Japan Guy Makes 4 Ton Mech That shoots Airsoft Bullets, You can buy one.
225 replies, posted
You're all delving into why mechs are impractical, but you over look one crucial thing.
THEY ARE FUCKING AWESOME.
Ah to be a millionaire. Although I'd say it would be extremely hazardous to my health as I have no doubt that the add on cup holder would be used far too often and the old adage do not operate machinery when intoxicated would be broken again and again.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;36999339]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]
That dude was literally right next to it. If you were to bring this to, say, an airsoft field game, people would be much much farther away and you would need to pivot less to track faster moving people.
It fires by smiling? Thats kind of sadistic.
I do want one however.
The fact that it's legal to own and drive these makes me think that the future is already here.
wheeled
10km/h
probably handles real terrain poorly
fires by smiling
half its weapons can't be aimed
4 tons (and if you added armor (which it doesn't have) it wouldn't be able to handle its own weight)
high center of gravity
tall
impractical
hint: mechas will never happen
[editline]30th July 2012[/editline]
humans are the masters of warfare: if mechas were a good way to kill other people they would have happened long ago
Quadraped mechs would be nice
also the website is down god damn it
To be honest, I could definitely see around 5 of these being used in a riot control situation. These things would be godlike for low-risk urban mobility and patrols providing the rioters aren't carrying RPGs and shit.
why are people complaining- its still pretty fucking cool.
Sadly, you cannot make great mech is their response is 5 seconds delay on anything, that's my problem with people designing mech without findings ways to increase responsiveness so it be super fast instead of 5 second delay on everything. The only use i see currently with our technology of mech and design is for artillery.
[B]first we had this[/B]
[img_thumb]http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2029970-md.jpg[/img_thumb]
[B]now we have [I]THIS[/I][/b]
[img_thumb]http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A1_Abrams_lg.jpg[/img_thumb]
now in terms of mechs
[B]first we had THIS[/B]
[IMG_thumb]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599835_4336735587461_714132223_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
that is just the first step, it'll grow bigger and more powerful.
Yeah, creating future weapons of mass destruction, with a smile. I love japs...
I see some real warfare application in that mech design.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]And infantry [I]were[/I] useless after the advent of the trench.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck? Infantry are the base of any army, not armor. Everything armor does nowadays is in support of infantry. Tanks were invented to let infantry through the trenches, but infantry could have always gone over the top. With the use of tanks, the Battle of the Somme was still one of the bloodiest ever registered.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]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]
God damn dude, this was AFTER TANKS.
Cavalry BEFORE TANKS used horses.
Tank columns were used in World War II and most modern wars for the exact same purpose horse cavalry:
A) Flanking
B) Shock
C) Fire support
D) Recon (Not explicitely for tanks but motorized units as a whole)
Some of these tasks are often relegated to helicopters, with tanks usually serving instead as siege weapons instead (Blitzkrieg tactics are a clear example of this). But to say that the role of tanks were not to replace horses IS what is historical revisionism. I don't care about the transition period which was World War I. Post-World War I warfare used tanks as mechanized cavalry.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]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]
I think you're just being touchy overly touchy, over a subject that doesn't warrant it.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]Now this is the typical ramblings of somebody who doesn't work in a technical field talking about a technical subject.[/QUOTE]
lol
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]-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.[/QUOTE]
Vertical turrets, like those which are effectively at the "arms" of the mech have a faster acquisition range for vertical targets while still having comparable adquisition range for horizontal targets (Guess why anti aircraft vehicles often have their turrets at the side), while still having the same two degrees of freedom. Considering the mech has two arms, it means it has two turrets of this very same kind.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]-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.[/QUOTE]
Maybe magnetic mines. But by exerting force on the ground with merely one limb while supported by the other limbs the tank can reduce the effective force applied on the same surface area as the other limbs (Gravity versus the force the mech exerts on the ground to stand up, gravity pushing it down while the mech itself is pulling itself up, if the other 3 limbs are holding it up, the amount of force the remaining limb has to make is not equal to its entire mass, therefore reducing it's actual weight). Treading, like how humans do in a minefield is possible if more precise movements are allowed.
Weight != Mass.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]-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.[/QUOTE]
There are already prototypes of robots that can move at 18mph
[video=youtube;83ULlgpT1UQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ULlgpT1UQ[/video]
With the advent of 3D printing big beasts of metal like mechs are becoming much more possible to manufacture with significantly reduced costs. New materials that are both lightweight and durable, new technologies in several fields allow us to mechanize complex motion easier.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]Mechs are a solution in need of a problem.[/QUOTE]
With the advent of urban warfare I'd say the problem is already there. The new form of locomotion provided by mechs would allow it to overcome several problems in tanks, just give it a couple dozen years.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36999305]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.[/QUOTE]
So how is taking a concept, a prototype, a first of it's kind as a way to analyze the entire future of mechs any better?
[QUOTE=Crash15;37001124]Quadraped mechs would be nice
also the website is down god damn it[/QUOTE]
They probably weren't expecting so many people visiting their website...
[QUOTE=Big Bang;37001583] everything that Xenocidebot said [/QUOTE]
grudge against Xenocidebot?
[video=youtube;j-5r8YNSgG8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-5r8YNSgG8[/video]
First thing I thought of.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37001317][B]first we had this[/B]
[img_thumb]http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2029970-md.jpg[/img_thumb]
[B]now we have [I]THIS[/I][/b]
[img_thumb]http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A1_Abrams_lg.jpg[/img_thumb]
now in terms of mechs
[B]first we had THIS[/B]
[IMG_thumb]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599835_4336735587461_714132223_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
that is just the first step, it'll grow bigger and more powerful.[/QUOTE]
Except the Mark V was actually practical on the battlefield
Something about the guns by smiling just made me burst out in laughter. It's almost sadistic but in a cute and friendly way.
Tbh I don't see mechs larger than a human being used in warfare. Larger than a human, and they lose hands-down to tanks, CAS aircraft or any wily infantryman with an RPG.
Tanks are far more efficient in terms of tons to armour thickness, have a larger surface area (less likely to sink into the ground or damage roads), less critical weak points (shoot the treads off, it's just immobile but capable of returning fire; depending on mech design, taking out the knee joint'll cause it to collapse), more firepower owing to being a more stable firing position, lower silhouette and so on.
New technology that'd alleviate these shortcomings in mechs would equally improve tanks and leave the capability gap unchanged.
Now, human sized robots are more likely; for countries unwilling or unable to commit humans to battle (environment rendered hostile by NBC contaminants, for example) and depending on design they could be more effective than humans (see the gun-on-treads little bots that the US army, and indeed even the Libyan rebels, made), or for carrying large loads over very rough terrain (like that 4-legged hauler the US are developing). Exoskeletons are already in the works, which would give an infantryman a massive advantage in survivability in combat.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37001317][B]first we had this[/B]
[img_thumb]http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2029970-md.jpg[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
That tank, despite all its flaws, actually did provide a practical solution to some problems that era of war however. Mechs don't really do that. For mechs to be effective in urban warfare they'd need higher mobility and durability than any current prototypes we have today, which means whatever the "final" war mech will look like it will be extremely technically advanced, and complicated as hell to build. For every articulated "limb" the technical complexity of the machine increases exponentially, and the cost follows. No sane person will send a machine as complex or expensive as a fighter jet (probably more) into an extremely dangerous urban combat scenario.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;37002012]Tbh I don't see mechs larger than a human being used in warfare. Larger than a human, and they lose hands-down to tanks, CAS aircraft or any wily infantryman with an RPG.
Tanks are far more efficient in terms of tons to armour thickness, have a larger surface area (less likely to sink into the ground or damage roads), less critical weak points (shoot the treads off, it's just immobile but capable of returning fire; depending on mech design, taking out the knee joint'll cause it to collapse), more firepower owing to being a more stable firing position, lower silhouette and so on.
New technology that'd alleviate these shortcomings in mechs would equally improve tanks and leave the capability gap unchanged.
Now, human sized robots are more likely; for countries unwilling or unable to commit humans to battle (environment rendered hostile by NBC contaminants, for example) and depending on design they could be more effective than humans (see the gun-on-treads little bots that the US army, and indeed even the Libyan rebels, made), or for carrying large loads over very rough terrain (like that 4-legged hauler the US are developing). Exoskeletons are already in the works, which would give an infantryman a massive advantage in survivability in combat.[/QUOTE]
A combat mech could be useful for a variety of reasons, foremost being more agile/mobile than a tank (although unless someone plants a jetpack thats actually feasible on one they will never be faster than tanks). With future technology I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with a mech that can climb buildings/cliffs. Although the video of the mech in the OP doesn't reflect it, mechs in the future could move their arms flexibly around like a human to quickly eliminate acquired targets and twist the upper half of the mech to quickly face targets from every direction.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eCUCBS1SVk[/media]
This technology could be intergrated into Mech's to make them more defensible, and if the more futuristic mechs prove to be quicker at doing snap movements like recoiling backwards or to the side in the face of enemy fire. Granted, the odds of dodging an RPG that has already been fired and hasn't been nuetralized by the APS are probably incredibly low. A mech can also fit giant hands, which is good in all sorts of situations, such as lifting debris, saving injured comrades from being crushed , knocking a hole in a wall or the side of a building for infantry to enter or pass through, or even picking up some cover like a tree, rock or concrete part of a building to make for some quick and useful yet unorthodox cover. As for them being complicated and expensive, its a simply a matter of time waiting for simpler and more economical technology.
[sp]This might sound moronic but I am assuming with my own common sense that at least some of this could be made practical with future technology, so sorry if it is[/sp]
[QUOTE=gamerman345;37002342]
This might sound moronic but I am assuming with my own common sense that at least some of this could be made practical with future technology, so sorry if it is[/QUOTE]
You're on to something here; I think the point many users here are trying to make is that whatever future technology that makes stuff like that feasible and reliable, it's gonna be better to put to use in a non-mecha-like machine design. The thing with mechas is that their design is mainly based off the human body (with some animal thrown in sometimes), which in turn is based upon [B][I]the completely groundless assumption that the human body is an effective design for a mechanized war machine.[/I][/B]
Holy fuck! Those robots look strikingly similar to what I imagine a mech prototype would look like!
Four legs that have wheels at the bottom, machine guns for hands... But my idea is that the torso opens up to fire rockets out instead of having a meaty mushy substance in there.
the girl in the video is the asian natalie portman.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;37000914]wheeled
10km/h
probably handles real terrain poorly
fires by smiling
half its weapons can't be aimed
4 tons (and if you added armor (which it doesn't have) it wouldn't be able to handle its own weight)
high center of gravity
tall
impractical
hint: mechas will never happen
[editline]30th July 2012[/editline]
humans are the masters of warfare: if mechas were a good way to kill other people they would have happened long ago[/QUOTE]
Here's one point you are missing, ITS MOTHERFUCKING AWESOME.
For some reason the buy site isnt loading for me. Damn. How am I supposed to get my mech now.
[QUOTE=gamerman345;37002342]A combat mech could be useful for a variety of reasons, foremost being more agile/mobile than a tank (although unless someone plants a jetpack thats actually feasible on one they will never be faster than tanks).[/QUOTE]An infantryman is more mobile over rough terrain than both combined, and far harder to spot. An exoskeleton-clad infantryman would also maintain that advantage. A mech'd stand out like a giant neon golden cock, it'd be far taller than a tank and less able to utilise cover.
[quote]With future technology I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with a mech that can climb buildings/cliffs.[/quote]Why? If there's something above the cliff that needs whacking, AT rockets, air support or artillery would suffice. Why would you need a mech to climb a building like the bloody King Kong, which couldn't be done by infantry entering the building either through helicopters landing on the roof, or going through the front door?
[quote]Although the video of the mech in the OP doesn't reflect it, mechs in the future could move their arms flexibly around like a human to quickly eliminate acquired targets and twist the upper half of the mech to quickly face targets from every direction.[/quote]As can a turret, and is less vulnerable. What happens if one joint in the arm is damaged? Articulated arms are inefficient; more moving parts most certainly does not always make a machine [I]more[/I] effective at it's task.
[quote]This technology could be intergrated into Mech's to make them more defensible, and if the more futuristic mechs prove to be quicker at doing snap movements like recoiling backwards or to the side in the face of enemy fire. Granted, the odds of dodging an RPG that has already been fired and hasn't been nuetralized by the APS are probably incredibly low.[/quote]And put on tanks, it renders the advantage a mech would have with the same system moot. A tank would also be more able to survive a hit if a missile got through or was only partially damaged. At the range active-kill systems work, there would be absolutely no time to dodge a missile that got through. Modern AT rockets can travel faster than the speed of sound, you must be really optimistic if you think a mech in the same weight class as vehicles is going to be dodging projectiles like the goddamn Matrix.
[quote]A mech can also fit giant hands, which is good in all sorts of situations, such as lifting debris,[/quote]Combat engineers and their relevant vehicles. If time is a concern e.g. when breaching fortifications, then explosives.
[quote]saving injured comrades from being crushed[/quote]The same kind of unrealistic reaction speed that has it dodging RPGs, I suppose?
[quote]knocking a hole in a wall or the side of a building for infantry to enter or pass through[/quote]Any sort of explosive would do, or even a tank.
[quote]or even picking up some cover like a tree, rock or concrete part of a building to make for some quick and useful yet unorthodox cover.[/quote]That stuff is already cover. If you're referring to fortifications, then combat engineers.
[quote]As for them being complicated and expensive, its a simply a matter of time waiting for simpler and more economical technology.[/quote]You're assuming no future technological advance could be applied to any other vehicles.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37002445]You're on to something here; I think the point many users here are trying to make is that whatever future technology that makes stuff like that feasible and reliable, it's gonna be better to put to use in a non-mecha-like machine design. The thing with mechas is that their design is mainly based off the human body (with some animal thrown in sometimes), which in turn is based upon [B][I]the completely groundless assumption that the human body is an effective design for a mechanized war machine.[/I][/B][/QUOTE]Precisely.
[editline]30th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=adam1172;37002567]Here's one point you are missing, ITS MOTHERFUCKING AWESOME.[/QUOTE]As a toy? Yes.
As an effective military machine? No.
The _only_ use for coolness in the military is to recruit new soldiers.
You just sucked the awesome out of this thread...
[QUOTE=Big Bang;37001583]How the fuck? Infantry are the base of any army, not armor.[/QUOTE]
At the time of the trench, infantry were [I]not[/I] the most important component of a military, fortifications were. You're not reading.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;37001583]Tanks were invented to let infantry through the trenches, but infantry could have always gone over the top.[/QUOTE]
What planet are you on and how much meth did you smoke to get there?
I can't fucking reply to this because you went from making shitty analogies to being blatantly confused about history to speaking gibberish.
I'm sorry your walker fetish is a stupid idea, try being lucid for all of two seconds and read my post.
[QUOTE=madmax678;37003086]You just sucked the awesome out of this thread...[/QUOTE]
That a piece of news about a million dollar toy is considered awesome to begin with demonstrates how intellectually deficient this forum is.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37001317]
[B]first we had THIS[/B]
[IMG_thumb]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599835_4336735587461_714132223_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
that is just the first step, it'll grow bigger and more powerful.[/QUOTE]
Cool, you used my custom designed mech as the example.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36996444]Not to mention horses didn't have machine guns or armor plating on them :v:[/QUOTE]
Well maybe they should have addressed that design flaw.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.