Japan Guy Makes 4 Ton Mech That shoots Airsoft Bullets, You can buy one.
225 replies, posted
It sucks the website wont load for me
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36996768]why[/QUOTE]
i don't know
i mean someone is going to abuse it and roll it down a street breaking everything :v:
But I guess it IS hilariously expensive.
-snip- for automerge
[QUOTE=silentjubjub;36997077]i don't know
i mean someone is going to abuse it and roll it down a street breaking everything :v:[/QUOTE]
It only goes 10km per hour
My god. I've never wanted something as bad as I want this right now. Why money, WHY.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36997085]except that most of the minefield arguments are moot when you consider that tanks are almost never just by themselves
an eod team would just place a fuckton of explosives and clear the field[/QUOTE]
While a mech could transverse them alone without the need of an EOD team which can't be deployed in critical times.
You actually found another argument in favor of mechs, they can work on squad level without the need for as much support as a tank column. Improved mobility alone is a good enough argument, specially if the firepower provided is comparable if not better.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997253]While a mech could transverse them alone without the need of an EOD team which can't be deployed in critical times.
You actually found another argument in favor of mechs, they can work on squad level without the need for as much support as a tank column. Improved mobility alone is a good enough argument, specially if the firepower provided is comparable if not better.[/QUOTE]
Or you could just use infantry which dosn't cost lodes e mone and can field just as much firepower now days with shoulder fired guided missiles and tows.
Also infantry are harder to see
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36997306]if we deployed mechs in afghanistan, surely they would find a way to make minefields mech-proof as well
and besides, in urban combat, if the mech is anything like this, i imagine any anti-tank rifle or rpg would destroy it in 1 hit considering the open-ness of the pilot's seat[/QUOTE]
Hell, an anti-personel mine could probably take them out
[editline]30th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997253]While a mech could transverse them alone without the need of an EOD team which can't be deployed in critical times.
You actually found another argument in favor of mechs, they can work on squad level without the need for as much support as a tank column. Improved mobility alone is a good enough argument, specially if the firepower provided is comparable if not better.[/QUOTE]
Also I'd love to know how that mech is finding all these mines so quickly
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36997306]if we deployed mechs in afghanistan, surely they would find a way to make minefields mech-proof as well
and besides, in urban combat, if the mech is anything like this, i imagine any anti-tank rifle or rpg would destroy it in 1 hit considering the open-ness of the pilot's seat[/QUOTE]
How do you make a minefield mech proof? You add more mines? There's always a way to navigate them on foot, considering antitank mines aren't the same thing as antipersonnel mines. The increased mobility of mechs would allow them to transverse areas impossible to transverse by tanks such as steep hills or even cliffs that are nigh impossible to turn into minefields.
Clearly this design is not intended to be militarized, and as I said, it's still incipient technology. But removing the constraints of wheels means being able to deploy armor closer to the front lines, which is a benefit from wherever you see it. A future design could have some form to evade incoming fire in a way a tank can't.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36997390]Also I'd love to know how that mech is finding all these mines so quickly[/QUOTE]
This one? No chance in hell.
But with a better design? The cockpit is already elevated, surface area is smaller. With computer aid you can tread along the minefield with care.
I mean it's simply dumb to not admit that tanks are going to be replaced by something better sooner or later.
Imagine how painful it would be to trip in a mech.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997415]How do you make a minefield mech proof? You add more mines? There's always a way to navigate them on foot, considering antitank mines aren't the same thing as antipersonnel mines. The increased mobility of mechs would allow them to transverse areas impossible to transverse by tanks such as steep hills or even cliffs that are nigh impossible to turn into minefields.
Clearly this design is not intended to be militarized, and as I said, it's still incipient technology. But removing the constraints of wheels means being able to deploy armor closer to the front lines, which is a benefit from wherever you see it. A future design could have some form to evade incoming fire in a way a tank can't.[/QUOTE]
Wait, how the hell is a mech going to transverse a steep cliff
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36997436]Wait, how the hell is a mech going to transverse a steep cliff[/QUOTE]
You're making it a pain for me to reply to you.
Also, the answer to that, slowly. Probably not an entirely vertical rock climb at least without help, but it definitely can fare better in more sloped terrain.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997461]You're making it a pain for me to reply to you.
Also, the answer to that, slowly. Probably not an entirely vertical rock climb at least without help, but it definitely can fare better in more sloped terrain.[/QUOTE]
But how are wheels going to manage better than tracks?
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36997469]But how are wheels going to manage better than tracks?[/QUOTE]
ffs I mean actual walkers not this wheeled thing.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997478]ffs I mean actual walkers not this wheeled thing.[/QUOTE]
Well if anything walkers would be worse, having a lot of weight bearing down on single points can make it easily get stuck in less sturdy terrain, and in a place with plenty of sand it would probably get stuck.
Also this thing looks more like sentry bots than anything
[img]http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/a/a6/Sentry_bot.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36997494]Well if anything walkers would be worse, having a lot of weight bearing down on single points can make it easily get stuck in less sturdy terrain, and in a place with plenty of sand it would probably get stuck.
Also this thing looks more like sentry bots than anything
[img]http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/a/a6/Sentry_bot.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Not if you distribute weight right. It'll have a hard time passing over mud but even then you could just make some sort of way to make them crawl and increase surface area to prevent them from sinking.
You fail to see the potential on this as a prototype. If everyone based their idea of how tanks would have worked on this design
[img]http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/russian-tsar-tank.jpg[/img]
Then tanks would have just been scrapped as ineffective. Mechs have a long way to go, but there is plenty of time to work out the kinks.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997535]Not if you distribute weight right. It'll have a hard time passing over mud but even then you could just make some sort of way to make them crawl and increase surface area to prevent them from sinking.
You fail to see the potential on this as a prototype. If everyone based their idea of how tanks would have worked on this design
[img]http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/russian-tsar-tank.jpg[/img]
Then tanks would have just been scrapped as ineffective. Mechs have a long way to go, but there is plenty of time to work out the kinks.[/QUOTE]
You're not seeing that mechs, wheeled legged or fucking flying, are just as ineffective as that thing there.
The only effective mechs will be infantry sized AT MOST
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997535]Not if you distribute weight right. It'll have a hard time passing over mud but even then you could just make some sort of way to make them crawl and increase surface area to prevent them from sinking.
You fail to see the potential on this as a prototype. If everyone based their idea of how tanks would have worked on this design
[img]http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/russian-tsar-tank.jpg[/img]
Then tanks would have just been scrapped as ineffective. Mechs have a long way to go, but there is plenty of time to work out the kinks.[/QUOTE]
So make the surface area large enough to get up terrain, but small enough to get through minefields
???
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;36997419]Imagine how painful it would be to trip in a mech.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't even look like the damn thing has a seat belt to keep you restrained. If that thing topples, you're going to be bouncing around in that thing like a rubber ball.
[B]THAT'S NOT A SMILE SHE'S LAUGHING[/B]
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997535]Mechs have a long way to go, but there is plenty of time to work out the kinks.[/QUOTE]
And by 'work out the kinks' you mean 'find something, anything they do better than more conventional vehicles'.
You are aware that ground pressure means walking entities are MORE likely to set off mines, not less? Elephants are killed by mines in Africa in old warzones all the time.
I would love to see Police Mechs or Army Mechs in the near future, that would be amazing.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;36998621]I would love to see Police Mechs or Army Mechs in the near future, that would be amazing.[/QUOTE]
I want a very rich conservative to buy a bunch and call it the "Freedom Force"
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36996859]From a purely tactical point of view horse cavalry was never in the front lines, that's what you send the infantry for. As a result of trench warfare the war became entirely static. By this same logic infantrymen also became useless as they were not able to go over the top, into the no man's land between trenches, something the horse couldn't do either.[/QUOTE]
And infantry [I]were[/I] useless after the advent of the trench.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36996859]True, cavalry was often not used in the frontlines when opposing armies were entrenched, but to say that this is the reason why they were entirely phased out is not entirely true, simplest example would be that horse cavalry was used to fair use in the African and Middle Eastern front, and they were also used as beasts of burden. Tanks came to replace them in the role of cavalry ONLY after certain issues with cost and maneuverability were resolved (Tanks were slower than horses until at least the mid war period, the concept of the rotating turret, which is what pretty much made them better also arised after WWI, breeding a combat horse is also cheaper than making a tank any day of the week).[/QUOTE]
This is all well and good but factually wrong, so it doesn't count for much. Cavalry vs. tanks is a shitty comparison because [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry#First_World_War"]cavalry was rapidly becoming disused for all but glorified troop transport before WWI even began.[/URL] There's absolutely no reason to compare it to tanks. Tanks were linebreakers for an infantry force to move across, horses were fodder in a direct combat role, what you used when you couldn't afford motorized recognizance, or what you used when you couldn't afford trucks.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36996859]I use it merely as an analogy to future developments in armored warfare.[/QUOTE]
It's a shitty analogy. No offense, doesn't impact your point, just, honestly, that's a horrible thing to compare tech development to.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36996859]There are certain things that current tank designs can't overcome. Tanks are rather ineffective in urban warfare as they are extremely susceptible from fire from above, IEDs and mines which they can't easily outmaneuver. A mech, with its multiple limbs (Less surface area to actually step on, less chance on stepping on a mine, if you make it actual legs instead of wheels you can actually maneuver through a minefield, with care at least) can have the mobility of infantry with the firepower and armor of tanks.[/QUOTE]
Now this is the typical ramblings of somebody who doesn't work in a technical field talking about a technical subject.
-The inability of a tank to fire directly above it isn't rectified by a mech. That's a call for a new generation of turret, not a new platform.
-Regarding mines, neither physics nor anti-vehicle mines work the way you think they do. A mech would be just as vulnerable to anti-vehicle mines as anything else in its weight class.
-There is no reason to believe that, given the advances in technology necessary to make a walker get past 6mph movement and clunky articulation, it would not be easier to simply build a more maneuverable wheeled or tracked vehicle base.
Mechs are a solution in need of a problem.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36997535]You fail to see the potential on this as a prototype. If everyone based their idea of how tanks would have worked on this design
[img_thumb]http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/russian-tsar-tank.jpg[/img_thumb]
Then tanks would have just been scrapped as ineffective. Mechs have a long way to go, but there is plenty of time to work out the kinks.[/QUOTE]
Yes if people would have considered a [I]russian prototype designed to test a method of movement [/I]representative of all tanks then tanks certainty would have seemed silly.
The automatic target acquisition is pretty cool...if it didn't rotate slow as shit. Fuck out-running the gun, you could casually walk away from it's field of fire.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36994299]But that can be said for pretty much any armored transport if you're talking about weapons designed specifically to take out armor.
Even the best tanks in the world don't have so much faith in the armor that they don't use chaff and other countermeasures. The armor itself is mostly to protect against small-arms.
Throw the standard countermeasures on there and you'd have a decent urban patrol platform. Sure, it's clunky as fuck but it still looks a hell of a lot more maneuverable than an M1A1 and it would be a preferable to the "walk around until I hear sniper reports" strategy urban patrol has right now. This kind of thing would work best against an insurgency in an urban environment. It'd never be a front-line assault unit.
Yeah, it could go down if you shoot rockets at it, but that would also mean your enemy would need to find a lot more rockets for places they typically don't keep or use them. An inconvenience to the enemy is nothing to be trifled with.[/QUOTE]
When I was thinking of the concept of a mech like this, the only way I could see it being used is urban/city based crowd control kind of things. It would have the mobility and the field of view, as well as the right kind of range and armaments to deal with the situation, and like you said, what armor it does have would be good for small arms fire.
I doubt that mech can withstand even a pistol clip of fire. Its made for airsoft, not warfare. Actual armor would almost double the weight, and maybe even require some re-engineering.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37000128]I doubt that mech can withstand even a pistol clip of fire. Its made for airsoft, not warfare. Actual armor would almost double the weight, and maybe even require some re-engineering.[/QUOTE]
Too bad nobody can try that.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36993137]Soon my dreams of being a Gundam pilot will come to fruition[/QUOTE]
The Japanese government wants to make a full size Gundam.
Again with these 'Mechs' with wheels for movement.
I won't be impressed until I see one walk properly honestly. This is just a fancy robot looking tank not a mech.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.