Are mechs actually viable weapons of war?
No. Just make better tanks.
>>64538330They'd have better luck as combat engineering vehicles.
Just call it me/k/ general already. There's enough interest without having to get into tactical utility posting.
Stomp, stomp, stomp, crack! oh no! A cellar! Help me mecha step brother, I'm stuck!
>>64538368>mmmmm, BUENO>CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK
>>64538368We have a rule for that.
>>64538368>Like that never happens to tanks.
>>64538330Ask yourself what advantage you get out of making your tank a biped, and then ask if those advantages are worth the many, many new problems you’d have to deal with.
>>64538403Well yeah, that's the complaint. A mech has much higher ground pressure than a tank. If it's a problem for tanks, it's a fucking nightmare for mechs.
>>64538410Except a mech can actually deal with a sudden drop like that. If you've got enough clearance the mech can just walk it's way out of a cellar while a tank has to plow through the walls.
>>64538418>Except a mech can actually deal with a sudden drop like thatWhy are we making this silly assumption?>If you've got enough clearance That would take a lot more than just "clearance". Building a mech that can walk on level ground is already a massive engineering challenge. Making one that can climb out of a sinkhole is just plain sci-fi tier silly, we might as well have Gundams with jump jets.
MOO
>>64538424>is just plain sci-fi tier sillyYeah, it's a good thing that sci-fi has never, ever come true.
As an IFV in urban environments, maybe.>~6 meters tall>Nimble enough to shoot from cover>Strong enough to lift ground troops to the roof of a building in seconds>Carries more gear than all of them, and an autocannon for good measure
>>64538455I think the ability to create breach points into any random walls up to ~9 meters would be pretty damn sweet too.
>>64538455Why give them legs tho?
>>64538330No. Any technology that could make a mech feasible would make other vehicles superior in its role. And what exactly IS the role of a mech anyways? Everything it does can be done better by other vehicles.
>>64538330>Posts a Macross MechIf you wanted to have a giantess /k/ thread you only had to ask anon.But that said, strictly speaking I don't see much of a use for combat giantesses outside of propaganda and interfacing with civilians/occupations.
>>64538494>Be tau>Give your mechs hands>Don't make melee weapons for those hands>In a universe where the gods frown on any technology that you can't whack someone over the head withAt least Farsight wised up and got himself a mech sized sword, that may or may not be a daemon weapon.
>>64538521Tbh I don't think it really matters much when you're literally at war with said god anyways.
>>64538521>In a universe where the gods frown on any technology that you can't whack someone over the head withBeing immune to that is the Tau's special ability.
>>64538479>Can look and shoot over cover that conventional vehicles can't simply by flexing knee joints>Can shoot around buildings without having expose half its hull for main gun clearance>Can turn on its axis faster, with less room required>Legs are harder to hit, especially on the move>Mobility kill doesn't endanger crew due to clearance>Can walk over, grab and move pic related
>>64538542Tbh that just sounds like the sort of thing you'd use a helicopter for.
Mechs will never ever ever be real. Power armor will though
>>64538534>>64538538But they are not immune to those god's followers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsVdOhzmKNs
>>64538554That's true...but said god's followers aren't immune to being shot.
>>64538547How many pilots can fly an AH-6 through a city (not over it, in plain sight of AA) to provide close support to ground troops? Can a Bradley drive over a 2-meter-tall barricade?
>>64538436Name one real life bipedal mech at least 20t
>>64538564>Can a Bradley drive over a 2-meter-tall barricade?No but a bradley won't be taken out by a metal wire set up between two buildings.
>>64538570>No but a bradley won't be taken out by a metal wire set up between two buildings.
>>64538455In an urban environment trying to prevent a vehicle from getting shot at when there's like 200 places to shoot them from is a futile effort. They can shoot you from every window, every roof, half the basements, and every street. You're much better off going with a design that will both provide cover to the infantry and has more armor to resist what's being throw at it, IE a tank.
>>64538562Depends on if they have a refractor field generator.
>>64538570>metal wire set up between two buildings.Just... walk over it.A wire strong enough to take down that much metal will be far from invisible, especially since it wouldn't be walking around alone.
>>64538368>>64538375
>>64538593Armored vehicles in urban envorinments are all in equal peril. It's a matter of not getting hit, really, hence the speed. And it's urban, so there's cover everywhere.Though you can have a mortar attached to its back. That'll certainly help.
>>64538568Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just incapable of grasping hypotheticals? The kind of flexile metals you need to mimic muscle tissue are getting less impractical by the year. Mechs are at the point where there's no known-laws-of-physics barriers against them; it's all engineering problems, and humans tend to be pretty good at solving those.
>>64538593This. Urban warfare is an infantryman's game. The purpose of any vehicles in the city is to support the infantry and provide cover. A mech does the opposite of that. Its stomping feet and large profile means its liable to kill its own infantry if it's hit. The last thing you want in urban combat is a vehicle that's a hazard for their own infantry.
>>64538620>It's a matter of not getting hitIt's really not. You ARE going to get hit. The question is whether you have enough armor that it takes a Javelin to take you out, or if some rinky dink RPG or 50 cal will be enough. With a mech, the latter is much more likely.
>>64538593That's why infantry go first.They detect a strongpoint.Vehicle rolls up and blasts it up.Infantry moves on.A mech, or at least a vehicle with an articulated arm employed for its main weapon, would have a better time safely engaging strongpoints.
>>64538418>Except a mech can actually deal with a sudden drop like that.There is zero chance that anything in a mech form factor could fucking deal with that kind of force.You autistic mechfags need to learn the difference between reality and imagination.Go back to your faggy tabletop/video game shit, this is a board for grownups.
>>64538635Would it? Because the tank is going to have a bigger gun for blasting the strongpoint, and it's not going to be taken out by some guy with an RPG or 50 cal in a window before you even get up to the strongpoint.
mechfags should just be banned
>>64538646And an AT weapon won't also be killing that tank?
>>64538628>Urban warfare is an infantryman's game.Hence why infantry-esque machines could use entire buildings as an infantryman uses a chest-high wall to shoot over.A mechanical infantryman that can rush your position with an autocannon before you get a chance to ready up your AT-4 because anti-vehicle obstacles won't factor in.
>>64538651Nope. If it's lucky it might take out a track but to take out the tank itself you need something very big like a Javelin. It's about reducing risks. If your enemy has to call upon a specialized expensive anti-tank squad with a heavy top-down anti-tank munition to take out a tank, it's much less likely to run into that. If your vehicle can be taken out by an M72 or an RPG on the other hand, or disabled by a 50 cal or anti-tank rifle, then you have a serious problem.
>>64538660You know what can use even more cover? Infantry in power-armor, who can take cover inside of every building, behind every window. And since you can only take cover in the streets they KNOW where to aim.
>>64538634>whether you have enough armor that it takes a Javelin to take you outA Javelin takes any IFV out. It truly is a matter of avoiding it as much as possible.I did specify IFV as a class comparison to a mech rather than MBTs, because that's too much weight in armor for walking vehicles that can fit into a city.
>>64538646They go together. The infantry support the tank and the tank supports the infantry.
>>64538666Yeah, give the infantryman another 10000 moving parts to maintain, what could go wrong?
>>64538671>A Javelin takes any IFV out.Yes. But most infantry don't carry javelins.There's a lot more M72's and RPGs around than there are Javelins. There's even more .50 cals and other heavy machine guns around. A mech would likely be vulnerable to both, the RPG/M72 in its chest and the machine gun fire in its limbs and joints.
>>64538666>Infantry in power-armorYou're gonna give grunts power armor? Each and every single one? You'll trust them not to break it before combat like muhreens are breaking HK products right now?
>>64538646>Would it?Yes. Because a vehicle like an MBT has to push half its hull into the open to engage something from around a corner. Also might be angled poorly so the frontal armor can't take the brunt. It's essentially dependent on the infantry to protect it against hostile fire.>and it's not going to be taken out by some guy with an RPG or 50 cal in a window before you even get up to the strongpoint.Yeah, because it's going to be taken out by some guy with an NLAW or similar system.
>>64538675You've already done that by adding these >>64538660 except they're just straight up worse than infantry.
in Brigador, mechs only became viable after the invention of hard shields. and even then tanks are still heavily used.
>>64538685>because it's going to be taken out by some guy with an NLAW or similar system.Maybe. If the enemy has that, and if the APS doesn't intercept it. But a vehicle that's vulnerable to a fraction as many weapons is still superior.
>>64538681>But most infantry don't carry javelins.2 Javelin CLUs in one US mechanized platoon, 1 in a rifle platoon.
>>64538681>But most infantry don't carry javelins.What's the issue then>M72s and RPGsIt can reliably take cover without having to angle its hull and forward/reverse all the time. Remember, the most you could be seeing from it around a building is the gun itself, and that's if you get a shot at it while the M242 Bushmaster is spraying you down while the infantry it's covering for bounds to the next bit of cover.
>>64538702>It can reliably take coverAssuming it knows where the enemy is. This is a city fight where every window could have an enemy and you don't know their position before they pop out and shoot at you. Assuming that you'll have perfect cover all the time is a foolish assumption to make.
>Mech thread>People invariably assume mechs should replace main battle tanks when the whole point of mechs is mobility and versatility (like APCs and AFVs) rather than surviving a fucking ATGM
>>64538700That's for an entire platoon, typically there will be 1 M72 or AT4 per fire team.
>>64538705Yeah but all armored vehicles suffer from this problem equally. Infantry can engage them from anywhere. It's the risk they all take.
>>64538712Mechs are unironically less mobile than tanks. Ground pressure and caterpillar tracks are just better at going places than giant legs.
>>64538712>when the whole point of mechs is mobility and versatilityThe problem is that said if you're in open terrain, you're better off with a tank or IFV anyways since they're going to be faster. And if you're in a cramped city, your mobility is going to waste since there's not much room to maneuver and there's infantry at your feet and no matter where you go there's gonna be infantry taking shots at you.Mechs are a solution looking for a problem.
>>64538714Yes, but a tank is going to be immune to much more fire than a mech will be immune to. It's a lot easier to keep a tank safe when the enemy only has 1 weapon that can take it out per platoon than when the enemy has 1 weapon that can take it out per fireteam.
>>64538716
>>64538723Counterpoint:
>>645387131 javelin by default per rifle platoon is a terrifying thing when vehicles are bound to available roads.
>>64538582So, we could just set fire to it and pretend the enemy hit it
>>64538717>in open terrainThat's fine, we're picturing urban settings.>if you're in a cramped city, your mobility is going to waste since there's not much room to maneuverIn conventional vehicles. Cities are a challenge for all vehicles, hence why mechs designed with legged movement could maneuver better in a setting dominated by infantry.>Infantry at your feetLet's not picture infantry literally walking under mechs during combat, that would be in bad faith. They'd be in proper cover nearby, not under it.
>>64538733Sure but 1 AT4 by default per fireteam is much much worse. That's six times worse.
>>64538742>They'd be in proper cover nearby, not under it.So then the mechs aren't really doing much to support the infantry, in fact they're an active hazard to the infantry, and one much more vulnerable to infantry than a tank is, operating in an environment where infantry thrives.
>>64538722>tank is going to be immune to much more fireWould you send tanks into a hostile-controlled city with enough firepower to take out said tanks and anything less armored? I'd probably bomb the fuck out of it first before sending anybody in.
>>64538723In that instance they pose just as much barrier to your giant robot since it's likely to trip on them. It's already an unstable shitheap, no way it's going to slowly high step over obstacles. It's foot bumps into a block, it trips and falls. It's foot lands on top of a block, it slips and falls. It's foot lands between a block and the AT mine blows it off and the mech falls. Mechs are the opposite of mobile. You're literally better off with a 4x4.
>>64538746Would you prefer to be standing right next to the Stryker LAV when it eats an RPG, or inside the building it's parked next to?
>>64538747>I'd probably bomb the fuck out of it first before sending anybody in.Now the roads aren't roads anymore, but rubble and holes.
>>64538727Fair, I suppose. The mech could only be shooting back with a dinky Bushmaster II 30mm.
>>64538751I mean, yeah? The RPG is designed to penetrate the first layer of armor and kill the crew inside, not penetrate both layers of armor, if it does the latter it's actually performing worse at killing the vehicle.
>>64538747>I'd probably bomb the fuck out of it first before sending anybody in.Well now the ground is rubble which tracks are superior at going over than legs.
>>64538759If your only hope for the mech surviving is to outnumber the enemy infantry with them and hope that the mech always knows where the enemy is at all times then you're going to have a very bad time in the city.
>>64538754>>64538765Rubble too tall for any vehicle to clear over, mech or tank.
>>64538727>battalion-level weapon
>>64538770>knows where the enemy isThe mech supports the infantry. Intel is command's problem.
>>64538778With power-armor you could give one of those to every infantryman.
>>64538762RPG hits, ammo cooks, and you're standing right next to it? Armored vehicles in a city are the prime target, why would you be using it as cover instead of any of the buildings around you? It's the one thing being shot at the most.
>>64538780>The mech supports the infantryHard to support the infantry when just by stomping around you force the infantry to stay the fuck away from you.
>>64538783And frankly, I reject anon's tacit concession that vulnerability to .50 BMG is a given, to say nothing of the aforementioned maintenance issues, but I'll take the Elementals and OmniMechs mix.
>>64538786You stand next to an armored vehicle when it's moving during combat? I don't think the driver will hear you say "I'm walking here" when he turns the axis.
>>64538750>it's likely to trip on themBecause they'd surely be designing mechs that can't walk, or clear obstacles when walking...
>>64538778Squad level weapon*
>>64538750>AT mine blows it offNot him but AT mines kill any vehicle. That's kinda what they're for.>>64538783Power armor would require a lot more maintenance, especially considering that grunts need to be driven to places in APCs and whatnot.
>>64538791That's usually why tanks have radios to the inside of them.
Pretty much every single mech setting needs to drastically nerf ordinary vehicles in order to make them work, Battletech being a prime example where the rules don't really make any sense from a logical POV but if they didn't exist nobody would use mechs.
>>64538810And mechs wouldn't because?Some of these points I'm seeing are basically "the mech will not have this basic and crucial tool that every vehicle has, for absolutely no reason, so it can't work" and it's starting to feel a bit disingenuous.
>>64538815>And mechs wouldn't because?They might, but that won't make them any safer to be around since a single hit and that thing's toppling over.>"the mech will not have this basic and crucial tool that every vehicle has"You mean like heavy armor? That's a function of geometry. The more surface area a vehicle has the less armor it will have. Mechs have more surface area ergo they will have less armor.
>>64538819As I said here >>64538455 it's not an MBT. It's not a walking wall, it's a walking gun, comparable to an IFV in firepower.
If tech of mechs exist doesn't that mean power armor exists for every soldier? You could just swarm every mech with 100 guys with 15 AT missiles each
>>64538830Having the tech is one thing, but miniaturization will take a while longer.
>>64538828Right, and that's a terrible idea in a city.
>>64538836I think you have it backwards. There the very first exoskeletons are hitting the market now
>>64538842Vehicles of any kind in a city are an accepted risk, we've established that.
>>64538856By that logic why bring a tank into the city at all? Just use a humvee.
>>64538634I've been wondering why you keep flipping from being pro and anti-mech. You post the exact same images in every thread so it's clearly you, but you're either fully for or against them for reasons, and then you post it all again on a different board a few days later.You lose an argument on /tg/ and then go to /k/ pretending to hold the opposite view and bait for responses, and then you go over to /v/ and get mocked again because you're just bad at arguing regardless of which side you're on. You're clearly copy pasting things people said to own you in the last thread you were in but arguing their points worse to different people who don't believe the same things.What's the point?
>>64538868>>64538455>>64538464>>64538542
>>64538877See >>64538727
>>64538775You just need a bigger tank then.
>>64538883It doesn't stand out in the open, anon. I stated as much here >>64538702.
>>64538884>Transmission explodesSCHEISSEWHAT WAS IT THIS TIME
>>64538900It's a city. There's going to be windows, basements, rooftops, all with firing views to shoot at it. If your plan relies on the infantry clearing every single potential area for an enemy to take a potshot at it except a single street so it can hide with no risk of being shot at then it's being a poor support for infantry.
>>64538913>poor support for infantryGetting hit by something out of nowhere? That can happen to literally anybody in urban combat. Naturally, it would be at the ready to return fire immediately and suppress with a caliber much larger than .50BMG, unless the entire unit is ambushed, infantry and all. But can a conventional vehicle aim directly upwards at a target in building above it without reversing until the turret elevation can reach it?
Mechs make sense so long as they aren't so big that they can't fit inside of a building or an APC/IFV. A mech should be able to perform the same role as infantry, just better.
>>64538936>Naturally, it would be at the ready to return fire immediatelyIF it survives. Which it's much less likely to.
>>64538945Would you rather not have the mechanized part of mechanized infantry accompanying you into the city that's barricaded against conventional vehicles?
>>64538970I'd rather just stick a bulldozer on the front end of a tank desu.
>>64538975I don't think anti-tank obstacles can be pushed out of the way by tanks, anon.
>>64538986They literally can. Just calling something 'anti-tank' doesn't magically make it impervious to tanks. Hell even without the scoop a tank can still overcome it.
>>64538494>what exactly IS the role of a mech anywaysI like the idea of mechs being a versatile machine that can be used by individuals operating independently in remote and hostile environments. There's a Gundam manga where a small unit is operating in a massive space debris field and they set up these big stationary cannons that they use to snipe at enemy MS and their ship. To me that concept kind of makes sense. You have a few people operating independently in an environment where they handle large equipment and may need to perform all sorts of labor like setting up their firing position, moving debris around to create cover for themselves and so on. But honestly mechs just exist to blend the spectacle of futuristic large scale industrial warfare with an almost medieval style of warfare where small groups of individuals practice a martial ethic that glorifies individual skill and combat prowess. Both of those things are cool separately but they are cooler together.
>>64539002>Tank trap lifts tank off the ground to make it lose traction and get stuck, as it was designed to do>Commies pretend their tanks are clearing itPretty sure things have been improved since WWII.
>>64539009>Pretty sure things have been improved since WWII.So have the ways to remove them.
>>64539017They'll be shooting you while you're still waiting for the engineer corps to show up with the cutters and dozers, anon.
>>64539024Good thing you can shoot back at them then.
>>64538330Yes. That's why this thread is full of pictures of real mechs in military service and not just a bunch of art.
>>64539030And not even make it into the city since they're keeping you out now that you took too long.
>>64539046Tanks, too, were art before they were made real. Things usually start as concepts before they eventually get made.
>>64539047And meanwhile your mechs suffered catastrophic losses since you blitzed into the city without even clearing out the buildings around you
>>64539054Yes but mechs have been a concept since the ancient era and have never seen practical use while tanks were only a concept for a little while before they became real.
Justifying a tank:>"It's a moving bunker with a big cannon. Any time you need something fast, or hard to kill, or with a big gun, it's useful."Justifying a mech:>"Well if you're in a city and the enemy's put up barriers but not barriers that are too high, only low barriers, and the infantry has clear everything around you, and there's enough cover for you to use, then maybe you can have your mech poke around a corner and shoot at the enemy like an infantryman could after telling the infantry to get out of the way, and so in that extremely specific circumstance you might get a slightly higher amount of firepower after a bunch of set up to make it happen."
>>64538330No. And mechs are fucking gay. Every single setting that has mechs has had to push away other vehicles and make them look worse than they are to justify the mechs existing.
>>64539055>blitzed into the city without even clearing out the buildings around youWhy are you implying they wouldn't follow the same procedure as any armed group in city combat? Why is it always along the lines of "mech doesn't work because the pilot/squad does something incredibly stupid for the sake of my argument against it even though they would obviously not do that"?
Reminder, again: >>64538712
>>64539078>Why are you implying they wouldn't follow the same procedure as any armed group in city combat?Because your goal, as implied by your impatience to clear away any rubble, is to do this FAST.
>>64539085The goal is to not be stopped or hampered by obstacles. Speed can be variable but standing still is death, wouldn't you agree?
>>64539099Not necessarily. Even while you're clearing out those blockades, the tank is still there functioning as a useful gun and armored cover itself. The blockade might slow it down a bit but that's nothing it couldn't do to a mech as well just by making it a little higher.
>>64538628Negative. Urban warfare is an artilleryman’s game.
>>64538330Are there any GOOD mech settings?
>>64539103They'd have to specialize these obstacles to the point where every street would have to have big wall blocking off the attackers, which isn't viable since it's not an already existing strategy in modern urban combat.
>>64539123Congratulations, you've rediscovered why tanks won't have a problem in the city as well.
>>64539119I love Armored Core 6. It's not directly tied to any of the other games as far as I'm aware so It's pretty thin on worldbuilding/lore compared to something like a Gundam or Battletech. But the actual game is very fun and they actually understand what makes Mechs cool.
>>64539129They will. It's a city.
>>64539132TIL this image is fake.
>>64539133They're real enough, if you can turn the turret to see them.
>>64539166Shouldn't be a problem, we've had high-angle turrets for a long time now.
>>64539168And half the hull still needs to be out of cover for the gun to line up.
>>64539186Better that with a better armored hull than the alternative.
>>64539190You still have to move it out of cover for the GUN to line up.
>>64539195Luckily the turret for your gun is much better protected than the mech is.
No.6453868550 cal cannot take out a tank. a light vehicle but not a tank or IFVyour dreaming also acterate hits in a real world enviroment are next to impossiable.50cal isn't a super weapon noob its the same antivehicle weapon used in WW2if it shot you in the track your fuckedit it shoots you in the mech joint your fucked.how ever if the new usa tech gets off the grounda laser that blows of the warheads off rockets gets up and going nothing this thread will say will cover the cope of that.mechs of the future will have this tech and titanium aloy joins not even 100mm will dent the thing.also if that mech is carrying a hand held cannonor motor set up with termals your liite sniper is a whole world of shit.
>>64539223>50 cal cannot take out a tankCorrect>a light vehicleAlso correctHence why a mech is a bad choice, it will have the armor of a light vehicle. Even the other anon in this thread doesn't dispute that, he's literally just arguing that the mech wouldn't get hit because it would be behind cover.>mechs of the future will have this tech and titanium aloy joins not even 100mm will dent the thing.Which a tank will benefit even more from, making the usual anti-tank measures of an infantryman even less effective.
>>64539168This is not a tank. It's an artillery piece built for indirect fire. The entire vehicle is designed around allowing the gun to elevate that much. There is no MBT with that kind of gun elevation.
>>64539285Correct. We possess the capacity to make a turret with that kind of gun elevation but choose not to, because it has not proven necessary to.
>>64538330Mechs are cool as hell, but no, you’re never going to see one on an actual battlefield.Ask any mechanic and they’ll tell you the same thing: the more moving parts a system has, the more likely it is to break. Now imagine the nightmare of just a single mech elbow joint. It has to be strong enough to support massive loads (pulling the mech up, lifting heavy equipment, etc...), while still being a fully articulated joint. That means cables, pistons, motors, bearings, sensors… a whole mess of components packed into one spot.And that’s for one arm. Multiply that complexity by at least ten if you want a mech with even limited mobility. Every one of those systems is a potential point of failure. On a battlefield, with stray bullets, shrapnel, explosions, mud, shockwaves, the mech would be out of commission 90% of the time after something tiny jams, snaps, or gets shot.Then there’s the main engine. Turning piston motion into rotational motion for wheels is simple: that’s what cars do. But converting engine output into coordinated, reliable, multi-axis limb movement? It’s incredibly inefficient and mechanically ugly. You're wasting tons of energy just to make the thing take a step.So the issue isn’t that mechs are impossible to build. It’s that they’re useless for military purposes. Cool in fiction, terrible in reality.
>>64538799How tall are you making this piece of shit and how heavy is it? If you're going to design something that can clear entire obstacles in a single step, then you're in fantasy land and I can say the mine fairies will magically transport a mine wherever it steps. The square cube law applies.Any obstacle large enough to pose significant impediment to a tank will also impede the mech.>>64539119No. They are all some level of puerile power fantasy indulgence. Just pick the one you think is cool and try not to get retarded and think about it too deeply. You like it because big machines that let you exercise agency over your uncontrollable life and do significant things as opposed to your ineffectual life.
>>64538434For me it's the Grad. Being able to fold up into a mobile barricade is neat.
>>64539310>How tall are you making thisNot the size of a fucking skyscraper if that's what you're thinking. It doesn't have to have a stride of a football field to step between obstacles either.>MinesMines are a problem to everything on the ground. The same mine that blasts off a mech leg will blast off treads.
>>64539354>The same mine that blasts off a mech leg will blast off treads.Yeah but one of those is just a mobility kill while the other is a total kill
>>64539354>to step between obstaclesThat requires it to have small feet that can fit between the obstacles and software that can keep it's balance while picking through the blocks. The blocks have to be close enough together that they aren't much more widely spaced than a track span. Any mech with feet that size is going to have dogshit ground pressure. But even if it just dances through the blocks, that doesn't solve anything because even the Russians were able to figure out that you put AT mines in the gaps to stop AFVs just blowing through the obstacle.>Not the size of a fucking skyscraperEven just being 10m tall, it's going to be either stupidly heavy, or so light that magic applies. There is nothing about mechs that works mechanically or logically.
Mini mechs to carry heavy shit like HMGs/GMGs and mortars could be useful.
>>64538368>Brother help! A small ditch has trapped me!
>>64538407Yeah I don't think think I'm going to do any of that, fucko
>>64539354Repairing some blown up treads on a tank is far easier than repairing blown out legs. A mechs legs will have to be lightly armored or else that think won't be able to even move or if you manage to move, it will fucking sink into the earth. So now you have a huge easy lightly armored target that can be taken out with a rpg7 or any .50 cal.Mechs are fucking cool but IRL they are retarded. If we were to assume that physics doesn't exist then mechs would be better but sadly real life doesn't work like AC or a mecha anime. First off the mech is going have to be light weight so that means thin armor, second a tall target like a mech is going to be easy prey for rpg crews or other fighting vehicles. Now if you wanted to put a big gun a mech it will just knock that bitch over, so you got to go for a 30mm/25mm but now you could have just put it on a IFV or APC which will be a smaller target, can carry troops and it isn't a engineering nightmare. Mechs are cool don't get me wrong but only a retard can look at a mech and think that it will work irl. Good luck getting a mech to run when making it walk is going to be a nightmare.
>>64538330No.
>>64538330>Posts a setting where the only reason mechs exist is because the devs arbitrarily made all airplanes nosedive into the ground after being scratched because otherwise people would only take ASF's
>>64539797>exclusively plays at NOE altitude>DUDE WHY ARE MY PLANES ALL CRASHING THIS SUCKS
>>64538330too many moving parts
We don't get mechs because we literally just don't deserve it. We get prep, mcdonalds, and iphone. That's the revolutionary technology for our setting. Ask yourself, do you deserve something cool like mechs, or do you deserve hellfire missile programmed by a transexual and launched at the worlds brownest country for 200 billion dollars and still losing?
>>64538874>What's the point?Profound mental retardation.
>>64538330Oh goddamnit this guy is back.
>>64538502>Breaches open pillboxes by siting on them>Clears them out by farting.
>>64540075You know, it wouldn’t kill anyone, but I wonder if you could get any soldiers to surrender that way as a demoralization tactic…Worst case scenario you could threaten enemy soldiers with time spent in her buttcrack as an interrogation tactic.
>>64538628y boneromnissiah, forgive me...
>>64538553why the obsession with bipedality? it has fundamental problems like the ground pressure. humans are bipedal to free up two limbs without altering the body plan. in a machine you can just add extra limbs.the Interex in 40k (well, 30k, since they were destroyed in the Great Crusade) did it right by making their power armor quadrupedal with the soldier at the front, basically becoming a centaur.
>>64539595>minor tow job vs mech slipping, pilot falling however many meters, and then erecting heavy cranes to try and stand the thing back upYou point is just proving that tanks are better. If a mechanism put its foot down on that spot of road and collapsed it the same way, that pilot is smashing into the ground.>>64539575No. They can't carry ammunition for the mortars like a truck with trailer can. Also their mobility is much slower. HMGs could be carried, but the lack of mobility will make it too limited to be useful. >>64540120Quadrupeds have too much of their weight taken up by the motive system to be efficient. You'd need a disproportionately large machine to carry a disproportionately small payload.
>>64538330Why do mech settings never seem to agree on what the role of a mech is? Why are mechs so frequently treated as superweapons “just because” with no justification for the plot armor they receive? Why does every mech setting work by making other vehicles appear weak and useless?The answer is the same for all of these questions. Because mechs do not have a place in warfare. And because mechs do not have a place in warfare, they can only justify their existence in a setting by making other vehicles look worse in comparison.Power armor is infantry+. Everybody knows it is useful because it takes a useful role and makes it better at what it does. Something like a hover tank, were it able to account for various factors to keep it mobile and stable, would be useful as it keeps the ergonomic shape of the tank and gets to ignore the ground entirely. The former is good design rooted in near-future technology. The latter is good design rooted in theoretical far future technology.But a mech? A mech is bad design. This isn’t something you can overcome with technology. The fundamental forces of geometry itself are pushing against the usage of mechs. All the theorycrafting about potential technologies that could make a mech feasible will never make it efficient or practical.
>>64540780>fundamental forces of geometryName one force of geometry.
>>64540780In battletech, the justification is that mech based combat is a money sink that allows nations and factions to still fight eachother and not do nuke chimpouts. Prior to mechs they used ships that would just shit out nuclear missiles to win wars, which unsurprisingly is costly if you're trying to take valuable territory as you destroy the infrastructure of the planet.
>>64540791The most efficient surface-area-to-volume shape is a sphere, followed by a cube
>>64540795There’s still a bunch more ways to fight conventional wars efficiently than using battlemechs even ignoring warships. ASF’s would realistically be the winning factor in basically all vehicle engagements with only small infantry forces too small to be spotted by them being used otherwise.
>>64538553You will get cyber-augmented men turned into kill borgs and you will be happy.
>>64538330NO. THEY WONT BE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. STOP MAKING THESE THREADS.
>>64540780>why does an unproven tech have a poorly-defined role?I know, right? None of these fucking "air force" shills even agree with each other on what an airplane is supposed to do. Complete fantasy for the deluded.
>>64540864“Thing that can fly and blow up enemies” is fundamentally good design, even when the technology didn’t exist for it yet.A mech is more like a tank but with less armor and firepower and mobility, or an IFV but slower and it can’t carry infantry. Your fundamental basic design is just worse versions of what we already have and no amount of future technology is going to change that. You can’t cheat basic geometry.
>>64540880>You can’t cheat basic geometryIt's funny you say this because how useful a mech is in MWO is directly related to its geometry. Either way, the only reason we don't use mechs yet is because they aren't in our tech tree, otherwise they would be dominant.
>>64540928No, they wouldn’t be. They aren’t even dominant in competitive battletech matches.
>>64540820In Battletech lore it's more that nukes are so cheap that the mechwarrior larping is supposed to drain money that otherwise would have gone into nuclear stockpiles. Basically everyone agrees to use these clunky mechs because if you decide to nuke spam then everyone else is allowed to nuke you.
>>64538542>>Can look and shoot over cover that conventional vehicles can't simply by flexing knee jointsa taller tank could do this with adjustable suspension and would have none of the downsides of legs>>Can shoot around buildings without having expose half its hull for main gun clearanceguns on arms are not legs>>Can turn on its axis faster, with less room requiredless room than zero?>>Legs are harder to hit, especially on the moveyou are you not going to dodge missiles by having them go between your legs>>Mobility kill doesn't endanger crew due to clearancegenuinely what the fuck does this mean? Losing a leg won't make the mech topple? You can hop away? what?>>Can walk over, grab and move pic relatedlegs big enough to walk over a tank trap results in deeper/bigger tank traps or your mech being too big to move. arms are not legs
>>64540120Why not add more legs?
>>64538330Yes, unless the world is gay and lSA40kame.
>>64538330>the CGL model FUCKING DISGUSTING
>>64540780>the primary role of the USN is tactical and strategic air/missile strikes against land forces>>64540795>>64540820>>64540939In BT mechs are better but not wholly superior to conventional forces. ASFs, Warships, and nukes are the real big dogs of BT warfare, but no one uses them unless they have to because unrestricted warfare in BT is carried out at the planetary annihilation level and there have already been multiple of those kinds of wars. Mechs in BT are special forces/elite units and most of the fighting more akin to Cold War-era glowie shit, raiding, police actions, proxy conflicts, and bush wars. Even the later Succession Wars were mostly dozens of low- to medium intensity battles spread out across the galaxy.
>>64540928How useful a mech is in MWO is directly proportional to whether or not it's a favorite of the Cauldron clique.
[Azure bolts of man-made lightning intensify]
>>64541143>ASFs, Warships, and nukes are the real big dogs of BT warfare, but no one uses them unless they have to because unrestricted warfare in BT is carried out at the planetary annihilation levelSee that's kinda bullshit cause you can totally use ASF's without going full nukes, you don't even have to target jumpships with them, you could just blow up the enemy's mechs with near impunity.
>>64541171Well yeah that's one of the reasons why I quit when I did, that crap was getting out of hand.
>>64538418>Except a mech can actually deal with a sudden drop like that.*drops 3 meters down into basement**breaks every actuator in both legs**falls over and slams into the ground, giving the pilot a concussion and multiple broken bones*
Problem: mechs are not effective in real world conditionsSolution: we change the world's conditions so mechs are effectiveProof of concept: the movie Robot Jox
>>64541443NTA. You're making a very basic mistake of premise, but I don't blame you, because this is one of those really strange things about BT compared to other properties. People don't smash 4 mechs into 4 mechs because "in the grim darkness of the 31st Century, there are only mechs". They do it because it is fun and fits into and afternoon's game session. "And then it turned out the other guy had aircraft and they got bombed to death, the end" happens in-universe. In fact, it happens a lot. But nobody plays games or writes novels about it, because it's a fucking boring narrative. Dealing with all that shit is for campaign play, which very few people do, because it's a titanic feat of bookwork to run something on that scale. For a one-off game, you do mechs, because mechs are the central thing you're there for.
>>64538330Imagine falling over and not being able to properly break your fallNow imagine falling over, not being able to properly break your fall while weighing 90 tons and carrying enough firepower to level a whole grid of city blocks.
>>64540795>>64540933>>64540820>>64541443>>64540939>>64541629ASF are only good at stomping people who didn't know to take anti air. You lose or at least have an even fight if they know how to play the game and take even a modicum of anti air, which can be as simple as swapping a couple autocannons ammo bins to flak or popping smoke and becoming untargetable. Everyone thinks their special brand of not-mech is super overpowered and it's always just counter-picking and stomping new players that don't know how units no one normally brings work.Also nuclear treaties come free with your scifi. Every scifi has a "don't blow up the setting" rule because otherwise they blow up the setting. Even 40k has strict rules on when and why you're allowed to blow up planets and those niggas love to blow up planets.
>>64541781Pretty sure it's literally possible to configure your air units to be completely outside the range of mechs entirely while still being able to hit them.
>>64540960What fucking degeneracy is this!?
>>645412463-2-3-2-3
>>64538330If it's like this. Sure.
>>64541246The awesome is such a kino mech. By far my favorite low tonnage assault.You can make them so broken with clan tech and double heat sinks.
How much better do you think realistically designed and built tanks would be with Battletech's technology?So instead of making legs and shit with myomer you use it to drive a crankshaft, you use the automation to have one man tanks, tanks aren't intrinsically less durable for no reason etc.
>>64540828>Be ad mech>have troops roughly equivalent to space marines>except you can build them in droves, and in a fraction of the time.>Also their weapons are way betterYou know, getting Mars on his side may be one of the few big brain moves the Emperor made.
>>64538600>Just... walk over it.Try me, fucker.Me and the boys only need to slow you down to fire those RPG, not make you trip.The first of your friends that mistakes a detonating cord for a repurposed powercable will motivate the rest to mistake repurposed powercable for detonating cord.>Well I can just ask the infantry to...Just give power armors to the grunts. If you can make a 6-meters tall mecha that is both as armored as a tank, as nimble as a man and somewhere in-between the two in speed, you can make power armors.Infantrymen that carry more gear, more ammunition ans more firepower while being faster on their feet and better protected against blast and small caliber is more useful than a slower, taller tank.
>>64538675Oh it will go wrong.Question is how often, how crippling it will be and how fast will it be to fix.If your grunt can just dump the power legs once they fail, then they are basically individual APC : help the infantryman to carry more stuff while adding some speed and protection but entirely optional if situation demands it.But you are right : an APC or IFV does that already very well. Power armors would bring very situational improvement, trading speed for flexibility. The mecha wouldn't ne more flexible, would be a bigger target than an IFV and wouldn't be faster.
>>64538455not even an IFV, armor is too thinit would be equivilant to uparmored technical mounting an autocannon and ATGM
>>64541993Pretty it's literally possible to just pop smoke and tell them to suck your ass until the store closes. It doesn't matter if you can't take, hold, or defend ground after modifiers.Also if you're playing with super long ranges you're intended to use the line of sight rules. Battlemechs can (potentially, still gotta roll it) hit anything they can see, the ranges are abstract to play it on a small map. If you fuck with super long ranges you're supposed to take the extreme range cap off.>>64542568Power armor is mech adjacent, it's why they always show up in mech works and rarely show up boring gritty realistic predictive scifi stuff. Realismfags are just boring and want cold war combat and designs forever, they wont give you power armor.
>>64542125This kinda cool, what's it from? I prefer smaller tactical mechs over the classic hard sci fi, hulking mechs
>>64541993Sort of. By the rules in a ground combat you have to be at least as low as a given altitude to strafe a target with direct fire (I believe it's altitude 3) and you must overfly the hex they end on. This all but guarantees the target is at least capable of returning fire. You can give your fighters gravity bombs and missiles and such that have no such restriction and bomb them with impunity, though
>>64539131>AC6I don't want to time sink into another game.
>>64542366>broken ClantechWarhawk / Masakari is the Clan Awesome, change my mind.
>>64542640Smaller mechs are by definition the hard sci fi mechs due to square cube law
>>64540198>You point is just proving that tanks are better. If a mechanism put its foot down on that spot of road and collapsed it the same way, that pilot is smashing into the groundSorry, that's just not a good argument. I've fallen from 10 feet onto bare ground and didn't get more than a sprained ankle. I doubt you'd get any worse with a 5 point harness and helmet.
>>64543543How small can a mech get before it's just powered armor/exoskeleton?
>>64543668Drop a car 10 feet onto the ground and try to drive it
>>64538330They are magical power fantasies that don't get stuck in mud or sand, rarely tip over, don't drive their operators crazy with all the bobbing up and down, and that's before we get into how nerfed the weapons are in those games. MechWarrior has probably the best aesthetics in sci fi gaming but once you get into real life weapon craft you can't take it seriously anymore. Mech Warrior's physics is as stupid as Star Trek's cheap goodey two shoes morals. The square cube law is a bitch in real life.
>>64543697>Dukes of Hazard intensifies.
>>64538772Schwarzesmarken had good aesthetics ,shame the plot.lets be honest, any Muv-Luv adaptation was trash.
>>64543668Let me give you the first spoonhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html
>>64543748Yeah, doesn't work here. The mech isn't falling on top of you, you're inside it mech so unless you can claim the mech is imploding your argument is null.
Mechs most of the time are justified because of advanced tech in materials (stronger and lightweight), filling some niche role. AND most importantly, a bigger industrial output for commercial viability. if not, its just rule of cool.right now, the concept is too limited (energy for long term missions is the big factor) for direct combat use.
>>64543685Are you piloting it? It's a mech. Are you wearing it? It's armor.
>>64543909That's just begging the question, when are we wearing it and when are we piloting it?
>>64538330Gundam/Battletech mechs: NoAppleseed mechs: Perhaps
>>64543930most of the cases are straight: >MSGundamMech>Muv-LuvHybrid - the "big mech" (TSF) is controlled via a "small mech" (feedback protector) that is connected inside of the cockpit>Starship troopers (OVAs)Power Armor
>>64538502What would be the best equipment for a tactical giantess? As cool as having the ingram revolver is, something tells me scaled up regular weapons isn't the way to go
>>64543959Never liked how the operators arm sticks out like that. Sure they are protected but I keep imagining scenarios where the mech suit runs past something hard. The mechs arm keeps clear but the operators arm bump into it and get bent.I like something like in macross instead just for that problem.
>>64543930If it responds to direct limb movements like power armor, then you're wearing it. If you sit in a cockpit and use joysticks and pedals then you're piloting it.
>>64538386HUMANOID ALIENS?
>>64544195[spoiler]I no longer enjoy cheeseburgers.[spoiler]
>>64538330well once we perform some light surgery to ensure the pilot is suitably resilient to extreme G-forces, wire their nervous system to fuse their actions to the machine, and properly condition their mind to their new form, perhaps.
>>64544048What about when you're curled in the fetal position and controlling it through neural implants?
>>64542373The big thing that makes Battlemech mechs any good is that most people aren't using the optional aiming rules. Having less armor spread out around your mech would ordinarily be crippling, because it means that a tank can just concentrate fire on your chest or head and take you out quickly. But most players don't play with those rules, so instead the hit location is random and you can't concentrate your fire.
>>64538564No but FPV swarms can
>>64538330No
>>64544455Why is that tank an onahole
>>64538330No, its all going to be robots and optionally manned machines because the military is gay
>>64544246
>>64538330Mechs have zero place in a drone-based battlefield
>>64542629>Battlemechs can (potentially, still gotta roll it) hit anything they can seeBut ASF's can hit what they CAN'T see.
>>64544768for penetration
>>64543930when your limbs are mostly in its limbs
While a giantess might look pretty, in comobat their actual usefulness relative to the amount of resources they require isn't very good. They suck up way more resources logistically than you'll get in return from them, and they'll still die to an anti-tank weapon (or potentially something lighter).A mech has all those same problems but even worse since at least an organic body performs some self-maintenance whereas ever missing screw on a robot has to be fixed by others.
>>64540960Cause I'd get a boner?
Honestly look at something like Armored Core. What do they even use their limbs for? They hardly walk, their thrusters do 99% of the movement in the game for them. They hardly use their arms except to hold onto guns which could've been grafted onto a turret. Their head is pointless since it too could just be grafted onto the hull.So why does something like an armored core need to exist? Why not just make a brick with guns and thrusters?
>>64545865peak performance
>>64545880Shoji Kawamori... Forgive our sins...
>>64545039Line of sight targeting has no range restriction at all.>>64544455Called shot rules are intentionally super nerfed and can mostly only be used against immobile targets, and even then it only somewhat increases your chance to hit a location. It's not a free shot on anywhere you want.Hit locations are to represent mobile, evasive combat so obviously you can't just freely pick the location you want to hit.
>>64545865Legs are directional hopping landing gear. It's the same concept as starship troopers. You use your thrusters, land, and jump off again smoothly to chain low bounces. Bipeds are actually really great for jumping. You can see this play out in gameplay as bunny-hopping. It's hard to target a low-flying unit that keeps kicking off in different directions.If your setting is already conceding that joints are functional and useful you might as well put guns and cameras on joints too. AC has always been pretty focused on "shoot the guy in the square" though.All those actually are optional though. You can take them all off and just strap on basic parts directly to your core. You should play them, they're fun games.
Behold, a mech.
>>64545979>Hit locations are to represent mobile, evasive combatI would've assumed future supercomputers combined with instant hitscan lasers would somewhat diminish the effectiveness of trying to dodge shit
>>64545865Hands exist for a mech for the same reason hands exist on humans.>Fuck my hammer arms are useless here, did we bring a guy with wrench arms?
