Rela life mechs

WHY NOT you stupid bastard?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Effects look kinda crap for 2020

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's pretty obviously supposed to look like some shit from the 70s

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I tried to make a mask joke

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >"yea dude lets put the operator behind a huge glass window located at center-mass"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It'll be fine.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The robots are for sport combat, not warfare. Visibility is going to be more important than protection since it's not supposed to be lethal combat.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Get in the fricking robot Shenji

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Are you a bad enough dude?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Rela
    >you stupid bastard

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cubed square law is a b***h, and virtually everything on the battlefield can hit and penetrate it. Only plot armor (Gundam) super advanced armor (Battletech) or being made from hyper advanced biotech (Evangelion) makes mechs possible.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What if you put the super advanced armor etc. on tanks instead? The heaviest mechs in Battletech go up to only 100 tons, what if you had a 50-70 ton tank with that same super armor?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > what if you had a 50-70 ton tank with that same super armor?
        So basically the Abrams?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty much? Then again you might as well not apply logic to the Battletech universe at all considering, for example, that 1000 meters is considered "long range"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Battletech TT ranges are intentionally reduced because otherwise you're ending up with mapsheets the size of a warehosue floor and nobody's gonna play that shit.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The problem is that this got applied to the games which makes them feel very dumb

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, seconding what

            Battletech TT ranges are intentionally reduced because otherwise you're ending up with mapsheets the size of a warehosue floor and nobody's gonna play that shit.

            said. The weapon ranges are reduced for playability and game balance, not realism. Have a "long range missile" only fly 1km would be silly otherwise.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        battletech has myomers (funny artificial muscles) that don't fit on tanks and they're the entire reason why mechs are a thing and why they're so major because they can take more weight or whatever.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why not use a better form factor then like some kind of beetle tank? Basically a shell with the legs underneath and a turret on top.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Evangelion is the gayest dumbest shit in the world.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What if mechs had fusion reactors on them that created a strong magnetic field around them that acts like a shield

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You know better.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    because autistic people post about them on the internet instead of going into engineering professions that could actually work on making them real

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      We have the technology to make C&C-style Wolverines and Titans, but nobody pitched it to the DoD.
      God, imagine if the money that went to the LCS went to these?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because there's no point. It would be a maintenance nightmare and get disables by a rifleman

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't your picrel a massive scam?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I know they're hilariously impractical, but imagine the morale boost from dropping a fricking gundam into the combat zone

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Would it be more or less than the moral lost when five RPGs immediately slam into the wienerpit that's 10 meters above the tree line?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    we have them already

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly, killing unnarmed civilians/combatants with a giant robot is extremely awesome, maybe we all should start engineering mechas to kill hobos

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Drac detected

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't arm his local hobos to fight each other
        weak

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The amount of butthurt that man generated will never be rivaled.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Considering that he basically caused the giant chemical spill in Ohio, I think it's warranted.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Trump caused the spill in Ohio
          Based, frick Ohio.
          Still though, elaborate please.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They've been saying he caused it because he rolled back regulations on how many dudes need to be in the locomotive at once. The train that derailed did have the old required amount of guys in it though. I think there was something about brake maintenance regulations also

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The train could have been remotely operated and it would not have made any difference to the condition of axles. Holy shit you are fricking moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm just telling you what's being said amigo

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >how many dudes need to be in the locomotive at once
              Completely unrelated.

              >I think there was something about brake maintenance regulations also
              Yea, ok that would be bad.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Train derailment happened due to axel breaking, not break failure. They are still investigating if it was user error or what caused the axle failure, but trump regulations had no effect on the derailment in east Palestine.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Trump caused the spill in Ohio
            Its deflection from the Rail strike result where Biden made it illegal for Rail workers to protest.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Didn't Trump brag about how he was rolling back federal regulations for ECP brakes despite the fact that the National Train Safety Board recommended them?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn’t matter. The Obama regs didn’t cover ECP brakes for that train anyway.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Those only applied to trains classified as high-risk which need a minimum of 20 cars classed as such. The Ohio train wouldn't not have fallen under the regulation change.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the seething is absolutely fantastic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >will never be rivaled.
        then you don't remember obama in 08

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I remember when every mainstream media outlet, celebrity, teachers, significant number of politicians, and significant number of foreign nations opposed Obama and were extremely upset when he got elected./during his presidency.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I definitely remember the absolute 8 year seethefest from the right

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah the riots, attempts to investigate over what amounted to moronic lies, attempting to impeach him before he even took office. Definitely the same.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The Right spend 8 years saying how Obama would take they're guns. He never did.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Slowly adding stricter gun laws is still taking guns

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >comparing the entire media and entertainment industry freaking out over trump with a couple redneck morons being upset over obama
          Ok

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I remember how butthurt people were about Obama. It's subjective, but I think the crowd butthurt over trump was bigger, or at the very least, louder.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's some sort of weird golden ratio rule where the bigger something gets the amount of material to make it increases exponentially. At least, that's the cope for now.
      >Source: my ass, probably

      Everybody wanna be gangsta til MechaTrump rolls up

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the rich people in charge hate cool fun stuff. they want you to be happy with gay stuff like the meta and electric cars.

      goes incredibly hard.

      https://i.imgur.com/IzEy1BA.jpg

      Behold! A Mech!

      cring

      https://i.imgur.com/gEaOhA0.png

      Why does everyone ignore the fact that Ghana has already unveiled and fielded a Bi-Pedal War Mech in addition to fully functional Power Armor, a highly advanced APC and more? This stuff is a few years old already.

      povverfvl ghana military btfo weak american and chinese paper tigers.

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

      i always like pic related, anyb information to what happem to the proyect?

      recent video where they linked the hand servos to a glove that would provide sensory resistance and also almost full mobility. they dont have a lot of money to work with. profit is fairly slim.

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

      Or this?

      power armor will look like this as munitions become more self guiding and accurate. soldiers will be forced to dig tunnels into cities to occupy. powered armor with excavator equipment will be the future and squads of power armored troops with AT guns will be the norm to support them when the breach enemy tunnels.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because tanks and helicopters exist

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      mechs (of resonable size) have a role in scenarios where the terrain is inaccesible for tanks/wheeled vehicles and constant presence / following of troops is required so a helicopters loiter time is to low or its visibility too high.

      basicly extreme offroad ambush laying, city combat, ad-hoc combat engineering and such.

      when quick hit and run is required over constant presence a helicopter is preferable, and on more vehicle friendly twrrain tanks and ifvs are more effective.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because a tank destroys a mech on the ground and a jet absolutely mogs it in the air. They have no use case.
    >inb4 what about difficult environments
    Helicopters exist

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      i would simply make it immune to and stronger than tanks and jets

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >takes a hit to the knee
    >now your expensive toy has collapsed and is stuck
    >it can’t be towed out or easily field repaired like a de-tracked tank
    >mindblown.jpg when you realize you just wasted 100s of millions, possibly billions, of dollars on a single unit that could easily be incapacitated and offered no advantages when you could have just used the money to buy a bunch of relatively cheap tanks or IFVs

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Armor has been losing against Attack since Man discovered sharpening a stick works wonders against any kind of hide. Your billion-dollar robot *will* get knocked out by a 1000-dollar AP round.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I would shoot a stinger missile to either one of the legs and then what? Does your mecha return home with one leg? If not, you just lost 200 Million dollar investment to the enemy because its center of gravity on 2 legs is worse off than any average car going on 4 wheels.

    Pros of humanoid mecha: you could send it to conditions normal people dont survive in, such as middle east, space, radioactive zones, difficult terrain.

    Cons: you would be screwed without stand up after falling function or coded in drag yourself out of danger to home command. Alsoif the thing has pilot, you would most likely die from the wienerpit falling down as soon as the lecha takes a hit, similar to falling from crane wienerpit. Its vulnerable to any landmines and wires or electricity lines. Would it rust. Where would you hide this from enemy artillery or drone bomb, you cant. Its big and stupid.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it would simply shrug it off with no problem

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ground pressure is a real thing. A mech like in fantasy would be like an infantry switching to stiletto heeled combat boots.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    2300-2450. Ultra compact AM breeder, bout size of a basket ball. 5-8m tall, common combat is orbital and low gravity. Rail, plasma, particle weapons with mid yield nukes. Breeder can be breached for self destruction, 50Mt yield.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The future is not pseudo Gundam. Infinite Warfare maybe, but not Jap small dick/butthurt compensation.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do you consider these mechs?
    Then yes, probably at some point we'll have a specialized suit meant for very specific urban engagements.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      is the game completely dead or what?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      looks like it can roll more than it can walk

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, that's powered armor. A mech should have a wienerpit the operator sits completely inside.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't a 4 legged mech be more practical? Seems much more stable and still has the advantage of going off-road better than a tank.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because its just gonna attract every ATGM within range.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Legs are incredibly easy to immobilize when scaled up that much. There’s no amount of armor that you can add that even light support guns wouldn’t be able to inflict damage on the gaps it needs to move and bend. I’m more partial to the Fallout sentry bot since it uses treads instead of legs, but at that point you already made a tank

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Behold! A Mech!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      okay, but can I get one with an autocannon and atgm instead of a bucket on the end of its tail thingy and use it to try and kill James Bond in the Alps?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't be ridiculous, the autocannon need to be hull mounted for maximum stability and you'll need to mount the ATGM yourself. I think Home Depot has most of the parts you need though.

        Realistically, most spider excavators are really small. I don't think they can even mount a 30mm chaingun.

        How do you armor the appendages enough to withstand modern infantry portable ordnance?

        That's the fun part, you don't. A mech is never going to out tank a tank so we're more likely to see mechs as utility vehicles first and then get co-opted into combat uses. Kind of like the combat bulldozers we used to bury Saddam's men in their trenches.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That's so cool, just strap a atgm or manpad and a .50 cal and it can attack from the mountains, tanks may not be able to retaliate

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How do you armor the appendages enough to withstand modern infantry portable ordnance?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shields.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That doesn't look like a Rela life example.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. And?

  21. 1 year ago
    afatoldman

    Frick off. We've had this thread countless times over the years. Mechs are fantasy.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I want a Hunchback, is that so much to ask?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You already got a Hunchback. You wrecked it trying to answer some Clanner's Batchall.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I prone to the warhammer myself

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        WARHAMMER GOOD.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      refined taste

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >overlapping plates like knights used. enough against shrapnel, smallarms and such. direct rpg hits would of course mangle a joint, but as long as its still attached a stuck leg joint still allows mobility. and joints are small targets similar to how wheels and tracks are small targets. so not too much risk there.mechs could also likely use the same active defense an ifv can use, so that helps with rpg defense.
    Pic rel Only weakpoint is the back of the knees. Similar to how tanks still have roadwheels exposed on the sides.

    >mechs should indeed not be confused with tanks. they are basicly helicopters that can stand and walk instead of hover. so they are for dense terrain where regular vehicles get bogged down and for the cases you want constant vehicle presence there instead of a hit and run helicopter (which is limited by loiter time, but much faster).
    Minor point but a wheeled vehicle would be able to outpace legs on flat ground. It's just a more efficient system when you don't need to use your feet for paddles.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the back of the knee can be armored by a hinged sliding mechanism that was to difficult for medieval armorers. thats not a lot, but better than exposed mechanisms. and a soft sleve of rubberized kevlar to keep dust and dirt out of the mechanism beneath.

      on flat ground that is road like wheels are faster, but as soon as you get urban side streets, loose rocks, uneven forest floors and such the leghs get a benefit. and legs (speaking of natural legs for this comparison as we don't have artificial muscle yet) are no less efficient than wheels when testing animal calorie use vs. vehicle fuel use for the distance and speed. its just that legs are build more for torque and acceleration instead of top speed. so there is an evasion benefit, but for high speed things wheels are better. as long as you have a road like surface. in urban/forest and such scenarios a legged vehicle outpaces conventional vehicles by far as soon as you don't have the option to use the killboxes that are main roads.

      muscles can store energy like a spring does, which makes it energy efficient as the muscle "bounces" instead of doing a full stop every step and having to ramp up from zero. (to feel it yourself: walk with a regular leg swing and compare it with how much more inefficient it is to slowly lift your leg and stomp every step instead. the leg of muscle springyness is why conventional electric mootrs are inefficient for walking machines and why robots today are stompy. without artificial muscle mechs are not resonable)

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Only if it can run super fast like 300 MPH and crush tanks by jumping on them and has modern active protection against missiles and can skip sabots by doing flips and spins

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because of ground pressure. The moment it lifts up one foot to walk it tips over. Bipedal locomotion is the most inefficient method of movement on the planet. The only thing that makes sense is power armour.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The moment it lifts up one foot to walk it tips over
      People do that too, walking is a controlled fall

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Bipedal locomotion is the most inefficient method of movement on the planet.
      If this is true then why are humans such good endurance runners?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because nothing in nature has a wheel

        >The moment it lifts up one foot to walk it tips over
        People do that too, walking is a controlled fall

        People don't cost billions of dollars and need solid plates of steel covering the entire length of their body which will all be wrote off and made useless when they slip and fall. A mech falling onto one of its weapons makes it a giant useless turd.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          a mech that is build sturdy enough to move about upright would survive falling over like we or any other animal does. its not great, but not a big deal usualy.
          if your mech is as flimsy as a glass bone senior, it would not be usefull in any terrain and is basicly just an animatronic.
          so thats a non scenario.
          same goes for weapons: a weapon that can withstand the pressure of its payload necessarily has some mechanical stability to itself.

          a knight in armor that falls over can get up no problem too.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >a weapon that can withstand the pressure of its payload necessarily has some mechanical stability to itself.
            It will bend under the pressures of a 100+ ton hunk of steel falling over into the ground with it. People break their bones falling over.
            >b-but super steel!
            Then just make takes and their penetrators out of your wonderful space metal instead to have a more cost efficient platform with a lower profile.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              i'm not talking about super steel, and building a 100 ton mech would defeat its use in any case. the use case for mechs is dense terrain where vehicles are bogged down: cities, forrests, mountains, mud and such. the scale of these areas requires any mech (if its roughly human proportioned) to be smaller than 7 meters to fit through there and be able to take cover. this, together with an human like proportion, would limit the weight to a few dozen tons. heavier than an ifv, but much lighter than a mbt.

              humans only brake things if we fall unfortunately and don't manage to control our fall. and even less so if we wear protective gear. a human motion controlled mech is likely able to fall in a controlled manner to (not like a toy that simply tilts over) and its armor basicly is protective gear already.
              weapons for a mech would likely be shoulder mounted, in teh head position, in a position that replaces arms or handheld (if the gun where to be bolted to teh arm without a hand, the whole arm could be skipped for a direct shoulder socket mount). so the weapons are unlilely to be in the way of falling in general, or would be movable enough to be turned to the side during falling.
              infantry usualy don't just keel over onto a gun held out straight either. neither would a mech that has a control system taht makes it terrain capable in the first place.
              thats all within the regular limits of steel and composits.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                mechs depend on there being artificial muscle (which is already in development) in the first place for movement. regular electric motors are inefficient at back and forth motions (instead of spinning) so they have a bad power to weight ratio for leg usage when compared even to natural muscle. pneumatics are to janky, and hydraulics weigh too much as they are full of liquid. with artificial muscle, which allows mechs to be build in the first place, you get something in the power to weight ratio that can hold its own with normal materials and power sources.

                dinosaurs where in the feasable mech tonnage range and ran of bone, muscle and leaves. so its definetly physicaly doable.

                https://dinoanimals.com/dinosaurs/the-heaviest-dinosaurs-top-10/

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Any larger than power armour, and shit even probably power armour, and
                >cities:
                fall through basements and can't climb debris/rubble any better than tracked or wheeled vehicles
                >forests:
                uneven ground pressure, greater fall risk, stuck in mind
                >mountains:
                no advantage here over wheels or tracks which can comfortably climb rather steep inclines, anywhere you have a tip hazard for a vehicle you have the same issue on a biped
                >mud:
                2 feet is a far worse pressure profile than tracks or depressurized wheels

                >w-well just make it smaller
                Armour
                Weapons
                The ability to move under its own power

                Pick 2. Why make a mech when you can just have an automated robot dog with a .50cal on it and an RPG

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >fall through basements and can't climb debris/rubble any better than tracked or wheeled vehicles
                Actually, if mechs develop as an offshoot of excavators such as

                https://i.imgur.com/IzEy1BA.jpg

                Behold! A Mech!

                then they'd likely be far better at handling rough terrain than a tank. In fact, merely having arms means that a mech could clear the debris rather than trying to climb over or plow through it.
                >uneven ground pressure, greater fall risk, stuck in mind
                >no advantage here over wheels or tracks which can comfortably climb rather steep inclines, anywhere you have a tip hazard for a vehicle you have the same issue on a biped
                Again, see spider excavator. You can extend one leg but keep another collapsed to keep the vehicle level and thus stable.
                >2 feet is a far worse pressure profile than tracks or depressurized wheels
                Which doesn't matter because of how treads and wheels get stuck in the mud. For legs, the entire foot acts like a giant paddle to move the vehicle forwards while lifting the entire foot means the next step can be outside the current mudpit .

                >Armour
                >Weapons
                >The ability to move under its own power
                Oh definitely armor and mobility. Mechs aren't going to out-tank a tank and I think we made that pretty clear here

                https://i.imgur.com/SdxmcB9.jpg

                Don't be ridiculous, the autocannon need to be hull mounted for maximum stability and you'll need to mount the ATGM yourself. I think Home Depot has most of the parts you need though.

                Realistically, most spider excavators are really small. I don't think they can even mount a 30mm chaingun.
                [...]
                That's the fun part, you don't. A mech is never going to out tank a tank so we're more likely to see mechs as utility vehicles first and then get co-opted into combat uses. Kind of like the combat bulldozers we used to bury Saddam's men in their trenches.

                https://i.imgur.com/IzEy1BA.jpg

                Behold! A Mech!

                [...]

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Quadrupeds are even more mechanically complex and difficult to armour. They have zero combat usage in a war.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit. If we're talking moving parts then treads are the worst by far. Any one of those links jam or break and the tank is immobile.

                >Which doesn't matter because of how treads and wheels get stuck in the mud. For legs, the entire foot acts like a giant paddle to move the vehicle forwards while lifting the entire foot means the next step can be outside the current mudpit .
                What the frick are you smoking. Do you have even an elementary understanding of physics?

                Do you? It sounds like you're just repeating GROUND PRESSURE, GROUND PRESSURE REEEE and never actually understanding why that's relevant.

                So what happens when a tank is stuck in the mud? The mud is molded to the front of the tread creating a small, nearly frictionless hill the tank keeps trying to climb but doesn't have the traction do do so. The more the engine revs the more the treads throw mud.

                So what happens when legs sink into the mud? Well you lift one foot entirely out of the mud, move it forwards, and put it down. Rinse and repeat.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are moronic. I'm not going to bother talking to a moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Gotcha, didn't I.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are 14 years old and moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You really didn't know anything besides repeating "Ground Pressure" did you?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are 14 years old and moronic.

                >gets btfo
                >instant crying and name calling
                kek treadheads seething

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Treads are super simple. One wheel with spikes that you power that pulls the tracks, another adjustable wheel for tension, a suitable number of road wheels with suspension and maybe dampening and of course the track itself, which is basically just a whole bunch solid track parts connected with huge metal pins.
                Treads can take a whole lot more punishment than any wheel and if it did get cut or otherwise damaged then the tank will have spare links and track parts with it and since it's so simple they can easily just fix it by themselves on the field. Same with road wheels and even suspension arms but usually spare ones will have to be brought up from the rear.
                t. Tank conscript that has done all of this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Which doesn't matter because of how treads and wheels get stuck in the mud. For legs, the entire foot acts like a giant paddle to move the vehicle forwards while lifting the entire foot means the next step can be outside the current mudpit .
                What the frick are you smoking. Do you have even an elementary understanding of physics?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                a mech with a resonable weight far less than 100 tons (max size 7 meters tall with titanfall/patlabor proportions) would not break through basements. especialy as it does not enter buildings but is able to maneuver through streets, over fences, over public stairs and walls, through narrow alleys and such.

                uneven ground pressure does not matter if you compress the place you stand on enough to have secure footing. and getting stuck in mud would require being deeper in the mud than the mech can raise its leg for a step (at least mech knee height, which would be somewhere in between one and two meters).

                tracks can only climb hard surface steep inclines. as soon as tehre is loose rocks, its a slide backwards. same with mud. legs can dig in and in teh worst case a mech can crawl or climb.

                elephants have worse groundpressure than tanks, but are happy in mudpits. groundpressure for legs is a non issue as long as you don't cause floor cave ins and your step is higher than the mud is deep.

                mechs of the usefull size of between 3 and 7 meters (smaller would be powerarmor, larger would not fit in the areas where legs are usefull) can feasably carry at least mrap level armor (and probably a bit more for the larger mechs) and ifv (handheld) or attack helicopter (shouldermount) weaponry while being pretty mobile.

                >fall through basements and can't climb debris/rubble any better than tracked or wheeled vehicles
                Actually, if mechs develop as an offshoot of excavators such as [...]
                then they'd likely be far better at handling rough terrain than a tank. In fact, merely having arms means that a mech could clear the debris rather than trying to climb over or plow through it.
                >uneven ground pressure, greater fall risk, stuck in mind
                >no advantage here over wheels or tracks which can comfortably climb rather steep inclines, anywhere you have a tip hazard for a vehicle you have the same issue on a biped
                Again, see spider excavator. You can extend one leg but keep another collapsed to keep the vehicle level and thus stable.
                >2 feet is a far worse pressure profile than tracks or depressurized wheels
                Which doesn't matter because of how treads and wheels get stuck in the mud. For legs, the entire foot acts like a giant paddle to move the vehicle forwards while lifting the entire foot means the next step can be outside the current mudpit .

                >Armour
                >Weapons
                >The ability to move under its own power
                Oh definitely armor and mobility. Mechs aren't going to out-tank a tank and I think we made that pretty clear here[...][...]
                [...]

                thank you for being resonable.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Honest question, will mechs or power armor look more like this…

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Or this?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                this, in any case. a mech would furthermore not have a head, but only an armored camera gimble (with maybe a gun linked to it, like a eye tracking helicopter chin gun).

                [...]
                >small mechs shorter than a house, specificaly made to use the mobility advantage of legs in dense (urban, forest, mountain) terrain make sense. huge mechs and open field mechs are moronic.
                at that point you may as well have power armor which is still stupid but actually can have some application.

                >dense/rugged terrain
                I see this argument a lot as a justification for mechs, I will say that anywhere an armored vehicle cant go (mountain sides, swamps), a mech of the same tonnage cant either and would perform even worse as they would have a lot more ground pressure than any armored vehicle increasing the chances the vehicle will get stuck or even worse suffer something exclusive to the mech, tripping which could cause even more damage and possibly break its legs.

                >a mech can probably crawl into cover better tahn a tank with a blown tread.
                that entirely depends on whether this thing has arms and is even capable of moving like a person or animal. In addition to that sure he can crawl into cover then what? unlike a mech its easier to repair the treads of a tank than repair the legs of a mech or have a large vehicle carrying an entire intact leg, this is not something that is feasible out in the field and because of that you will have to develop a brand new form of armored recovery vehicle specifically for a mech, and if this thing is in the supposed dense operational terrain then thats not happening it'll have to be abandoned.

                >overlapping plates like knights used. enough against shrapnel, smallarms and such. direct rpg hits would of course mangle a joint, but as long as its still attached a stuck leg joint still allows mobility.
                see above also
                >not having any kind of protection from the one thing most likely to hit the mech
                not going to go far, and unlike other armored vehicles this 7 meter tall monstrosity cant even take cover.

                next post will have better alternatives.

                power armor is for ultra heavy infantry and combat engineering. it can make for very sturdy breaching front men, eod suits and for single person squad weapon carriers.
                mechs are the more sturdy step above that can carry vehicle weapons on their own.
                power armor by being doable with the same tech as mechs and by being less niche as teh human body is already something we have to accomodate, would be far more widespread than mechs though indeed.

                ground pressure is not as much of an issue as one might think, as deep footprints are mostly irrelevant for anything with legs. a wheel/track has to dig itself out of the footprint, a leg can simply be raised. horses and elephants have worse groundpressure than tanks but are more terrain capable. so do we.

                tripping to a reasonably build mech is not more dangerous to it than it is to any other healthy animal including us. thats managable.

                even without arms, a crawl is possible (though more difficult). and from cover the mech can ready its weapons and fight back as opposed as doing so from open out of cover. a mech that is terrain capable enough to be field worthy at all would likely have legs with similar ranges of motion to a human leg (or any other healthy animals leg. its pretty much teh same rough system because it works) so it could move with damage. a mechs joint is effectively a simple hing structure. the wiring is wiring. the degree of damage to the artificial muscle isthe most difficult to repair damage, as it would require replacing the damaged muscle. but similar to ah human leg, one can put bracing around the joint to stiffen it and thereby allow the mech to move to a better repair location. the center of gravity of the mech should be designed in a way that it can stand up on its own.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Lol, no, not even in space or orbital combat. Shit on it for its many reasons, but Infinite Warfare got quite a bit right sans the FTL and other exotics. Anon, mecha as conceived by the Aps, and a degree, everyone else, is image for product promotion only. If you pull from Gundam, use the Ball at least.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              nah the mech is more powerful than the tank

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And humans are several magnitudes better with a bicycle than on foot.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why does everyone ignore the fact that Ghana has already unveiled and fielded a Bi-Pedal War Mech in addition to fully functional Power Armor, a highly advanced APC and more? This stuff is a few years old already.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Camoflaged Folgers cans and motorcycles helmets do not count as power armor.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks thats just bicycle helmets
        stupid white man fooled by appearances

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      did they really believe anyone would buy this as legit? ive seen articles written in the years since that frame it as some kind of tongue in cheek just having fun thing but as I remember it at the time it was done with full seriousness.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It was done by a cult who was trying to grift the Ghana government. It wasn’t an official project.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why does this dumb thread appear every couple of weeks

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weebs desperately wanting their mechashit to be real and are incapable of understanding basic physics

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone picked up Phantom Brigade? Any good?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's good but bland. Like a plate of nothing but cornbread. No butter, no meat, not veggies, just cornbread. Of course I'm going to eat it, I love corn bread, but I'm left wishing there was something more.

      +Lots of customizations for armaments
      +Engaging tactical puzzles
      +Often overwhelming odds and chaotic situations with lots of tools for figuring things out.
      -/+AI can be hillariously bad
      -Story monotone
      -Basically no characters
      -Player can see everything the enemy will do making combat a bit too easy.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    4 meter tall mechs would be extremely good for handling logistics and creating fortifications. Maybe fire support with big guns if there's cover available. Only thing they need is a cheap, reliable power source.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Solve your masculinity problem before discussing about military gears.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i always like pic related, anyb information to what happem to the proyect?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it was basicly a pr stunt novelty ride and can only move forward and not steer under its own power.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It takes a lot of powered moving parts to make a mech move, and if any one of them fails, the limb it's attached to basically becomes dead weight. You can basically figure that each leg has one motor per degree of freedom per joint, so about seven major actuators are needed for each one. A main battle tank with active gun stabilization has roughly five moving parts to make it work. And all of this is ignoring the ever important question of "literally why would you want one on the battlefield?"

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A six legged mech conquered mars by itself, what now practicalvehiclegays?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Mars rovers are glorified remote controlled golf carts with a suspension system that never gets used outside of Mars.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        planet conquering remote controlled golf carts.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >small mechs shorter than a house, specificaly made to use the mobility advantage of legs in dense (urban, forest, mountain) terrain make sense. huge mechs and open field mechs are moronic.
    at that point you may as well have power armor which is still stupid but actually can have some application.

    >dense/rugged terrain
    I see this argument a lot as a justification for mechs, I will say that anywhere an armored vehicle cant go (mountain sides, swamps), a mech of the same tonnage cant either and would perform even worse as they would have a lot more ground pressure than any armored vehicle increasing the chances the vehicle will get stuck or even worse suffer something exclusive to the mech, tripping which could cause even more damage and possibly break its legs.

    >a mech can probably crawl into cover better tahn a tank with a blown tread.
    that entirely depends on whether this thing has arms and is even capable of moving like a person or animal. In addition to that sure he can crawl into cover then what? unlike a mech its easier to repair the treads of a tank than repair the legs of a mech or have a large vehicle carrying an entire intact leg, this is not something that is feasible out in the field and because of that you will have to develop a brand new form of armored recovery vehicle specifically for a mech, and if this thing is in the supposed dense operational terrain then thats not happening it'll have to be abandoned.

    >overlapping plates like knights used. enough against shrapnel, smallarms and such. direct rpg hits would of course mangle a joint, but as long as its still attached a stuck leg joint still allows mobility.
    see above also
    >not having any kind of protection from the one thing most likely to hit the mech
    not going to go far, and unlike other armored vehicles this 7 meter tall monstrosity cant even take cover.

    next post will have better alternatives.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      for support in rough terrain you are better off with lighter vehicles capable of mounting heavy machine guns, and maybe recoilless rifles for direct fire support. if even thats too heavy then we fall back on one of mankinds oldest infantry support option: horse

      no I dont mean like actual cavalry although pretty based seeing guys on horseback with modern rifles and such, but i mean horses and mules with packs loaded with crew served weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars, rockets UAVs, etc that the infantry can have set up and ready as needed which if they are setting up an ambush or preparing to assault something they should have the time to do so. given that if they cant move heavier assets for support to the position, neither can the guys your fighting which means it comes down to how fortified the enemy position is and what kind of support they have. this is like a worst case scenario obviously and im not suggesting we abandon all vehicles to return to horse this is in the event we cant get any vehicle into this supposed inhospitable terrain.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >dense operational terrain
      a tank in said terrain is far more vulnerable and less recoverable than a mech.

      and letting a vehicle move anywhere without using the situational awareness equipment it has is suicidal in any case. a mechs infatry like range of motion and viewpoint gives it an edge over conventional vehicles in dense terrain.

      the armor of the joints would of course be the slimmest, as it would need to allow for movement. this armor would protect teh joint from infantry guns, near hits and such though. the main plates can be sturdier. joints are also teh smallest target, and are moving a lot with every step the mech takes, so they are the most difficult part to hit.

      the 7 meter height was specificaly (and i said that) dependant on teh mech having human proportions. similar to a patlabor or a titanfall titan. this rather slim form would allow for movement in most forests and between building and allow a crouched height of about 3-4 meters witha a kneeling hight below 3 meters. thats the biggest a mech could be with any use case left.
      stockier mechs would have to be shorter to the degree of not exceding the footprint of the "7 meter tall humanoid" model.
      battlemechs are not good mech designs in any case.

      and a mech can carry the same active protection system as any other ifv.

      for support in rough terrain you are better off with lighter vehicles capable of mounting heavy machine guns, and maybe recoilless rifles for direct fire support. if even thats too heavy then we fall back on one of mankinds oldest infantry support option: horse

      no I dont mean like actual cavalry although pretty based seeing guys on horseback with modern rifles and such, but i mean horses and mules with packs loaded with crew served weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars, rockets UAVs, etc that the infantry can have set up and ready as needed which if they are setting up an ambush or preparing to assault something they should have the time to do so. given that if they cant move heavier assets for support to the position, neither can the guys your fighting which means it comes down to how fortified the enemy position is and what kind of support they have. this is like a worst case scenario obviously and im not suggesting we abandon all vehicles to return to horse this is in the event we cant get any vehicle into this supposed inhospitable terrain.

      in your case you would have to park the light vehicles ones things are to ruff and can not move the things you unloaded from the pack animals. a mech / power armor (depending on how dense the terrainis) can bring the vehicle level of protection and firepower to the enemy directly. tahts a huge advantage. you can have a mobile firing platform in areas where only infantry was before instead of static positions.
      this also improve sthe ambush-hit-run capability of forces as they are far more mobile while not having to disassemble and lug their anti armor weapons for any position change.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'll make this simple, and it's right from the Real Life Gundam at Yokohama Base:

    It's literally too fricking big and heavy to have any kind of reliable motion. Even human scale robots are in their infancy and can't perform regular tasks that people expect a mecha to do. The giant moving gundam is a literal puppet on a huge internal body controlled with a very delicate system that is dressed up to look like a life scale gundam.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    post favorite mecha franchises
    mine is front mission

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It has all the disadvantages of power armor but worse.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      solving artificial muscle is a prerequisit for both, as conventional elöectric motors are very inefficient for back and forth motion and can't store energy as springs. motors are more for constant spinning.
      muscles are great at back and forth motion and can store energy like a spring. this also fixes the power consumption and weight issue, as that is caused by the use of use case ineffective motors.

      with that, power armor is very effective for ultra heavy infantry and enngineering jobs.
      and mechs can bring vehicle firepower and protection into areas where previously only infantry and pack mules could enter (while staying with the troops instead of being a short term assist like a helicopter)

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are very complex with many break points.
    Each limb, each joint in the limb must be able to carry the weight of the whole mech at eccentric positions (you surely want your mech to be able to bent its knees) and dynamic momentums (you surely want your mech to move faster than a crane arm).

    Small power armor or humanoid robots have their uses in environmentes meant for humans, such as interiors of buildings, but for anything else you're better off with the existing concepts of limb-less mechs called tanks, helicopters, jets, etc.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It has all the disadvantages of power armor but worse.

      see

      https://i.imgur.com/IzEy1BA.jpg

      Behold! A Mech!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the carrying of weightand vibration resistance is doable, especialy when electroasctive polymer can be used instead of rigid motors.

      for open field and drivable territoty, conventional vehicles are supperior. complexity wise, a helicopters totor and a mech limbs don't make much of a difference. a helicopter is faster, but has a limitzed loiter time. mechs can stay with troops. so a mech is a niche vehicle that can bring ifv level firepower into previously infantry only places (city streets, forests, mountains, mud) without the short time limit of a helicopter is very usefull.
      helicopters are for quick call in instead. power armor is for the less heavy and less niche stuff.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Power Armor would be superior for combat roles but the existence of spider excavators suggests that mechs might have utility uses.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          for most things and general use power armor is better. mechs are for when you need heavier firepower than a team of powerarmored soldiers can field in a mobile manner. basicly weaponry of attack helicopters and heavier ifvs, while power armor makes crew served weapons a single person weapon and regular ifv weapons the crew served one.

          self propeled gun crawler systems that are directed by a power armored crew would work too.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            As a general rule you don't want to drag a mech into battle but if you do you can improve it's durability with a mech scale riot shield.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              thats a double moronic take.
              on open battlefields a mech is useless, but on dense terrain battles it has a mobility (not being bogged down) advantage and thereby usefull.
              on such terrain, a huge lumbering shield is as useless as it was for the romans in the forest of germany. a small shield for cover extension may work, but you'd be most often better equiped with better weapons or just higher mobility instead.

              only for riot control, where you don't want to kill the enemy, is a shield reasonable. but at that point, the shield would be there to protect police infantry and therefore rather thin. with a heavy slab for a riot control mech the mobility is reduced to the degree that an armored car would just be better.

              in dense terrain battle, legs are very usefull.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mechs aren't going to be an effective combat platform to tanks in the open or power armor in close quarters. They're best use is as utility vehicles and for that portable cover is more useful than more guns.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                mechs can definetly fight tanks when used correctly: mechs have unparalel mobility compared to other ground vehicles in shitty terrain, meaning mechs can set and wait on chokepoints where tanks have to take a road or be extremely slow. there a mech can set up an ambush and detroy a tank with a missle or two.

                mechs are supperior for that compared to infantry as the weapon system is fire ready without long setups, able to move directly and carry more ammo. similar to an attack helicopter fighting a tank, but with the ability to stand and wait for the tank to arrive instead of having to time a fly in from an airfield.

                in a fight vs powerarmored troops it depends on how well dug in teh powerarmor is. otherwise the heavier weapons and armor give the mech an advantage. if the mech does not check its surroundings and blindly walks into being encircled, the powerarmor wins.
                in combined arms, mech+ power armor beats just more powerarmor.

                for portable cover utility you would not use a mech but a robot that is just a crawling shield with legs and grip for a soldier to steer it. if you want to speak non combat utility, it would be pioneering and field engineering. basicly the role of:

                https://i.imgur.com/IzEy1BA.jpg

                Behold! A Mech!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >mechs can definetly fight tanks when used correctly: mechs have unparalel mobility compared to other ground vehicles in shitty terrain, meaning mechs can set and wait on chokepoints where tanks have to take a road or be extremely slow. there a mech can set up an ambush and detroy a tank with a missle or two.
                Power armor would be superior in this regard. It's smaller and harder to detect. You can also mount them on vehicles for rapid transport. A mech transport would need to be larger than a tank.

                This also applies to urban and forrested areas where power armor can sneak up on mechs, being both harder to detect and able to move through smaller gaps than a mech can. The additional firepower power armor can carry would also be enough to pierce a mechs relatively thin armor. 40mm HEDP can already penetrate 6 cm of steel while still being effective against infantry and we can consider this a standard weapon for powered armor.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                mechs are not designed as tanks. they are weapons platforms. their armor is more of a safety regard aftermeausure. mechs can carry helicopter and heavy ifv weaponry, giving the superior ranged and multi targt capability as opposed to power armor that must get close.
                mechs can also pack more sensors than powerarmor, giving them a detection range advantage (that extends to detecting power armor).
                mech are not voideogame melee range monsters, they are walking helicopter weapon plattforms or oversized gun infantry.
                letting a mech bumble forward has the same result as letting anything bumble forward: being ambushed.
                power armor is a more often resonable tool indeed, but mechs have a definite use case in the heavy firepower for dense terrain.
                the armor just has to be thick enough (and include an active protection system in the best case) to survive general anti infantry/ powerarmor weaponry. ads should help against infantry rpg's.
                for the other cases, terrain mobility, firing range, cover useage and sophisticated sensors are the main defense mechanisms.

                smaller mechs (landmate size) and power armor is way better suited for closer ranges. the tall (max height of 7 meters ) mech is best used as a weapons plattform. in between the landmate and 7 meters size point there is some room for a classic humanoid weapon wielding mech.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is the best thing, morons wanna say mechs could never be real but we use them for mining and logging in terrain normal vehicles couldn't traverse already. Airplanes didn't start as fighter jets, and even in Batlletech game lore there were I.C.E. engine mecha for industrial purposes before myomers were invented

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of issues like others anons said, from armor, physics, weight, the material used for making the mech, to a bunch of Blacks with rocket launchers will shut down your 100 million toy.
    After you fix those issues, you still got the biggest one, energy source. In theory you could fix a lot of the issues from armor to Blacks with rpgs with a shield generator, but the power source will need to be something small, but in the same time very powerful, almost endless energy, if your robot remain without power in the middle of combat, is just scraps. So see you in 1-2 centuries.
    The most realist thing you will see in your lifetime will be a kind of exo suit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      like if said multiple times this thread already:: the requirement for mechs and powerarmor is artificial muscle. even 100 ton dinosaurs where able to run of leaves as fuel.
      the power and weight issue stem,s from regular spinning electric motors being inefficient with back forth motion (like legs do them) while being unable to store energy like a spring (as our muscles can do. most of our step is actualy a bounce rather than a start from zero).

      and a mech is no more in danger of rpgs than any other vehicle with situational awareness, weapons and maybe even an active defense system. in fact, a mech is less in danger as a regular vehicle: a regular vehicle has to stick to resonable good terrain or city roads, so there is a chokepoint that can be set up for am ambush. a mech can shimmy through side streats and walk across worse terrain, especially in forests, so it is way harder to anticipate or requires far more men to secure an area. thats a tactical win over regular vehicles in these scenarios.

      on good terrain a mech is not better against ambushes than a regular vehicle, and on good terrain a regular vehicle is not bogged down so it would be the better option.

      no magic tech needed.

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    MURICA, FRICK YEAH!

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bipedal mechs are stupid and have no purpose in warfare. Quadrupedal mechs might have a very niche use as infantry support in very rough terrain, but they'd be very lightly armored.

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >as ai control is to risky or stupid
    That's not true at all, boston dynamics already has AI control of legs figured out.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      under controled circumstances. and with just a basic "step there if possible" system that just manages to work in safe scenarios.

      having a situational awareness to mind your step instead of taking the nearest possible step without scenario consideration (ground stability, forward thinking tactics, tactics that include targets, civilians and allies) is a much more difficult thing to consider.

      for a lack of imediate surrounding awareness just compare bigdog to a mule. bigdog moves far worse. and thats for out of comabt scenarios

      and for tactic relevant proactive combat maneuvers you either need excessive controls to ghet the system to do what the pilot wants if you have current level ai, which is therefore prone to error. or you need ai that can guess tactical choices, which gets very dangerous with accountability, false actions or even terminator scenarios.

      so the main control is better given by a full body haptic suit that just scales up human movement and gives scaled down feedback. algorythms for balance improvement can then be implemented on top of the direct control.

      the boston dynamic dance and parkour videos are the best try of thousands and run on scripted paths.

      Bipedal mechs are stupid and have no purpose in warfare. Quadrupedal mechs might have a very niche use as infantry support in very rough terrain, but they'd be very lightly armored.

      on the largest possible mechs, going for a gorilla (motion controlled) or crab (automatic walking) design makes sense. for slightly more nimble lighter platforms an ostrich design makes sense.
      humanoid mechs have a use if you want situational versatility for operations that require combat and pioneering or when a very mobile gun mount for cover use (as in handheld) is usefull. single purpose build mechs would of course outclass the generlalized one in more predicatable situations.

      Treads are super simple. One wheel with spikes that you power that pulls the tracks, another adjustable wheel for tension, a suitable number of road wheels with suspension and maybe dampening and of course the track itself, which is basically just a whole bunch solid track parts connected with huge metal pins.
      Treads can take a whole lot more punishment than any wheel and if it did get cut or otherwise damaged then the tank will have spare links and track parts with it and since it's so simple they can easily just fix it by themselves on the field. Same with road wheels and even suspension arms but usually spare ones will have to be brought up from the rear.
      t. Tank conscript that has done all of this.

      when feasable, treads are preferable indeed. as are other conventional vehicles. there are enough scenarios where treads get bogged down though where legs give an advantage. thats the use case for mechs/walkers. otherwise ists conventional vehicles by a long shot.

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    how the frick is this stupid thread still up
    is this board so fricking abandoned threads last 3 full days?
    lolol

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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