Are mechs viable as weapons of war?

Are mechs viable as weapons of war?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >big
    no
    >small
    not right now, maybe later

    we have had this discussion many times

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only if they can go prone and transportable.

      >big
      cross river, Can peak and even lift others above roof and canopy, higher organization level due to lower agility and longer range
      >small
      get in every nook of the earth and be the most annoying detail, screen for the big guy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > Can peak and even lift others above roof and canopy
        Completely useless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >places turret on a lift.

        There done, all advantages of a tank and a mecha and none of the idiocy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >small
      droned.com

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on if Power Armor counts as mechs. Power Armor is kinda inevitable as we can't seem to replace infantry. Might as well just up-armor them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As long as they are not Orions, they may stand a chance.

      Of course they don't.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >up-armor them
      Waste of time. You can't make armor cheap enough that's effective enough, best you'll get are exosuits that let people destroy their knees while carrying slightly more gear.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dude, we already made prototypes that could handle 200 lbs. All that's missing is a power source because the army wants 72 hours of power.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >All that's missing is a power source
          The answer is right under your hood.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't fit on power armor and externally mounting it causes nothing but trouble.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Just put it on the back and cover it in some armor. A little 10 hp ICE is the size of your head.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Digs too deeply into your weight budget as well as making you show up on thermals so bad they start shooting MANPADs at you. The pistons add shaking which fouls your aim and the crankshaft adds a gyrostopic effect that makes it harder to move. It's also incredibly noisy which means you're half deaf while the enemy can hear you from half a mile.

                Finally, and most damning, combustion engines need air and burn through oxygen at a ferocious rate. You try to fight indoors and you'll suffocate and if you can't fight in confined spaces then why bother with power armor?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Power Armor is kinda inevitable
      if power armor is practical then mechs are too, because power armor is by volume mostly human, so you get more out of it by increasing the ratio of machine to man up to a point that there is proportionally machine than man. Internal volume would increase much faster than the area it actually needs to armor, because of the square cube law. I suspect that practical mechs would be in the 15-20 foot height range, and weigh roughly 6-10 tons.

      this homie has solved the square cube law, give him a nobel prize

      why do you think the square cube law is a slam dunk argument against mechs? It favors them in many regards.

      https://i.imgur.com/7SQoIFk.jpg

      Here are the no-mech gays arguments:
      >Weight too much
      >No energy source to power them up
      >artificial muscles don't exist
      >High profile makes it more vulnerable
      >Can use the same technology in tank
      >Too expensive
      And more often than not they are the same people who say tank/copters are obsolete because slavs can't into combined arms or some turdie managed to land a drone hit while israelites were with pants down so you already know from where they come from, additional hint:

      And here are the answers:
      >There already were dinosaurs who weighted up to 100 tons without sinking into terrain and that was without actual engineering and ultra light materials and so on
      >Due pressure of making Russia, Iran and other petrostates irrelevant we may get nuclear fusion in a decade or two
      >We already have nytinol, just need further research
      >a Higher profile becomes irrelevant when you get ADPS
      >The idea is to capitalize on humanoid characteristics such as pendulum ergonomics, going prone, negotiate extremely rough terrain, while also carrying more weapons per units
      >Scale economy and widespread technology makes limbs as viable as tracks
      So yeah, I believe many of these issues could even be fixed in the next decade.

      >nuclear fusion
      I don't think nuclear fusion is going to be how mechs will be powered, everything I've read about it implies it's going to be something that gets better as it gets bigger, so I suspect compact fusion plants just won't be as efficient as using a larger fusion plant to make more efficiently transportable fuel sources. Either way, I don't think we actually need any breakthroughs in power to actually make a practical mech, they'd just need daily refueling or even only have a few hours of operational time before needing to be fueled up.
      >nytinol
      this isn't something I've done much research on, why is nytinol a better candidate than other types of muscle-like actuators? I last time I looked into it electro-active polymers seemed like the leading candidate to me.

      https://i.imgur.com/SdcB4QW.jpg

      I have an engineering degree and a master in research, if you want to insult me that's your problem, I don't bother with what I can't do but how to fix the impossible while staying on a budget.

      [...]
      Not necessarily, besides I am not expecting a 40 feet tall robot, at least not right from the start, a 12 to 16 feet tall mech wont really much of an additional problem for hiding unless you are working in extremely flat terrain.

      >12 to 16 feet tall
      I suspect that might be a bit cramped, but I guess that depends on a lot of factors.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not really

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if power armor is practical then mechs are too
        I'm not going to argue every point of your autistic blog post, but really the main point of power is to increase the carrying capacity of infantry. If you scale it to 15-20ft you don't have infantry anymore, and I think everyone else has done a pretty good job of dunking on mechs in this thread.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If you scale it to 15-20ft you don't have infantry anymore
          it doesn't matter if you want to call it something else, that's fine.
          >I think everyone else has done a pretty good job of dunking on mechs in this thread.
          no they haven't, they're all just repeating the same dogshit opinions that they always do.
          >I'm not going to argue every point of your autistic blog post
          You're clearly not worth arguing with. So I guess thanks for not wasting my time.

          https://i.imgur.com/i4LnPcU.jpg

          Not really

          which thing in that post were you saying "not really" to?

          https://i.imgur.com/6Q0qgXT.jpg

          >gets BTFO by any ATGM
          Look I get you've been playing armored core 6 and got brainwashed, the autistic mecha meme will never happen.

          If you suddenly need ATGMs to take out the enemies infantry, I'd say that's a pretty big problem.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            12 to 16 ft

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, they are. All their technical problems are actually pretty easy to solve and not a big deal. Mechs, especially large humanoid ones, will feature heavily on the battlefields of the future, where their firepower will far surpass conventional vehicles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Has someone had too much 40K today? Titans or mechs will never be viable as they don't spread enough weight and thus sink or topple as of which it wouldn't have the balance and reaction speed of a human to keep itself upright. Not to mention they would just be the most immediate of targets while having some glaring weak points (all it's joints)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Titans or mechs will never be viable as they don't spread enough weight and thus sink or topple

        Humans don't get stuck in mud, but tanks do.
        mud layers on the surface of the earth are just that - on the surface. A tall vehicle with high ground pressure can walk through mud. A bipedal vehicle can also lever itself out of mud and other obstacles in ways that will never be possible for tracked vehicles.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Humans don’t weigh sixty tons

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That being said, ground pressure is kind of an overrated reason why mechs aren’t viable.
            The real reason is because a box on top of a box is far easier to efficiently armor than a complex humanoid shape + limbs

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the most efficient and common fighting vehicles today are not heavily armored

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Funnily enough with the bradley redeemed it became obvious say a vehicle with an autocannon and a SRM battery would be incredibly effective, particularly against enemy APS protected systems which in the fast short distance evasion humanoid frames bring would become more and more important.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Also, much like casemented vehicles can carry larger guns than turreted ones for a given vehicle size, a low sling turreted armored vehicle is capable of carrying much larger weapons than a humanoid one. And also ammo storage is far easier.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your mom does.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ultimately physics just disagrees with mechs much larger than say the aliens power loader in a gravity well and in space combat they too just don't make sense which makes me sad as frick because I love mecha and have a mild obsession with 40k titans.
          The problem with your assessment is that a tank is say 60-70 tons where as say a warlord titan is 1000 tons which is just going to be a slow easy bit of prey.
          Mecha doesn't even help here as a gundam is 8 tons but that's literally impossible given their size as they would just collapse.
          As much as I wish they would be the future of military equipment it's just not worth pursuing especially with evolving Autonomous weapons and so on.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Humans don't get stuck in mud
          The things people say lmao. Touch mud.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Humans don't get stuck in mud, but tanks do.
          Humans aren't made of steel.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Humans don't get stuck in mud
          ...they absolutely fricking do though have you LITERALLY never touched grass?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's proportionally much harder for a human to get stuck in the mud. We can sink up to our needs and get out fairly easily. It's really just a very specific soil condition that can form suction that trips us up. You basically need quicksand-like conditions or the person just swims out.

            The fact is that it's better for feet to dig into the ground. It's why all the running centric animals like deer, goats, and horses all have hard and narrow feet. Digging into the ground locks the foot in place and thus gives it more traction.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >We can sink up to our needs and get out fairly easily
              For a given definition of 'fairly easily', realistically if you're trying to cross mud that deep you're just fricked and waiting to get shot.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Any mud that can trap a human would also bog down a tank despite the tank having several times a human's horsepower. In fact there's a range of soil conditions that would kill a tank but wouldn't bother a human.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is why we have helicopters.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you saying there's no need for tanks?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's no need for a vehicle that steps through very thick mud.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If that was all the appeal of a mech, I'd agree but having mud-walking come part and parcel with an extreme terrain handling excavator is merely icing on the cake.

                This is why I keep posting that "BEHOLD! A Mech" meme. Mechs make more sense as logistics/engineering vehicles than combat ones .

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but having mud-walking come part and parcel with an extreme terrain handling excavator is merely icing on the cake
                Not really worth it given the maintenance it would require. Marines already tried using a mech and it was too much of a pain in the ass to bother with.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maintenance costs will fall as technology improves. Why, during the Crimean war repeating rifles were impractical simply because the logistics couldn't support them. Today we have fully automatic rifles that make those repeaters look like dinosaurs.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Maintenance costs will fall as technology improves.
                Never said anything about the costs. It's about expertise. You can't expect every single Marine travelling with a mech to be a robotics engineer. It's too difficult to repair, takes too much time, and they weren't even able to find a role for the mech they had so they just ended up leaving it behind most of the time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you don't give one to every marine. You get the Motor Pool to take care of it along with all the other humvees, Bradleys, and Abrams.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You get the Motor Pool to take care of it along with all the other humvees, Bradleys, and Abrams.
                If a humvee loses a wheel on the road you can just replace the wheel. When a mech's leg breaks you have to call up a specialist to fix it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can just replace the wheel.
                That's for flat tires. If it gets blown up you're gonna tow it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                When a mech loses a foot it can walk on the stump. When a humvee throws an axle you scrap it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >When a mech loses a foot it can walk on the stump
                Not the mechs we've designed so far.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which ones?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The LS3

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The LS3
                That's a drone. Mechs need a pilot.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Trying to make space for a pilot isn't going to make mechs any more practical, in fact it's just going to make it even less so. If the military couldn't find a use for a legged drone a mech is even less worth it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet the Spider Excavators. Excavators are already common at FOBs for trench digging. Having something with more versatility would mean less tonnage to haul overseas. This would mean a massive net savings for every deployment.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And yet the Spider Excavators.
                Are not being used by the military because they're not worth it.

                >Excavators are already common at FOBs for trench digging.
                And yet they're not using your spider excavators.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For now. The tech is still immature and it would be foolish to assume things will stay the same.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The tech might be immature but the principles of it aren't. Fewer moving parts is easier to maintain than more moving parts.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If we're going by part count then every link of a tanks tread is a moving part.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet there's a reason they're so much more popular than legs.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If we're going by part count then every link of a tanks tread is a moving part.

                Tank treads break down a lot. They are high maintenance.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Compared to alternatives they are lower maintenance and more effective. Legs are never going to be more efficient than a tracked vehicle as a weapon of war.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Legs are never going to be more efficient
                Artificial muscles, homie.
                They already exist, look up electroactive polymers as an example.

                Giant robots won't be propelled with servos and hydraulics, they'll have muscled limbs with significantly fewer moving parts than a tank chassis. And even those moving parts will be purely mechanical.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah field repair a synthetic muscle lel

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I'm sorry, I forgot we were just saying stupid shit forgive me. Tanks will still be better because of nanomachines that can heal any injured part that the tank has, and quicker than synthetic muscles.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                of course we're not talking about currently viable technologies, moron
                if mechs were viable in the present day, someone would be using them

                that said, synthetic muscles are as real as coilguns and portable laser weapons. not viable in the present that but if (and that's an if, not a when) they ever reach a level where they'd be viable on the field, they'd be something that presents a huge advantage to walking robots but wouldn't be of any use to tanks

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They'd make extremely good suspension, especially if you had some sensors in front of the tracks allowing them to raise and lower each wheel in advance to smooth out bumps

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, so in a world where your completely bullshit theoretical technology that has no fricking use at all exists we would have synthetic muscles that could *potentially* be applied to some sort of robot. You can say whatever the frick you want about something that has never seen any application in such a field. Nanomachines are a thing as well, the moronic sci-fi concept I mentioned is literally just as likely as some MGS 4 fricking Gekko.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, never. Because the military has no use for small, extremely rough terrain excavators. Because they have tons of free hands for small jobs, and heavy equipment for big ones. And they don’t have to worry about things like property rights, erosion control, or environmental impact.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Mechs make more sense as logistics/engineering vehicles than combat ones .
                Except they don’t.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Wrong. It's a deliberate design choice. In general, we deliberately design our tracked vehicles not to be better than humans in that regard, because if they do get stuck, then people will exit and get stuck too. And that would be dangerous.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >a very specific soil condition
              And that specific soil condition is very common. Go outside and touch some mud.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans don't get stuck in mud
            TIL people like this are real. They're really out there boys, don't let your kids grow up to be like this.

            shit, how are you guys posting if you got stuck in mud?
            oh, you climbed out?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Apparently they didn't know how to swim and tried to walk out at first.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Humans don't get stuck in mud
          TIL people like this are real. They're really out there boys, don't let your kids grow up to be like this.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't build a heavily armored vehicle unless you're going to some place where explosions are a problem. You also don't put legs on something that has to deal with explosions. So probably not, we'll just stick to tanks.

        >don't spread enough weight and thus sink or topple
        That too. You could mitigate it by making the feet broader, but then you'd might as well have tracks at which point we're just building a really big tank.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If we want to maximize weight distribution we could go fully belly dragger like the Marion 7820

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      True. It's kind of funny how easy it really is to solve all the "hurr durr physics says mechs don't work" problems once you have a few little technical tricks. The only reason we don't have them already is because all that stuff is [REDACTED]

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this homie has solved the square cube law, give him a nobel prize

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >especially large humanoid ones
      this baffles me every time - why build large human shaped mechs if they don't have any human shape compatible equipment at that scale?
      in macross aliens were that size so you actually could argue that humanoid shape would be needed - but still - transforming capital ships were to much for me...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They do nothing a tank doesn't already do for less money. I want to blame weebs for this homosexualry but I know MechWarrior gays are complicit in this stupidity tok

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >where their firepower will far surpass conventional vehicles
      Would would firepower scale differently for walkers than conventional vehicles?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe not firepower but definitely sustained rate of fire. Having a big robot arm load 100 lbs shells is a lot better than having some dude hump them onto the feeding ramp.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Having a big robot arm load 100 lbs shells is a lot better than having some dude hump them onto the feeding ramp.
          Autoloaders are already a thing you moron

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do we even keep having this thread? Literally what purpose do mechs serve other than "they look cool"? Legs give you no tactical or strategic mobility advantage over tracks, wheels, or aircraft while being infinitely more complex and costly. All of this so you can have a platform to carry the exact same weapons we already have on tanks on those existing systems.

    The real future of warfare is unmanned and standoff/NLOS weapons. Also maybe power armor like other Anons have said. But there's no fricking point in putting heavy weapons on legs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do we even keep having this thread?
      I assume it's one mech-obsessed autist who keeps asking this question hoping one day he'll get a different answer. Mental illness is a hell of a drug.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do we even keep having this thread?
      I assume it's one mech-obsessed autist who keeps asking this question hoping one day he'll get a different answer. Mental illness is a hell of a drug.

      This, or it's another slide thread because of a certain wannabe superpower having a bad day. Could be both.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's moronic and you're moronic for thinking it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, mech threads are now a daily instead of a monthly thing, but they have been here long before your precious Ukraine spam and will still be here long after it, tourist. Also nobody cares about your daft theory that you keep pushing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, russians know shit about mechs outside 40k and shounengay mecha, they don't even have the (M)IC to dream about building mechs, only western MIC could create a functional mech or battlesuit, the rest is Red Alert western sovietgays who can't accept their fav faction was stomped into the ground irl not just in economics but in the military, in fact most of the RUSSIA STRONK meme comes from Red Alert SOVIET POWER SUPREME

        https://i.imgur.com/kgde4o0.png

        R8 my lance /k/

        Replace furry clannerscum with more glorious angry lobsters and we are good to go.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          KGC sux
          especially if it's only got the UAC/5s that the hero variant IIRC has
          you can put those on a regular Crab for half the tonnage

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The hero variant has 4 UAC/5s, which means you can potentially pump double the damage at twice the range compared to the base models. It's hilariously good.

            Also, the Crab is too light for twin UAC/5 because it's got no sustain. Not enough armor for brawling, not enough ammo to skirmish, and the guns being in the arms means it can't peek. It does better with lighter energy weapons so it can get in and out and not worry about running empty. KGC doesn't give a frick about peeking, it just goes forward and either it dies or you do, except it's a hundred tons and you probably aren't.

            All that said, the actually good KGC is the clanbuster with dual gauss rifles.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything beyond large power armor is likely unviable. Or if you can solve the technical problems that'd make a Gundam work, then you don't even need a mecha because you can have exotic physics weapons

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here are the no-mech gays arguments:
    >Weight too much
    >No energy source to power them up
    >artificial muscles don't exist
    >High profile makes it more vulnerable
    >Can use the same technology in tank
    >Too expensive
    And more often than not they are the same people who say tank/copters are obsolete because slavs can't into combined arms or some turdie managed to land a drone hit while israelites were with pants down so you already know from where they come from, additional hint:

    And here are the answers:
    >There already were dinosaurs who weighted up to 100 tons without sinking into terrain and that was without actual engineering and ultra light materials and so on
    >Due pressure of making Russia, Iran and other petrostates irrelevant we may get nuclear fusion in a decade or two
    >We already have nytinol, just need further research
    >a Higher profile becomes irrelevant when you get ADPS
    >The idea is to capitalize on humanoid characteristics such as pendulum ergonomics, going prone, negotiate extremely rough terrain, while also carrying more weapons per units
    >Scale economy and widespread technology makes limbs as viable as tracks
    So yeah, I believe many of these issues could even be fixed in the next decade.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. high-school dropout paint huffing moron

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I have an engineering degree and a master in research, if you want to insult me that's your problem, I don't bother with what I can't do but how to fix the impossible while staying on a budget.

        > going prone
        You know what’s even better than going prone?
        Being prone all the time.

        Not necessarily, besides I am not expecting a 40 feet tall robot, at least not right from the start, a 12 to 16 feet tall mech wont really much of an additional problem for hiding unless you are working in extremely flat terrain.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's pretty obvious your degree is industrial, civil or some low tier shit where you don't actually design mechanical systems

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > going prone
      You know what’s even better than going prone?
      Being prone all the time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/zSusDuX.jpg

      Funnily enough with the bradley redeemed it became obvious say a vehicle with an autocannon and a SRM battery would be incredibly effective, particularly against enemy APS protected systems which in the fast short distance evasion humanoid frames bring would become more and more important.

      https://i.imgur.com/SdcB4QW.jpg

      I have an engineering degree and a master in research, if you want to insult me that's your problem, I don't bother with what I can't do but how to fix the impossible while staying on a budget.

      [...]
      Not necessarily, besides I am not expecting a 40 feet tall robot, at least not right from the start, a 12 to 16 feet tall mech wont really much of an additional problem for hiding unless you are working in extremely flat terrain.

      Sure, mechs can theoretically work, but I don't see any kind of hypothetical benefit that justifies a nuclear reactor on legs vs tracks, wheels, or rotary wing aircraft. Imo, ground warfare is going the way of naval warfare, where most engagements are non-light-of-sight. Vehicles are pretty much an afterthought at that point, and really only serve as a platform to carry those non-light-of-sight weapons or point defense against them. Really, wtf is the point of a mech when it's fundamentally more economical to use existing vehicles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now that I think of it, literally all of the purported advantages of a mech can be done better by a helicopter. They laugh in the face of any terrain. They have a high top speed compared to ground vehicles while still being able to loiter and take advantage of cover. They can look over tall cover and modern attack helicopters can engage over cover. They can get low to the ground if they need to avoid enemy fire. And they can carry a shit ton of missiles, which is likely the same thing you'd use a lightweight mech for.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >literally all of the purported advantages of a mech can be done better by a helicopter.
          like they are doing today in ukraine lobbing dumbfire salvos from their maximum possible range?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            sensors are the problem, not the platforms. helicopters have gotten owned just as tanks have gotten owned just like how a hypothetical mech with equivalent sensors would get owned by an unseen missile coming out from the treeline.
            there's a reason why the us has been all about sensor superiority since vietnam. the only thing i can think of that would justify a mech is if you absolutely were forced to use some sort of sensor that was too heavy to loft in a helicopter. no such thing exists, and i dont think it ever will because distributed networked sensors are a fundamentally better idea and it is already the reality.
            mechs in the end are an artistic device that anthropomorphize the military aesthetic. they're an invention of artists, not soldiers.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > the only thing i can think of that would justify a mech is if you absolutely were forced to use some sort of sensor that was too heavy to loft in a helicopter
              And even then, it would be much better to just stick it on the end of a telescoping boom.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or figure out a way to tie in the tank to some sort of large ISR drone like a RQ-170 or Global Hawk

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Due pressure of making Russia, Iran and other petrostates irrelevant we may get nuclear fusion in a decade or two
      Fusion has been perpetually 30 years away for the last 50 years. Its a meme and all experimental prototypes point to if a commerical stable variant is made, its going to cost x amount of fission plants to make one fusion

      Bigger issue is western moronic fear of fission which is strangling nuclear by its neck with absolutely excessive overregulation that not only stops its from expanding its grid load but also stop innovation on prototypes like microreactors. Some which could be small enough to mount on a exoskeleton frame

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I absolutely agree with you nuclear fission should become more widespread, particularly now that it has become obvious russians have been paying "eco-friendly" fifth-columnists to make Europe as reliant in their gas market as possible.

        With that being said, achievements towards nuclear fusion have been ramping up recently:

        https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate/index.html

        Consider it took more than a century to make solar cell energy profitable:

        https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline

        What we are seeing now is an arms race to achieve sustainable nuclear fusion between US, Japan, EU, China and other countries.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the best arguments for the walking naval ships that are battlemechs usually rely on the mother of all ad hoc hypotheses and the biggest question for these machines is simply why? why do we need walking ships?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. to conduct honorable combat
      2. when the aliens come, mechs will be the only things big enough to frick them

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      transporting humansin massive quantities in spaceships means MASSIVE food, air and water concerns.

      now if you have 12 guys and their death robots, and a small support staff, you need way less food, air, water, and can move a force that can do the same thing as your Infantry division of combined arms.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    mw3 orion was tops. so scary when it shows up as the boss in that first or second mission

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only if the following has been achieved:

    1. They're height being 3-4 meters.

    2. Something like myomer is invented.

    3. A powerful but miniaturized source of power is invented (preferably fusion power).

    4. Computer programs to make the mech follow button-inputed commands is successfully invented.

    5. A type of metal alloy is invented for it to not fall off and be tough enough to withstand anything from 5.7×28mm to 7.62x51mm.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So basically Titanfall Titans

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Personally, I had Armored Trooper VOTOMS in mind.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >4. Computer programs to make the mech follow button-inputed commands is successfully invented.
      ? Vr goggles already exist and give full 3dof by default. Not hard integrating them with cameras peeking out of the hulls. As for controls good old dual joystick has all the input you need for the full 6dof experience. Or are you thinking about autonomous mechs without pilots?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I meant if you need to have the mech fire it's weapons. Supposed it carried multiple weapons from anti-personnel machine guns, a primary weapon chambered at 30mm, and missiles. You need to input certain buttons to fire the weapons because of where they'll be located. Not only that, if the 30mm weapon is handheld, it needs to be reloaded by arm so by pressing the button for reloading, the mech will reload the weapon itself like how we would reload an assault rifle.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imo something like REV 6 could be valuable in the future for urban combat as super heavy assault infantry

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Forgot to include the kino part of the post

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    depending on size. Something the size of a very large man as more of a exoskeleton is absolutey necessary. Even larger mech definitely have use in places like construction and hazardous environments

    In combat their main advantage would come from intergrated comms, targeting, heavy armor and weapon integration. Mainly in urban war which is absolute meat grinder for regular grunts. So the requirement is they fit through doorways and can climb stairways

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only way I'd see powered armor, and by extension mechs, is if combat moves to space and/or other planetary bodies. If you're going to have boots on the ground, you're probably going to want to give them a spacesuit, and if you're going to make a combat spacesuit then you might as well make it armored and powered to ease use, and if it's armored and powered then you're gonna need bigger weapons to combat enemy spacesuits. It's even better if the planetary body has lower gravity since the suit may not have to use up as much weight in structural reinforcement.

    Once there's a small enough power source to reliably juice up a fully-loaded combat Manned Maneuvering Unit, then we'll probably see more Starship Troopers-style hardsuits, and once we figure those out it'll probably bleed over to ground-based combat hardsuits.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >missile cap open
      >they are still obstructed
      Who designed this shit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's just some idiot drawing a Warhammer wrong

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      halos odsts and Mjölnir had the right idea, add rail guns to the equation and all of a sudden mechs are no longer useful out side of quad walkers for rail gun artillary bombardment, now what makes mechs viable in almost every setting appears to be some form of semi physical shielding requiring their size to begin with for energy reasons.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I could see something like the Locust IIc being built, and being effective even, possibly even a madcat, but humanoid mechs are absolutely moronic.

    Closest you'll get is power armor, but even then, it's not a mech, so...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The base model is already here:

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a mech's capacity to be fricking badass is far more important than it's practical use as a weapon.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mechs? No. Some kind of power armor? Yes. If you can strap two crew serve weapons like a mk-19 or 240b onto a roughly man sized platform that can fit through buildings and doorways, that’s an incredible tactical advantage that eliminates the responsibility of 4-6 other people. You wouldn’t field an entire squad of them, it’d be a squad support platform that would replace the grenadier.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off weebs
    We have this discussion every week
    Your anime robots would be useless garbage
    Only mech that would be somewhat useful is spider gun platforms
    On mountains

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Only mech that would be somewhat useful is spider gun platforms
      weebs have those too

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        where is this from?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sora no Woto
          though it's mostly a SoL with only a few scenes with the spider tanks.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every week? We have a thread like this every two days.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >western mechs dominating thread
      >weebs
      Lurk moar.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's no such thing as 'western mechs'.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah legs suck. think about a mech this way. each leg is critical to both the mobility and stability of the mech, which is exactly equivalent to a rotor in a helicopter. except that your rotor is even bigger and easier to hit than a hub with thin spinning blades. and as a mech, you're forced to rely on a pair of them, where the failure of either results in the failure of the whole. it would literally be the v-22 with all its memes about being a deathtrap except with the bonus of having even bigger engine pods and forced to parade itself around at low speed all the time.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/alexander.htm

    McNeil Alexander was able to compute the Froude number for dinosaurs. tl;dr, mechs would walk slower than you'd think.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MOGGED

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      D99 is a great mog. Kronig was a great SNCO

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that scene when Kenny's burning MOG stands back up,opens its wienerpit door ,revealing its burning insides like some gate of hell and starts walking towards him
        kino

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          for the longest time i couldn't tell if this was a mecha or a power armor until i saw the little t-shirt they made that shows the hollowed-out section of the mog's legs

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    future of anti ELID operations

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >gets BTFO by any ATGM
    Look I get you've been playing armored core 6 and got brainwashed, the autistic mecha meme will never happen.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    non war related mech question:
    you know those passive exoskeletons that "transfer weight to the ground," like for helping nurses lift people, how effective are those really? because weight and battery life are the biggest physical limitations for robowaifus, so anything that maximizes efficiency would be really beneficial. at least a few of us would prefer tall and thicc girls over the hollow plastic midgets which are the limit of current robotics, so we're fighting the square cube law too. we're just aiming for 5-6 feet instead of 20 kek

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those things only work for very specific poses. Truly passive ones transfer loads attached to the waist and only work when you've locked your knee joints and the load is somewhere (or close enough) above your two feet. Spring-based ones which allow more movement only work for a specific orientation and fight against you outside of that. They're really only for standing in one place with a heavy load.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mechs
    >power armor
    Custom built for drone bombing and disabling. Nothing like a walking pile of vulnerable joints, artificial muscles, gyroscopes, sensors and cameras for a big ol' 40mm drone bomb, or better yet some cheap FPV with artillery shell attached. Mechs and power armor are already outdated. It would be expensive as hell to make power armor withstand shrapnel from a 40mm, hell even modern tank sensors get fricked up due to shrapnel, and you'll just get FPV'd instead. It's a waste of effort to clad meat people in a tin can. You're better off making autonomous humanoid robots who would at least can argue for the cost, as no human will be harmed if it gets destroyed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Custom built for drone bombing and disabling.
      A soldier in armor is harder to disable than an unarmored one, and a mech is just more armor.
      >It would be expensive as hell to make power armor withstand shrapnel from a 40mm
      that'd be STANAG 4569 level 1 protection, you can armor a car to that level for a couple of grand, and a mech has similar surface area. I think mechs with level 4 or even 5 armor would be possible, but most would probably be closer to level 2 or 3.
      >It's a waste of effort to clad meat people in a tin can.
      You're basically arguing against body armor/helmets at this point. Civilized countries are already having trouble with recruiting enough troops.
      >autonomous
      do you think AGI is right around the corner or do you just not know that ECM exists?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        40mm is a challenge to withstand since you can't armor up tires or joints in a power suit. How would your "armored car" fare in muddy terrain with a popped tire?
        Now if you armor up a dude like a fricking lumbering car cage, you can expect the following to come after him instead:
        >anti-armor 152mm FPV that pops a T-80 frontally for CHEAP
        There is no armor solution to this, you have lost, the drone has won.

        Armored suits are not cheap shit like body armor or helmets, you're talking about making a external robot for every soldier complete with microchips and whatever else battery, hydraulics fluid shit they need to operate. This is the equivalent of adding the cost of a tesla or three for each individual soldier. If you're putting this much tech on a soldier, you're just better off making a humanoid drone instead. DRONE SUPREMACY. You can also put even more armor and survivability on the chasis when you don't need a human operator. Forget humanoid design, how about a spider drone that can walk on the ceiling and pop people with a 45 .ACP?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >adding the cost of a tesla or three for each individual soldier.
          probably less, but even if it were, war is increasingly going in the way of smaller numbers of increasingly highly trained specialists. The person is still going to be more valuable than the equipment.
          >no armor solution to this
          armor increases the required amount of power needed to pop a target, active things like smoke and jamming/chaff reduce the level of precision that power can be delivered with, both of those things increase with size.
          >DRONE SUPREMACY.
          If both sides sit in their bunkers throwing drones at each other, then they are just going to hit stalemate because the signal to noise ratio on the front line will quickly exceed the capacity to of your computer systems to deal with.
          >Forget humanoid design
          humanoid drones would be pretty dumb, please do that.
          >how about a spider drone that can walk on the ceiling and pop people with a 45 .ACP?
          sounds cool, how would it deal with people with helmets on or wearing ponchos that are patterned to frick with its human recognizing software? Also how would you keep them from all just blasting the inevitable decoys that get developed? Also how will they handle it when I spray my door frames with lubricant so they can't get a grip on them when going through them? If they aren't totally autonomous, what sorts of countermeasures do they have against my own drone systems locating the source of its control signal and blowing that up? Can they identify friendlies and civilians? I see a lot of problems with this idea, I think they'd be a niche weapon at best.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You mechgays are diseased. Absolutely nobody in real engineering and military circles takes you seriously.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >be shill
      >too stupid for AMS

  25. 4 weeks ago
    sage

    IM THINKIN ITS HEAVY GEAR TIME

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    big mechs would just be easy targets. They would be lightly armored in order to stand up in the first place. Theres a reason why all MBTs are low profile.

    Small mechs or powered armor will never be a thing. Our battery tech is just too outdated and it just hasn't changed in forever. With only an hour charge you won't be getting far.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can bypass that with a dedicated power armor carrier. Besides making them more strategically mobile and getting them right up to the trenchworks, bunkers, and occupied buildings the carrier also acts as a charger, keeping the power armor topped up right until it's time to fight.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are not, for a couple of reasons

    1.) First and foremost, it assumes that a human shape is most beneficial as a weapon of war. It is not. There is a reason that when going to war we make use of weapons, because we have few naturally. Following that, there is a reason that we use vehicles tailored for a specific purpose in modern war. Mechs as conceived simply do not fill any niche better than modern weapons in any given scenario. Anything you could conceivably use them for would be better suited to other platforms.

    2.) In any conflict reliability is one of the most important factors in the success of a platform. How often does it break down, how many parts are there involved, and how easy is it to repair? It goes without saying, but the mechanics of a functioning mech that can reliably walk, and can be armored in such a way to survive under fire is pure fantasy. It's enough of a pain in the ass to deal with human knee injuries, you're going to try and introduce the logistical nightmare of making sure you have a walking tank eating RPGs moving smoothly? Pure fantasy, this alone relegates them to never ever status.

    Mechs are awesome and I watch mecha anime all the time, but they are just not realistic. I very much believe in the near future once we become adept with energy storage that powered exoskeletons will become the norm, but even then I don't think we will go much into the realm of a highly-armored soldier moving like Mark I Iron Man. There's just not a huge reason to ensure the average soldier can take that kind of punishment when increasingly being hit at all means you are dead.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it assumes that a human shape is most beneficial as a weapon of war.
      does it assume that? I feel like the implied conclusion here is that infantry would be replaced entirely by tanks and other specialized vehicles if budget allowed. That isn't the case.
      >the mechanics of a functioning mech that can reliably walk, and can be armored in such a way to survive under fire is pure fantasy.
      that's not really true, muscle-like actuators have made a lot of improvements over the last few decades are are now being deployed in some commercial applications, not just in the lab. The actual logistical overhead of a mech, once the initial research and development have been completed, wouldn't be that different from other armored vehicles, possibly simpler, depending on the design.
      >There's just not a huge reason to ensure the average soldier can take that kind of punishment when increasingly being hit at all means you are dead.
      that equation more favors a mech than going cheap with infantry, since a mech can pack shitloads of smoke and chaff to make actually hitting it with precision weapons much harder, and have enough armor to make it so that artillery has to land much closer to destroy it. It can also carry more powerful radios to penetrate ECM and control its supporting drone elements, along with more computer systems to help handle the computational load of targeting enemies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >does it assume that? I feel like the implied conclusion here is that infantry would be replaced entirely by tanks and other specialized vehicles if budget allowed. That isn't the case.
        It does assume that, by virtue of using a 50-foot tall person-shaped vehicle. Why is it shaped like a person, with fingers, holding a gun? Why do you think we do not have arms on our tanks? Almost every mecha anime assumes that a human-shaped weapon is useful. That's simply not the case.

        >that's not really true, muscle-like actuators have made a lot of improvements over the last few decades are are now being deployed in some commercial applications, not just in the lab. The actual logistical overhead of a mech, once the initial research and development have been completed, wouldn't be that different from other armored vehicles, possibly simpler, depending on the design.
        You're just using the word "actuator" without going into any detail regarding the engineering nightmare of making a platform that can reliably walk around while supporting TONS of armor and equipment, while itself also being robust enough to operate under fire. The logistical overhead of managing such a device in a war setting is absolutely preposterous and it's not under serious consideration anywhere because it offers literally no benefit for the considerable risks.

        >that equation more favors a mech than going cheap with infantry, since a mech can pack shitloads of smoke and chaff to make actually hitting it with precision weapons much harder, and have enough armor to make it so that artillery has to land much closer to destroy it. It can also carry more powerful radios to penetrate ECM and control its supporting drone elements, along with more computer systems to help handle the computational load of targeting enemies.
        Tanks can pack shitloads of smoke and chaff to make hitting it harder, and it can move faster and be targeted less effectively than a walking tank that will be more lightly armored.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >50-foot tall
          why on the earth would you make a mech that was more than 20 feet tall? I think 12 to 20 feet in height is the range where practical mechs could exist.
          >Why is it shaped like a person, with fingers
          so it can do things other than hold guns. Or change primary weapons quickly as operational demands change. A mech wouldn't be tactically better than a dedicated platform for any specific thing, but in support of other branches it could fill a lot of roles "well enough" and could switch which role it was useful for in seconds instead of hours or potentially days. A unit of mechs which could, in the course of an operation, switch from filling the role of recon, direct fire support for infantry, acting as armored recovery vehicles, digging vehicles for entrenching, to being AA, and back again would be very useful when planning an operation, especially when you are more heavily constrained in what sort of tonnage you can bring.
          >without going into any detail regarding the engineering nightmare
          1. I'm not an engineer, and I'm confident that you aren't either.
          2. I suspect it wouldn't be that much of a nightmare, bipedal locomotion in machines has come a long way recently, and muscle like actuators are surprisingly cheap to manufacture and very simple in terms of how they work.
          >supporting TONS of armor and equipment
          if you're envisioning 50 foot tall 100 ton monstrosities, then yes, that'd be a fricking nightmare for engineering. I'm thinking something about as well armed and a smidge better armored than a BMD, which weighs about 10 tons. Given that a mech would only have a crew of 1, the amount of actual weight in armor would probably be a bit lower, even with the extra needed for limbs.
          >Tanks can pack shitloads of smoke and chaff to make hitting it harder
          mechs wouldn't replace tanks or helicopters or whatever, a mech isn't a walking tank.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >guys a mech could do like a dozen different things
            Yeah. So could a forklift, a jeep, an artillery piece, a cargo truck, an IFV, a MBT, and a handful of drones. All of those things together could be manufactured more cheaply than a mech. Most of the things on the list could even be built by light industry, aka a dad working in his garage with hand tools.

            Mechs are what you get when you have a solution in search of a problem to solve. We have machines that can do all of those things already and are making all of them as efficiently and as cheaply as is reasonable.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >So could a forklift, a jeep, an artillery piece, a cargo truck, an IFV, a MBT, and a handful of drones.
              did you even read what you are replying to? The advantage is on the operational level, not strategic or tactical.
              >All of those things together could be manufactured more cheaply than a mech.
              mechs probably wouldn't be particularly expensive, since most of the machinery inside is going to just be muscle-like actuators, which aren't very expensive to make, and computers and stuff aren't super expensive either. What part of the mech would actually be expensive?

              >why on the earth would you make a mech that was more than 20 feet tall? I think 12 to 20 feet in height is the range where practical mechs could exist.
              Why on Earth would you make it at all? It's not going to be any more realistic to create a 20-foot walking tank than a 50-foot walking tank, they're both going to be pointless.

              >so it can do things other than hold guns. Or change primary weapons quickly as operational demands change.
              Why? Why would you bother having a robot do any of these things? You're just describing one incredibly expensive delicate machine that can't specialize in anything, which is that much easier to render inoperative. It's hard enough to make a robotic hand controlled by a specially-made controller responsive, and you're trying to introduce ever-more complexity and vulnerability for no actual benefit. Anything that the mech can do, a specially made platform can do better, more cheaply, and more effectively while also being safer.

              >1. I'm not an engineer, and I'm confident that you aren't either.
              You're not an engineer, but you also suspect that it wouldn't be a problem despite no evidence to the contrary. Bipedal locomotion in MACHINES has come a long way, under rigid circumstances. Bipedal locomotion in VEHICLES has come literally nowhere in decades, because it's ridiculously complex, expensive, and delicate, and invites numerous problems while also introducing a frickton of risks for the people involved in manuevering it.

              >if you're envisioning 50 foot tall 100 ton monstrosities, then yes, that'd be a fricking nightmare for engineering. I'm thinking something about as well armed and a smidge better armored than a BMD, which weighs about 10 tons.
              Even at 10-tons it's not going to be ambulatory, and it's going to be trivially easy to disable the vehicle. Keep in mind that unlike a BMD, which itself is an incredibly vulnerable vehicle, this thing has to have armored LEGS. It has to walk with this weight.

              >Why would you bother having a robot do any of these things?
              so that you don't need to bring along a specialized vehicle for all of those things, and have it in the right place at the right time, and after its role is fulfilled it's redundant and just has to sit on its thumbs for the rest of the op.
              >You're just describing one incredibly expensive delicate machine
              I doubt a mech would be much more expensive than an IFV, probably cheaper after the first few generations and they become more commonplace.
              >Anything that the mech can do, a specially made platform can do better, more cheaply, and more effectively while also being safer.
              yeah, no shit, but do you even know what operations are? Versatility is often a virtue.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The operational advantage of what we already have is that we have fleets of transports, unloading vehicles and other types of equipment and the infrastructure is already in place to maintain and operate them
                >um ackshually they'd be really cheap to build
                Then build one and prove us all wrong you fricking idiot

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we have fleets of transports
                you have a fleet of transports? I sure don't. Unless you count my two cars and my bike as a fleet.
                >the infrastructure is already in place to maintain and operate them
                so no new equipment will ever be adopted because we don't have infrastructure in place. Gotcha. Now act like I'm the moron for not thinking about how much more mechs would cost because of their novelty, instead of you being the moron for thinking for a second about why your point is moronic to bring up in the first place.

                >mechs probably wouldn't be particularly expensive, since most of the machinery inside is going to just be muscle-like actuators, which aren't very expensive to make, and computers and stuff aren't super expensive either. What part of the mech would actually be expensive?
                Yeah it's just going to have to have functioning legs and fingers when making an uncrewed machine that's humansized do that an extremely difficult feat of engineering, but no big it's going to be much easier and more affordable than fricking treads for some reason.

                >so that you don't need to bring along a specialized vehicle for all of those things, and have it in the right place at the right time, and after its role is fulfilled it's redundant and just has to sit on its thumbs for the rest of the op.
                But WHY, why would you not be bringing a specialized vehicle for all those things? You're absolutely ensuring you're going to be doing whatever you're doing worse than everyone else who is actually preparing for conflict.

                >I doubt a mech would be much more expensive than an IFV, probably cheaper after the first few generations and they become more commonplace.
                Yeah it would absolutely be cheaper to take a BMD but put legs on it, and arms, and make it so that it can somehow translate the pilot's movements inside into precise movements that allow for delicate finger articulation. One of those would probably cost like as much as a BMD.

                >yeah, no shit, but do you even know what operations are? Versatility is often a virtue.
                True, that is why all our jets have flippers, just incase the air turns to water during combat.

                >why would you not be bringing a specialized vehicle for all those things?
                because no one has an unlimited ability to transport things, and if you can it's usually best to use that capacity for other systems or in other places instead of shipping tons of specialist equipment where something else would do well enough.
                >Yeah it's just going to have to have functioning legs and fingers when making an uncrewed machine that's humansized do that an extremely difficult feat of engineering
                let's get on the same page here, do you think it's impossible to make a mech, or just difficult? If you think it's just difficult, do you think that the difficulty is in manufacturing or in design? It seems to me like you're bouncing between different stances to defend your idea that mechs are bad. I agree that the development would require a lot of engineering work, but I don't think that the actual manufacture would be particularly expensive. The problems you describe all seem to be on the development side, rather than actual manufacturing.
                >that is why all our jets have flippers
                no, it's why we use multirole jets and why things like VTOL and STOL are desirable. Operational flexibility is a useful thing, every design requires compromises.
                >One of those would probably cost like as much as a BMD.
                if you exclude the development costs, yes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let me put it this way
                What roles do you think a mech is going to accomplish? Unloading, short distance transport? What else? What do you think is the more likely advancement in the future for this sort of task?
                >vehicles similar to the ones we are using today in an autonomous network that only has to be supervised by a small crew of technicians
                >everyone still does everything manually, but now they're riding baby carriers

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What roles do you think a mech is going to accomplish?
                Direct fire support, Armored recovery, engineering, AT, SHORAD, HIMAD, and a lot of others. What part of your little moron brain can't grasp the notion that having a system that is tactically inferior but more flexible on an operational level is frequently advantageous? That's why multiroles are a thing.
                >What do you think is the more likely advancement in the future for this sort of task?
                how about both? You overestimate the capabilities of autonomous systems and underestimate the feasibility of making a mech for a decent price point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not overestimating the ability of autonomous systems because we already have autonomous cars and storage facilities. Ffs, the tech is already here man, with tech that exists today you could build a 100% integrated logistics network that incorporates every element of transport that starts with a product being loaded onto a transport from the factory and ends with the product being unloaded from a rail depot and trucked out and unpacked on site
                Meanwhile we still haven't seen a bipedal vehicle that can transport a single individual other than some novelty PR stunt

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because no one has an unlimited ability to transport things, and if you can it's usually best to use that capacity for other systems or in other places instead of shipping tons of specialist equipment where something else would do well enough.
                If you can't ship a fricking tank when going into war then you shouldn't be going to war. A mech is going to have to be shipped just like everything else. it's going to take time and money to research, build, field, train, and ultimately apply. The space that mech takes up could be an IFV, why is it better for anything than just making a better IFV?

                >let's get on the same page here, do you think it's impossible to make a mech, or just difficult?
                It is possible to build a mech, in the sense that you could potentially design an armored vehicle that supports a pilot who maneuvers a 10-ton box with huge flipper feet. It is right now impossible to build a 10-ton 20-foot walker with arms and legs which have any fine motor control, that can do anything other than walk in a straight line on flat ground, and which can do anything other than walk. The manufacturing would be extremely expensive because it would require very advanced electronics that can capably allow a pilot inside to maneuever the vehicle with any dexterity at all. Add in the requirement to armor it to protect from even small-arms fire, and it is just plain impossible at present time. Even in a future where technology allows for it, anything it could do could be done better by a different machine.

                >no, it's why we use multirole jets and why things like VTOL and STOL are desirable. Operational flexibility is a useful thing, every design requires compromises.
                False equivalence. You are describing the difference between an IFV and a tank, not a talk and a WALKING tank with arms, fingers, and purpose-made weaponry specifically for said machines. It serves no purpose that isn't better served by a better machine.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A mech is going to have to be shipped just like everything else.
                yeah, but instead of shipping 6 different types of specialist vehicles which each play a small but crucial role in the operation you're planning, you're shipping one, so you can ship more tanks or IFVs. Think of it in that sense.
                >it's going to take time and money to research, build, field, train, and ultimately apply.
                yeah, but that's not the question at hand here. The question is whether they'd be" viable weapons of war", not whether it's sensible for any specific country to crash develop and procure them now. I think a practical mech could start development immediately, but it'd be a few years before you could actually put them in the field. Even if I'm wrong on that front, my point remains that mechs as a weapon of war are *viable*.
                >The manufacturing would be extremely expensive
                electronics aren't expensive these days, not by armored vehicle standards. The dexterity problems you describe are limited by software, not hardware. I'm sure the contractors who build the things would inflate the costs wherever they could, but that's not really what the question is about.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're shipping one
                Vehicles can typically only do one or two jobs at a time. Trying to make a vehicle that can do 20 different jobs is pointless when it can only do like, 2 jobs at a time. At that point you might as well just build a more specialized vehicle.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah, but instead of shipping 6 different types of specialist vehicles which each play a small but crucial role in the operation you're planning, you're shipping one, so you can ship more tanks or IFVs. Think of it in that sense.
                You're shipping one single vehicle that does nothing well. It's a vehicle that by nature is not armored well, does not move very fast, and whose only chief capabilities it surpasses even a cheap IFV better than is in walking over obstacles and picking things up, both of which are NOT important when trying to kill people and hold a location. It's a frickton of effort for no reason.

                >yeah, but that's not the question at hand here. The question is whether they'd be" viable weapons of war", not whether it's sensible for any specific country to crash develop and procure them now. I think a practical mech could start development immediately, but it'd be a few years before you could actually put them in the field. Even if I'm wrong on that front, my point remains that mechs as a weapon of war are *viable*.
                They wouldn't be viable weapons of war because they are outdated by their nature. Is it technically possible to make a weapon of war out of a frisbee? Yes, of course. But would it be at all useful compared to more relevant tools? NO. People have made bikes that have legs instead of wheels, but you're never going to see them used in a race because you use the best tools available.

                >electronics aren't expensive these days, not by armored vehicle standards. The dexterity problems you describe are limited by software, not hardware. I'm sure the contractors who build the things would inflate the costs wherever they could, but that's not really what the question is about.
                Sure anon, it wouldn't be more expensive to design complex limbs that are as agile and dextrous as human equivalents compared to instead of mounting a gun on a metal box and putting tracks on it. Whatever you say bro.

                https://i.imgur.com/CDGamt8.jpg

                I have to reply to you with this image because yours seems to have been put through some sort of filter that muddles it very badly. Otherwise, carry on.

                Thanks fren

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not a talk and a WALKING tank with arms, fingers, and purpose-made weaponry specifically for said machines.
                You're really focusing hard on fingers when weapons could easily be hooked onto external hard points. Stop forcing your strawman.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >mechs probably wouldn't be particularly expensive, since most of the machinery inside is going to just be muscle-like actuators, which aren't very expensive to make, and computers and stuff aren't super expensive either. What part of the mech would actually be expensive?
                Yeah it's just going to have to have functioning legs and fingers when making an uncrewed machine that's humansized do that an extremely difficult feat of engineering, but no big it's going to be much easier and more affordable than fricking treads for some reason.

                >so that you don't need to bring along a specialized vehicle for all of those things, and have it in the right place at the right time, and after its role is fulfilled it's redundant and just has to sit on its thumbs for the rest of the op.
                But WHY, why would you not be bringing a specialized vehicle for all those things? You're absolutely ensuring you're going to be doing whatever you're doing worse than everyone else who is actually preparing for conflict.

                >I doubt a mech would be much more expensive than an IFV, probably cheaper after the first few generations and they become more commonplace.
                Yeah it would absolutely be cheaper to take a BMD but put legs on it, and arms, and make it so that it can somehow translate the pilot's movements inside into precise movements that allow for delicate finger articulation. One of those would probably cost like as much as a BMD.

                >yeah, no shit, but do you even know what operations are? Versatility is often a virtue.
                True, that is why all our jets have flippers, just incase the air turns to water during combat.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah, no shit, but do you even know what operations are? Versatility is often a virtue.
                "alright were gonna be meticulously planning this series of raids, moving and shooting at some very specific things."
                "Hey bring the $5B Mr Hands vehicle just in case, life is like a box of chocolates yknow? He could like hit the enemy witha giant pole! Or like, if the bad guy would be going like *this* and then he would just do this and then this and this!"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why on the earth would you make a mech that was more than 20 feet tall? I think 12 to 20 feet in height is the range where practical mechs could exist.
            Why on Earth would you make it at all? It's not going to be any more realistic to create a 20-foot walking tank than a 50-foot walking tank, they're both going to be pointless.

            >so it can do things other than hold guns. Or change primary weapons quickly as operational demands change.
            Why? Why would you bother having a robot do any of these things? You're just describing one incredibly expensive delicate machine that can't specialize in anything, which is that much easier to render inoperative. It's hard enough to make a robotic hand controlled by a specially-made controller responsive, and you're trying to introduce ever-more complexity and vulnerability for no actual benefit. Anything that the mech can do, a specially made platform can do better, more cheaply, and more effectively while also being safer.

            >1. I'm not an engineer, and I'm confident that you aren't either.
            You're not an engineer, but you also suspect that it wouldn't be a problem despite no evidence to the contrary. Bipedal locomotion in MACHINES has come a long way, under rigid circumstances. Bipedal locomotion in VEHICLES has come literally nowhere in decades, because it's ridiculously complex, expensive, and delicate, and invites numerous problems while also introducing a frickton of risks for the people involved in manuevering it.

            >if you're envisioning 50 foot tall 100 ton monstrosities, then yes, that'd be a fricking nightmare for engineering. I'm thinking something about as well armed and a smidge better armored than a BMD, which weighs about 10 tons.
            Even at 10-tons it's not going to be ambulatory, and it's going to be trivially easy to disable the vehicle. Keep in mind that unlike a BMD, which itself is an incredibly vulnerable vehicle, this thing has to have armored LEGS. It has to walk with this weight.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That isn't the case.
        That absolutely is the case.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have to reply to you with this image because yours seems to have been put through some sort of filter that muddles it very badly. Otherwise, carry on.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      did this xcx art always look this melty

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, see

        https://i.imgur.com/CDGamt8.jpg

        I have to reply to you with this image because yours seems to have been put through some sort of filter that muddles it very badly. Otherwise, carry on.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          thanks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Not reliable
      Big assumption there. It depends entirely on the drive train and how it is built. An eight wheeled armored car is more reliable than a tank, even though the 8x8 has AWD. Aircraft can be fairly simple except they need a lot of maintenance time per flight hour. It is basically an unknown until it is actually built and you can estimate how often hips and knees need to be replaced.

      Also humanoid robots are walking cranes and forklifts that can provide dextrous strength to repair itself and other robots. They're engineering vehicles by default.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Big assumption there. It depends entirely on the drive train and how it is built. An eight wheeled armored car is more reliable than a tank, even though the 8x8 has AWD. Aircraft can be fairly simple except they need a lot of maintenance time per flight hour. It is basically an unknown until it is actually built and you can estimate how often hips and knees need to be replaced.

        It is not unknown how reliable something will be before it is built, when engineering it you can determine with a fair precision how reliable it will be. It is not debatable that a legged fighting vehicle would necessarily be less reliable than a tracked one.

        >Also humanoid robots are walking cranes and forklifts that can provide dextrous strength to repair itself and other robots. They're engineering vehicles by default.

        So they are more delicate and less reliable forklifts with the ability to delicately handle things that do not need to be delicately handled with a hand-shape with any necessity, got it

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. We've already tried to incorporate small mechs and they were considered failures for several reasons, the main being that they were too maintenance heavy and they were too niche to justify their cost.

    Just because you can think of a use for a vehicle, that doesn't mean it's worth having. The Comanche stealth helicopter would've had a niche use as well, but it was too expensive to justify keeping around.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Comanche was killed to free budget. Apache was fine for killing primitives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Comanche unironically would curb stomp in Ukraine (as would F-35).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Comanche was killed to free budget.
        Of which there is a limited amount. The more niche the product the less appealing it is. Mechs are just too niche to justify setting aside money for.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >By late 2015, the Marines had put the LS3 into storage because of limitations with the robot including loud noise, challenges in repairing it if it breaks, and how to integrate it into a traditional Marine patrol. Since 2010, development had cost $42 million total. No future experiments or upgrades are planned, and it would take a new contract and interest from Marine Corps top brass to resurrect the program.
    Not really, no.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with all these 'mechs are multirole!' threads is that they don't understand how multirole vehicles work. An IFV works because an Assault Gun and an APC will both be operating right alongside each other in a similar capacity transporting and supporting infantry. There's no point to having an Assault Gun that is also a forklift because you don't have forklifts operating on the battlefield next to the infantry.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >that is also a forklift because you don't have forklifts operating on the battlefield next to the infantry.
      The HIMARS has a crane that lets it load or unload its pods of missiles directly off the back of a truck, trailer, train car or the ground. And it can offload and reload in only a few minutes.

      If the HIMARS didn't have the built in crane, some other vehicle would have to bring the crane, and it might not be the right crane and the crane operator might never have loaded a HIMARS before. But the HIMARS has a crane and the crew know how to use it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Notice how the HIMARS isn't a mech.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It isn't a tank either. It is half a MLRS but much faster on the road and less likely to break down.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the best use would be as engineering, recovery and logistics vehicles/utilities.
    Other than that no, sadly we ain't living in Metal Gear.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We can't even make them, so of course not.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We have made a few of them, but the military has determined them to be not worth the effort to use so far.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechs viable as weapons of war?

    Yes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Jnc08D6.jpg

      >Loses to people with bows and arrows

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "People".

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's the SAMAS. Just 7 feet tall, highly maneuverable, flying, with a heavy rail gun and a few missiles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Gets knocked out of the sky by the Glitterboy's Boom Cannon as soon as it gets in engagement range.

      The optimum solution is to put wings and thrusters on a Glitterboy.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Human pilots mechs are just non viable. By the end of this century can you imagine how op drones are going to be. The only reason to ever use a human pilot will be because jamming is so sophisticated to make drones difficult to use. Even in that case destroying the jamming first with missiles would be the better option.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do we have “boots on the ground” is there a way to replace this “boots on the ground” I think the best case for any mech or power suit or anything with legs (humans) will be addressing that issue.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechs viable as weapons of war?
    no
    >exosuits/power armor
    yes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't be more efficient in the long term to make the exosuit/power armor just autonomous?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, you want a human in the loop incase the drones encounter something they didn't expect. Having that human nearby and in power armor is a good way to reduce jamming and ELINT exposure.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe smaller ones that can tank a grenade to the legs and still work, and/or handle certain suicide drones. Some level of drone defense that's on the cheaper side for soldiers is very necessary and everyone is racing to figure that out.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      drones can sport cumulative warhead with over 300mm rha and wreak a tank - and humanoid shape is infinitely more complex to armor than a box

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every single day, no, stupid Black person.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why to spend millions of $ to design something with human in it when you can just convert vehicles into drones?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Make drone
      >Send drone hundreds of miles into enemy territory
      >Signal cuts out

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No different to some mechs power supply breaking down. Youll end up sending a tank to rescue it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More like you send out a mech to retrieve a busted tank. Having arms makes unfliping a tank a lot easier.

          But no, if a tank breaks down it can still defend it'self to some degree. The turret can be hand cranked and the MGs don't need power so as long as the crew are willing to fight it'll be fine until help arrives.

          If a drone loses signal anybody can just walk right up and dismantle it.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only useful for indoor fighting, but suicide drones are getting pretty easy to fly inside. If it cant fit through a doorway its worthless

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechs viable as weapons of war?
    They'd rock the shit out of Sentinel Island. Might also be effective at putting down citizen rebellions in no-guns countries.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I stopped arguing with the mechgay since he avoided the crux of the issue when addressing my initial post.
    Like I said before, mechs and powersuits are built for drone bombing and disabling. Nothing like a walking pile of vulnerable joints, artificial muscles, gyroscopes, sensors and cameras for a big ol' 40mm drone bomb. Slapping "more armor" on soldiers won't fix this problem. A suit without sensors is disabled, a damaged limb - disabled. Bring that shit back to boston dynamics or whatever expensive place to repair it.
    Drone bombs are here and they're already destroying tanks by the hundreds, your bulky powersuit that wont fit in a trench and mech are far easier to kill.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Send in drone
      >Enemy activates jammers
      >Drone now useless.
      We don't see this in Ukraine because Russia is incompetent.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We don't see this in Ukraine because the drones can shrug that shit off with a strong enough connection. One needed 10 drone guns just to hold it in place.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Easiest way to keep a connection strong is to keep the range short and that means the controller needs to be right up at the frontline. If you're dudes are on the frontline anyway you might as well put them in power armor.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is that by laminar research?

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only if they are fvcking awesome

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No strategy better than analysis, no tactic better than discipline.
      >And the advantage of strategy and tactics can never be overturned by numbers.
      Great show. Too bad it never went anywhere.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this show was fricking awesome, and I need more episodes.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Alas. 3 years and there's been no sign of Episode 13. Such is the sorrow of a anime fan.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish jannies would start deleting these stupid fricking mech threads. They have nothing to do with this board. You're all moronic homosexuals.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's called Hiding a Thread. Perhaps you should try it.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly I think something like exo skeleton suits or power armor is more likely

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As a combat platform? Certainly. We keep running into situations that demand infantry while also finding things that are more dangerous for infantry. At this rate it's going to be Armored Exoskeletons or treating men as cannon fodder.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If drones nullify everything, what beats the swarms of drones?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ECM

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That can’t be the only way. What happends when they can be autonomous.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then they'll basically be unstoppable

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cardboard cutouts that look like people. Weird-ass paintjobs that frick with recognition software. Flak.

            The future is just swarm vs swarm? Boring.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Frankly, swarm vs swarm would be the end of drones. It would always result in a stalemate and the MIC HATES stalemates.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cardboard cutouts that look like people. Weird-ass paintjobs that frick with recognition software. Flak.

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This thread again...
    >For the 27,537,356,913th time
    Consider suicide, OP.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Whining about a thread
      >Not just hiding a thread and moving on
      Obvious troll is obvious.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you can make a mech, you can make a combat giantess, except the giantess will be better in every way.

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *inhale*
    This weekly thread is funny.

    All the same people in the same thread already avoiding the answered questions from past threads.

    Mechs are not /k/ related. Avoiding the PrepHole part, they're not a vehicle allowed in sports. They are redundant. They suck at construction.
    >muh lore

    /tg/ has nothing to offer /k/
    PrepHole has something to offer, and so does PrepHole, but not /tg/

    Hell even PrepHole has more to offer, and at least PrepHole has punisher/gi joe.

    I would go as far as saying /m/ has more to offer than /tg/ for their military cartoon depictions being somewhat more relevant than some fictional universe where the planets outnumber the tanks said to exist (original Btech numbers).

    So take your walky-bots with magic star trek materials and dozens of holes in the armor (your Orion image) and walk back to /tg/v/.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excavators are mechs, prove me wrong.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice redd|t spacing, ESL homosexual.

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    R8 my lance /k/

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      7/10 get rid of the clanner shit and it'll be a 10/10.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      man t ro 3025 designs stick out like a sore thumb here

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i don't see the fast brawler that fricks up everything in 2 seconds in close range

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the TimberWolf
        Triple Myomer with pulse lasers and a big engine
        Strat has been close distance and snipe the wienerpit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mixing techbases

      Ree, I say.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      too heavy

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe if they could find a good use for countering drones or moving large amounts of kit.

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol these threads suck. There's always a gig autist high schooler desperately defending mechs but they will never happen

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's going to be really funny to watch you eat this post.

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There’s no real reason to adopt mechs because tanks are just better.

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the context of Battletech, mechs make the most sense.
    One of the reasons I love it so much is that it addresses all my objections to mechs.

  59. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you can drone a tank you can drone a mech

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not if you want to keep them nimble, autonomous AI with remotely assigned orders would make more sense at that point

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You will never make a mech faster than a drone, it just wouldnt work

  60. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To the people seriously considering mechs here, have you ever even considered the notion of actually piloting these vehicles? Like just strap your phone to your chest and record, and when playing back imagine sitting in a chair and being subjected to that. If there's even the slightest interruption in stabilization you are going to be fricking miserable in seconds. And just imagine taking any hit that's not glancing to the legs and tumbling down, as basically every creature that has ever walked has experienced multiple times even in infancy. Would you feel comfortable falling 20 fricking feet to the ground? Probably not.

    I fricking love mecha. I've been watching it since I was 10. But it's never going to happen. Just like Star Destroyers, it's cool but not consistent with reality.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Automated mecha are the way to go.

      Crewed shit will be nuked or submitted to saturation bombing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Xenogears a shit.

  61. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't see why not. The US has been successfully deploying Mexs for generations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      okay you got a giggle out of me

  62. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no. treads > wheels > legs for real world functionality. its never going to happen outside of novelty ideas

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