Why are eastern mechs always so femboy thin with rounded edges and overly sleek tryhard futuristic crap like a hybrid vehicle instead of cool and gritty like what you would imagine a real mech would look like as produced
Why are eastern mechs always so femboy thin with rounded edges and overly sleek tryhard futuristic crap like a hybrid vehicle instead of cool and grit...
Can you make this thread again but use real words?
probably not
>femboy thin
What the frick is wrong with zoomers.
Addiction to porn but I can get what he means
OP's just insecure in his masculinity
different design ethos, japanese mechs tend to evoke fighters and american mechs tend to evoke tanks
this is extremely reductionist but it should be easy enough for you to understand
>responding to bait
This is why /m/ is shit now.
I doubt it's bait, he's probably just a Cinemaphile tourist here because of AC6. Hanlon's razor and all that.
>Every opinion that makes me upset is bait
Y'all homies faces WHEN
>"opinion" is founded on unsubstantial fact and stereotyping
AKA bait. Here's your (You)
That just makes OP stupid rather than them wanting to rustle your jimmies, which clearly are thoroughly jammed
There's "stupid" and then there's using Battletech, a setting based pretty much entirely on anime, as an example of what you prefer over anime. That's not stupid, that's just trolling.
Never underestimate just how stupid people can be.
Alright now this is bait
I didn't know Battletech invented Macross, Dougram, Vifam, and Dragonar.
Oh, so you're the troll. Okay.
How many times have we had this thread?
/m/ has always responded to and always takes bait, if you've been around long enough you'd realize this.
I love the tomahawk/Warhammer
Such an iconic design
Yank the MG suicide bombs and it's basically perfect.
Weak bait
The secret is both of those mechs were made by Japan and neither of them is doing anything because realistically they don't have a power source that would work for them
Realistically speaking the best form of mech is power armor.
Realistically your mom could take everyone in this thread and their dad's dicks on a single night.
You're right, she could.
>they don't have a power source that would work for them
nuclear reactors duh
you seem to be upset over a basic truth
No no, anon is right and you are a moron. There is a reason that we have nuclear reactors on ships and submarines but not in the sky or on mobile platforms
snap back to modernity, balding fossil
not everything is cooled by water and steam rotating a turbine is not the only way to get electricity
Go on
But we did have Nuclear Reactors on bombers
Worth underscoring that both the US and Soviet programs were just that: nuclear reactors _on_ bombers. Not powering it, not connected to much, just on board, and both were considered failures.
It isn't worth underscoring because it ruins the point I was making
Blame it on the misfortune of your laws of physics.
Why not solar instead? Stupid fricking idiot
>he still thinks solar is efficient
Even /k/ommandos know it's a shitty half-assed gimmick when it's slapped on a red dot sight, why slap that on a Mecha? The real issue is Square Cube Law
Square cube is entirely solved by just making the skeleton out of tougher materials. Like even in reality the square cube law is solved in nature just giving bigger things thicker bones.
Or just making it big and light. There's some great big birds out there.
i think anon was being sarcastic given their frustration they might have meant both are equally useless and out of the question with nuclear reactors being too big and too heavy to properly put in something like a mech in an efficient way and solar being equally dumb for obvious reasons
Eastern mechs feel like they are trying to be a suit of armor while western mechs feel like they are vehicles.
Trying to make mechs "realistic" is fricking gay, the more you try to justify mechs the more plotholes you create, just say they're fricking magic and be done with it, otherwise you're just fighting against the laws of physics.
The most 'realistic' mechs could be could be is as utility vehicles to carry/move shit that just so happens to have a weapon to defend itself. They would be glorified forklifts.
And even those are pretty unrealistic because, you know, we have forklifts for that shit. As someone who has actually worked on robots IRL, you want to keep that shit as simple as possible, and making human hands out of articulated joints, when every single joint needs to be working, and even a single joint failing can cause the hand to become useless, is utterly moronic when the goal is just to pick something up.
Don't get me wrong, modularity IS nice in vehicles, but ultimately Keep It Simple Stupid will be the king of engineering doctrine. Mechs might be the kings of modular design, but they accomplish this by being an absolute nightmare of complexity which really can't be justified most of the time.
Now, Battletech does largely manage to justify it tbf, but Battletech has to rely on such an extremely narrow and specific set of circumstances that it not only comes off as extremely contrived, but also kind of turns off anyone whose not into the idea of a setting that's permanently set in a post-apocalyptic feudal society where nothing really changes and everyone behaves in largely the same way.
>Now, Battletech does largely manage to justify it tbf,
You've never been BTFO by a well played force of Vees, I take it? On the table top tanks, artillery, and helicopters can anally ravage an all-mech force. They'd have to dramatically rework the point system to artifically handicap vees to reflect the dominance of mechs in their fiction.
Well I meant in the lore, not on the tabletop. The only part of Battletech that appeals to me is the design of a lot of the conventional vehicles and infantry uniforms surprisingly enough. I find the politics of the setting tedious and moronic, the technology kind of schizo, and the lore silly and contrived.
But while I've heard contradicting things, apparently some anons have great success with just vehicles and infantry. And I do dig the aesthetics of those vehicles and infantry. So I'll give it credit for that.
At best, a power armor type thing to haul a mortar that's well outside of active combat range, but even then, it would be cheaper and probably more effective to have a few teenagers with some gunpowder boosted drones to blow shit up. A miniaturized cruise missile is infinitely more likely to happen than mechs.
Yeah, I mean, good god, we're finding out that drones made out of fricking cardboard are effective weapons on the modern battlefield. Modern wars are all about knowing what to spend you resources on, and lets be honest, even if there is an application for mechs, it's kinda doubtful that they'll be at the top of the priority for spending resources on compared to shit that's so much more simpler and has a more immediate use.
Also, one thing that pisses me off is when mechgays use the "rough terrain" argument. Forget things like "ground pressure" and all that jazz, what really angers me is this assumption that tanks are only good on flat land. They're not. They can handle 60 degree inclines which will get them up most mountains just fine, they can handle most forests that aren't as dense as the fricking Amazon jungle (and lets be honest, your mech is NOT going to do well in the Amazon jungle either), and, contrary to popular belief, tanks actually handle mud really well, tracks are designed to handle that kind of shit. It's wheels and legs that perform poorly in them, but a tank and its tracks? They tend to be rather fine.
I think the idea of tanks doing bad in mud comes from Vietnam, the heavily forested, mountained, and rainy area. The all the worst terrain possible for tanks.
>a tank and its tracks? They tend to be rather fine.
But what if Tank... WITH ARMS!!!
I wouldn't call that a tank per se, looks more like a vehicle the Army Corps of Engineers would use for construction and altering the landscape.
>looks more like a vehicle the Army Corps of Engineers would use for construction and altering the landscape.
Yes, but you know at some point some jarhead is going to take one and suplex an actual tank with it!
The thing is, there IS "rough terrain" where a robo suit could come in handy. It's exclusively in the deep sea, though, and mecha is obsessed with space instead.
>They would be glorified forklifts.
It works
I like patlabors approach where they are just complete nightmares requiring entire logistics teams just to get them places, they get stopped by most civilian infrastructure, their weapons which rarely get used because they're the police are all really silly things like revolvers and shotguns with their pilots having to get out and reload them manually.
>why are eastern mechs always so femboy
i would frick femboy gundam
I know this is a troll thread, but Zeta designs have width and density in a sleek form. Prior Japanese designs are similarly robust.
Mecha are moronic all around but even then eastern mecha are actually on the more realistic side. An AT makes far more sense than a slow ass chicken walker, even some westerners know this, see Titanfall, Heavy Gear. I shouldn't even respond to moronic bait like this but I'm bored.
If OP really wanted huge machines, well, there's Kondo.
Mechs in Japanese entertainment are characters, an extension for the character piloting them. That's why they are humanoid and designed to be appealing. The West doesn't view gigantic mechs as characters. They view Ironman's suit as one, as an extenaion of Tony, but don't seem to feel the same way about giant mechas which is why their mechs are designed as inhuman vehicles.
do people reply to bait because they like it, or because they're too stupid not to?
Meanwhile, real mechs.
Femboy!!
On all 4S!
Bottom b***h!
Japan would never
>cool, realistic and superior to -ACK
I think this has to be the most disappointing event in human history. 2 companies say they are making mechs and then agree to fight. In the end it's just 2 tractors driving at each other in a straight line.
This. I was incredibly hyped for this event. I was trying to figure out how to go see it live until they announced it would be a closed event. I couldn't fricking stand the anticipation. And then it was just two tractors in a choreographed farce. Biggest let down I've ever experienced.
Bait aside, every Battletech fan who comes in here complaining about "eastern" mechs is always talking out of their ass because 90% of Battlemechs are either inspired by a Japanese robot, traced from a Japanese robot, or literally are a Japanese robot.
I'm not even sure it's Battletech fans. the guys who actually play the wargame already know about the unseen and then some. I get the impression these bait post come mainly from MWO players. MechWarrior depicts 'mechs a lot slower and clunky compared to what is "lore" accurate. Myomer muscles allow mechs to do some crazy moves that you almost never see in MechWarrior games.
This kind of thing predates MWO's existence by a substantial margin.
You do know there was 4 mainline MW games that showed them as just slow reskinned tanks right? Tabletop and lore on the other hand has rules for them dropping and getting up from laying prone using jump jets to melee things
Yes I'm aware. I can't even really be that mad. MechWarrior 1 is a 386 EGA DOS game. It's amazing that game even plays as well as it does today, I wouldn't expect stuff like grabbing poles to use as melee objects or DFA type manuvers from that game. I'd also give benefit of the doubt to MW2 for exiting that era of DOS and MW3 having fricked development. It's a little silly by the time you get to MW4 though and not much excuse for MW5 other than to keep things traditional. Other mech titles show that a true(r) to Battletech like sim could be done, it just never was.
First I've heard about MW3's development issues. Was it because of the hot potato of rights at the time?
I'm not too versed on the issues it faced but iirc, it has something to do with Activision losing the rights to make Battletech games from FASA (I believe they tried to pull a fast one and wrestle the IP away from them, similar thing happened to DP9 with Heavy Gear), Then FASA tried converting their Battletech sim pods into the next MechWarrior title but were struggling to do so. The sim pod version of MW3 would become MW4. And the MW3 we have was done by the guys who did Recoil, they even share the same engine. You can see that MW3 lacks some of the polish that not only MW2 and MW4 had but also the polish that its competitors Starsiege and Heavy Gear 2 got.
Because the Japanese are an entire race of high functioning autists.
They're just East Asian and productive.
No.
Oh boy, do you know shit.
I love BTs system but holy shit does CGL hate fun sometimes
>LAMs basically gone
>no protomechs, no Inner Sphere protos
>no cool Battle Armor gear
>no weird brain in a jar Blakist mechs or BA squads
>still can't use big ass helos to combat drop mechs
>no Aerotech or BA video game(granted not CGLs rights but still where is that shit you b***hes)
>sometimes
You battletech gays are spoiled children while Shadowrun fans are gone. You hear me? Dead and gone.
Oof sorry, Shadowrunanon. I've seen the complaints in the threads on /tg/ and that shit is a horrorshow. At least that gay William Gibson is probably still turbomad about it even existing at all.
That's a good thing because Shadowrun is fricking trash
>>no weird brain in a jar Blakist mechs
They are always really WEIRD about Transhumanism too; CYBORG BAD and WILL DIE OF IMPLANT REJECTION!
NO GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE OUTRIGHT DONE THAT AND WAY WORSE WITH THEIR BIOTECH!
>The thing is, there IS "rough terrain" where a robo suit could come in handy. It's exclusively in the deep sea
It's not exclusively in the deep sea; There is plenty of broken terrain up here on dry land that makes transportation a b***h.
>There is plenty of broken terrain up here on dry land that makes transportation a b***h.
Which a giant mech would struggle in just as much tbh. Legs tend to handle soft ground worse than tracks, and while tanks can handle most forests just fine, the forests that are too dense and big like a jungle for them to maneuver through are also a death trap for mechs. Mountainous terrain isn't actually much of a problem for tanks these days either tbh, even a main battle tank can handle a 60 degree incline just fine and that's enough for them to handle mountains for most conceivable scenarios.
That's not to say you couldn't conceive of a very rare scenario where a mech specifically could handle a piece of terrain and a tank couldn't, but those are rare and so niche that the military would rather just use the next best thing than try start up a whole production line for a vehicle that has an absurdly small number of uses.
Luv me giant mechs, but yeah, they ain't all that useful IRL.
>Which a giant mech would struggle in just as much
Because you are making them giant and probably bipedal on top of that...
>Mountainous terrain isn't actually much of a problem for tanks these days either tbh, even a main battle tank can handle a 60 degree incline
Mountainous terrain is more than just a steep incline!
You've got crags, outcrops, boulder fields, cobble beds...
Unless you've got some kind of a road in place, a Tank isn't going to be happy operating in that kind of environment.
Okay, I will grant you this, in extreme terrain, something like pic related could kinda be useful...
....but, you're probably still just better off with a helicopter. In extreme terrain, the simplest solution is to simply not deal with it at all and fly over it instead.
>....but, you're probably still just better off with a helicopter.
Until you can't do that because the other guy has mobile AA all over those mountains!
>Until you can't do that because the other guy has mobile AA all over those mountains!
How did he get that mobile AA up that mountain? I thought it was full of outcrops, crags, boulder fields, and cobble beds" that would prevent that.
Airlifted in
At that point you might as well just have an Apache providing the heavy guns anyways since you’re already need ing to use a helicopters resources just to result the ground vehicles.
Apache has limited loiter time and the stinger AA missiles it carries have a range of less than 10km. I can use a cargo helicopter to bring an AA battery that when set up will provide perpetual airspace defense as long as I keep it maintained, and depending on the weapon system, let's say it's a patriot AA missile system, it has 100-150km range.
>I can use a cargo helicopter to bring an AA battery that when set up will provide perpetual airspace defense as long as I keep it maintained, and depending on the weapon system, let's say it's a patriot AA missile system, it has 100-150km range.
Then take into account that such a system set up on one of these rolly-pollies:
could actively reposition across the mountainside, allowing it to avoid detection and counter-battery fire.
>How did he get that mobile AA up that mountain? I thought it was full of outcrops, crags, boulder fields, and cobble beds" that would prevent that.
He used one of these
, it's too expensive to use as a general combat machine, but an Anti-air platform you could get damn near anywhere is SUPER fricking useful.
Tbh I don't think one of those mechs can handle this terrain
Western mechs aren't realistic, they're just slow and lumbering.
Pretty sure indirect-fire mobile AA is a thing, infantry-portable AA is definitely a thing, and technically air-to-air qualifies. To a certain extent they can also be parked in the relatively-limited conventionally accessible space you'd already be using for your forward bases.
Plus if we're talking a situation where walkers are an option, the enemy having anti-air walkers to interdict your "efficient" airdrops is DEFINITELY going to be a thing, just the same way that the ludicrously expensive long-range anti-air missile systems proliferated to demand the ludicrously expensive stealth systems to counteract them.
As compared to the chain of counter-counter-countermeasures involved in getting airdrops through modern anti-air systems reliably, it's going to be MUCH simpler. 'Specially since you can apply most of those far more cheaply on something that doesn't need to give a rat's ass about aerodynamics.
>It's a useful little design, but it'd be far to maintenance intensive for general use
The wheels are just electric all-wheel drive+turning shenanigans, and the raising legs can be fairly neatly redone as hydropneumatic systems closely related to the MBT equivalent that's already being used to peek over low cover. Most of the stupidity is in the AGGRESSIVE redundancies for "recovery" and drone support.
I wish I could reliably locate those sketches outside weird bullshit formats like "the metadata turns it into a webpage". Spent like half an hour trying to do it for a QuadVee, which are a VERY good 'Mech layout for realistic implementations.
>The wheels are just electric all-wheel drive+turning shenanigans, and the raising legs can be fairly neatly redone as hydropneumatic systems closely related to the MBT equivalent that's already being used to peek over low cover.
That's still going to be a maintenance nightmare...
>Most of the stupidity is in the AGGRESSIVE redundancies for "recovery" and drone support.
...Especially when taking into account that it intentionally uses those legs as ablative armor and the number needed for those drone swarm shenanigans.
One of the things I appreciate about BattleTech's Myomer is that it's a linear actuator that can basically be worked and spliced like rope instead of the headache of a hydraulic system's hoses and fittings.
Myomer is fun and all but I do find it kinda hilarious that one of the most efficient uses of Myomer would actually be to power a driveshaft. Someone described it as the "flinstones" way of moving a tank and while it is a silly visual it would be the most efficient way to use them.
That being said, everybody in Battletech is a bunch of backwards feudal warlords LARPing as knights in space, and the concept of innovation is long-dead, so I'm not surprised nobody thought to do this.
>I do find it kinda hilarious that one of the most efficient uses of Myomer would actually be to power a driveshaft
Actually I kind of doubt that; Myomer supposedly needs a high power threshold to actually work, meaning it's probably still more efficient to use electric motors for rotary applications.
It also might just produce too much torque and snap the driveshaft like a Slimjim.
What's really irksome is how a lot of fans want things to be backwards and stupid so the BattleMech is so damn special; Things still fall to Secret Basement Punji Traps and Pools of Magical Death Acid, so why can't there be more Industrial Mechs?
Because the setting is set up so that everything is a post-apocalyptic hellscape where industry is mostly dead and technology has been mostly lost, the survivors ruled over by warlords who use mechs that are only efficient because space travel is nearly dead as well and most of the more advanced technology for conventional vehicles has also been lost, with everyone reduced to monarchism and even basic social concepts being a thing of the past. And if you change any part of this, it sort of fricks up the whole concept of the setting.
>everything is a post-apocalyptic hellscape where industry is mostly dead and technology has been mostly lost
Yet they have REPEATEDLY recovered from that, requiring Authorial Fiat to reset things even when mass demilitarization makes no god damn sense.
If the setting ever changes for the better, the mechs will stop making sense, and Battlemech will cease to be...well...Battlemech.
Can't remember whether it's this or another cargoquad but they were absolutely broken in one of the Megamek versions where they did megadamage when they kicked you. I rushed one and it just punted me out of existence.
>That's still going to be a maintenance nightmare...
It is very literally "Funny Truck Go Walk". If that is a deal-breaker, then the Main Battle Tanks are overengineered.
SEAD
>SEAD
But their mobile walk-about!
How do you pin down an AA Platform if it's crawling all over the mountain side?!
Truth be told, anti-air defenses are more there to slow the enemy down than stop them. They’re like the equivalent of putting AA guns on a Battleship in WW2, any enemy with a serious Air Force will still kill the battleship, it’ll only buy the battleship a bit of time in case it has its own carriers to scramble fighters to protect it. Anti-air defenses are nice to have, but generally they’re at a disadvantage against SEAD, since aircraft inherently have a maneuverability advantage over air defenses, and a SAM and an aircraft fire a missile at each other, the latter will have a much easier time avoiding getting blown up than the former thanks to its maneuverability. Smaller anti-air such as MANPADS tend to be very ineffective against aircraft, and even helicopters can loiter outside of their effective range lobbing missiles, though they would prevent an Apache hovering close by with its guns. And with drones and stealth aircraft, it’s kinda gotten even more lopsided in favor of the aircraft. A SAM might have a missile fired at it before it ever even sees the aircraft in its radar, or a cheap disposable drone swarm might just swarm it.
Now, you could say “what if my military can’t afford a good Air Force to do SEAD?” Well, in such a case…you probably can’t afford a mech either. They’re not exactly cheap to design, repair, and maintain, and while they do have a niche, their utility is fairly limited compared to other vehicles. If you’re suffering from budget issues, but you still need to take a mountain, you do it the old fashioned way, artillery and infantry.
But Aircraft famously can not hold ground; For that you need Infantry!
And Airborne Transports are far less agile than Combat Aircraft, making them far juicer targets for ground AA, effectively limiting your Strategic Airspace around an already natural barrier that's hard to maneuver in.
Unprotected Infantry isn't going to want to charge into that kind of rats nest on foot, where the enemy DOES have Armor Support, and Artillery alone is going to take forever to methodically annihilate those enemy machines.
You wouldn't be using the combat aircraft to hold ground. You'd be using them to blow up everything that's an enemy vehicle up on the mountain (including their mechs), and the follow that up with a bombardment from aircraft and artillery to force the enemy back into hiding in their caves and tunnels. Then you can kill them with bunker busters and thermobaric bombs, and then take out the survivors with infantry. If you have the technology for it, you can give power armor to your infantry to better protect them in the caves and tunnels as they clear it out.
>You'd be using them to blow up everything that's an enemy vehicle up on the mountain (including their mechs)
Far easier said than done, the whole point of the AA Mechs is that they don't just park themselves in one spot and let your cruise missiles fly down their throats'; They'd be constantly moving specifically so they aren't easy targets!
>the follow that up with a bombardment from aircraft and artillery to force the enemy back into hiding in their caves and tunnels. Then you can kill them with bunker busters and thermobaric bombs
Under this logic, why not just NUKE the whole damn mountain?!
This isn't a situation where you can just blow everything to smithereens, simply because that would take too much ordnance to be practical.
Mountainous terrain is one of the few environments where legs make sense.
That's the reason the Menzi Muck and other "Spider Excavators" exist:
Sure, it's not a big enough niche to warrant a complete replacement of existing platforms for Mechs, but it's a good enough one to justify a Mechanized Extreme Terrain Firing Platform.
It's not that simple. Even a tracked AA on a flat surface will struggle to evade an air-to-surface missile, and while a mech might be able to get up the mountain, it's not exactly going to be sprinting around up there at full speed as your own example demonstrates. They're slow machines valued more for their ability to get up the rough terrain at all rather than their speed, and when you have all of 20 seconds to react to an inbound missile it won't be enough. Even if they're moving around, they'll have to turn on their radars for any sort of long-range anti-air, and that makes them vulnerable to since it exposes their own location.
And you generally can afford to send much more ordinance up a mountain than in other places. There's not a lot of strategic targets up a mountain that have to be protected. Usually little in the way of civilian infrastructure, or sensitive industries that you want to protect. The main value of a mountain is that it's blocking your way, and the enemy can hide up there.
If it's a matter of cost, well, munitions are generally pretty cheap compared to the cost of starting up an entire new assembly line for a specialized and advanced vehicle which is solely designed for a single purpose. I doubt a nation that has to skimp on its munitions so much will be able to afford a mech, their best bet at that point is just sending in lots of infantry and accepting the casualties.
>Even if they're moving around, they'll have to turn on their radars for any sort of long-range anti-air, and that makes them vulnerable to since it exposes their own location.
WHEN they turn the Long-range Radar on.
You don't want to accept an enemy being smart about their Anti-Air and constantly toggling radar units to prevent you from getting a fix on their locations, which would be another boon of a mobile mountain machine over traditional FIXED instillations.
>The main value of a mountain is that it's blocking your way, and the enemy can hide up there.
It creates a massive area of Air Interdiction that one has to heavily invest in just to neutralize!
You aren't getting Supplies OR Troops over that, not safely anyways, which cordons off a huge amount of Attack Vectors that the rest of the Mountain Mechs' forces don't have to worry about.
>Because we want the mountain.
But NOBODY wants a MOUNTAIN!
>You don't want to accept an enemy being smart about their Anti-Air and constantly toggling radar units to prevent you from getting a fix on their locations, which would be another boon of a mobile mountain machine over traditional FIXED instillations.
Historically mobile AA has never stopped any halfway decent air force from blowing it up. North Korea and China, Vietnam, Iraq, even the Taliban, they all had mobile AA, they could all shoot and scoot, and it didn't help them, both because our missiles continue to come after them after they turn off the radar, and because if you turn off your radar, that allows aircraft to get even closer to hit you with traditional heat-seeking/laser guided/optical guided missiles when turning your radar off will do frickall to stop. And this is assuming you can even spot the plane on the radar in the first place to shoot it which is becoming increasingly difficult with stealth technology. And tbh, mountains make for a shitty place to put AA. They're very exposed up there, and re-supplying them with fuel and ammo is gonna be difficult to impossible once the enemy air campaign starts.
>because if you turn off your radar
I said TOGGLE, not "turn off."
You are too complacent in American Air Dominance to consider decentralized, mobile anti-air as any kind of threat, when that was one of the key factors in preventing Russia from steamrolling Ukraine.
You don't simply switch your radar off and expect enemy air to go away, you switch it off at one location and turn it on at two others to both confuse targeting and try to triangulate a counter-strike.
Mobility is crucial for that, ESPECIALLY in terrain that wouldn't otherwise support heavy Anti-air platforms.
>when that was one of the key factors in preventing Russia from steamrolling Ukraine.
Both Russia and Ukraine embraced the Soviet Doctrine of favorite air defense over air superiority, which is why neither of them have SEAD capability and both of them focused more on good air defenses over a good air force. It's like having two tanks, but both of them are armed only with machine guns. They might be protected against each other, but they wouldn't be protected against an ATGM. That's basically what the Soviet doctrine results in. Those air defenses do fine against other Soviet-inspired forces, because Soviet forces don't focus on having air superiority. But against a western military? They fall flat.
But Russia, with the supposedly superior Airforce capable of Air-to-Ground Missile strikes, never established Air Superiority over their militarily inferior foe...
Why?
Because Ukraine focused on keeping it's air defenses MOBILE so they'd be harder to strike AND a greater threat to the larger Russian Airforce.
Plus isn't Russia best troops their elite Airborne Forces, whose strength comes from Helicopter Mobility and famously failed to secure Kyiv's Airport to create an "Air Bridgehead"?
>ever established Air Superiority over their militarily inferior foe...
>Why?
Because their air force is shit and can't do SEAD. It was the same thing in the Cold War, the USA focused on having a good air force so we had stuff like the B-2 designed to penetrate enemy air defenses and drop a nuke right on their ass, and now we have stuff like the F-35 that can do stealthy SEAD operations without ever popping up on enemy air defense radar.
The question is, what's the better, more efficient solution for a nation like Russia. Accept that their air force is dogshit and scrap it to try to build a mech that would mostly only be good for mountains and maybe some forests and then pray to god their enemy doesn't have a good air force? Or try to update their air force to be actually good?
Personally I think the latter is a better use of resources but it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians actually tried the former. But that's precisely it. The mech is the solution for shitty militaries that want a bandaid to slap onto the gushing wound of their own ineptitude.
>Because their air force is shit and can't do SEAD.
Or is it that they DID TRY SEAD, but because they lacked bleeding edge tech they were unable to properly suppress Ukrainian Air Defenses?
Hell, during the Iraq War, US Aircraft only struck at Stand-off Distances due to the threat of Short-ranged AA!
>Hell, during the Iraq War, US Aircraft only struck at Stand-off Distances due to the threat of Short-ranged AA!
I mean, that's the whole idea. It's like saying that a sniper only fires from long-range because of the threat of close-range weapons. It's technically true but not really an argument against snipers. And you don't need the highest end technology to do SEAD, we were doing SEAD way back in the Korean and Vietnamese wars back before we had our fancy stealth tech, to the point that we were able to fly B-52 bombers over enemy territory thanks to how suppressed their defenses were.
>And you don't need the highest end technology to do SEAD, we were doing SEAD way back in the Korean and Vietnamese wars
Which makes Russia failure all the more prominent; They SHOULD have been able to SEAD Ukraine's Anti-air capabilities, but Ukraine wasn't using the old Soviet playbook and instead made keeping their Anti-Air Defenses constantly mobile a priority.
That's most of this concept, an Anti-Air Ground Battery that doesn't sit still is that much harder to target, and is a much bigger pain in the ass when you have it somewhere only Aircraft could reach it.
An AA Mech Crawler wouldn't need to be all that fancy, something as simple as a Flak Gun on a Menzi Muck could do the job, but such a system properly developed would be a NIGHTMARE to fight.
We can’t really make judgements based on the incompetency of the Russian Air Force, they’re uniquely terrible at everything. Notably, even during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese army was scary enough to take their SAM’s, toggle on the radar for only a brief minute, fire off a missile, turn off the radar, and scoot before return fire could be given. This was also in the days before we had missiles that would continue on their path after the radar was turned off. But even with a competent enemy using the shoot and scoot method in mobile SAM sites without stealth technology or good SEAD tech, we were still able to SEAD the frick out of them so much so that our fatass vulnerable bombers could conduct a massive strategic bombing campaign. Air-defenses are just the minefields of the air, you might slow down a competent enemy, but you won’t stop them entirely. You’re buying time. The reason the USA skimps on its own air defenses is because there’s no need to have them in its own wars when it has air superiority instead.
>But NOBODY wants a MOUNTAIN!
But I do!
>Under this logic, why not just NUKE the whole damn mountain
Because we want the mountain.
not my favorite zaku but the gun design looks neat
>Mobile guard tower
What was this dude smoking. He needs a mobile microwave as well as a mobile toilet at this point
>What was this dude smoking.
>Sketching out EVERY possible use of it with as many features as can be conceived of, no matter how marginal. Pretty typical for /k/-type autism.
Also trying for a "One Machine" fleet where it has to be used for everything...
It's a useful little design, but it'd be far to maintenance intensive for general use.
>I am genuinely surprised I've not seen a quad-copter operating mode for it for "unlimited" vertical climb.
He did put in "low tech" quad drones that can dock on each leg...
>Legs tend to handle soft ground worse than tracks
Depends on a number of factors, when it's a matter of a tank sinking into mud the rising legs naturally pull a walker out. Though this is a matter for VERY chunky designs that have reasonable ground-pressure going on.
>the forests that are too dense and big like a jungle for them to maneuver through are also a death trap for mechs.
A mech will typically have limbs they can clear impairments with, whether boulders, trees, or assorted varieties of wreckage, and sometimes can step "through" the impairment without needing to clear it the way a person might squeeze through a crack in a cave.
You can't rely on air to hold things, unless you're making some VERY specialized airframes designed to carry enormous defensive measures. The fuel-efficiency of ground vehicles is rather major to the logistics trail for the infantry(-scale) doing much of the work.
Sketching out EVERY possible use of it with as many features as can be conceived of, no matter how marginal. Pretty typical for /k/-type autism. I am genuinely surprised I've not seen a quad-copter operating mode for it for "unlimited" vertical climb.
>The fuel-efficiency of ground vehicles is rather major to the logistics trail for the infantry(-scale) doing much of the work.
The issue is that trying to establish a logistics trail up a mountain is pretty fricking difficult when every single logistics vehicle needs to be a mech. You can't use any trucks because trucks can't get up the mountain. A helicopter meanwhile can just have a replacement heli fly up while the original copter flies back to base to refuel. Hell of a lot easier than trying to maintain a supply line into a mountain.
Western mecha are /k/ to the nth power, putting animal-like mobility to tanks and battleships. They're themed around the heavy metal military industrial aesthetic and therefore are inherently more realistic.
Eastern mecha are more like fantasy heroes that happen to be mechanical. The main characters usually have some kind of special power or unique macguffin, they fly with angelic wings rather than massive thrusters, and they're way more likely to use exotic energy weaponry that could be confused for spellcasting, or make melee combat their primary MO rather than a backup option.
tl;dr do you prefer the smell of diesel or aether?
>I've never watched anything to do with mecha
I feel like the whole "we need mechs for rough terrain" sorta ignores that the USA has a lot of experience fighting in rough terrain, we've brough tanks into the Afghan mountains, over the Alpines, past the Urals, etc. We've fought with tanks in the forests of the Ardenes and Bastogne, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the mud flats of Korea. People act like tanks are useless in anything but flat clear terrain but that couldn't be further from the truth.
>we
You didn't do shit.
Correct, the US military did. And now we see tanks being used in forests and mud in Ukraine. Some of these tanks being delivered through mountainous terrain to Ukraine's west.
I saw someone moving a refrigerator around on a skateboard. That it more or less works doesn't mean there aren't better solutions.
Indeed, there are. We call them infantry. Or power armor, if you need that extra "oomph".
...power armor counts as a mech, right?
>tanks being used in forests and mud
Like in ww2?
Correct.
Can't tell if this is weak bait or if OP is just actually stupid.
Then you are probably a moron
Glorified tank on legs is boring. I much prefer a real tank at that point.
The issue is that mechs are basically "what if person but BIG", which is silly when you can just take a person and increase their armaments and carrying capacity through power armor instead.
>The issue is that planes are basically "what if bird but BIG", which is silly when you can just take a bird and increase their armaments and carrying capacity through power armor instead.
You can't be this moronic, right? Please god don't let this child think this image is a gottem instead of just showing how stupid they are trying to compare aerodynamics of a flying weapon platform to one that is ground based
Eastern mechs are cool. Western mechs are gay because they try to be realistic and instead just come across as tryhards.
I guess this moron has never seen an Armored Core. sage
I assume AC is what brought him here because you either get slimline mecha or blocky old school gundam mecha
The irony is Kawamori and Miyatake's original proposal of a show about powered armor and chicken walkers was rejected by toy sponsors so the Glaug that Battletech loves to copy ended up being part the intended silliness of Macross because it's a machine for a giant man.
the super robot is by far the most realistic form of mecha
in a twist of irony, the idea of an army of humanoid robots equipped for different purposes is illogical at least according to what current human sciences would tell us
in comparison, a single, highly mobile, near-invincible unit that can do virtually anything and effortlessly neutralize a nation's worth of military power is a much more reasonable proposition when it comes to genre conventions
Hydrogen fuel cells are the way for powering mechs
The only people going out of their way to build actual piloted mechs in real life are japanese people. Who obviously lean into japanese design aesthetic on said mech projects. Therefore, japanese mech design is inherently more realistic than western design.
What a laughable thing to say in seriousness, go to bed you insane weeb
It's pretty obvious that mecha will be made by mecha fans.
Real mecha won't come into existence aside from for funsies like the toy roller bot you posted there. We already have more efficient or far less expensive ways of war and construction and true mecha needs power sources we have not brought into existence yet and by the time we do the world is going to be a whole lot different
>by the time we do the world is going to be a whole lot different
Yeah cause there's gonna be a bunch of big robots in it
“Real mecha” will never come into existence at all”, at least not for military purposes, so that’s the closest thing to mecha we’ll ever get to see.
Why does the west even pretend to have mecha? Even their "western" mecha is made by Japan
battletech/mech warrior fans are fricking annoying
And you are a homosexual