Never >Slower speed >More complicated and fragile >Carries less weight
The only advantage hypothetical would be for navigating extremely dense terrain like jungles or mountains, but helicopters can do all that a lot faster
speed >than what?
anything on wheels or tracks >>More complicated and fragile >A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
wheels and tracks do the same with less complicated designs
less weight >than what?
wheels and tracks
>than what
Wheels or tracks >A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
But a bow offers advantages over a rock, what advantage does a mechanical leg offer over wheels/track >Carries less weight
than what?
Your mom's ass.
just add boosters to the tank too then retard
tanks have a better aerodynamic shape anyway
practically a side-ways aerofoil
imagine airdrifting a tank at 300km/h while hitting s i c k 360 nostab APFSDS shots
>slowe speed >slower than wheels or tracks
humans are slower than wheeled or tracked vehicles >more fragile
a man can die just by falling over >carries less weight
haha, yeah, people are just casually moving literal tons of gear on their 2 gay ass little legs.
unironicly YES, this is why we use so many derivitives of wheeled vehicle
>he answer has never changed.
the "answer" is just a bunch of fags confidently spouting hypotheticals
nobody has ever built a mech.
Because every Sci-fi has some justification of why the Mech has a special feature no other armored vehicle can do - Minovski Particles, GN particles, Myomer fibre supposedly being 6x more effective than hydraulics
>than what
Wheels or tracks >A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
But a bow offers advantages over a rock, what advantage does a mechanical leg offer over wheels/track >Carries less weight
than what?
Your mom's ass.
>A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
A bow has multiple benefits over a rock.
You've failed to mention a single benefit a bipedal mech has over a wheeled, tracked or flying vehicle, or even a quadruped mech.
No 'looking cool' is not a valid response.
>Slower speed
Maybe if you're in a hovercraft >More complicated and fragile
Fixed by myomer and ablative armor >carries less weight
Doesn't matter when I can put all that weight on top of your Vee
this
If you can make one, you can use the same technology to make a wheel/track/rotor vehicle into something better than the mech.
Verification not required.
>Slower speed
Code:geass already fixed this will HEELY WHEELS >more complicated and fragile
in exchange for better mobility >carries less weight
I think hydraulics would do pretty well in that regard actually
>more complicated and fragile >in exchange for better mobility
not really besides a few exceptions
>small but powerful power source
exists >missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets
exist >new tactics to justify
use the brain bone
verification not required
>small but powerful power source >exists
nuclear so not really an option
>Than what?
What more cost-efficient alternatives
>A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
A bow has multiple benefits over a rock.
You've failed to mention a single benefit a bipedal mech has over a wheeled, tracked or flying vehicle, or even a quadruped mech.
No 'looking cool' is not a valid response.
>You've failed to mention a single benefit a bipedal mech has over a wheeled, tracked or flying vehicle, or even a quadruped mech.
moving in very bad terrain
where did you get the idea that tracks can't handle hills or that higher ground pressure causes less soil damage than lower ground pressure
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah I don't get it either. The literal point of ecotracks is to distribute the ground pressure of the conventional wheels over a wider area with lower peaks when offroad, minimize soil damage, and protect the tires from damage and wear.
when socioeconomic and technological factors make war into more like a sport where the rule of cool is central to doctrine. dont know if you would call it war but we do have some precedent like those jousting armors that are only made for jousting in a more safer manner but are impractical on a real battlefield
Try double chaingun and the 10-cell missile launchers on each shoulder, or alternatively, double plasma pistols, or a plasma pistol and a hand missile launcher.
Then try that on the light tank.
>small but powerful power source
exists >missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets
exist >new tactics to justify
use the brain bone
verification not required
FTL is genuinely more plausible than anime style Kaiju fighting giga-mechs. At least we have a theoretical framework for how FTL might work, whereas any technology that might enable bipedal mechs just makes tracks and wheels even better >muh magic light weight armor
sure would look good on a gavin >muh magic super high density power source
laser gavin >muh mobility
5000 horsepower gavin
This question has been repeated on forums, and image-boards, abound for over 20 years and the answer has never changed. It's almost nostalgic seeing them now. I expect to still see these threads on my death bed with the same answer as always.
plenty of people have built mechs from Boston Dynamic's Atlas to that Japanese Jaeger they built for a game show. Nobody has ever *militarized* a mech because it's a stupid idea and institutional purchasing committees tend to ask awkward, mech destroying questions like "what if we put the same armor, powerplant and armament on wheels or tracks"
Therein lies the rub. It’s not that mechs are impossible to build, or even that they wouldn’t be useful. It’s that anything they can do would be done as well or better by something that already exists and is approximately a Brazillion times cheaper
Weapons will only get smaller and smaller. Its probably some sort of universal principle: as weapons get better bigger things become a worse and worse idea. We're practically at the point where anything can be blown up as soon as we spot it. The only defense is stealth and that'll be easier for small things.
Mechs will exist but they'll only be used for bloodsport in the mech arenas.
>We're practically at the point where anything can be blown up as soon as we spot it. The only defense is stealth and that'll be easier for small things.
Not only do we need to invent something to prevent easy usage of long-range munitions but for mecha to be a viable weapons platform, other than what I said in
When we developed the following:
1. A small but powerful power source.
2. Missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets.
3. New tactics to justify their usage.
and in >
Melee in the event there's no ammunition.
, they need to be 3-4 meters tall, have wheels for long-distance travel and easy maneuvering, and can jump off a transport plane like a C-5 Galaxy.
Unironically still makes you more maneuverable because the legs act like custom real time suspension control, except far more pronounced.
A roller blader will always be more maneuverable than a gocart driver (assuming comparable skill and speeds) for the same reason.
what fucking world do you live in where meat is cheap? birth rates are plummeting and training costs skyrocketing, meat is precious. Meat gains experience. Keep the meat alive. Do not make cubes of meat.
If we see mechs they're going to be engineering vehicles more than combat ones. Think of a combination excavator-forklift.
Powered exoskeletons, on the other hand, is almost inevitable. We haven't found a way to replace infantry and airburst munitions are getting more and more common.
Weapons will only get smaller and smaller. Its probably some sort of universal principle: as weapons get better bigger things become a worse and worse idea. We're practically at the point where anything can be blown up as soon as we spot it. The only defense is stealth and that'll be easier for small things.
Mechs will exist but they'll only be used for bloodsport in the mech arenas.
Good to see they've gotten the bottom section of the robo-emus operational. Now they just need to finish the top portion and we can get the second Emu war started
When OP stops being a gay
I can't wait that long
Never
>Slower speed
>More complicated and fragile
>Carries less weight
The only advantage hypothetical would be for navigating extremely dense terrain like jungles or mountains, but helicopters can do all that a lot faster
>slower speed
than what?
>More complicated and fragile
A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
>Carries less weight
than what?
Mechhaters really are braindead in their lack of passion.
speed
>than what?
anything on wheels or tracks
>>More complicated and fragile
>A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
wheels and tracks do the same with less complicated designs
less weight
>than what?
wheels and tracks
Amputate legs
>anything on wheels or tracks
just add boosters to the mech
nobody cares about mecha without boosters, the idea sucks
you need a really powerful gas turbine to power one anyway, might as well use the bleed air for something
you could boost a ~15 ton mech with an F-35 engine while still powering it
just add boosters to the tank too then retard
tanks have a better aerodynamic shape anyway
practically a side-ways aerofoil
imagine airdrifting a tank at 300km/h while hitting s i c k 360 nostab APFSDS shots
anime powered tank is so much fun in armored core 6
>slowe speed
>slower than wheels or tracks
humans are slower than wheeled or tracked vehicles
>more fragile
a man can die just by falling over
>carries less weight
haha, yeah, people are just casually moving literal tons of gear on their 2 gay ass little legs.
unironicly YES, this is why we use so many derivitives of wheeled vehicle
Because every Sci-fi has some justification of why the Mech has a special feature no other armored vehicle can do - Minovski Particles, GN particles, Myomer fibre supposedly being 6x more effective than hydraulics
>than what
Wheels or tracks
>A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
But a bow offers advantages over a rock, what advantage does a mechanical leg offer over wheels/track
>Carries less weight
than what?
Your mom's ass.
>Than what?
What more cost-efficient alternatives
>A bow is more complex and fragile than a rock
A bow has multiple benefits over a rock.
You've failed to mention a single benefit a bipedal mech has over a wheeled, tracked or flying vehicle, or even a quadruped mech.
No 'looking cool' is not a valid response.
>Slower speed
Maybe if you're in a hovercraft
>More complicated and fragile
Fixed by myomer and ablative armor
>carries less weight
Doesn't matter when I can put all that weight on top of your Vee
this
If you can make one, you can use the same technology to make a wheel/track/rotor vehicle into something better than the mech.
Verification not required.
>Slower speed
Code:geass already fixed this will HEELY WHEELS
>more complicated and fragile
in exchange for better mobility
>carries less weight
I think hydraulics would do pretty well in that regard actually
>more complicated and fragile
>in exchange for better mobility
not really besides a few exceptions
>small but powerful power source
>exists
nuclear so not really an option
>You've failed to mention a single benefit a bipedal mech has over a wheeled, tracked or flying vehicle, or even a quadruped mech.
moving in very bad terrain
notice how despite this 16 year old 360p video of a walker prototype nobody is actually using giant spider mechs a decade and a half later
because the technology still didn't progress to make anything better
but a military mech like that would be useful for countries with lots of hills
the spider can walk on steep hills and doesn't ruin the forest soil
where did you get the idea that tracks can't handle hills or that higher ground pressure causes less soil damage than lower ground pressure
Yeah I don't get it either. The literal point of ecotracks is to distribute the ground pressure of the conventional wheels over a wider area with lower peaks when offroad, minimize soil damage, and protect the tires from damage and wear.
Isn't that literally accomplished the same with pic related but more complicated?
>Code:geass already fixed this will HEELY WHEELS
Armored Trooper Votoms came out 24 years before Code:Geass and made extensive use of heely wheels.
And the Dom had hover feet in 1979.
All I know about Code Geese is that /d/ meme from a decade ago
>I recognize that bulge!
>When can we actually start seeing bipedal mechs on the battlefield?
Now
bipedal flesh automatons have been on battlefields for millenia
When we find an answer to the question: "What problem are you solving by making a bipedal mech over a conventional vehicle?"
White Glint is a jobber
when socioeconomic and technological factors make war into more like a sport where the rule of cool is central to doctrine. dont know if you would call it war but we do have some precedent like those jousting armors that are only made for jousting in a more safer manner but are impractical on a real battlefield
>where the rule of cool is central to doctrine
like germans?
>"What problem are you solving by making a bipedal mech over a conventional vehicle?"
intimidation
Africans beat everyone to it, western military industrial complex is in disarray
you need similar selection pressures for war vehicles as the pressure making peacocks have useless feathers for everything but procreating
..so..you're saying we need to make bipedal mechs able to fuck/fuckable?
>bipedal mechs
LOL, LMAO even
KALI YUGA
>When can we actually start seeing bipedal mechs on the battlefield?
We don't have to, we can get these instead
Cool guntonk-like mech, what game is that
Armored Core 6
Try double chaingun and the 10-cell missile launchers on each shoulder, or alternatively, double plasma pistols, or a plasma pistol and a hand missile launcher.
Then try that on the light tank.
>Not naming it the LARPard 2
One job, Anon.
When we developed the following:
1. A small but powerful power source.
2. Missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets.
3. New tactics to justify their usage.
>too slow
>OP posts a mech that flies as fast as a jet
>2. Missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets.
You mean like the Javelin?
>small but powerful power source
exists
>missiles capable of hitting both ground and air targets
exist
>new tactics to justify
use the brain bone
verification not required
Power transmission from a rotary combustion engine is simpler than legs.
I guess you could run a hydraulic/air compressor on gasoline. Still seems inefficient.
power armor might be viable given a small but powerful power source, but at bigger scale wheels and tracks work better.
there's really no reason why the same tech that would make gundam or mechwarrior powerful couldn't have been used for tanks and planes as well.
FTL is genuinely more plausible than anime style Kaiju fighting giga-mechs. At least we have a theoretical framework for how FTL might work, whereas any technology that might enable bipedal mechs just makes tracks and wheels even better
>muh magic light weight armor
sure would look good on a gavin
>muh magic super high density power source
laser gavin
>muh mobility
5000 horsepower gavin
>FTL is genuinely more plausible than anime style Kaiju fighting giga-mechs.
there are more types of mechs in all sizes you fucking retard
I split off big boy mechs because I think power armor sized mechs might actually have niche use cases like EOD disposal and logistics
When can we actually start to expect /m/ to stay on their board with their silly Chinese puppet shows?
This question has been repeated on forums, and image-boards, abound for over 20 years and the answer has never changed. It's almost nostalgic seeing them now. I expect to still see these threads on my death bed with the same answer as always.
>he answer has never changed.
the "answer" is just a bunch of fags confidently spouting hypotheticals
nobody has ever built a mech.
plenty of people have built mechs from Boston Dynamic's Atlas to that Japanese Jaeger they built for a game show. Nobody has ever *militarized* a mech because it's a stupid idea and institutional purchasing committees tend to ask awkward, mech destroying questions like "what if we put the same armor, powerplant and armament on wheels or tracks"
Therein lies the rub. It’s not that mechs are impossible to build, or even that they wouldn’t be useful. It’s that anything they can do would be done as well or better by something that already exists and is approximately a Brazillion times cheaper
50-100 years
monkeys paw: they are for digging holes and unloading cargo, not fighting
what would a mech do that armored vehicles and aircraft don't already do better?
looking cool as fuck doesn't count
Melee in the event there's no ammunition.
>melee combat
>21st century and beyond
lol
lmao
lmfao
>We're practically at the point where anything can be blown up as soon as we spot it. The only defense is stealth and that'll be easier for small things.
Not only do we need to invent something to prevent easy usage of long-range munitions but for mecha to be a viable weapons platform, other than what I said in
and in >
, they need to be 3-4 meters tall, have wheels for long-distance travel and easy maneuvering, and can jump off a transport plane like a C-5 Galaxy.
that iranian general was killed by a rocket drone hitting him with a sword
Why give it legs if it's just going to wheel everywhere?
Unironically still makes you more maneuverable because the legs act like custom real time suspension control, except far more pronounced.
A roller blader will always be more maneuverable than a gocart driver (assuming comparable skill and speeds) for the same reason.
Once all battlefields in the world are covered by 3 meters of concrete with a layer of steel on top.
Never on a large scale, meat is cheap. They might get used for niche roles somewhere at some point but will always be too expensive to replace meat.
what fucking world do you live in where meat is cheap? birth rates are plummeting and training costs skyrocketing, meat is precious. Meat gains experience. Keep the meat alive. Do not make cubes of meat.
If we see mechs they're going to be engineering vehicles more than combat ones. Think of a combination excavator-forklift.
Powered exoskeletons, on the other hand, is almost inevitable. We haven't found a way to replace infantry and airburst munitions are getting more and more common.
I like BTs more than ACs.
ACs are too animu bullshit.
Weapons will only get smaller and smaller. Its probably some sort of universal principle: as weapons get better bigger things become a worse and worse idea. We're practically at the point where anything can be blown up as soon as we spot it. The only defense is stealth and that'll be easier for small things.
Mechs will exist but they'll only be used for bloodsport in the mech arenas.
>here's your battle mech bro.
Locust my beloved:
Good to see they've gotten the bottom section of the robo-emus operational. Now they just need to finish the top portion and we can get the second Emu war started