking off. It's why you see so many EVs and Hybrids all over the place.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But I thought a diesel motor is more than enough to power legs as

          A 6 liter diesel straight 6 is enough to power the hydraulics of a 50 ton crane. It generates more than enough mechanical force to run the hydraulics of 2 legs of a give or take 8 ton walker. The combustion engine is simply the most cost and weight efficient way to generate any sort of required power.

          said?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Different person but it's called a Diesel-electric drive. Use diesel to generate electricity and electricity to spin the wheels. You get to run the engine always in it's power band, get a lot of instantaneous revs, and can go crazy with the drive train config.

            https://i.imgur.com/tvLPe2N.jpeg

            Depends.

            Power armor and exosuits that are infantry-sized? Yes, those are viable.

            Tiny dog-sized drones that are designed to be disposable? Yes, those are viable.

            Anything bigger? Not really.

            Honestly, power armor seems inevitable now. We see more and more airburst and drone dropped munitions and still haven't been able to field an army without infantry.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The argument against legs in mud is that going deeper than the knee instantly makes it incredibly hard and slow to move. We humans, the masters of walking on two feet, have invented snow shoes and mud pattens SPECIFICALLY to avoid sinking in

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Mud patterns work by digging in deeper into the mud to get a better grip. It's why they're textured rather than flat.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Show me a picture of mud pattens

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Mud Patten
            >Wooden shoe meant for mud.
            Here you go.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Asked for pattens
              >Get given Geta sandals instead
              Geta are not used for the same thing pattens are. Geta are used to keep formal wear off the ground, not for traversing deep mud. Notice the difference in width and height here
              You giving me a completely different wooden shoe just give me more confidence that you just grab whatever from your ass to prove points, without actually knowing what it is

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And you've forgotten that traditional Mud Pattens featured an Iron Ring to keep the foot above the mud. In fact, this was the original point of Geta sandals before Ukiyo culture turned them into a fashion statement for prostitutes.

                Sometimes I thing YOU are pulling random things out of your ass without actually understanding them.

                There's not a lot of demand for a 'do it all' vehicle. If I want a vehicle for lifting heavy crates in a warehouse, I don't want a 'do it all' vehicle, I want a forklift. And I need the forklift to be there, at the warehouse, not going off and doing other jobs, because the warehouse requires continual service.

                Likewise, excavators do not spend all their time sitting in garages, they're sent to where they need to excavate.

                We already have a good grasp on how to make the most out of our vehicles. If you take my forklift and you turn it into a mech, I'll still be using it for the same job, but now it needs more maintenance than it did before.

                >There's not a lot of demand for a 'do it all' vehicle.
                Oh yes there is. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to supply parts for 6 different utility vehicles? You'd save money in the long run even if the mech costs three times as much as an excavator simply because you don't overstock 5 variations of the same part while doubling your operation tempo by cannibalizing parts from one mech to keep the others moving.

                Hell, all you need to solve the VLS replenishment at sea problem is a mech with at least 3 legs and the wingspan to get two points of contact with an RIM-66. And Everyone is looking for a solution to the Replenishment at Sea problem.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You'd save money in the long run even if the mech costs three times as much as an excavator simply because you don't overstock 5 variations of the same part while doubling your operation tempo by cannibalizing parts from one mech to keep the others moving.
                The problem is that your do-it-all mech can still only do one thing at any time. 90% of the parts are being wasted and so you're dealing with a lot of maintenance for little reward.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still adheres to Economy of Force with assets not sitting on their ass waiting for shit to do.

                Oh, the iron ring was used to keep the foot ABOVE the mud, not [...] ?
                Also, it's (YOU)

                Mud PatteRns. You're the one that brought up Patten. For that matter, they made the rig of iron so that it would sink into mud just enough to get some traction. No other reason to waste iron on a shoe accessory.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Still adheres to Economy of Force with assets not sitting on their ass waiting for shit to do.
                I don't know about you but most equipment I use isn't sitting around, and when it is, it's because it needs to be readily accessible. Can't have a forklift being carried off to god knows where when you might need it any second to do work.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US army tends to abandon assets like excavators in the middle of nowhere because they just needed it airlifted to set up a FOB and it cost more to ship back than buy a new one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And what stops the mud pattens from sinking in past the ring, which is also part of the point I was making bringing up these damned overshoes in the first place?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wearer doesn't weigh enough. Honestly, I don't even know if you brought up Pattens since

                Oh, the iron ring was used to keep the foot ABOVE the mud, not [...] ?
                Also, it's (YOU)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, the iron ring was used to keep the foot ABOVE the mud, not

                Mud patterns work by digging in deeper into the mud to get a better grip. It's why they're textured rather than flat.

                ?
                Also, it's (YOU)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Increasing the surface area of the feet isn't the only way legs can change their ground pressure, They can alter their gait to have optimal ground pressure on any given terrain.
        A multiped mech could even use its belly as one huge foot and move all feet at once to (slowly) hump around mud and snow convectional tanks could only dream of crossing.
        A bipedal mech will probably be able to crawl and not be limited to just walking/running, Otherwise I am not sure it will survive falling down let alone stand back up again by itself.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends.

    Power armor and exosuits that are infantry-sized? Yes, those are viable.

    Tiny dog-sized drones that are designed to be disposable? Yes, those are viable.

    Anything bigger? Not really.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have we developed yet the necessary equipment for pilots to operate these things?

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with mechs is that the very terrain they're designed to navigate is just bad for vehicles to be in as a whole.

    So you've designed a tank to walk across mud or climb mountains, but you've had to sacrifice armor in the process. Now your walking mech is either slogging across a mud-field slowly, just waiting to get blown up by artillery, ATGMs, or air strikes. Or you're walking through mountainous terrain waiting to get ambushed by infantry and probably giving away your units position.

    In the end there's nothing the mech is doing that isn't accomplished more easily and with fewer drawbacks through other systems.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In the end there's nothing the mech is doing that isn't accomplished more easily and with fewer drawbacks through other systems.
      Logistics.

      A forklift is good but it's only good for one thing, moving palletized resources.
      A Excavator has a lot of niche uses but usually spends all it's time sitting in the garage.
      A bulldozer even has combat applications but ultimately is only good at moving dirt.

      There's a dozen utility vehicles than an army needs to function but they're all drastically different and need their own spare parts, maintenance specialists, and training programs to function. Why not get one universal utility vehicle that can handle all these cases?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's not a lot of demand for a 'do it all' vehicle. If I want a vehicle for lifting heavy crates in a warehouse, I don't want a 'do it all' vehicle, I want a forklift. And I need the forklift to be there, at the warehouse, not going off and doing other jobs, because the warehouse requires continual service.

        Likewise, excavators do not spend all their time sitting in garages, they're sent to where they need to excavate.

        We already have a good grasp on how to make the most out of our vehicles. If you take my forklift and you turn it into a mech, I'll still be using it for the same job, but now it needs more maintenance than it did before.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >to get blown up by artillery, ATGMs, or air strikes

      people always seem to forget that mechs have fusion engines (huge amount of power to draw from) and often have assloads of lasers and can equip anti missile systems (i.e. C-RAM). A well designed and equipped mech should be able to delete almost any missile that approaches it, short of a saturation attack. A mech with heavy ER large lasers should be able to blast any nearby plane out of the sky.

      If you take the mech concept, add AI, super advanced targeting systems, extrapolate the capabilities of today's lasers and whatnot, you end up with a walking death turret that would theoretically be able to shoot even incoming tank rounds

      the main problem with the mech is the feasibility of the fusion engine, i.e., powerplant, and its ability to cool itself. It's seemingly impossible. There is just no way you could keep a mech from melting itself in their described form factor. It would need massive radiators or something sticking out the back which then become a huge target

      so tldr, I think this whole discussion about whether or not mechs would be combat effective is dumb, because it would simply be impossible to power the damn things in the first place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >people always seem to forget that mechs have fusion engines
        We're not talking about battlemechs, which are fictional bullshit anyways.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      see

      https://i.imgur.com/DP4TuBz.jpeg

      All the people talking about legs not being able to handle mud due to ground pressure don't understand that legs and wheels work by completely different principles, The only valid argument against mechs is that they are too slow.
      This however reveals what the viable role for a combat mech would be: Assault guns.

      When you just have to defend a position or your target is an immobile fortification a low top speed doesn't really matter , Firepower, armor, and cross country capacity are the most important performance aspects.
      Using multiple pairs of legs a mech/spider tank could both eliminate the turret and the gun elevation mechanism which has multiple consequences that relate directly to the above characteristics.
      The entire vehicle becomes much smaller which makes it lighter and easier to up armor, A larger gun can be installed with a simpler, safer, and better performing autoloader.

      The result is that a mech following the above design principle would likely outgun and outarmor any weight equivalent tank design while crossing worse terrain, It wouldn't ever be fast enough to not be a niche vehicle however.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We already have other equipment that does the job better.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ignore all these dummies, the answer is YES.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      imagine getting hit by a gigantic shell casing and fricking dying

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When does a mech become too big to be useful, and not simply because it's too heavy?

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what would even be the point of a walking(which is already inefficient compared to things like treads) target for things like EFP, anti-tank, tank, and basically anything with serious firepower?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The question isn't "What can you do with legs" it's "What can you do with Arms" and the answer is "a FUCTON of logistics".

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing that an exosuit or a forklift isn't already doing tbh.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Exosuit
          So you do believe in mechs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you consider power armor to be the same thing as a mech, sure.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Drones would hard counter them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Drones apparently counter tanks.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ukrainians have pulled Abrams off the front lines because of drone threats
        >The legendary Soviet era stockpile of tanks have been anhilated largely thanks to drones
        >apparently

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Makes as much sense as drones hard countering mechs.

          https://i.imgur.com/hYaw9lr.png

          Increasing the surface area of the feet isn't the only way legs can change their ground pressure, They can alter their gait to have optimal ground pressure on any given terrain.
          A multiped mech could even use its belly as one huge foot and move all feet at once to (slowly) hump around mud and snow convectional tanks could only dream of crossing.
          A bipedal mech will probably be able to crawl and not be limited to just walking/running, Otherwise I am not sure it will survive falling down let alone stand back up again by itself.

          Arguably, mechs could be more mine resistant due to them stepping around mines rather than trying to drive around them.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Taurians seem like the /k/ faction

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you're a monarchist maybe.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    Whoever starts these gay threads probably also starts power armor threads. Please have a nice day you subhuman

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Meanwhile, you come to these threads expecting an easy troll only to realize you're dumber than a subhuman.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1: No not really
    2: Drones/ Teleoperated humanoid robots render them obsolete before they are even invented
    3: If you just want to speculate/ post drone art have at it but understand that it's as fantastical and impractical a concept as lightsabers.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battletech itself struggles to justify mechs.
    >warships dominate during the Age of War
    >sign Ares conventions to greatly limit their power
    >Terran Hegemony goes all in on the most moronic gamble and builds mechs
    >everyone scared shitless so they start building their own mechs without even stopping to think about it
    >warships and many mechs extinct during succession wars
    >combined arms and artillery rules the day

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For some reason everyone in the future of Battletech decides that LARPing as feudal monarchies is just the way to do things now and nobody ever bothers to correct them.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    t. /m/

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hey what if we made a tank but it can trip and fall over

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Hey, what if we made a mech, but it can throw a track.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Throwing a track is a hell of a lot harder than breaking a leg.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s not as hard as you might think.

          >T. Has been in a mechanized brigade.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now take that, and make it 20 times more fragile
            >t. has worked on robots with tracks and legs (the legs are always the first to break)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >mech trips and falls
        >entire crew dead

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Tracked vehicle rolls over.
          >Entire crew dead.
          This has happened.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lot harder to flip a tank than to trip a mech.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Vehicle rollovers are the most common military training death. And in those cases it is usually the driver or turret gunner who gets cut in half because in the real world tanks fight and train with hatches open.

              Oh and another "lets design the mech to kill the pilot when it falls over. rather than design it to safely fall over without damage or injury." Because vehicle crews literally wear helmets, seatbelts and train to survive rollovers. And notice I said that it is usually the people sticking their head or torso out of the hatch that die.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Vehicle rollovers are the most common military training death
                Exactly, so don't make it even worse by designing a vehicle that requires active effort to not fall over.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It might be dangerous, so don't do it
                You're embarrassing yourself. There is necessary risk of injury that cannot be mitigated. Accidents still happen. If mecha are a valuable combat vehicle, they must be used, even if they're dangerous.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But they're not, so we don't. They're a solution looking for a problem.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No SOVL
                Your argument is invalid

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                SOVL is cope for countries that can't afford a good military

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m sorry but your argument remains invalid

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, and they never will be while you still follow false faiths. Embrace the Omnissiah, and then shall you know the truth.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechs viable as weapons?

    They should be.

    Terra is rightful clan clay

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t care if they are “viable” or not.
    For reasons of PVRE SOVL we must invest in this.

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Mechs take considerably more maintenance than anything on wheels or treads. But when the War Council gets to see a new heavy legs unit put their foot straight through the top of a tank, it shakes the part of their brain that worries about money. I like to think the first mech field test was sort of like when the military first got real hot and bothered for helicopters back on Earth. They want the slick new stuff, who cares what it costs?

    >Mechs are the standard-bearers, the cavalry, and the commanders all in one. Being taller means overlapping fields of fire with shorter vehicles, better top kill and defilade, and less trouble with comms in dense urban areas on account of the antennae height. Put them hull down ("kneeling") and you've got great defensive fire, perfect for covering infantry and powersuits.

    >Despite how long mechs have played an active role in combat and police work, there's a segment of the Brass that still argues against them hard. They're "walking targets" that are "too expensive to maintain" and "damage roads and infrastructure because they don't broadly distribute their weight." Ok maybe some of that's true, but bureaucrats don't know what a psych-out it is to get stared down by a heavy. Gets you that fear deep in your reptile brain, sympathetic nervous system response. Also the part that worries about money.

    >-MB
    No, but actually yes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So mechs are basically the equivalent of Chinese/Russian cope-weapons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Brigador (where the excerpt is from) takes place on a mega-urbanized planet run by an oppressive military junta that's competing against a mixed force of anarchic terrorists and space dwellers who consider dirt-eaters to occupy the same ecological niche as paper targets. Terror tactics are on the table for everyone and Solo Nobre is urbanized enough that being tall is a mixed blessing instead of a detriment. Spacers in particular are so wienery they paint all their shit bright red and cover it in bullseyes.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The man from Volta is my spirit animal

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the MOG...
          anyways listen to the audiobook
          https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLon-eCq6oXhT069_G8_bx5RFQ1MqhD_pH

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *