Welcome to the future: South Korea develops the world's first mech - Polidicks

I was citing criteria previously stated in this thread as jobs a mech would do better than current tech, and posting current (often rather old) tech that shut it down. Besides, the constant use of 'can' about mechs is starting to drive me nuts. Mechs 'can' do fuckin' nothing. [I]Nothing.[/I] Perhaps they will be able to do something at some point in the future. Unlikely, but not impossible. But they 'can' do nothing. That is, unless you regard 'awkwardly waddling like a drunk duck' as a thing, of course. And I will give you that, they do that better than tanks.

[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;51612970]Mechs will never be a real thing in war. Sorry guys. Still looks cool regardless.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"The machine gun is a much overrated weapon.." -Field Marshal Douglas Haig, 1915[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"…pretty mechanical toy but very limited military value". -Lord Kitchener upon overseeing trials of the tank[/QUOTE] Now why does this hard dismissal seems familiar?

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617569]So why have 4 different machines to do these jobs, which means many different spare parts needs to be supplied in event anyone of them breaks, while you can have just 1 machine to do all of these instead?[/QUOTE] Not only is 'design one vehicle to do every job' the bad idea that resulted in the F-35, but choosing a mech to do it would be like stipulating that the F-35 needs to be a steam-powered helicopter. These may be technologies that exist, but they are never going to be optimal for the envisioned roles, let alone all those roles simultaneously. Question: If all this anthropomorphic junk is so useful and justifiable, where are the applications in isolation? Where are the tanks with heads sticking out the top, or with legs to run around trees, or with big articulated arms to hold a cannon? The answer is that these things at best offer no benefit over conventional IFVs, and at worst are less effective, more complex, vulnerable, and expensive. Having a head sticking up provides no advantage, it's a target that's difficult to protect. Legs don't improve locomotion if hitting a sinkhole causes your vehicle to trip at 40mph, and soft terrain is immobilizing altogether. Arms are awful for a laundry list of reasons, starting with 'articulation ruins accuracy' and ending with 'recoil's a bitch'. There's no reason to think combining these attributes into a single vehicle would make it effective, and lots of reasons to think they'd be even worse in aggregate. The reason they're typically combined in fiction is because it looks cool. [QUOTE=maniacykt;51617936]Now why does this hard dismissal seems familiar?[/QUOTE] Because anime fans and gamers, having little knowledge of military design, mistakenly believe that conceptual weaknesses inherent to anthropomorphic designs are comparable to technological weaknesses of machine guns and tanks subsequently solved by further development.

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617661]You're strawmanning here. First of all, I never say anything about the Scorpion and the Merkava performing the same task. All I said was that And Are the same task, if not, very closely related since if you can carry diverse weapons at high speed, some of which can be heavy weapons, obviously you can provide fire-support as well. Besides, to a recon vehicle and a tank, both might be different task that they can only accomplish one of but to a mech, it can do both.[/QUOTE] The mechs you are speaking of don't exist in the slightest though, you are basing a mechs abilities entirely on fiction. We could also defend tanks based on the fact they can hover, are indestructible and have energy shields - but they don't and likely never will. You have to remember the mechs in your favorite animes etc defy all laws of physics, they are extremely light-weight, extremely strong and durable, have an infinite powersource, infinite ammo and human-like dexterity. The only one i can see being possible is that mechs are strong and durable, but I honestly can't see them ever being used in combat other than to lift & carry heavy stuff.

I can see them existing for logistics and nothing else. They'll make loading much easier, but beyond that I doubt it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51618208]I can see them existing for logistics and nothing else. They'll make loading much easier, but beyond that I doubt it.[/QUOTE] Don't think they would make loading easier than a forklift or a big arm

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51618261]Don't think they would make loading easier than a forklift or a big arm[/QUOTE] If they became more advanced and were given wheels instead of legs, they could totally be a better forklift. They'll probably never replace them, though, since forklifts will probably always be cheaper and there's no demand for mechs. More likely if mechs are ever made use of outside of looking cool, it'd probably be for exploring and interacting with hazardous environments, or underwater, or something

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617569]So why have 4 different machines to do these jobs, which means many different spare parts needs to be supplied in event anyone of them breaks, while you can have just 1 machine to do all of these instead? [/quote] Ever heard of AVRE vehicles? [quote]I don't see tanks being made out of carbon fibre though.[/QUOTE] Many composite armour contain carbon fibre as one of the materials which makes it up. However, it does have it's place, and its not the be all end all. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51617613]Easy, just give it hands. All anyone needs to do now is to develop the tools for it. [/QUOTE] Forget hands, which necessitate another mechanical to mechanical interaction where one instead needed, and skip straight to the direct attachments hardwired in. And skip the legs, because at a large scale, they are not going to be better than tracks. So not you have a set of crane like arms on a tank. But high calibre guns will likely be too much for the arms, so you have to mount them on the vehicle. You're better off considering a modular vehicle which could be altered by swapping out turrets quickly than trying to make a mech to complicate the task.

Yall are so serious about this, I'll be the first to admit that idgaf about practicality I just want to see irl giant robot fights. Maybe they'll become like an entertainment thing or something, like in Real Steel.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;51620927]Yall are so serious about this, I'll be the first to admit that idgaf about practicality I just want to see irl giant robot fights. Maybe they'll become like an entertainment thing or something, like in Real Steel.[/QUOTE]Oh there's no doubt they'll be used in entertainment, just not in a serious military.

Jeez, with how some folks in this thread are so viciously destroying any hope for mechs, you'd swear a mech killed their dog and poisoned their crops.

[QUOTE=TheLaughingGod;51626567]Jeez, with how some folks in this thread are so viciously destroying any hope for mechs, you'd swear a mech killed their dog and poisoned their crops.[/QUOTE] Mechs murdered most of my family in WW1. [t]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--v0EmQPXt--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/ibmxbqf7gf6d05akvvqm.jpg[/t]

They better cover the thing in ERA bricks and APS because it looks like one hell of a RPG/ATGM magnet.

I just saw this and i was like. "Did i play too much Overwatch?"

[QUOTE=TheLaughingGod;51626567]Jeez, with how some folks in this thread are so viciously destroying any hope for mechs, you'd swear a mech killed their dog and poisoned their crops.[/QUOTE] It's mostly because there's a similar number of people who think mechs are more than just idle fantasy spread by videogames and cartoons and think that they COULD be practical if you find a way to ignore certain parts of physics. It's a bit like hopping into a gun thread and saying gyrojets are the future just because Warhammer 40K came up with a practical sounding excuse and that "In the future we might have a reason and if the tech gets better they might be worth it." [editline]5th January 2017[/editline] Heck lets use a modern example here and talk about solar roadways and how THEY seemed like a practical idea in a realistic yet fictional setting whereas they are a functionally flawed idea in practise and how any improvements to technology that could make THEM better would make existing solar panels equally better and thus the better option.

[QUOTE=SurReal223;51612988]Now I doubt we'll ever reach full mech-only warfare (At least not for a verrrrry long time), but I honestly believe we're only a decade or two away from having mechs involved in actual warfare like tanks to help with infantry.[/QUOTE] I can see mechs having industrial and exploratory functions, but as military/policing machines, they're incredibly slow and poorly armored compared to the vehicles they'd be fighting against. Their only real advantage is that one man can control the vehicle instead of a team, but that's not necessarily a good thing. If they do see combat, they're more likely to be piloted remotely due to the danger of sticking someone in a walking target like that. [QUOTE=DiscoMelon;51620927]Yall are so serious about this, I'll be the first to admit that idgaf about practicality I just want to see irl giant robot fights. Maybe they'll become like an entertainment thing or something, like in Real Steel.[/QUOTE] Next gen Battlebots? I can see that. Would be pretty cool honestly.