/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

The future is here, /jp/.

Get out of your house now, you hikkikomori, and go get your own KURATAS right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFy5bBG8Fww

[Anonymous No.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTOopF20beY&feature=relmfu

[Anonymous No.]

>controlled by an iphone
>made from wood and plastic
>eats gas like a pig
no thanks.

[Anonymous No.]

That looks silly but all the mecha nerds are wetting themselves in the comment section.Call me when Hatsune Miku is built (Just one and not a line of sex toys for disgusting otaku) and can share her love of music with the world.

[Anonymous No.]

It's all a lie.

[Anonymous No.]

America made something cooler and cuter over 70 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T35A3g_GvSg

>>9500896
>Hatsune Miku
Ditto for above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gQBei-z-c
It even sings better than Vocaloid:
http://davidszondy.com/future/robot/daisy.wav

Why are the Japs so behind?

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

useless pretty much
there is no need for mechs in the real world.
1.They are slow
2.Problems with energy generation to power up the machine
3.Too expensive
4.Easy target for any rpg

a tank can do everything better and its cheaper

[Anonymous No.]

id make a kurata to suck my dick

[Anonymous No.]

o.o

[Anonymous No.]

>Controll system
>Controll
>Con troll

[Anonymous No.]

Now I can finally pierce the heavens with this hand of mine burning red!

[Anonymous No.]

>>9501768

Nah, an average tank cost about 1.8m - 2m, non-inclusive of additional armor.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9501768
Can a tank jump, dual wield machine guns that shoot APCR rounds, and fight in space? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9501768
Holy shit you're retarded.

That mech is wheel powered and will probably be as fast or faster than a fast tank when they get tuned. The engine would be equal or same as a tank, meaning it would take hours for it to run out if used correctly.

You can't even drive a tank around if you're not licensed, while this thing is pretty much safer than the average car and probably a tank.

I don't even think an RPG will blow it up if millitia upgrades them so that they can deploy anti-RPG shield system.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505144
maybe inside your animes it would work, also I am sure you would only let Japanese highschool girls operate the mech.
>>9505146
>That mech is wheel powered
and a tank too , so what is your point exactly?
We have a machine already that goes on wheels and has good protection and fire power, its called a tank you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505146
owned

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505163
Those aren't even normal wheels scrub, slug wheels can't compare to actual ones.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505163
Tanks are slow and shit.

Besides, these things could have other uses, even in the military. We already use things like fork lifts and diggers, and this could feasibly function as both while defending itself.

[Anonymous No.]

>Tanks slow as shit
What are you talking about? They are as fast as cars on anything but highways, and can drive through emyn muil before breakfast

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505146
>That mech is wheel powered and will probably be as fast or faster than a fast tank when they get tuned.
How big are the wheels, suspension?
Can it pass rough terrain.
>The engine would be equal or same as a tank, meaning it would take hours for it to run out if used correctly.
a 800-1000 hp engine will need a very big fuel tank.
>I don't even think an RPG will blow it up if millitia upgrades them so that they can deploy anti-RPG shield system.
>Anti-RPG shield system.
Money groes on trees.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505237
>money groes on trees

It can't totally run over anything, but it goes fast enough.

Best anti-RPG would be something throwable that you could separate from the mech to make the RPG collide with it. That's not exactly very hard.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505146
>That mech is wheel powered and will probably be as fast or faster than a fast tank

Center of gravity. You can't beat physics. Also tracks enable better cross-country capability than wheels.

>You can't even drive a tank around if you're not licensed.

Actually in most places tanks with their guns removed can be operated on private property. Tracked military vehicles can be registered as farm equipment and operate offroad.

> anti-RPG shield

Now you're just full retard. Cages are heavy and you still need good plating underneath so the shaped charge doesn't penetrate in the first case. Cages just prevent the warhead from digging into the armor, directing the blast at maximum efficiency. And there's still tandem-charge warheads. Unless you mean active-kill systems (anti-missile missile systems), in which case you're retarded because they're not even in wide use by pro armies.. The detection system and software are too advanced to be produced by rednecks in their garage.

Organized militia would be better served by using uparmored civilian trucks and tracked farm equipment, then highjacking and taking command of actual military gear.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505222
>emyn muil

I love you.

>>9505205
Stop posting. You have no experience on military operations. Forklifts and diggers don't operate in hot zones, so they're unarmed, specialized for their jobs.

[Anonymous No.]

>I don't even think an RPG will blow it up if millitia upgrades them so that they can deploy anti-RPG shield system.
>anti-rpg shield system

It'd be hilarious to see a mech try to maneuver and fire APCR rounds while surrounded in giant steel bars.

Also, tanks can mount larger caliber guns which fire at greater velocities, simply because they won't fall over when firing them because tanks aren't built on two legs like mechs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505264
I've never said anything about firepower.

Without doubt, tanks will be the elite in direct and indirect fire with artillery. Mechs will be the ballistics and laser machine of the future.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505313
>ballistics and laser machine
What exactly do you think ballistic weaponry is? Something different to what tanks currently use?

I won't comment on lasers. Heh.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505335
What exactly are you trying to argue here, crossboarder scum?

A mech would be far more versatile in that aspect than a tank...

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505264
It would make much more sense that we'll see four legged mechs and not two legged ones.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505373
you are totally retarded and blind of your animes
he did pretty much explain you why tanks are better and you still act like a idiot

also a modern tank still needs 4 people to operate everything, I want to know how a mech would do it, cause surprise in the real world its more complicated than to send some japanese teenager in in a mech and explain everything with magic and AI.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505432
You are the retard.

A tank wouldn't even be able to use actual Gatlings and machineguns as opposed to manning them without multiple people that can die easily. A Mech can.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505473
>A Mech can.
Why?
Seriously, tell me why one guy in a mech can fire gatlings AND machine guns while one guy in a tank can't.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505373
>A mech would be far more versatile in that aspect than a tank...
Except it wouldn't. Any type of advantage a mech would have as a multirole weapon carrier would be outweighed by simply having a new chassis of tank where guns can be loaded in and out at base.

Or possibly tanks and lighter vehicles.

You can't have a mech pick up and drop guns of differing types with any sort of ease without HUGE amounts of logistical problems. It's easier to just mount one heavy gun and some light guns than to have a vehicle that has to have guns delivered to it mid battle in order to change its mission profile.

[Anonymous No.]

Lol at people trying to justify mechs.

Just face it, the bulkier, simpler things are better. They might be less cool, but they were designed that way.

This is also why I think most humanoid robots are dumb. Sure, we've evolved nicely, but you can save yourself a lot of time and money by giving robots wheels instead of "accurate" legs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505478
Are you serious? It's all synchronized and you can do it at the same time with just one guy thanks to the way Kurata works...

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505487
>It's all synchronized and you can do it at the same time with just one guy thanks to the way Kurata works...

They've got two BB miniguns on the arms that shoot in the direction you're pointing the iPhone at.

That's fucking useless in an actual battle since you know, you'll want to shoot at something with one gun and a different gun elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505373
Versatile this, versatile that. You have no idea what you're talking about. You see those legs? Think how much advanced technology is required plus enough power generation plus even crazier advanced technology to balance everything out while keeping that shit upright and conceivably humanoid. For comparative example, a modern day battle tank is usually powered by Aviation-worthy jet engines to power something that goes at around 60-80 kph, and offers decent protection to its crew. All of that, encased in an armored shell a few feet wide, several feet tall and a few meters long. Can you imagine how much bullshit science needs to be introduced before any humanoid mecha can match just that? We're talking carbon nanofiber plating, out-of-this-world gyro stabilizers operated real-time by a powerful supercomputer to keep the fucking thing upright, probably a cold-fusion or some equally fictional power source to power all of that shit, and either a ridiculously complicated cockpit to control all of that, or an otherwise equally fictional neuro-link tech that is only in its baby steps as of today. Cont...

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505487
few years ago I would say you are a troll
now I don't even believe you are shit-posting you are just retarded and I recommend you to seek medical help.

Pro tip, sorry to destroy your fantasy world of girls operating 5 bazillion dollar mechs and saving the planet in mini skirts.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505507
Weapons? Lasers, you say? Nice, of course, the tank could wield a much larger gun, and carry a larger capacitor, since it doesn't waste any space nor energy trying to mimic a 'cool' human form. Cannons? Don't even bother. A standard 120mm cannon's recoil would overpower any semi-realistic stabilizer - Crouching down? Then why not just get rid of the fucking legs and slap on some tracks, dipshit? Then you can move while crouching. Mobility? Bitch, this ain't WWII anymore. Tanks can go as fast as a regular sports car, no big deal. Jets? Why the fuck would you need a land unit to fly? What the fuck is the air force for? Even if you did, you'd need to install boosters with an more thrust power than what the unit weighs. That is, the thinner the armor of your mech, the better it will fly. Well, guess what else flies? Stingers. I'd really rather strap a rocket on a humvee armed with a 40mm grenade launcher. It's just as stupid an idea, after all. That's why we have something called "Airplanes".

Case in point: Mechs - 1/10; Tanks - 10/10

But you know what looks cool and (might) be close to possible? Power suits. Now there, we can agree.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505505
Yes, but that would be in a military model, not that fucking BB shit.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505507
I have no idea what kind of scientific value you think your opinion holds, it's nonsensical as fuck compared to mine. It's really biased and shitty, sorry.

This is new tech that you can't just base on and opinionate that easy since you don't even need to aim it in your own, there's actually a lot of versatiliy in here and you can't just say a tank which can't even fit many things without requiring manpower 100% works better, and you sound like a retarded crossboarder who doesn't belong in here, like, from /pol/ or some shitty board like that.

Please leave with your tears just because someone thinks something factual is true and practical while you don't.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505526
0/10

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505512
For every gun that mech can equip, a tank or A PLANE can equip thrice or 5x as much. But it doesn't need to. One big gun and one small gun, in the case of the tank is good enough because it has a HUGE amount of stow space for extra ammo, and a plane only really needs one of those because for most other targets that one Gatling gun can't kill, (of course I'm talking about the GAU-family gun) several payloads of AGMs and Bombs can. Try and strap that on your dumb mech.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505510

Goddamn it, stop making me think I'm on /tg/ when I'm not. Practicality can go blow itself, because mechs are awesome. Additionally, feel free not to force your realism fetish onto others, especially on /jp/ of all places.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505541
>realism fetish

But this is the real world.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505540
Agreed. But we're actually discussing LAND moblity, you know.

One thing is Planes and one thing is MECHS. Maybe one day, someone will combine the two together and we'll see what your reaction will be like.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505526
I refuse to believe that a /jp/er who spends all of his time surrounded with all human knowledge in the internet could be as dumb as you are.

This is why I believe you're projecting. And if you're a troll, you've failed. I actually enjoy talking about tanks and making fun of dumbasses.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505526
>This is new tech that you can't just base on and opinionate that easy
Hypothesis: Any synchronising technology that allows remote control of guns on a mech can be used to greater effect by mounting the same gun on a tank on a swivel turret.
Hypothesis: a remote swiveling turret on a tank wouldn't need fucking massive arms compared to a mech and thus break down less.

OH WOW I HYPOTHESISED ABOUT YOUR NEW TECH, WHAT'CHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505550
I actually refuse to believe you actually read anything and you aren't here just to troll or who knows.

I admit tanks are a powerhouse that will forever be the basics of any army, it can fit as many and more cannons as a mech will ever have, and that's what I never tried to argue. What I am trying to say is that Mechs like Kurata can hold standard weaponry against infantry such as gatlings and maneuver them without other assistance, which also don't need to fly to actually work.

Is it that hard to accept that your beloved tanks actually have a competitor in mobility and versatility?

And you haven't proven that you're not a crossboarder scum, you really sound like one who's trying hard to defend his beloved machine even though it's out of place.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505526
By that time, wars won't be waged on land anymore, so both tanks and mechs are obsolete, replaced by space ships.

And your case on point. Have you actually read that long, 2 part post I made or are you just that dumb? Because I already explained how no tank and mech of the same tech level could be of the same level of mobility on land - tank will always be one up.

In addition, when you're talking of warfare lately, it's no longer your glorious massed (tank) battles of WWII. It's riding up slowly into a hornet's nest of insurgents with near-leatest AT equipment. I'd like to see a mecha trying that suicidal stunt and roll- I mean - crawl away unscathed.

[Anonymous No.]

Meanwhile, sensible scientists are working on AI systems and bring us closer to the singularity. Within a few decades we'll have AI agents that can design a perfect mech in polynomial time, making all this effort redundant. Then they'll be useless anyway, because we'll basically have a technologically-omnipotent superbeing by that point. It could just shut all of China/Japan/Korea's mechs down if it wanted, or automatically have them destroyed with no human intervention whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505581
>By that time, wars won't be waged on land anymore, so both tanks and mechs are obsolete, replaced by space ships.

Why would that be? It's the land we want. We're not all going to mutually agree to take wars elsewhere as if it was some sporting event. We'll always have ground troops, even if the spacecraft can fly around like planes or sit in low orbit and bomb the surface. What if soldiers run through cities, or underground?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505581
>It's riding up slowly into a hornet's nest of insurgents with near-latest AT equipment.
Ha, no. Insurgents these days are firing RPGs in swarms at M1s and barely make dents in the armor. The latest AT equipment is the stuff that actual militaries currently use, not the shitty stuff they exported everywhere in the eighties.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505582
Assuming the AI hasn't turned the planet into a pure computing mass devoid of humans trying to solve Go.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505577
>Competitor
Looking at the stats, there's hardly any competition there.

But in a decade or two, you might be right.

We'll see.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505600
And that's what I'm trying to argue.

Kurata is trash. We need to upgrade it until it matches the firepower of a tank in bullets, then we'll see.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505577
>mobility and versatility
goes 10 km/h
that feeling when a soldier who lost his legs is faster than the kuratas

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505595
Insurgents are getting their shit together too.
I remember reading about a Merkava mk. 4 getting taken out by a late-soviet AT weapon.
Or a Challenger - 2 getting penetrated by a RPG-29, but still up front which is SHAMEFUL DISPLAY nowdays.

Just wait a couple years, and modern tanks will have quite a few more problems on the battlefield.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505577
>Is it that hard to accept that your beloved tanks actually have a competitor in mobility and versatility?

Now that's some serious delusion.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505606
0/10.

Kurata is 4 tons and move faster than crippled soldier.

[Anonymous No.]

You're all laughing now, but this is the stepping stone to a larger technology that will change the world.

``What use is electricity?''
--Some business nerd to some famous scientist in the past

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505577
> trying hard to defend his beloved machine even though it's out of place.
Yeah, I do so sound like that. Projecting.

Anyway, let's proceed.

Your thesis: Mechs like Kurata can hold standard weaponry against infantry such as gatlings and maneuver them without other assistance, which also don't need to fly to actually work.

My rebuttal: One, gattlings aren't standard weaponry against infantry. Infantry with small arms are. Even if they are, an IFV armed with, hell, a small machinegun or an medium caliber autocannon could do an equally sufficient job at such a job. Why? Because cover. Your gattling, you're assuming it would shoot and rip apart infantry in cover, don't you? That's dumb and a waste of munitions. It won't work either. Also, gattling guns, though maybe it has eluded your perception, also have recoil. What makes you think that an arm could hold that gun straighter on the target compared to a mounted and actually stabilized turret? What would happen is a ridiculous spray of bullets going nowhere fast. Sure, you might kill a few, after all, you just sprayed thousands of dollars worth of ammo in 10 seconds.

And again with this mobility thing. Why do you keep insisting that mechs will be faster than tanks? You even said yourself that we're not including jets, which was the only conceivable way that a mech could be faster than a tank, no matter how surreal. Let's make it simple - human or car? Which could go to one kilometer faster? Okay, that's not fair. So let's say that this is a cybernetic human with no concept of fatigue, pain or dehydration. The answer's the same? Figured.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505616
Yeah, but the fact that you have to count individual cases of tanks being taken out tells you how far they have to go. There have probably been thousands and thousands of RPGs and shells fired at modern tanks and you can count the number of times it worked on one hand.

[Anonymous No.]

I'm telling you guys, all we need to do is put Demonbane's torso on tank treads, and we'll be able to kill Nyarlothep!

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505630
I should also mention that nowadays tanks are mostly used as a mobile artillery piece than for close combat.

Hell, they rarely see combat against other tanks, too.

Sure, US forces wrecked quite a lot of armor in Iran, but the majority of those kills belongs to the air force.

Besides, there were tank losses, it's just that mass media often neglects to mention them (Freedom of speech? Never heard of it!).

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505630
I wouldn't be so sure, you know? We're talking the world's most illiterate conscripts fielding decades old weapons shitting up state-of-the-art armor. What if it were modern ATs versus equally modern tanks? Remember - Armor and Anti-Armor are _always_ in an arms race. Always.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505606
I thought you were a decent member of the community for so long. But then you said "that feel

[Anonymous No.]

The main battle tank has already lost its purpose.
Its role was questionable in the '80s and '90s, and was only practical in the Gulf War because Iraq had shit tons of old T-72s and no air support. Most of those T-72s were destroyed by aircraft, but many were killed by M1s well out of the range of the outdated T-72s.

Today, tanks are a logistic nightmare. More of a show of force than a practical tool. The tracks fall off easily, the engines are rated in gallons per mile, and they are highly vulnerable to IEDs/roadside bombs.

When the M1's service life is at an end, it will not be replaced by a modern main battle tank. It will be decomissioned and replaced by wheeled vehicles such as the Stryker or some other equivalent. Faster, more mobile, holds troops, versatile enough to mount an array of turrets on top. The Stryker is not without its problems, however. Every battle vehicle has problems that make it "total shit" in the eyes of military buffs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505631
The fuck you on about cyberhumans.

The whole speed of Kuratas is determined by the machine and not the user, eventually it would reach the same level as good cars if possible without heavy fits thanks to upgrades.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505638
Fuck that shit, all we need is the thing that powers Demonbane in a suitable tank chassis and we're all good!

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505623
Soldiers are asking for help against the enemy
Commander is sending the Kuratas

the battle field is just 20 km away

that feeling the kuratas arrives after 10 months but the war ended 4 months ago

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505660
>I thought you were a decent member of the community

Lurk more.

https://fuuka.warosu.org/jp/thread/S7972470#p7972712

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505650
Everything changes if you want to consider two real nations engaging in a conventional war, but the post I responded to initially mentioned insurgents being a major threat. Well, maybe if they had a first-rate power arming them, but I'm pretty sure in the race between armor and anti-tank weapons which can be carried by infantry, armor is sitting at a decisive advantage which isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505666
What makes you think they won't use other ways to transport them even if they were that slow?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505683
>armor is sitting at a decisive advantage which isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
That advantage is already gone. Imagine a line of tanks driving through a valley or similar. In the hills are infantry wielding guided anti tank missiles. They lock on, the tanks have no idea. They fire. The commander may or may not see the missiles launch. Even if he does, there is nothing he can do. The missiles slam into the relatively weak turret top, penetrating and exploding, causing a massive ammo explosion launching the turret right off the top of the tank.

Oh, and there are five or six of these weapons fired at once. Every tank is destroyed with all crew dead.

Infantry can hid and make decisive blows against vehicles. Always.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505664
...and technology will magically freeze for tanks? No sir, whatever can make a mech go that fast will be too powerful and expensive to power a tank, since going faster than 80 kph is not really something you'd commonly do, so the tanks will be saving money by getting just the right power plant for it. Meanwhile, mechs will still be struggling to keep up.

If tech goes any further, we'd be probably seeing heavily armored hover tanks with a very powerful engine sporting _still_ much more badass weapons than mechs, fulfilling much more roles than mechs will ever have.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505683
Hmm, if you put it that way, there's only a certain load that infantry can carry at a time until it becomes too cumbersome and the better idea would just call in CAS to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505509
>girls operating 5 bazillion dollar mechs and saving the planet in mini skirts
I came.

[Anonymous No.]

The whole point of mecha is to make a bit, armored soldier that can do everything a soldier do but in much larger scale.

And with the current level of technology it's simply impossible.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505697
No, I am implying Mechs will get better too, and will end up on par with today's cars in speed.

You can't argue against this, sorry.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505688
Because they're crap, and transporting them to a live battlefield is a terrible plan.

Transport vehicles need a half-decent place to unload, or face horrific losses.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505700
Well said.

The point oh so many experts forget about is that success in war is determined by a metric ton of factors, and not solely by 'weapon x is much better than weapons 'y' 'z' but not weapon 'a''

In a flat open field with no cover whatsoever infantry would be at a major disadvantage against armor, but in urban combat tanks fighting infantry without proper infantry support could be considered casualties already.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505700
More like that's the only way to go if you really want to kill a tank with 20 year old AT weaponry. However, I think more modern AT solutions have better chances even at a frontal assault.

Also, AT isn't fired 5 at a time, that's another waste of ammo. I don't know if you're still talking about cheapshit RPGs until now, but modern ATs do have a hefty price tag per round, certainly a price tag a 3rd rate military would be treating like gold.

Our American friends here probably wouldn't bat an eye, though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505700
Tanks outrange infantry anti-tank weapons by miles. Active protection systems give tanks a good chance of surviving otherwise lethal hits. Sure, if somebody sends a tank company into an valley blind and there are two hundred men with state-of-the-art anti-tank weapons behind every tree, it won't go well, but this would never happen.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505721
The magitech that would make a mech work can be put inside the always fundamentally more efficient wheeled or tracked chassis, giving you a railgun supertank of destruction going at 150km/h.

The gulf will always remain, because a platform with legs will ALWAYS be less armed, armoured and slower than the tracked vehicle of the same weight class.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505721
>future mechs going at current car speeds
>laughing_superfast_hover
cars_of_tomorrow.jpeg

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505721
I understood that, and you didn't understand what I said. Let me put it in a way you'd understand:

>Mechs will get better too, and will end up on par with today's cars in speed.
> Mechs will get better
>TODAY's cars in speed

When was this again? Far into the future, right? In the technological balance sheet, the tanks in the future would then be as on par as _future cars_ in terms of speed.

I hope that was easier to understand.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505700

And vehicles can track the infantry from distance using thermal vision or whatever and slaughter them from beyond their range.

Besides, modern AT missiles are expensive as hell. Some are more expensive than cheaper types of tanks.

While RPG's are completely useless against modern tanks.

Back in Iraq there were cases when US troops had to destroy broken down or stuck Abrams. They discovered it's hard as hell using even 120mm tank cannons.

[Anonymous No.]

Mechas will never see much use.

The main advantage mechs will have? It only takes one person to operate and with a much larger frame, can fit more weapons. However the cost and time for building, equipping, training, deploying, and resupplying is far too high. It's like the armored suits we actually have the technology to make, no one in their right mind would pay for them to be mass produced over the cheaper and faster foot soldiers.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505763
But who the fuck cares?

I keep telling you, what matters is that Mechs will get on par in speed to CARS, and if tanks do too, there's still a point to BOTH.

>>9505756
Hey you, check the fucking video. Kurata uses WHEELS.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505777
I would add maneuverability to the list. A mech could theoretically turn on a dime whereas wheeled and tracked vehicles won't be able to turn as easily. This usually won't be an issue, but maybe somehow you'll find a scenario in the future where it's necessary to dodge dumb missiles, or a battle takes on a staircase the size of a mountain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505774
>track the infantry from distance using thermal vision
Because thermal vision is now MAGICAL and can perfectly spot infantry hiding in cover from MILES away, amirite?

Also, I'd like to see a bunch of idiots suicidal enough to rush a tank squad on foot with no cover. People that stupid deserve to die.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505777
This.

>>9505762
If a Mech takes dozens of years of research to create, like Kurata, I still don't see how far are we getting into hovercrafts, there's NONE yet.

I don't think cars will get much much better than they currently are either, maybe if electric cars become less hipster.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505777
I would like to debate your first point that a mech can be operated by 1 person and a tank can't.

Say that technology and peripheral interfacing becomes advanced enough to allow this - there's no reason why a tank can't be just piloted by one person either. Already, a ton of functions are automated in modern tanks, and more more _can_ be automated, like loading, but due to the current insufficient state of technology, it's not yet widely implemented.

In such a future, I imagine that while a mecha still needs a pilot, a tank can be remove controlled, like today's UAVs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505792
>Kurata uses WHEELS.
Yeah, in a pointless design with nothing but disadvantages.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505756

By that logic an armed, remotely controlled wheelbarrow would be better than a soldier.

Wheeled/tracked vehicles are great and all, but in difficult terrain something with legs would work many times better.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505803
Almost all anti-tank weapons used by infantry have a range that's measured in meters.

[Anonymous No.]

idiots compare tanks that has not a short history and a prototype of some mech like machine.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505736
-Guided- anti tank missiles. You know. The new stuff that automatically launches up into the air, then targets the weakest part of the tank without any thinking on the part of the man holding the launcher.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505792
Are you still debating with me here? We're obviously arguing which is better than the other, and since your point was dull and mistaken, the tank obviously gets 1 point over the mech.

Besides, since Karuta is using wheels anyway, why not replace that with tracks, for cross-terrain capability? At such point the legs would become obstructive and would be removed, plugging the tracks to the torso as the chassis. But in actual warfare, a lower silhouette is preferred for obvious reasons, so we'd need to cut the torso down to size. But now the weapons have nowhere to be placed. At this point, you are at a crossroads - make an expensive turret for 360 degree coverage, or place the gun in a closed or open casemate to increase frontal armor at the cost of versatility. Hmm... wait, that sort of looks like a...

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505825
But not the sandnigger favorite - a xboxhueg explosive on a road!
While one boom might not be enough to wreck a tank, it's usually enough to put it out of comission for a while.

And why are we discussing weapons on /jp/ anyway?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505810
Yes, I think you idea is correct, but that would also apply to Mechs, just look at Kurata.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505798

This.

Imagine trying to track something that can run at 100 km/h, jump, crouch, strafe and use cover like an infantryman with a tank cannon.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

funny fact 1
Did you know if the Kuratas would drive around the equator it would take 166.97 days to do 1 lap

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505842
Yeah, and those are expensive. Um... what part were you replying to with that response, pray tell?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505850
Yeah, keep on trolling. None of what you might say might end up becoming reality due to global interest in Mechs.

Everyone might start creating their own military versions of Kurata and we will end up with Battletech-like world where everyone has their fucking Mech with different engines, thus, dropping tanks entirely.

There might even be a chance to combine both tanks and mech into one design thanks to the creative mind of Japan.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505852

That sure worked amazingly well against columns of tanks during Gulf wars.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505821
Anything that is going to be lightweight enough to walk in "harsh terrain" will likely be terribly armed and armoured to avoid sinking, falling, tumbling etc., and you wouldn't even need special munitions to disable it.

Walking does not scale well.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505865
>Can run at 100 km/h, jump, crouch, strafe and use cover like an infantryman with a tank cannon.
ITT: Videogames

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

Funny fact 2
Did you know that the Kuratas would need 4 hours and 20 minutes to finish a marathon and that the human world record is at 2 hours 3 minutes 2 seconds

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505865
Yeah, I was thinking that there might be an advantage there. Whether that's useful or not depends, I suppose, on how good tracking systems become, or how much faster missiles go.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505865
I imagine it would be hell. But that's in my imagination. I'm 90% sure it won't leave my imagination either for the forseeable 50 years.

Seriously, we should just talk about power suits. Imagine that you said, and it's only the size of a man, but has the armor potential of a modern day IFV (I wouldn't say tank, that's just...) To be honest, I'd be more scared of that the he juggernaut trying to shoot me with its 100mm gun, because if I try to hide, the man in the power suit can actually come over to me and whack me in the head.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505887
It's posts like these that make me glad we can be anonymous in the internet - we can be as silly as we can without any fear of backlash or embarrassment. Please do go on, if you wish - I've perfectly rebutted every relevant thesis you've made and you're now resorting to incredible banter.

[Anonymous No.]

Would a mech be able to dodge a rocket the same way a human can dodge a baseball, but all speeds multiplied by a factor of ten?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505920
I don't think you realize that your whole "thesis" are pure heaps of shit and banter.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505927
If a human can't, I don't see how a mech, piloted by a human can. It might be automated to do something like that, but dodging is a serious waste of energy. Why not just intercept it with something, or actually have armor decent enough to shrug it off? In a mecha, you probably don't have the latter choice.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505940
Ha ha. The debate is over, huh? I figured not even a zealot like yourself couldn't defend a concept as desolate as a real life mecha. I appreciate your effort, though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505940
But he's right.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9505927
well a 2 stage RPG rocket goes 294 m/s a normal 1 goes 115 m/s
the kuratas goes a maximum of 10 km/h

But if the pilot would be a Japanese highsachool girl that is half naked and in the background is some catchy Japanese anime song the kuratas speed could get boosted maybe to a 30 km/h

You can do the math I think

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505803
>Also, I'd like to see a bunch of idiots suicidal enough to rush a tank squad on foot with no cover. People that stupid deserve to die.
My brother just came back from Afghanistan, he told me about one time where some fighter's buddy got shot around a corner then he stepped right out in the same place and got shot as well.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505954
What part of it's a "thesis" and everything can change didn't you understand? What "right" does he have to "predict" the future?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505940
Oh, and by the way, I never put forward a thesis, only rebuttals - I didn't have to prove tanks were the best, only that your propositions that mechs were, are ludicrous. Which they were, to begin with, so there wasn't much effort on my part.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9500881
I know, dude, I totally wet myself watching their videos.
Even if it is in laughable baby stages, I never thought I'd see something like this in my lifetime.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505966
Because he's applying logic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505943
A human can actually dodge a baseball, though. A human piloting a mech will see something coming ten times as fast from a hundred times farther away, so he has a chance.

It seems like it would be more trouble to take a hit head on than to dodge it. For missiles and rockets that rely on an explosive payload going off, having an automatic autocannon intercept it might be more ideal, I suppose. I've heard that kinetic energy weapons are coming back into fashion due to railgun technology, though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505977
So am I. I'm not a fat neckbeard army boy from /pol/ but I try to apply logic and accept other opinions instead of crying like a little bitch about what other thinks.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505966
>everything can change
The laws of physics that makes mechs stupid wankery won't.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505983
He stopped making actual arguments about the technical viability mechs of after you posted >>9505887, which just pretty much just says "Yeah, keep on trolling."

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505986
What "physics"? He kept arguing that tanks with shitty slug wheels could reach future car levels of speed and Mechs couldn't.

That's not logical nor scientifically correct.

[Anonymous No.]

I support the idea of mechs because it raises the possibility that the anti-armor rifle will come back into service. Fuck RPGs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505996
He argued that wheeled vehicles could move faster than mechs. That is at least a plausible argument, seeing as how the fastest land vehicle these days can move at a thousand kilometers an hour, and the fastest mech can... not. Good luck turning, though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505996
>He kept arguing that tanks with shitty slug wheels could reach future car levels of speed and Mechs couldn't
Actually, he never said that.
Mainly because tanks would be using FUTURE CAR TECH to go as fast as FUTURE CARS
Also, the future car tech would be incompatible with mech legs most likely.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506008
But he did say the exact same thing you did. Tanks would be progressing into FUTURE CAR TECH and "Mechs are 1 out of 10 compared to tanks".

Did you forget that part or are you that guy trying to bait for more reactions?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505966
"Right"? To predict the future. Yes. I do, everyone does. Do you even need a right for such a thing? True, all we're talking here are predictions for the future, you, yourself are guilty of this.

However, mine is bound on reality and historic knowledge. Yours is only limited by the incredible possibilities you see in video games, anime and whatnot.

But you know what, I'll be kind. I will admit that we'll have mechas. Better ones, obviously than this Kurata, which is - as is shown in the slide, a "Piece of ART". HOWEVER, that mecha will have an effective military role within the next 100 years is a ludicrous proposition. Why? No material is strong and light enough. Carbon nanofibers are a candidate, give it 20 years. No power plant is small and powerful enough. I don't even know what to do with this. Cold fusion? Maybe. Micro nuclear powered turbines? I wouldn't fucking ride that ticking time bomb. I wouldn't hold my breath for even 100 years. The concept itself is based on self-wanking, that since we humans are the most successful species on Earth that automatically, anything that resembles us must be the best as well. This is just plain stupid. Compare humans with any animal, and the human will be ill suited to outlive the opponent without its intelligence. Intelligence. I can't stress this enough. We humans are at the top of the food chain because we are physically the toughest, nimblest or fastest - it's because we are LEAGUES UPON LEAGUES smarter than any other animal.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506005
Yes, instant turning is probably the ONLY point I will give to mechs over tanks. But guess what the turret is for?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506030
I'm not talking about turning to shoot at things that aren't straight in front of you, I mean, actually moving in a direction other than the direction you were moving in one second ago.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505996
You're missing the point everyone has been trying to hammer in.

A platform with legs is ALWAYS fundamentally more inefficient. That's the physics. If you have a future super power system (Say ol' gasoline with a great power/weight ratio) that satisfies the extra requirements to make the walker work, you can put this very same new engine into the more efficient tread/wheel platform and get:

■ Far better armour
■ Far better speed
■ Far lower profile
■ More guns, more ammo
■ Better guns, better ammo
■ Better reliability
■ Cheaper
And so on.

The same technology that would enable a mech puts the other alternatives so far ahead that there's no point to use the worse walker. And this is the boring fundamental nature of legs, and it will stay the same whatever super space-age equipment you have.

How many times do we have to repeat this?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506018
Missed a 'not' there at the last statement.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506017
>"Mechs are 1 out of 10 compared to tanks".
That's because all the future tech that he was linking to for the mechs could be applied better to tanks than to mechs originally.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506040
And there's that one point I was talking about.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506057
So the two advantages that mechs have over tanks is the ability to traverse highly improbable terrain, and the ability to instantly adjust course because your trajectory one second prior was would have taken you directly into the path of a five hundred pound bomb.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506018
I agree with your post, but that doesn't mean jack to me. I'm actually applying logic and modern technology + realism to the whole Mech future yet you seem to think I'm expecting "jets" on Mechs or whatever...no.

I said Japan might do a twist to the whole Mech concept and invent something like a tank hybrid and you wouldn't be complaining about fitting or any of that shit.

It's not like flying cars where the technology to actually make then cheap and popular is available yet, and much much less pointless.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506038
Repeat what? A Mech doesn't necessarily need legs.

How many times have repeated this? Are you actually trying to troll or something? It's not even funny or original.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506040
>I'm not talking about turning to shoot at things that aren't straight in front of you, I mean, actually moving in a direction other than the direction you were moving in one second ago.
Have you ever tried wearing full plate and changing directions instantly at a full sprint without pratfalling yourself?

In the middle of unstable ground?

A tank's more likely to be able to come to a full stop or even turn and start accelerating in a new direction because it's got giant treads to grip the ground with AND has it's weight spread out over its chassis.

Mechs would be far more likely to topple and faceplant compared to tank maneuvering.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506066
Yeah, pretty much. I'd like to see a naturally occurring staircase with 5+ feet steps each, though.

[az No.]

Seeing how lean and mobile this thing is, riot control and such should be good application for.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506066
>the ability to traverse highly improbable terrain
Only highly improbable terrain made of solid steel.

You're not going to walk on loose soil or rocky terrain with a heavy, metal bipedal.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506069
I'd love to see the reality you live in. Sounds rather... fantastic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506075
>Repeat what? A Mech doesn't necessarily need legs.


"So, this is the new mech design! It's much better than a tank in every way!"

"...Isn't that just a tank with arms and a head on it..? Why did you put arms and a head on a tank, Jim?"

"SHUT UP IT'S TOTALLY A MECH"

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506079
I have never tried to do anything in full plate. However, I've heard that full plate isn't anywhere as onerous as it is frequently made out to be. I don't know how much of what /tg/ says is true and how much of it is garbage.

Obviously there will be complex coordination involved in making an instant turn, but the bodies of humans seem to manage just fine, and we don't have gyroscopes and fine electronic controls built in. It's not a easy problem to solve, but I don't find it insurmountable.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506085
Why not?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506079
I thought he was talking about something like side-stepping. Obviously forward facing tracks can't do that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506075
Then what do you mean?

A Gundam-esque Guntank and all it's pointlessness?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506098
Why? You're obviously going to trip or sink. That's what the tracks are for - to spread out the pressure generated by the weight of all that shit on the tank over a large area.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506101
No? Did you even watch the video?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506110
Not him, but I did. And the bot does have legs. What are you going at here? What mech do you propose, then? One that has tracks, a turret and a 120 mm gun?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9500900
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506098
Because you're focusing an incredible force on two small spots. If it's going to carry any useful guns or armour, the weight will make it sink into everything and anything, crumble any solid footing, and crack concrete with each step. Just because a 80-kilo human can walk fine does not mean a 20-ton mech will for the same reason a 2-meter spider don't work. It doesn't scale.

The point of tracks is actually to distribute weight so it can drive on "Improbable terrain".

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506118
Ok, you're really not very sane or trolling.

It uses wheels, not just legs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506109
Sure, you'll sink in a bit, maybe a foot in particularly loose soil, but does that make the whole thing unviable? Packed dirt, at least, should work. Otherwise dinosaurs would have been unable to go anywhere.

Polished steel is the last place I would take a mech. You'd fall over instantly.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506088
>Obviously there will be complex coordination involved in making an instant turn, but the bodies of humans seem to manage just fine, and we don't have gyroscopes and fine electronic controls built in. It's not a easy problem to solve, but I don't find it insurmountable.
Ok, let's call it an advantage/disadvantage.

>Pro: can potentially change directions very fast
>con: may fall over and break its equipment due to its weight and then be shot to pieces while on the floor

Personally I'd prefer not being likely to fall over but there you go.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506131
And I'd rather not drive into the path of a dropped bomb, but suit yourself. I'm sure you could flip over a tank if you drove it incompetently enough. I'm willing to take any limitations imposed by hardware and physics, but "mech falls over during movement" is a software problem and hardly inherent.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506127
Yeah, it has wheels. Mounted on legs. So it does have legs. In any case a sad reality check for mecha lovers, that today's mecha literally can't even move using it's own legs

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506110
Yes, and it follows the pointless design school of the Guntank. And it still has legs, just with wheels for feet so it has the usual problems.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506131
And I'd rather not drive into the path of a dropped bomb, but suit yourself. I'm sure you could flip over a tank if you drove it incompetently enough. I'm willing to take any limitations imposed by hardware and physics, but "mech falls over while attempting to move" is not one of these.

[Anonymous No.]

What is this shit doing in /jp/ and why do you people seriously argue about tanks of all things.

Everything can change with time, you people aren't fucking engineers.

Also, reported, go back to /m/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506130
No, no, no. You're underestimating loose soil, especially clay. Something that is common with most dinos are that they have massive legs. See the T-Rex? See how small it's arms are? Guess where those muscles went? (<- just a satirization) Most of them also had webbed feet, which further increased the foot coverage. Trying that on a robot, you'd need to design it close to looking like ancient dinosaurs, where the legs make up most of the machine (which is a sad waste of time), otherwise, a set of feet only as small as humans (proportially to the body) attached to skinny legs would be a recipe for lost mechs due to getting bogged down by terrain.

In any case, it just wouldn't look as cool, unless you're into robot dinosaurs with laser eyes.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506157
But steel is stronger than bone and sinew. There's no reason the proportions would have to be the same.

>unless you're into robot dinosaurs with laser eyes.
Who wouldn't be into that? What did you dream of when you were a kid, armed cubes? The most appealing argument in favor of giant robots is "giant robot."

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506143
The chance of falling over comes with the package, unfortunately. And even if you have a bomb dropped in front of you, whether it be in a tank or mech, it should be feasible to evade it given there is enough distance. If a tank were to be too close to dodge it completely, it would suffer severe damage on one side while attempting to dodge. While the mecha, though maybe able to dodge it completely by sidestepping during high speed move, is very liable to toppling over. That forward inertia has to go somewhere, and though you want to sidestep only rightwards, you can't help but keep going forwards at the same time. In such a case, it may be a worse situation for you to have toppled over than to have just walked over the bomb and sustained damage.

[Anonymous No.]

A T-rex only ran at ~6-7 tonnes.

You don't get a lot of plating nor armour for that. I suspect just the legs alone are going to run at that mass. Probably more.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506170
For giant robots, I've always been a fan of the more humanoid types. Again, self-wanking. Sorry, even I can't help it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506191
I'm not talking about a bomb you're going to walk over, I mean a half-ton of explosives which people are trying to air-drop on your head, the kind that will obliterate anything it hits that isn't a reinforced bunker. I envision a mech would attempt to do a high speed turn the way a human would do it, by digging in and absorbing the energy into some sort of spring, except more effectively.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506143
>And I'd rather not drive into the path of a dropped bomb, but suit yourself.

You know, you can actually brake quite hard with a tank. It comes from having really grippy tank threads. Friction is a coefficient of surface area, so when you try to brake in a tank you'll have all your tank treads to slow you down, while a mech would have to try to lean back and push his feet into the ground (the potentially soft soft soil or even worse slippery concrete) with no solid grip on it (because feet aren't supposed to stick to the ground) and then somehow work out how not to fall over when both feet have come off the ground and it's sliding on its ass towards where the bomb is falling.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9500881
>implying with the pic Tokyo is anything but a third-world slumhole

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506204
Maybe feasible for a mecha, if and only if given all the technological advances needed for such a maneuver. Again, the only point I think mecha has over tanks.

[Anonymous No.]

>80 million yen

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506238
And therein lies the biggest problem.

Mind you, this is only the costing for a toy - not military worthy hardware.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505264
That's why in a few decades time, if mechs were to be built, they would have a laser defence system.
Not even joking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Liquid_Laser_Area_Defense_System

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506244
Pricing anything according to the prototype is stupid, though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506249
They would _need_ it, you mean there's no other way for them to survive in a battlefield.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506249
If you can miniaturize a liquid state laser array to the point you can mount it on a mech as an anti-missile mechanism, you can miniaturise a liquid state laser array strong enough to toast a mech, and then mount it on a tank.

And then shoot mechs with it.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

some people honestly play too much video games or watch too much gundam.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506253
In anything, should this thing be militarized, the prototype price would be a miraculous fucking bargain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9505507
For what it's worth, and I'm not the same guy, but I think "mechs" are highly likely in the future, but not in humanoid form, instead like lite troop support armored vehicles (some maybe even as heavily armed as tanks) intended for rough or urban terrain, building upon shit like pic or Big Dog.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506270
It's not that they are highly likely, they already exist, but yes, they are being deployed in support roles, where they don't have to care about armor because they aren't expecting to take the hundreds of bullets that the tanks will. Still, the technology to this date is young and inefficient, but unfortunately already highly romanticized.

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506260
sorry i cant hear u over me fuggin ur mother

[Anonymous No.]

>>9506260

No mecha for you

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>9506289
1.You don't even know my mother.
2.ofc you cant hear me I am writing on a image board and not speaking to you trough skype...
3. Are you mentally retarded that you cant say "fucking " what the fuck should fugging even mean, if you have problem to even write sexual words like " fuck" you honestly want me to believe that you are even capable to a fuck a women?

I would be even surprised if you can masturbate.