[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / fascist / general / hisrol / jewess / vg / vichan ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

f4f57e No.582185

I know you guys hate Youtubers but this is honestly something I want to be discussed here seriously.

3ac2ae No.582202

>>582185

Get out of my youtube video recommendations!


143c36 No.582206

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>useless

lolno. Just extremely overrated, the heavy tank will always be the biggest, scariest, and most well-armed and armored vehicle on the battlefield.

piloted, large(bigger than a car, >1 ton) mechs will never see common use on the front lines, at least not in our lifetime. Except maybe by japan. In my opinion, they will most likely replace armored bulldozers in combat. They'll basically look like a treaded vehicle with a dozer blade and one/two logging claws on arms for clearing and moving obstacles. It will open up new options for urban combat, like taking destroyed cars and quickly making an impromptu roadblock, for instance. The arm(s) will be able to make holes in buildings that would otherwise require explosives. They'll be useful in a front line or near front line utility role.

But for actually using mechs to dish out firepower, it's not happening anytime soon. The closest thing we'll see to that might be vid related with an SMG turret.

Don't even post that meme video shit here, any mech you've seen in a movie/game/anime/fanart is not realistic.

The mech fears the tank.


fec682 No.582223

>>582185

By definition mechs can't be discussed seriously.


0d516f No.582225

>>582185

Treads and wheels will always be more practical than comparatively delicate legs that require gyro-stabilizers, joints, & software. Accepting that mechs can't widely be used for heavy arms, you have to justify the new motor pools, logistical chain expansion, training of mechanics, and general exuberant cost compared to infantry. One or two infantrymen can do anything a similarly sized mech can do a hundred times more efficiently. As said by the TORpedo above, the only justification I can possibly think of is terrain locomotion, which is heavily specialized anyways, for example a mech would do much worse in woodland and jungle terrain than regular armor, undoubtedly have sever maintenance issues in the desert due to all the moving joints and sensors, and basically just end up being regulated to mountains. Then you have to think about how you'd actually fit an artillery piece into a mech's body, and let me remind you, real life is not vidya where half a dozen limbs that can spontaneously grow weapons like some sort of weapon-tree is practical whatsoever. In the far-ish future they might see specialized use as PR anti-riot gimmicks, and that's about it.


ae277a No.582231

>>582206

The main problem with a mech is that every time it takes a step, it goes up and down slightly. The movement is too slight to notice when looking at the mech from outside, but being inside it would be very different. Doing that at any speed would be like riding a car with no shocks over these for hours. You'd have popped spinal disks after only a few weeks on the frontline. Even wheeled vehicles are already pretty rough platforms for a weapon system, we need tracked vehicles for real stability and max weight.

There are many other problems, but that's the worst for me.

The only way we'll have mechs is as semi independent UGVs and weapons platforms following soldiers around and carrying supplies or heavy weapons. Troops themselves will only have various supports, not even full exoskeletons, just supporting struts which improve the load they can carry. Maybe a faster version of HAL5.


ae277a No.582232

File: f38ea1b3dd0d9f7⋯.jpg (111.31 KB, 848x474, 424:237, Screen-Shot-2017-10-17-at-….jpg)

>>582231

> over these for hours

Photo dropped sorry.


f2cb97 No.582234

>>582185

All her arguments are false.

<Aiming for the legs is far easier than done.

>Its fucking easy is the target is as big as a tree or building, no mecha can outrun bullets or missiles.

<Head and body are a much easier target and this is where a Mechas armor is equal or better than a tanks.

>You cannot arm a Mecha better than a tank, it will always be equal to the armor you are able to put on a tank.

>Additionally tank armor is so weak on the battlefield, tanks are forced to deploy camouflage and ambush tactics or they are easily picked off by other weapon systems.

<Active protection system will be enough to save the Mecha from being raped on the Battlefield

>No active protection system is able to outdakka the shit the enemy is able to throw at an armored vehicle.

<A Mechas great height is an asset that gives its weapon and protective system more range.

>Basically wrong for all weapons using explosives.

<Mechas have greater mobility than tanks and are better in terrain that is difficult for tanks

>Wrong, the Mecha will always be more heavier than the tank because it has to carry the weight of his own legs.

>Also the moment the terrain becomes so difficult that land based weapon platform have difficulties, it is cheaper and easier to switch to swimming of flying weapon platforms.

Mechs are too big, too heavy, they cost too much and are too easy to kill.


6d01c4 No.582238

>>582185

Mechs are useless because they do not account for that tiny thing called THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

We can make heavy vehicles because tracks (or lots of wheels) properly even out the pressure exercised by their heavy weight on a very large contact surface.

And modern tanks ALREADY have issues collapsing river banks or streets and falling into sewers/basements despite that. The jap image of the bipedal mech in a city is RETARDED. It instantly ends up in the metro or the gigantic typhoon proof drainage system if it's actually in japan. Cities have just as much empty space bellow than above.

The answer mecha morons have to that is "hurr durr you can make multi-legged mechs"… which will ALWAYS be more complicated than simpler tracked vehicles for the EXACT same mobility result.

The Uran series of UGV that are being deployed in Russia is what the future of mechanized warfare looks like.

Not retarded fantasy about giant robots.


f6385c No.582239

File: 46f8a5c220f2dbd⋯.jpg (351.79 KB, 778x519, 778:519, boys_1.jpg)

>Mechas

Bet I could take them out even with pic related.


ae277a No.582245

File: 837b050b3ba9649⋯.jpg (250.58 KB, 640x426, 320:213, Steyr_amr_1.jpg)

>>582239

Get on my level.


eceb0d No.582250

The only type of mechs that I can think that would be in anyway feasible would be basically over-sized power armor, in the realm of like 8'-12' tall. Outside of that it would be a fucking nightmare of proper weight distribution and a bunch of other shit.


99da62 No.582261

>>582225

For setting up mountain artillery it's still probably cheaper and more efficient to have 20 guys and some donkeys haul the equipment up on bicycles than to make a walking tank capable of keeping its balance on treacherous scree. Also when the mech runs out of ammo it's either going to have to walk back down to reload and then trek back up or you're gonna need those 20 grunts anyway to carry that shit up to the mech's position.


1eb2c5 No.582262

File: c4fbe5519e2497f⋯.jpg (347.47 KB, 574x383, 574:383, Afgh-Chinook-airlift.jpg)

>>582261

It would probably be cheaper to airlift the artillery and the crew up there like we do now


e2f9ba No.582263

>>582250

Maybe as an anti tank weapons platform. Something that can use the terrain/elevation to its advantage to get into a firing position. Fire and bug out/disappear into the surroundings. But once its in the open it is going to be a fire magnet.


1eb2c5 No.582265

File: 622b0f0186a4e30⋯.jpg (332.91 KB, 620x413, 620:413, jav team.jpg)

>>582263

Thing is, that role can be done by regular infantry men, with better survivability and cost effectiveness.


bd9465 No.582271

File: 03b7ac762227edd⋯.jpg (322.68 KB, 810x1410, 27:47, 03b7ac762227edd472707e3c89….jpg)

>>582185

Electronics tech who occasionally fixes robots here. Mechs are a horrible idea. You'd end up with that scene from Iron Man where the mech twists the guy's spine 180 degrees.

The only time mechs would be useful as a stand-alone unit is in the case of small arms if you could produce said mech for cheaper than a soldier. We're talking "dark trooper" sized mechs in science fantasy here. In reality it would be a bomb disposal rover or that dog robot armed with a semi-auto or auto rifle, maybe a light machine gun for suppressive fire, and its sole purpose would be being at the front of a group of soldiers to soak up bullets that would otherwise kill people. Such mecha would only be feasible if they were cheaper than training/equipping infantry. Otherwise the only use of a robot in the military is as a utility vehicle, that is such as the bulldozer example listed above, or as a partial exoskeleton to assist troops during extended campaigns. Weight balancing is extremely difficult on rough terrain when not using treads, and moreso when not on a flat surface.


f6385c No.582272

File: a3fe5f204d46e81⋯.gif (137.48 KB, 248x255, 248:255, AAAAAHHHHH.gif)


bd9465 No.582274

File: 5b9743b9aa29d97⋯.png (404.07 KB, 878x842, 439:421, 5b9743b9aa29d97bfcacc54c03….png)

>>582273

Because it's a pain in the ass to get in and out of a full exoskeleton. Imagine a skin-tight scuba suit, except on top of an oxygen tank you also have to worry about battery life and shit exploding on you/causing that battery to spray acid. There's too many points of failure introduced by a full exoskeleton for shit to go wrong like a busted servo twisting your arm 360 degrees. Partial exoskeletons typically aren't directly attached to the body, or if they are, it's only as a "holder belt" or brace that doesn't interact with the moving parts. To do the same with a full exoskeleton would involve severely limiting one's range of motion/vision.


fb492c No.582285

>>582231

>The main problem with a mech is that every time it takes a step, it goes up and down slightly. The movement is too slight to notice when looking at the mech from outside, but being inside it would be very different. Doing that at any speed would be like riding a car with no shocks over these for hours. You'd have popped spinal disks after only a few weeks on the frontline.

in what way is this different from a horse


1eb2c5 No.582291

>>582285

A horse isn't over 60 tons for one, and you can get serious back injuries from riding horses.


ae277a No.582314

>>582285

Well one major factor is length of use and speed. Modern combat simply can't have a mech walking around at the speed of a plodding horse, it has to move at least as fast as a car to be competitive with one.

Another factor is that I'm assuming a bipedal mech, which is very very much worse than a horse. If its a quadruped mech, you'd have the same problems, which does cause a lot of problems:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/horse-training/back-problems-for-riders-and-how-to-prevent-them-312541

Except maybe even larger ranges and more abrupt. I suppose a mech with six legs would be a smoother ride than a horse, but thats a huge investment in legs and I'm not sure how fast it could be.


ae277a No.582316

File: d2aeebee6f2d883⋯.jpg (290.97 KB, 1200x807, 400:269, fag jordans.jpg)

>>582273

>Why wouldn't troops have full exoskeletons if it became cheap enough?

If.

We're living in the real world where the army refuses to massively upgrade soldiers rifles because they'll cost $600 instead of $500 each. Due to basic law of complexity full body exoskeletons won't ever cost less than a car, and are likely to cost twice as much. So the suit is going to have to be more mobile, more reliable, and more deadly than a HMMWV, or half dozen guys on bikes.

>>582275

Right and Jordans can give us the ability to fly with "better technology." You can't wave away every problem with "the future will fix it" attitude.


9b70c6 No.582321

*falls over*


ae277a No.582323

File: f30ed67a5c64afb⋯.gif (903.46 KB, 215x335, 43:67, oIsKpXd.gif)


143c36 No.582325

File: 997961a3b4f6ffb⋯.png (962.79 KB, 1280x908, 320:227, ClipboardImage.png)

File: bf3343c22a37f51⋯.png (623.89 KB, 1300x866, 650:433, ClipboardImage.png)

>>582231

I never said manned and armed vehicle. I think walking drones like boston dynamic's Spot(not spotmini) carrying a pic related, with the standard compliment of gunner/loader to operate the drone, but from cover. Meaning the MG nest can dish out suppressing fire even when taking suppressing fire.

>>582273

Its not just about price, its also about cost-effectiveness and safety, do the exoskeletons actually bring a benefit in combat to the average frontline marine, or is it just a gimmick to lighten an overloaded soldier's pack?


ae277a No.582330

>>582325

Oh you're that guy. Read everything after the spoiler here >>582231 I was agreeing with you.


19bc16 No.582344

File: a3f723c2f376deb⋯.jpg (64.09 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, [HorribleSubs]_Sword_Art_O….jpg)

>>582321

>CY+15

>shortages of qualified personnel among the US army have lead to overseas casuality numbers above the ZOG-approved quota with no end in sight due to ever declining numbers of skilled white men in active service and continued resistance by chinese and russian funded rebels

>Lockheeb Martin, GD, Raytheon and Jewgle are contracted to solve the issue by developing a legged infantry support robot

>The MA-78I Clinton is the result

>A quadruped with a max speed of 18km/h, range of 20km without external fuel, an optional ATGM mount that slows it down to 3km/h while fucking up the leg joints in the process, 2 frontal gun mounts containing G-11s with an autoloader that never works and has to be manually unjammed in the field, an AESA radar, a "cargo" compartment the size of 3 PS3s, tiny retractable hands for opening doors and pushing buttons even though the damn thing is too huge to fit through any door combined with unreliably fragile communications equipment all running on 60 million lines of code written by Indian women

>Congress is amazed, buys several hundred of them for 6 gorillion shekels and ships them to the Congolese and Iranian fronts right away

>Originally the bots were supposed to operate mostly autonomously via voice commands, however the AI crashes itself with no survivors in the dense african rainforest so the soldiers resort to remote controlling it like a regular drone

>Motors wear out or fail in the humid climate at an alarming rate as do the autoloaders, the atrocious range requires frequent presence of refueling drones giving away the bot's position

>the bots' weight also tends to set off IEDs and Landmines, mine detector doesn't work too well in mud

>Field engineers remove most of the armor plating and cut the cables to the AESA radar as it's useless bloat in dense jungle and keeps sending telemetry to nearby drone aircraft even when turned off

>now it doesn't get stuck in the mud as much, but the lack of armor makes it die excessively fast in firefights

>engineers jury rig the ATGM mount to carry an M249, turn the robot into a semi-stationary automated sentry to avoid further faggotry

>complaint from animal rights groups however further complicate even this, as videos have emerged in which sentries confuse chimpanzees with enemy soldiers and kill them

>after applying the resulting updates the AI won't fire on Congolese rebels unless an operator shuts it off and takes manual control

<meanwhile in Iran

>The bot has less issues walking on a dry rocky environment and the AESA radar actually sort of werks in picking out insurgents at a distance

>until its signal characteristics are picked up by russian hackers, after which it becomes a missile magnet

>It is thus once again repurposed as a sentry, this time carrying anti-vehicle sniper raifus and actual ATGMs

>there are also a few attempts at using stripped down bots as expendable recon units, but those were abandoned after an unfortunate incident in which insurgents jammed the comms, followed the bot as it was passing its preset checkpoints autonomously, approached it from behind dressed as bears to fool the AI, snuck a remote controlled IED in the cargo compartment and waited until it had reached its base

>After that incident resulting in the loss of at least 6,000,000 million shekels worth of military hardware in a ddition to numerous human casualties and the bots' removal from active service in Iran Lockheeb presents to Congress an upgrage package containing fully fledged hands in the front legs allowing the robot to manipulate weapons and other things while standing up on its hind legs to intimidate the enemy in urban combat

>Congress is so impressed that the DoD cancels a fully developed bipedal earthquake+nuclear disaster robot from Northrop Grumman in favor of a badly stripped down MA-78 variant that can't even walk up stairs properly


f876f7 No.582350

>>582344

>managed to make mechs non-fiction

Always impressed by German efficiency.


41e9af No.582356

>>582275

"Better technology" is so vague and insipid in these sorts of discussions it practically means nothing. With no hard data, proposed specific solution, or even hypothesis to work off it means jack shit. Might as well argue bullets in the future will become useless as every gun will be able to fire miniature black holes because of "better technology".


b39b9a No.582358

Mechs are cool as fuck, but horribly impractical. Mainly because in engineering, it's better to keep things simple.

Replacing a mech's leg after Jihad John fucks it up with a surplus ATGM costs more time and money to replace than simply getting new wheels or treads.

Also mechs tend to stick out more, so they'll be more likely to be shot at.

Mechs will mainly stay in science fiction and if they do appear in real life like the Japan vs US mech battle from a while ago it'll be more for sport than actual military use.


cc9b50 No.582400

The only time you'll ever see human shaped, limbed vehicles is in space. Emulating human motion to conserve thruster fuel by using Newton's third law to orient a craft along its multiple axes is great to have in a micro G environment. The only problem is that space is more about long distance missle attacks rather than within visual range attacks so strategic weapons would be used, not space mechas.


834d9b No.582437

>>582185

>one youtuber

>"I know you guys hate youtubers…."

Mechs will be useful in the future, obviously.

Gas yourself.


6d01c4 No.582452

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>582325

Again, tell me this won't do the job better.

Nrekhta light multipurpose drone (infantry), officially adopted last year.


01395f No.582471

>>582363

>I doubt they'd even approach the price of a full-sized car though.

That's asinine.

A single robot arm (used in construction) costs 60k. If its stripped down as much as possible (no tools, no safety features, just metal and hydraulics) the cost can maybe hit 20k. You're going to need four of those to make a real exoskeleton, total 80k. Lets say the part which mates it to the human body is another 20k at the lowest possible end. Added on top of that is fitting it out with sensors, weapons, and control systems, which would be another 100k. In the end a finished very rough exoskeleton would cost 200k, at the base lowest market price. Built at a loss, shittier than the exoskeletons in that tom cruise movie, and it would still cost a couple of hundred billion to outfit an infantry force.

A suit would be several million apiece if it got built by Lockmart, which translates to several trillion dollars to outfit an army.

There's no fucking way a military that refuses to massively improve its combat ability in the present day with a few hundred million dollars would be willing to pay a few hundred billion dollars or a few trillion dollars.


f2e8b7 No.582570

File: 2b556fd0a2be385⋯.jpg (3.1 MB, 2960x2245, 592:449, yande.re 59554 glycine_ble….jpg)

>>582231

What about some kind of exotic shocks? Dimagnetic dampening for example.

>>582250

What about something like this?


8f606f No.586532

>>582570

This but more dakka, they should fill the role of airborne combat vehicles like BMD or Wiesel.


834d9b No.586536

>>582185

No, they're still in development though.


a165de No.586538

It depends on the height, if it's like 7m, yeah, it's still feasible.

Bigger though, a waste of money and a big walking target.


9a6f69 No.586602

Would mgs mechs be the way of the future ?


a165de No.586781

>>586602

Why would they? They are literally chicken walkers and these designs are fucking horrible.

You want something good, you should base it on something with a lower center of gravity, like chimpanzee/gorilla.


312554 No.586810

>>582234

>Mechs are too big, too heavy, they cost too much and are too easy to kill.

so just like tanks?


0d516f No.591878

>>586810

The Maus weighed, according to wikipedia, 188 tons. It had tracks, distributing weight across a relatively large surface. It was also known for being a retarded tanker's nightmare that would sink into slightly-soft dirt. The Abrams weighs 60 tons. Now imagine a 60 or 100 ton (because of the legs) mech, with two or four legs, and as such a twentieth of the surface area to distribute weight onto. There's already discussion about tanks becoming comparatively obsolete in the future due to ATGM advances. A mech just compounds the problems of regular armor twenty times over with barely, if any, positives.


220a34 No.591921

File: 7073fe260c03bae⋯.png (10.88 MB, 2000x1056, 125:66, Artillery Mech.png)

Wouldn't legged self-propelled artillery have advantage over wheeled/treaded howitzers in difficult terrain, such as mountains and dense forests?


220a34 No.591922

File: 70ea6c262dc9feb⋯.webm (2.85 MB, 852x480, 71:40, Cover.webm)

File: 5af22cfcd8af57d⋯.webm (2.72 MB, 852x480, 71:40, Support.webm)

File: 2c4e7642abb4d87⋯.jpg (133.91 KB, 800x901, 800:901, Titanfall Atlas (2).jpg)

Or perhaps something smaller, like a ~6 meter tall mech that can operate on urban areas for infantry support, with the combat capability of an LAV so it can work alongside MBTs instead of replacing them?


02009b No.591923

>>591922

Smaller mechs or drones of that size do make more sense, but thier roll would still be limited for as far as i can see.


18c67a No.591943

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN5S9ywEoJM

screw mechs what about zaku and gundam ?


18c67a No.591944


18c67a No.591950

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOmuQnKjJc4

what about space batles cant use tanks their!


220a34 No.591971

HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.

By the way there's this.


02009b No.591989

>>591950

Space battles are to be fought with space ships you dolt!


9d67a9 No.592015

>Mechs

>Useless

>Implying

Go fight Sammy or Kanbei and get back to me.


e4ece4 No.592019

File: 5177bb9e6fa99a5⋯.jpg (107.28 KB, 677x652, 677:652, the fuck.jpg)

>>591971

>it'll be ready for sale within two years

Crap, life's turning into some weird sci-fi novel at this point.


44e4b5 No.592043

>>591950

>space battles

There's 239,000 miles between us and the moon. The Apollo program traversed this distance at 24,000 mph. Assuming you're willing to burn enough fuel to take a direct trip, this will take you about 10 hours. During this 10 hour trip, you will be traveling in a gigantic thermal signature, with a known velocity and trajectory. Firing a metal brick strapped to a rocket so that it intercepts you is child's play. Adding an antenna so that they can make course corrections in case you change your velocity is trivial. This kinetic impactor can accelerate many times faster than you can and combined with your own velocity will punch a hole in your vessel like a bullet going through yogurt. A really clever military might even attach an explosive to it. The future of space warfare is a game of interstellar rocket tag. A giant bipedal robot is not going to effectively do anything besides waste resources that would be better used as missiles.


d3e6a3 No.592051

>>592015

>Not using Sensei

That fucker can ruin a persons day with just mechs let alone the choppers.


3920a9 No.592054

File: a401e455a23dec7⋯.gif (375.16 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 7526652192532.gif)

>>592043

>interstellar


9d67a9 No.592056

File: 66be43641c718e4⋯.png (427.01 KB, 2650x2000, 53:40, Advance Wars COs.png)

>>592051

I meant to say Sensei but I didn't remember his name.

/k/ game night when


d3e6a3 No.592059

>>592056

Kanbei is pure rape though especially if he gets a choke point. It isn't fair when his Mech can lolrape several medium tanks and stay in good order. One day. I lost a GBA by besting two people with Kanbei.


f46fe8 No.592103

>>591921

Not really. Artillery does 1 of two things:

1. Shoots and gets the fuck out of the area.

2. Just sits there.

A "mech" would be shit at the first, and laughably expensive at the second. If you need a firebase in the mountains, you just clear out a stable area and airlift a normal "dumb" artillery piece in. Simple, cheap, and effective.


220a34 No.592159

File: 597cc94f60993db⋯.jpg (173.36 KB, 960x558, 160:93, 1014513_orig.jpg)

File: bc739e96c76a3cd⋯.jpg (160.34 KB, 779x439, 779:439, csm_history-014_3877a49cc0.jpg)

File: 00f2f1527d1adb0⋯.jpg (107.25 KB, 759x500, 759:500, Menzi-muck-spider-excavato….jpg)

>>592103

But how can it even be countered if it fires from behind a mountain at angles such as pic related? The mountain coves it from artillery and if fast movers fly over it to target the thing, it could have a mech with a AAA platform sitting right next to it for cover.


0e3499 No.592175

>>592056

Kindle has an awful personality, worse hair, and a stupid goal, but dear lord is it fun to play with her.


ce0947 No.592191

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>582185

As much as I like Gundam, mechs are inherently flawed. They're slow, bulky, and are easy targets. They're also prohibitively heavy when at the scale of the typical anime mech, with the Zaku weighing in at 58 tons. Adding weapons systems or extra armor will only serve to make the thing heavier, thus slower and an even easier target.

Apart from some bullshit radar jamming technology the "Minovsky particles" emitted from fusion reactors do this in Gundam, they're sitting ducks for guided missiles. Even some of the more grounded Gundam stuff references this, the embeded video shows that despite the aforementioned bullshit radar jamming, a platoon of poorly trained artillerymen can take down a mech.

>>592159 brings up a good point though, as a terrain hugging artillery position mechs could find use, though airstrikes are a concern as they would be even less mobile.


75fdd7 No.592212

File: f54051c9975f431⋯.jpg (322.44 KB, 1230x1024, 615:512, ATGM_Stryker_firing_a_TOW_….jpg)

>>592191

Can't jam wireless communication when there isn't any wireless communication, pic related.

I find it funny that if the thing that makes Gundams immune to missiles is wireless communication jamming then the tech to defeat them has existed since 1945. Wire guidance missiles were super common before fire-and-forget became the cool new kid on the block. The American army used the M47 Dragon, a shoulder fired wire guidance missile, extensively from 1975 onward and that thing could seriously fuck up an armored vehicle.

Also, "jamming" radar? What the fuck? That's not how that works. Jamming consists of decreasing the signal to noise ratio by deliberately broadcasting a bunch of noise. You know, turning yourself into a radio beacon. Radar guided missiles don't exist as far as I know but they sure as hell would exist if these weapons platforms turned themselves into radar beacons.

Modern fire-and-forget missiles don't even use the microwave or radio waves employed by radar. They use infrared for guidance. And "jamming" infrared just means getting really hot, making it easier on the missile. And if it did the opposite, and absorbed infrared radiation then the missile would just be set to target the big cold spot rather than the big hot spot. Literally just a software update to the missile and lock-on software.

But even if you could somehow effectively make both radar and infrared guidance useless, let's say by absorbing radar and having active infrared camouflage, any military would just use laser guidance or wire guidance. Or can this "jam" visible light too?


a7fe20 No.592215

File: 3f028e3f70f1a6c⋯.png (170.98 KB, 479x479, 1:1, Sami shiggy.png)

>>592015

pretty sure "mech" is just short for mechanized infantry seeing that unless you play as Sami you are going to need APCs to get them anywhere within the next week. But they seriously could have done better by simply naming them heavy and light infantry

>>592212

The feddies regularly used wire guided missiles against mobile suits in close quarters since episode 1. They just aren't very effective when you are out in space and need miles of wire and can lose the target through smoke, wreckage, asteroids, decoy balloon suits ECT. The Minovsky particles are apparently dispersed in such a wide pattern that it saturates everything to the point that its nothing but noise. Again, its just a plot device used as a means to an end which is super robots. Also I don't know what the fuck you are smoking to think that there's no such thing as radar guided missiles as pretty much every long range air to air or surface to air missile is semi-active or active radar homing. Not to mention anti radiation missiles made to destroy radar and SAM systems.


b39b9a No.592216

Would mecha be better served to assist army engineers?

Just keep them away from combat and use them for building shit quickly.


522dc2 No.592217

File: d0e59356bbbb0b9⋯.jpeg (11.94 KB, 300x400, 3:4, wut.jpeg)

>>592212

>Radar guided missiles don't exist as far as I know

>AIM-7 Sparrow

>AIM-120 AMRAAM

>AIM-54 PHOENIX

>AGM-122 Sidearm


0d516f No.592218

File: e22585192e15cb1⋯.jpg (20.78 KB, 450x450, 1:1, e22585192e15cb1551f4f7caa7….jpg)

File: fb4fbe5a6660173⋯.png (77.5 KB, 330x340, 33:34, f46f9f6404bb2df465f2dbecbf….png)

File: 5f725e5686752b5⋯.jpg (11.93 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 5f725e5686752b5e815b9db431….jpg)

File: 594f6390bb469e3⋯.jpg (25.63 KB, 375x500, 3:4, 594f6390bb469e34f8128c90ce….jpg)

>>592212

>Radar guided missiles don't exist as far as I know

Jesus fucking christ


75fdd7 No.592221

File: 43b18f1ef871823⋯.jpg (23.61 KB, 665x574, 95:82, 47b.jpg)


961913 No.592233

>>582185

mechs have too many shortcomings compared to tanks to be viable

the only "mech" design i can see actually happening is infantry exosuits

mechs vs tanks disadvantages:

>more surface area requiring a higher tonnage of armor to achieve the same level of protection as a tank, surface profile still has a lot of weak points and "traps" that would give AP rounds easy angles to penetrate into its armor

>legs are slower than wheels on most terrain, the one advantage they have is they are less likely to get bogged in swampy ground (but the mech will need to watch its step to avoid falling over)

>expotentially more moving parts than a tank requiring a lot more maintainence and having a lot more potential points of failure from battle damage

>balance issues and servomotor strength limits the amount of weight the mech can carry, meaning the mech is forced to carry lighter weapons and less ammo than a tank of similar tonnage

>balance issues can compound through the battle as the mech takes damage and expends ammo, changing the weight distribution in its body

>mechs take up more space overall meaning they are more difficult to transport

mechs vs tanks advantages:

>mech can stand up or crouch down to peek above or hide behind cover more effectively than a tank

>legs are somewhat better for traversing swampy ground or deep snow drifts

>can kick and punch walls and other obstacles to destroy them without needing to expend ammunition

so as a vehicle combat unit they are basically a slower, weaker and less reliable tank


ce0947 No.592250

>>592212

>Radar guided missiles don't exist as far as I know

I'm a ZOGbot airman and radar guided missiles do exist. Aside from the ones that >>592217 mentioned many SAM platforms use radar to detect aircraft before the crew can see them. I had the opportunity to pilot an F-35 simulator a while back and the aircraft's ability to see radar and give the pilot a safe release range for munitions was one of the features used in the simulated SAM neutralization demo.


11c20c No.592274

>>592233

>mechs take up more space overall meaning they are more difficult to transport

If the mech can fold into a fetal position or the arms and legs can come off, it could be more compact than a tank.

>balance issues can compound through the battle as the mech takes damage and expends ammo, changing the weight distribution in its body

Even today's robots easily compensate for uneven loads. Staying upright is one of the things they're best at.

>can kick and punch walls and other obstacles to destroy them without needing to expend ammunition

As opposed to a tank which can drive over walls and obstacles with the full 40-60 tons of mass behind it. This should be a tank advantage not a mech advantage.


11c20c No.592282

>>592212

You can jam a wire-guided missile. If you did your homework you'd know that the commands sent to the missile through the wire are generated by a TV or IR sensor in the launch platform, which looks at a flare on the back of the missile to track the missile's deviation from the center of the crosshair. Systems like the T-90's Shtora use emitters to confuse the sensor and prevent it from correctly identifying the flare on the back of the missile, causing it to miss most of the time.

Every guidance system ever invented can be jammed. The most difficult system to jam today is probably beam-riding guidance as used on the 9K121 Vikhr, but even that isn't totally immune since it ultimately relies on an optical sensor to send command signals.


961913 No.592290

>>592274

>As opposed to a tank which can drive over walls and obstacles with the full 40-60 tons of mass behind it. This should be a tank advantage not a mech advantage.

yeah but the tank has to drive THROUGH the wall, potentially exposing itself to booby traps, being buried under collapsing rubble and exposing itself to whoever is on the other side

>If the mech can fold into a fetal position or the arms and legs can come off, it could be more compact than a tank.

well yes i'll give you that one, but then it would require significant assembly at the other side

you certainly couldn't drop it anywhere near a combat zone in that state

>Even today's robots easily compensate for uneven loads. Staying upright is one of the things they're best at.

you know what else is much better than a pair of legs at staying upright? a tank :^)

also if the legs themselves have suffered heavy combat damage then no amount of gyroscopes and advanced software will keep that thing standing up whereas tanks can keep grinding along on bare bogies even if their tracks have been mauled to shit by landmines

although i admit that would be another mech advantage to add, it being less likely to set off mines (albeit if you do step on one you are in big trouble)


f46fe8 No.592345

>>592159

If artillery can be countered, then you use the fucking airforce or artillery on wheels that can get the fuck out of there. There are also a variety of guided munitions that have no problem dealing with such a situation.

Artillery trying to hug and fire along a mountain is just going to fucking tumble to the bottom when physics once again come and kicks retarded mecha in the dick. Also note that all the equipment in your pictures are going to be secured by cables, because otherwise they will go tumbling down, which goes against your imagined mobility advantage.

You are trying to come up with a very expensive and sup-par tactic that has already been negated.

You should get a job in the defense industry


000000 No.592353

I posted in here about how the best role for a classic mech that can solve most of these problems is base defense, but it got deleted for some reason. The best way to build a mech that could actually compete with a tank is to hybridize it with a tank. You can either put wheels or treads at the ends of its legs, like the Ghost in the Shell spider tanks, or you can have it transform from a mech to a tank. The first way is probably better because making it transform will be more complex and cost more, and you'd be better off using a non-humanoid design for most purposes anyway.


fcf4ad No.592356

>>592159

>The mountain coves it from artillery…

No it doesn't.


dd5ebf No.592605

File: 51ac722129fb871⋯.jpg (3.65 KB, 165x163, 165:163, 1439982148919.jpg)

>>592212

>Radar guided missiles don't exist as far as I know


a77a11 No.592625

>>582185

Big mechs are space weapons. AMBAC, yo.


b39b9a No.592629

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>592353

We Hildolfr now?


764011 No.592634

File: 98d044196382f0b⋯.jpg (42.9 KB, 214x214, 1:1, 1325086580350.jpg)

>>592212

I wanted to point out how you were wrong about how Gundam does radar jamming to allow mobile suit combat, and how wire-guided missiles do exist in Gundam but their effectiveness is limited because Minovsky particle radiation fucks up unhardened electronics as well, but I think people are pointed out how stupid you were for saying there aren't any radar guided missiles.


764011 No.592636

>>592191

>the embeded video shows that despite the aforementioned bullshit radar jamming, a platoon of poorly trained artillerymen can take down a mech.

Again, it isn't the radar being jammed. In the Universal Century Gundam universe Minovsky based fusion reactions put out Minovsky particles as a byproduct. These particles are near massless and when spread out they form a lattice as opposite charged particles repulse each other. This lattice fucks up most electronics (so the launcher of this wire guided missile) and blocks not only radio (and thus radar) but also microwave, some far IR, and ends up actually interfering with some near IR and optical wavelengths. Also I'll agree with the sentiment that the mobile suits in Gundam are an interesting but ultimately flawed concept in the sense that they didn't stay as space-only weapons.

>>592629

The fucking Hildolfr survived that fight purely on plot armor. Any Zaku would have fucked it up easily if it wasn't protected by it.


89177a No.592638

Honestly the Minovsky particle is a better justification why star wars is filled with WWII dogfighting than making gundams a viable option. Besides if a minocsky particle existed you're better off using WWII-like tactics than wasting resources on gaint space robots.


764011 No.592647

File: 6d94ca259150b2d⋯.jpg (225.96 KB, 970x640, 97:64, ambac.jpg)

>>592638

No? The Minvosky particle made BVR combat obsolete (until the whole Newtype thing kicked in). This meant that long range attacks via missiles, guns, etc. were not optimal so A. large warships were basically only used in close fleet vs fleet operations and B. anything smaller than a warship needed to be very manuverable and to manuver on an axis limbs were found to consume less fuel while giving better control over rotating along your axes. Combine this with the ideas of close in combat and swappable handheld weaponry and that's why the mobile suit became the mainstay of combat in UC. Also what do you mean WWII dogfighting? Space is a vacuum, you don't get WWII dogfighting.


89177a No.592665

>>592647

>This meant that long range attacks via missiles, guns, etc. were not optimal so

How long is long range here? And why aren't they optimal? Because in space guns a virtually limitless range.

>A. large warships were basically only used in close fleet vs fleet operations

How close is close? Even then I mean you could be using them as defacto arty here by using shells with a timed charge, by using something like like a Flag semaphore system as a means of communication. That's still better than trying attempting 16th century ship warfare.

>B. anything smaller than a warship needed to be very manuverable and to manuver on an axis limbs were found to consume less fuel while giving better control over rotating along your axes.

It doesn't need to be a humanoid shape to do that. your better off having ball turret shaped ship instead where the axis rotate on a rail or gears like a lathe or a mill instead.

>swappable handheld weaponry

Why you ever need that? Locking lugs and screws would be much more sturdy system instead and cheaper to manufacture and maintain, if you needed to swap weapons. Anyway it would be quicker to swap ammo types instead.

>Also what do you mean WWII dogfighting? Space is a vacuum, you don't get WWII dogfighting.

The Minovsky just means a fog of war tactics because while there is a fog of war this does not mean it will be fought in melee distances like gundam likes to portray but rather visual contact ranges like WWII or even WWI style combat. Bombers would still be needed since you just can't use a guided missile, the bombers needs fighter escorts, how is this not similar to a WWII bombing run? Now you do have me there with vacuum thing, but star wars writers really want to use a Minvosky particle justification they could just say it cause a small atmosphere effect or some other asspull explanation to justify the maneuvers.


847245 No.592680

File: 4bf3f837f53d533⋯.png (290.21 KB, 752x864, 47:54, think mech.PNG)

This tread reminds me of this.


a6ffcb No.592857

>>592191

>futuretech giant robots getting BTFO by conventional weapons and proper tactics

I never realized how much I need this in my life.

>space future not!China invades some third world shithole banana republic, rolling in with mecha as a display of overwhelming force

>billions of dollars of oil sheik money and export-market armored vehicles/aircraft go up in flames when the regular army attempts to meet the invaders head-on

>as a last ditch effort, not!NATO sends in special forces to train and aid the now-insurgent 'moderate rebels'

>quoted webm ensues




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / fascist / general / hisrol / jewess / vg / vichan ]