So, if we keep in mind quite realistic and relatively small mecha, then what could be their tactical role on the battlefield? What place will they occupy against the background of the rest of the military equipment?
So, if we keep in mind quite realistic and relatively small mecha, then what could be their tactical role on the battlefield?
Smaller mecha would be even more impractical because you would already have infantry loaded down with the new armor and portable weapons that would destroy them.
Hilariously, big lumbering mecha loaded to the teeth would be far more practical.
>infantry loaded down with the new armor and portable weapons that would destroy them
>realistic
FRICK OFF
Oh boy it's another fricking "theory" thread by someone not really into the genre.
>mecha
>realistic
Frick off.
Ignore the delusional homosexuals that, for no logical reason, are seething over petty shit ITT, check tbharchive for discussions on this topic instead
>realistic
Super robotgays fear this measly word.
>muh false dichotomies are valid
If you bring this discussion to /k/ people will still call you moronic.
>bring this discussion to /k/
Now why would anyone do that?
I was under the impression anon liked stupid games, so I just mentioned a classic.
>So, if we keep in mind quite realistic and relatively small mecha, then what could be their tactical role on the battlefield? What place will they occupy against the background of the rest of the military equipment?
honestly they'll probably won't be used for a combat role, at least primarily. there'd be some role suitable for high-strength manipulators, like vehicle maintenance, various engineering applications. building quick bridges for tanks and stuff.
along these lines, you could also look at real-life projects and draw some inspiration there too. take the METHOD-2 for instance. it could be a vehicle the military brings out to aid in natural disaster relief efforts. a story where such natural disasters have become more common, they would be more like superheroes...
They could very well have a strategic role in a far-future where humanity is among the stars. In such a universe, controlling the space around a planet will allow an army to rain down devastating fires from orbit. Yet that alone does not give the posessor the people and infrastructure of a planet, which is likely what wars will be fought about. Those fighting against orbital domination will entrench themselves in the cities, among valuable infrastructure, and throughout forests and mountains. Even if bombarded night and day, they will prevent taxes and resources from accumulating to the power in orbit. Orbital firepower alone will be extremely inefficient in dealing with these problems; men on the ground will be needed to maintain a flow of accurate information to space, to protect resources and tax collectors, and to storm degraded enemy positions.
The optimal form of this ground capability will be a combination of mecha and infantry, because they will be able to deploy in all the places they might be needed. Mecha will be able to bring armor capabilities, anti-armor capabilities, heavy fires, and engineering/prime mover capabilities to all possible battles. While they are strictly inferior to tanks at most of these roles, tanks would be useless in a number of easily envisionable scenarios, and in the context of orbital superiority a mecha army would still be able to defeat a tank army as the orbital fires would prevent the tanks from concentrating force and allow mechas to attack with vast local superiority in materiel.
Other necessary accompaniments to mecha, besides orbital fires, will be infantry (whom the mecha will be there to support) and aircraft (who will be needed to ensure unmolested deployment from the air). However, if the mecha have air capabilities themselves (like most Mobile Suits and Variable Fighters), they should be able to deal with any aerial resistance after enemy runways are cratered from orbit and should be extremely effective at dealing with ambuscade from the ground as they can descend to the ground to totally eradicate SAM users. So a spacenavy-infantry-mecha system of war is totally envisionable.
>realistic
The word you are failing to use here is plausible.
Seconded
The single most realistic take on mecha are terminators.
They ARE the infantry but without any weakness of human meat soldiers.
Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
>The single most realistic take on mecha are terminators.
No.
>The single most realistic take on tanks are tankettes.
>They ARE the armored cavalry but without any weakness of the meat pair.
>Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
>The single most realistic take on warships are runabouts.
>They ARE the navy but without any weakness of the whale.
>Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
>The single most realistic take on aircraft are commercial quadrocopters.
>They ARE the airforce but without any weakness of the bird.
>Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
>The single most realistic take on artillery are mortars.
>They ARE the catapult but without any weakness of the wooden chassis.
>Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
>The single most realistic take on trains are handcars.
>They ARE the transportation but without any weakness of the camel.
>Making anything bigger would be switching realism for the rule of cool.
Pretty much, as long as you make them autonomous.
If tank can operate without humans it's a robot.
No you.
It's all good to scale everything down to automatic quantum bot swarms but you still have electronic warfare and equipment that takes a lot of space by design to think about, and find a use for masses of dumb, obedient and uncharismatic manpower so it wouldn't join slum gangs or something.
My point is 6 meters walking target are impractical no matter how much you suspend your disbelief.
It's not even about square cube law. Giant robots are just stupid easy to shoot at.
Yes, that's why AFVs, aircraft carriers and jets aren't used anywhere. Engineering vehicles and support equipment vehicle are too big to be difficult to hit so they were discarded decades ago, too.
I see your point, but you keep missing mine.
You forgot that it's also too heavy to fly and G forces would bend the frame.
Much less armor than a tank, does not enable grunts to carry artillery, does not provide car-level mobility. I'm writing a book where exoskeletons play a big part, but they can't do everything.
we get this thread ever damn week and answer is always same mecha wont happen
things that are far more practical and /m/ are exoskeletons (that are already real) and power armor or power armor suits
point of all of these technologies is to allow infantry to carry more stuff(ammo meds guns protection)
but even that might not happen as us military realizing it can just offload all that weight to a...donkey or to some additional dude
Can any of you tards that unironically think mecha will be used for combat IRL explain what practical combat role they're supposed to fill that isn't better filled by wheeled and tracked AFVs, or smaller powered armor?
Can you explain how they'd be a game changer if one side were to deploy a bunch of them in the current Russo-Ukrainian war of attrition, for example?
If russia deployed mechs it'd make a lot of people support their cause, me included.
At this rate they won't be even able to get and deploy a robot dog, unlike their opponent, unless they ask chinese communists to sell some
https://www.iotworldtoday.com/2022/06/23/boston-dynamics-spot-the-robot-dog-is-heading-to-ukraine/
"Smaller powered armor" brings to mind how FMP went with armslaves
>Well the tech isn't quite miniaturized yet... so frick it, take the power armor and scale it up so it can support a better powerplant and go from there!
Yeah there's still a lot of superscience in that setting but it does raise a novel point that sometimes the sweetspot size isn't the smallest, sometimes miniaturization is a real bottleneck, sometimes bigger has its upsides.
Past that, trying to anticipate the course of military technology is an exercise in putting your foot in your mouth. I wouldn't take any side on the discussion even if you paid me, what makes sense for yesterday's battlefield can be bafflingly moronic for the next.
For example, Patlabor presented a completely plausible option using mecha as an amphibious assault vehicle with a minimal crew, good weapons and broad tactical flexibility.
Perhaps, there is a certain sense in the idea of using mecha as a heavy universal airborne combat unit...
The main value of the mecha as a combat unit is the ability to use a platform with a wide range of weapons and equipment in the presence of a single pilot. At least some advantage over tanks and armored vehicles with numerous crews.
is this what's used in OP's pic? pretty neat-looking design.
pixiv has a lot of neat /m/ designs.
The best AS in the FMP universe - C-35 Mistral 2 - is made in a similar design, allowing it to be not only an easy-to-operate unit thanks to a successful combination of manual and mounted weapons, but also ideal for maintenance because it can be repaired with the help of spare parts from traditional armored vehicles.
Mecha with code Geass styled roller blades
with the Russo Ukraine War's showcase of different artillery doctrines, Metal Gear Rex is starting to sound nice, the idea of mobile accurate Artillery that can be deployed in any terrain without need of roads. The mecha part would be more on the logistics rather than actual combat ability.
And with how tanks and other vehicles get stuck in moronic places, with the addition of an arm or two, it could also fit the role of an engineering vehicle (that is capable of fire support and self-defence)
And mecha could circumvent minefields by moving through obstacle-full places normal vehicles can't, without being a target of AA defences
You completely misunderstood the reasoning behind REX, 95% of the reason being the loophole of it and the other 5% being able to get into weird positions and out quickly. Not that it could go over difficult terrain.
It would have all of the problems any other equipment would have going through mud, snow, etc.
It's like you people have never walked through anything before.
Nobody said anything about building a 1:1 REX.
As for other hypothetical mecha that may have something in common with it,
>going through mud, snow, etc.
>It's like you people have never walked through anything before.
>mud
Like I hop on hard and stable surfaces I see if I'm in a hurry?
>snow
So assuming an extreme situation of a mecha getting deep into snow, it could just dig through with its arms, without having to worry about digging downwards because it would have a gyro?
>big obstacles like tank or building wreckage
Walk over it, jump over it, walk on it, hop over it with arm support (depending on size)?
>roadless cliffs and mountains
Climb?
To be honest russian tank use is subpar - no good tank optics nor enough spare optics, barely any combined arms operation (thus no infantry support), very few have APS, etc, so it shouldn't be viewed as some tank operation standard.
>Like I hop on hard and stable surfaces I see if I'm in a hurry?
Oh you mean the hard and stable surfaces that will always just happen to exist in all situations where mud is present?
Your snow example is nonsense in assuming it will both be tactically advantageous to make a huge show of digging through snow and that it would have the time to do so.
The walking example is extremely risky assuming none of those obstacles have been checked.
So your multi-ton mech is just going to climb up everything without issues?
You really need to work on your hypotheticals.
In short, you actually haven't ever walked through mud, snow, brush, etc of any real depth if at all.
>that will always just happen to exist in all situations where mud is present?
Oh so the whole world is one big swamp and any surface movement is inherently moronic?
>Your snow example is nonsense in assuming it will both be tactically advantageous to make a huge show of digging through snow and that it would have the time to do so.
I don't think you have a point here if your "snow is impassable" argument turned into "it isn't always a good idea to pass through snow".
>The walking example is extremely risky assuming none of those obstacles have been checked
Any intel-less terrain movement is risky. Ever heard of mines? Traps? Unstable terrain and bridges?
>So your multi-ton mech is just going to climb up everything without issues?
Define "issues".
>you actually haven't ever walked
And you haven't ever breathed dude, breathe manually now.
>Oh so the whole world is one big swamp
Is that your scale? Swamp to muddy area that has stable surfaces everywhere?
What's your point?
And do i have to really explain 'The Inherent Dangers of Climbing Literally Anything' to you?
I am dipping out. Have fun with your little fantasy world.
watch votoms you fricking moronic newhomosexual
The age of tanks is over.
^moron
the problem with realismgays is that instead of thinking about the possible scenarios and settings where a particular mech with distinct capabilities and characteristics could work and be a viable option, they argue why fictional things wouldn't work in real life (wow no fricking shit!)
"Realistic" on this board is a cardinal sin, but I understand the appeal. Grounded robot designs with gritty warfare is a very fun mecha subgenre.
The problem comes with fat morons who think they know anything about warfare. They ruin everything. Fictional robots are fictional. You add realism for the sake of grounded appeal, never add realism when you just wanna make larpers happy.
this
utilitarian injection is nice but going full realism means you'll just get a bunch of boring tubes with glowing panels strapped on to the back