>>286024750 yeah they can be -more expensive than both -less effective than both -cant exist as of now due to tech limitations and are useless because of nukes -will not trump the reaction times and intelligence of a human in a combat situation
mechs, as a weapon, are completely pointless. a tank does everything a mech could more efficiently and at fraction of the cost
Giant Robots are by their very nature, a bad concept. It's taking the ineffective and absurd and glorifying it for no good reason. There is no situation in which an oversized mechanical man is more effective than a flying/dynamic wheeled mobile tank/artillery.
>>286025103 >and are useless because of nukes By that logic every weapon besides nukes is useless. But wait, no one wants to use nukes because that's MAD. >-more expensive than both Tell me why mechs are necessarily more expensive than tanks. That's right you can't because you don't know at all how a hypothetical technology would be manufactured. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't. >-less effective than both List me five small arms that can shoot through brick /concrete AND light armor. >-cant exist as of now due to tech limitations and are useless because of nukes We have walking robot that can do so autnomously. If we can do that we can apply the technology to make a mech that doesn't need to operate autonomously. >-will not trump the reaction times and intelligence of a human in a combat situation Neither will a tank but those are still used.
I really don't get where all these "BUT MECH CAN JUMP" idiots come from
here's a hint: legs are shit tier for upwards acceleration so whatever method you use to make a mech jump could ALSO be used to make a tank jump, and unlike the mech the tank won't have to worry about breaking its fragile leg joints when dropping
But we can't make them. Not really. There are a few robotics projects that are mechlike right now but they're inefficient as fuck and far more vulnerable because they have way more moving parts than a tank. There's just no situation in which a mech beats out a tank. Powered armor may become a thing in the future but a full on mech? Fuck no.
>>286026038 No, I'll give you that. Sheer ledges are a problem. But a lot of work's gone into some very complicated suspension on tanks to tackle everything but. I'm painfully aware of how ignorant I sound
>>286026216 >but they're inefficient as fuck Because people are trying to make them move autonomously, anon. You sidestep AI problems and suddenly a mech is far easier to make than a normal walking robot.
There is literally no reason whatsoever to produce large scale mecha, ever. You want mecha without them being shit, they damn well better be exo-suits. That's the only "mecha" worth a shit because it's the only one that makes any sense. Enhancing soldiers IS something you do. Building poorly constructed humanoid vehicles with poorly designed Japanese energy swords is bad and you should feel bad for thinking it's good.
>>286025363 What you want is a tank that can unfold its treds into four legs. Most of the time it is a tank, but if it finds a roadblock or obstacle it can't roll over it can get up and step over it. It could also raise itself up to peek over cover.
Oddly enough, I'd say Call of Duty actually represented mech tanks the best. It feels really weird saying that.
>mechs in charge of being cheaper than tanks >mechs in charge of not having a million points of failure >mechs in charge of weight distribution >mechs in charge of being low-profile >mechs in charge of being more specialized than a plane >mechs in charge of being more specialized than a tank
>>286026519 also don't forget taking out a tank treads is significantly harder than taking out a mech's leg given that there's absolutely no way to put any form of decent armor over the joints which are also already under heavy strain
I'm talking about power expenditure. It takes more energy to get a bipedal mech to move the same amount of weight as a tank. They're just not cost effective and don't provide any tangible benefit to justify the extra cost other than "looking cool."
>>286025791 I think the main advantage of a mech versus a tank is intimidation factor. Don't get me wrong, tanks are terrifying, but to me seeing a giant metal man walk out from around a building would be scarier.
>>286024750 >rpg to any of the legs >suddenly immobile That's alot of weak spots to get Armor on won't that get really heavy? How the fuck are you gonna power it if it's supposed be fast and able to dodge shit fired at it? Looks like a single shot will take it out
>>286026737 >same amount of weight as a tank. And here is where you've made your mistake. A proper mech is not nearly as heavy as a tank. Tanks are heavy to take a lot of fire and to not completely break apart when it fires the cannon. A mech doesn't need to be as strong as a tank and therefore doesn't need to be as heavy.
>>286026624 mechs can't climb anything either, if you can create an engine that could have a mech lift itself up by 1 arm, you can also use said engine to make a tank climb 70° inclines and if you try to lean with a mech you end up with a toppled mech, meanwhile designing a tank that can extend weaponry around corners is easy enough using simple hydraulics
God you're fucking dumb. Any amount of weight is going to be more cost effectively moved in a tank than in a mech. 2 lbs or 2 tons it makes no difference. and you're completely wrong about not needing to be as strong as a tank. It needs to be stronger. It's design makes it far more vulnerable to attacks. Hell, it's design makes it far more vulnerable to just breaking down in the middle of fucking nowhere for no god damn reason.
>>286027001 I missed the bits where tanks are doing flips off of the side of cliffs, anon. >>286026979 > if you can create an engine that could have a mech lift itself up by 1 arm, you can also use said engine to make a tank climb 70° inclines >implying Nah, mechs are lighter and air muscles air considerably stronger for their weight/power ratio. And while you might be able to make a tank climb a 70 degree incline, it ain't ever gonna get over an obstacle more than 50% of the wheel's height. Because that's physically impossible.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.