For this post, I will define "mechs" as "a military vehicle that uses legs for locomotion" (note that humans aren't vehicles of course).Also note that for the sake of brevity, I will be lumping "wheeled and tracked" vehicles together and will simply call them "wheeled". For most of history, mechs have been dismissed out of hand as anything but a childish fantasy and for good reasons.1. Wheels are far superior to legs under ideal circumstances.2. Vehicles with legs are bound to have a taller profile, leading to issues with avoiding detection.3. The legs of any "mech" would be an obvious and easy to exploit weakspot.4. There are no niches available for mechs to fill that traditional wheeled platforms don't already perform better.However, with the way warfare seem to be developing, I wanted to question if the future might be far more mech friendly than we think.1. While wheels are indeed superior under ideal circumstances, warring parties will generally want to make sure that the conditions on the battlefield are as far from ideal as possible. Things like the Surovikin line come to mind, and that's before we take things like mines, mud or snow into consideration. In a battlefield that can be rapidly re-shaped by modern machines, wheeled platforms seem to be losing their edge somewhat, although this is admittedly not a deciding factor by itself (they will still get to the front far faster for example)2. Visibility concerns are changing more than any other perhaps. On the modern battlefield, denying the enemy's recon assets seem to be a much more important deciding factor in whether or not you can avoid being targeted. It doesn't matter if your machine is 3 or 6 meters tall if a $500 drone picks it up from the sky. Indirect fires are also becoming far more common against point targets as opposed to the grid-deleting artillery of old and in fact a vehicle on two legs are LESS visible when viewed from above than a traditional wheeled vehicle. (cont.)
...3. The old concern about legs as weakspots seem to be less of a factor as well. Modern ATGMs, artillery and guided munitions hit their targets from above, completely foregoing the old fashioned weakspot targeting process (or rather, the top of the vehicle is one big weakspot). We don't have tanks and AT guns shooting at turret rings and I'm willing to bet that not a single tank has aimed at the lower front plate of any tank since this war has began. The few instances of direct fire, vehicle on vehicle combat have always shown that crew will target the enemy's SENSORS before anything else. Your no.1 priority is to stop that thing from shooting at you, destroying it is a secondary concern. If mechs became a thing, the battlefield of the near future would rarely allow the enemy to target the leg with a precise munition, and tracks are just as vulnerable to high-yield explosions nearby.4. Finally, with military machines of all sorts becoming more common and smaller, it's becoming more important to provide infantry units with a reliable heavy weapons carrier that can keep up with them on ALL terrain, even on rugged, jagged rocks and deep forests. You don't really need a 4 men crewed vehicle to take out drones and loitering munitions, a 1 man exo-skeleton/mechanical walker armed with a 50 cal with targeting assistance could do the job just fine. Such platforms could also carry indirect fire ATGM launchers to further put the heat on tanks and APCS. Thus, in my opinion, there is now a valid niche for such systems. I'm not saying that Mechs are going to replace tanks and DEFINITELY not that they will even be a thing any time soon...but I predict that the second half of the century will see the rise of the military walker. Thoughts?
>>61980450>/k/ is a board devoted to weapons and military equipment>implying war mechs aren't /k/ related You have to go back.
>>61980444no. what's changed that would make them more viable?>>61980476>redditor cant understand that a board specifically about a topic is more appropriate than a board tangential to a topicmechs are also vehicles, why not post this to /o/ as well?
>>61980444>>61980453What, single, technological development can you think of that would be an absolute necessity for mecha wouldn't just be far more efficient and effective as an upgrade for non anime based conventional war machines?
>>61980444counterpoint: if terrain is an issue why not just use a helicopter?or a plane?flying is unironically less complicated that walking. just look at how much LIDAR and fancy gyroscopes Boston Dynamics had to cram into their robots for them to still awkwardly stumble on a flat ground.
>>61980515The main limiting factor would be energy supply and effective operational time. The realistic military walker, as I've described, would be a weapon support platform attached to Light Infantry units to protect them from drones and armor.It wouldn't be an upgrade as much as a new thing: currently, vehicles can't keep up with infantry on all terrains. A realistic walker could.The technology is there, we can already make similar machines and the usefulness is also there: If you want a platform that gives Light Infantry extra punching power and protect them from specific threats, both the material and manpower costs as well as the logistics footprint would be much smaller for such vehicles, thus doing a more efficient job than a Gepard for example. Furthermore, because our new Mech is cheaper than a 4-man vehicle, it is also a less inviting target, causing a similar cost/benefit problem for some missiles that are currently shooting down tanks that surface to air missiles have with drones: The missile costs more than the target.Finally, even if the enemy was to doctrinally target the legs, that would also be the doctrine that would ensure a very high survival rate for operators, as a leg is completely detached from the squishy human.To be clear I imagine them as small as possible and operating with a terrain feature between them and the bad guys most of the time (shooting down drones, launching missiles).The biggest question is going to be battery life. Aforementioned Light Infantry units have to be able to operate independently for extended periods of time, if this thing ran out of juice 6 hours in it wouldn't be able to fulfill its purpose. However, if it could operate at low-intensity for 2 days, I reckon it would see some serious use. Soldiers of 4-chan, wouldn't you love having one of these things close behind to shoot down pesky things that need guns that are too big for you? In a place where normal vehicles couldn't accompany you?
>>61980648Because a helicopter would get picked up by radar and is a very expensive asset. It also has much more limited operational time than a tin can that just stands around on standby until a drone or tank needs shooting. It's something you call as needed, rather than it being with you, ready at a moments notice. As for the technical limitations you've mentioned: that is why I made it clear that this is not the tech of the next war. Interest, investment and innovation would need to take place. Just look at the first tanks, they were laughably clumsy compared to modern ones.
knees > vents
>>61980698wdym?
>>61980444No. Next thread please.
>>61980739Got something to say or just gonna be a jerk for no reason?
oh boy I sure love seeing this stupid ass thread every day.
>>61980712/tg/ retardismiykyk
>>61980444>no micro nuclear reactor or super batteries existThey still aren't viable or any closer to being so
>>61980753Nope, not gonna bother, your post is full of contradictions and intellectual dishonesty, and you're just going to reply back with more of the same, why bother?
>>61980649>The main limiting factor would be energy supply and effective operational time.My point exactly. The tech that would be an absolute necessity to make mecha anything more than a weeaboos dream would be infinitely more useful making more conventional military vehicles 1000x better than they are at the moment.
>>61980753Why bother when you're just gonna remake the thread with slightly different wording as soon as this one falls off the board?
The response is the same as your last 15 threads in a row.No.I'm not sure if these are just low effort slide threads or just a /m/aggot autist who's desperately trying to make their autistic hobby "real", in either case the only thing you're accomplishing is making /k/ go from "mechs are cool but silly" to "is that ANOTHER mech thread? Reeeeee fuck off fuck off aAHHH"I suppose it could be some 900 IQ mech hater false flagging... But that seems like a stretch even for the kinds of autists who post here regularly.
>>61980648Hover tanks have all the advantages of a mech and none of the downsides.>Strafing>Any terrain>Go over water?>Can hover up or down for cover>No limbs to damage, no tracks to hit>Hover right over (non magnetic) tank mines, just hover at a higher altitude if magnetic mines>Makes cool vwoovwoovwooo scifi noisesWhat's that? There's no such thing as magical antigrav hover tech? Huh. Well there's also no such thing as magical robot muscle fiber to make mechs work too, so they're tied.
Drones are making them even less viable than ever
>>61980951Or maybe - instead of magical hovertanks or mecha - we could just focus on the next generation of man portable anti-tank missiles. If my ATGM cannot discuss the mythic poetry of the western tradition with me before I fire it then clearly there is more work needed in machine intelligence.
>>61980444>Thoughts?I think you left out the biggest problem: competition from drones or robots.Let's pretend that technology has advanced to the point that we could build sci-fi style mechs. Why would we hold back their design by putting a human pilot inside? Imagine how much better the mech could be if it's not limited by the range of motion and need to protect the squishy meatbag piloting it? And for that matter, how much better could it be if the engineers had total free form for designing it, instead of having to make it shaped like a bipedal humanoid?>>61980664>is a very expensive asset.A mech is FAR more complex than a helicopter, and is therefore FAR more costly.
>>61980951>shoot>violently accelerates backards with no way to stop
>>61980847What are you talking about? What kind of dishonesty? If you told me I was wrong about something I would understand that. But Dishonesty? Dafuq?>>61980875>>61980904This is my 2nd post on 4chan wtf are you on about?Alright, I'm detecting that you guys have a vendetta against someone who's been annoying you with this for ages. I literally just thought about asking about this on 4 Chan after Perun's latest video (that came out today) where this was jokingly mentioned. I was hoping this place would be appropriate for finding someone who could debate this topic on merits (such as the guy who said that better power supply would make other things more viable, I would love to talk to that guy, but sadly, the rest of you chimps are in the way).I am not a weeaboo, I watched 3 animes in my entire life. I was being entirely serious and I simply asked questions, ready to be disproven. Instead, you guys act like a bunch of 14 year olds. If this was Reddit I wouldn't even be surprised, but I was kinda hoping there would be a few ppl on 4 chan at least who are capable of holding a human conversation without the overwhelming need to act like complete dickholes.Don't worry, I won't be annoying you with anything anymore. Enjoy your own echo chamber and just know you aren't any better than Reddit: same shit, different colour.
>>61980992Lurk moar before posting. Mechs ain't happening. Power armor on the other hand? Maybe.
>mechfag gets banned from /k/ and comes back to shit up /tg/btg/>mechfag gets banned from /tg/ and goes to shit up /k/
>>61980976>Shoot>Your cannon is still only a fraction of the total weight of your tank, start moving backwards slowly>Tank fires it's rear booster for a second and stops the movementOf all the downsides that one is already solved with current tech anon, there's no reason you couldn't just have an automated recoil dampening system to make thrusters/hover shit/whatever activate on firing to absorb the recoil.>>61980963Robot autist claims that man portable missiles will be useless against mechs because... ??? Magic presumably.Thus the same logic can be applied to magical hover tonk.Personally I think the next step isn't so much better man portable missiles as man portable EW, probably as a designated "that guy gets to carry the fuckhuge EW backpack" thing and eventually becoming something small enough everyone can have their own dedicated EW/Comms system. Man portable missiles seem like they're mostly just held back by weight of propellant and explosive charge right now, even with better computers or AI guidance they're still limited by those two factors the most.
>>61980992>This is my 2nd post on 4chan>unironic newfaglurk moar faggot
>>61981080>Your cannon is still only a fraction of the total weight of your tank,That is not how recoil works
>>61980444Mechs being used in an engineering role (clear obstacles, cross rivers due to Its taller height) that can also defend itself doesn't seem like a bad idea.
>>61980444Why is it always mechs? If we're going to fantasize about unrealistic military equipment wouldn't combat giantesses be more fun?
>countries will never waste billions on pointless weapon systems just because they look coo-
>>61980444The God Emperor can't protect you from the flies of Tzeentch
Pressurized suits will be useful in the civilian world way before they get used in the military. You could do a lot with a clean room industrial mover suit.
>>61980444Yes, but not as combat vehicles. We've been slowly marching towards "Giant Construction Robot" for some time now. However, let me reply to your points.!. Electrically driven wheels at the feet of a mech. 2. Legs can bend making vehicle height variable.3. Not all mechs have legs and treads and wheels are also very vulnerable.4. Stretch the legs out and you'll have more stability than any tank.
>>61981080>that guy gets to carry the fuckhuge EW backpackand suddenly every other man in the platoon remembers that one time he did a favour for the designated EW Mule.
>>61981626I always figured the EW mule would end up a specialist position, not just carting around a jammer but also doing SIGINT, using handheld directional jammers, or even jamming comms for infantry. Then again, maybe Arma 3:Contact gave me some weird ideas.
>>61980444Every thread made sets the technology back fifty years.
In the offchance that you are not the same guy that makes this thread literally every day (I doubt it):>>619804441.) Nothing about the surovikin line, mud, mines, or snow give absolutely any advantage to legs over a tracked vehicle. Tracked vehicles are more stable, less complex, cheaper, and more evenly distribute weight. You don't mention this but you also bring up that they are faster, which is undoubtably true.2.) Indirect fire being more common does not make mechs more useful, it simply means they are even less useful than one that can be more easily defended and hidden with a low profile. This is like arguing that camouflaging vehicles is a waste of time because they can still be spotted by advanced equipment.3.) Modern ATGMs are shooting at tanks from above precisely because they are well armored on the front and low to the ground. If the tank had to worry about legs as a form of locomotion it would necessarily limit the amount of armor both on the top and bottom purely for locomotion and stabilization. This is to say nothing of the crew inside the vehicle. Modern tanks when struck by weapons can cau8se injuries from the concussive force. Now imagine the entire crew experiencing a fall from 15 feet inside of a metal box, which would be more common than a tank losing a tread.4.) There is no rugged terrain where a tracked vehicle would do worse than a walking tank. It simply does not exist. What you are proposing is simply a complete waste of time. There is no imaginary walker that would fare better than a tank in any of these scenarios, it's a total fantasy
>>61980649>The technology is there, we can already make similar machines and the usefulness is also there: If you want a platform that gives Light Infantry extra punching power and protect them from specific threats, both the material and manpower costs as well as the logistics footprint would be much smaller for such vehicles, thus doing a more efficient job than a Gepard for example.It absolutely would not. You're talking about a crewed vehicle that has to be able to walk. That is necessarily going to be an extraordinarily complex vehicle with a huge amount of issues supplying and maintaining it logistically, for basically no benefit at all. It is slower than a traditional tracked vehicle, less armored, and though I'm not a mech engineer I would be totally fucking bewildered if it weren't also wildly inefficient from a fuel standpoint. How would you even transport these things around? >Finally, even if the enemy was to doctrinally target the legs, that would also be the doctrine that would ensure a very high survival rate for operators, as a leg is completely detached from the squishy human.What? How tall are you envisioning this thing is? Even if it's just six feet in the air imagine being strapped into a seat and dropped six feet, let me know how you feel. I absolutely 100000% guarantee you feel worse than you would if you threw a track in an IFV.
>>61982277Firstly, nice digits. Secondly, that is clearly the kind of job you'll only catch if the sergeant hates you and your entire family. I was probably a little over the top when I said that everyone would remember that favour you owed them, they're all going to be staring at the horizon the moment you start talking about how nice it would be if anybody else carried a single piece of your full on electronics store worth of kit.
>>61982327>I'm not a mech engineer I would be totally fucking bewildered if it weren't also wildly inefficient from a fuel standpoint.I am a Mech E. Yes, it would be wildly inefficient. In two ways. First would simply be fuel consumption. Second is how much space the locomotion system occupies within the vehicle. The drivetrain of a tank, truck, bulldozer, etc, occupies relatively little space within the vehicle. Arms and legs and their associated joints, actuators, sensors, etc, waste a ton of space which could otherwise be used for things like fuel, batteries, ammunition, or weapons.
>>61980444Y'know, I really enjoy /btk/ threads. Y'all focus more on the weapons and lore side of things than on gameplay, and those are the parts that I most appreciate about the game. But it's not necessary to keep one up all the time. A couple times a month is plenty, and is less likely to annoy everyone who isn't as interested.>>61980992Big if true. Thing is, we *just* had a thread, and a thread before that one, and the OP in both insisted that real-life mecha would be superior to tanks and helicopters, and used justification from BT that was explicitly created around "big stompy robots" and which invented a whole series of fictional technologies, from impenetrable ablative armor to slow FTL to heavy spaceship life support systems to make mechs the best general-purpose platforms (and even then, there were plenty of niches for vehicles).>>61981015This. As long as we're reliant upon squishy bodies to do our ground-level fighting, ways to protect them and increase their firepower are useful. Thus, power armor would be viable if we could lick the power and actuation issues that have hampered every suit developed so far. Mecha, on the other hand, have too many drawbacks compared to simple metal bawkses with wheels or treads, and their few advantages (mostly mobility) can be largely achieved with... power armor. So, there just isn't much room for mechs on a real-world battlefield.Now, of course, one alternate possibility that might wreck everything is semi-autonomous drone swarms of various sizes, in which case warfare gets downright scary and extremely difficult to wargame or predict.
>>61982463Get.fucking.helpYou are seriously deranged, stop posting these threads. Stay in containment >>>/m/ I know your not goingnto and your just going to post another 3 mecha threads tomorrow. But all the same, fuck off, not welcome.
>>61980509>implying there isn't overlap >implying a board that specializes in weapons can't help with making mechs a reality (i.e. the Boston Dynamics dog with conventional AT weapons) >Implying Casval Deikum isn't the most /k/ antagonist (because we can't have a cool space SS protagonist because COSMIC EUGENICS IS LE BAD!)>implying you're not a peener puffing pooftaKys faggot.
>>61984138cease postingfriendly fire anon, you're hitting someone who's on your side
>>61980951>all of the advantagesThey don't have power fists and are not giant walking cathedrals, checkmate tankfags.
>>61984454Titans are possibly the gayest mechs of all. Fucking cartoony retarded goofballs that wouldn't look out of place being a rubber costume getting it's shit slapped by Godzilla.
>>61980444Reposting this thread is not a substitute for taking your medication.>>61980698picrel, have a you
>>61984631See, you say that like it's a bad thing, but now all I can think of is why don't we have a WH40k super sentai show.
>>61984711Because lots of 40kfags specifically Imperium shills unironically think themselves as le heckin based fandom despite being the /pol/ of science fiction.
>>61980509>a board specifically about a topic is more appropriate than a board tangential to a topic/m/ is the mecha board, not the mech board. I'm autistic enough to know the distinction between western mechs and mecha anime/games, trust me. If anything OP's post belongs more in /tg/ because he's posting a tabletop model instead of a realistic artist's depiction of a mech, but he's actively discussing the potential viability of mechs as IRL weapons so it's still somewhat /k/ related>>61980767>filter the word "mech">never have to see these threads againIt's really that easy.
>>61981315Imagine the blood mushrooms.
>>61980739Fuck off
>>61980992They're faggots just ignore them. They didn't share the shooty robot enthusiasm. They're serious warriors who simply have for more nobler and important things to concern themselves with on 4chan like pretending their smart. I like Mechs. The ones from BATTLETECH though. Not ready any other kind. I think one day they WILL be viable but not for the reasons one may think. I think it'll be a cultural shift where instead of armies clashing and destroying the countryside and killing civilians, it'll be small groups or even single combat between 2 pilots to decide the outcomes. Just an idea.
>>61982729YOU'RE not welcome faggot. Fuck off.
>>61980444Deep sea vehicles that walk the ground and are perfect area denial weapons that are too heavy to move with traditional submersed ship movement. Quadruped or additional legs.Lets say they have to be there to prevent mining of mineral deposits (volcanic stalagmites, quote Elon Musk: "A gold mine of rare minerals").Water rushes around and to stay stable takes too much energy. To drop depth fast will kill the occupant(s) because of benz. So whatever that sits there, be it a drone or a pilot they must remain there. Remote from a nearby station or being inside it.It seriously will never become a reality. We'd rather spend money digging another quarter mile hole than drop to the ocean floor with mining equipment.Only a nation willing to go down like that has no source for the resources.Second instance for walker-things is having feet that are mine proof. say the battlefield is coated with mines that are super-cheap and super reliable. An explosion every 10 seconds if you drove over it. Avoid many possible mines, and take the hits with a ten inch armor plate under foot.
>>61980648>why not just use a helicopter?or a plane?Aircraft can't be armored nearly as well as something earthbound and can't hold their ground against a peer force. They're also much more detectable and easier to kill by merit of being in the fuckin air with all the line of sight in the world to AA systems.Look at Ukraine right now. Tanks have a high likelihood to get stuck in the mud for a few months out of the year, but you don't see any large-scale helicopter ops taking place from either side because it's a death sentence.
>>61986077Fuck off with your straw clutching bullshitGo spam your bullshit on /m/ ypu make multiple threads a day spouting the exact same talking points that are constantly refuted, then you just cone straight back and make the same fucking thread again. It's a mental illness at this point, past the point of autism.
>>61982729YWNBAJ
