Japanese Political Party to Hold Panel on Developing Real Gundam - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;36503976]I could imagine it being the middle ground for a tank and infantry (as long as the thing isn't as tall as a skyscraper.) It would allow for infantry support with heavy machine guns, rockets, and mobile cover for urban scenario's. So the mobility of infantry and the firepower of a tank.[/QUOTE] Tanks are pretty mobile. Tanks are classified as "armor". Given that this would not be working under the power of the man using it but by an engine or motor, and is mechanical in nature, it's more close to a tank than infantry.

I'm having a hard time imagining how good this will be in actual combat. I mean, yeah, it looks cool, and it could probably take a lot of bullets, but less than 5 well-aimed tank shells and that thing'll fall over on it's own troops. And what if it trips on a vehicle, or gets its foot stuck in a trench? I have a feeling that giant robots are less mobile and not very agile compared to the average human.

While we're at it why don't we build an Evangelion and start NERV and SEELE.

[QUOTE=Skooks;36504010]I'm having a hard time imagining how good this will be in actual combat. I mean, yeah, it looks cool, and it could probably take a lot of bullets, but less than 5 well-aimed tank shells and that thing'll fall over on it's own troops. And what if it trips on a vehicle, or gets its foot stuck in a trench? I have a feeling that giant robots are less mobile and not very agile compared to the average human.[/QUOTE] You people need to stop thinking practically and just let Japan be Japan.

alright fully operational gurren lagann next up let's go [video=youtube;Crz4_UofhS0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crz4_UofhS0[/video] expecting this by 2055 or bust

Aren't people always going on about how it's dumb to have giant robots with legs that can easily be targeted and shot out?

[QUOTE=Skooks;36504010]I'm having a hard time imagining how good this will be in actual combat. I mean, yeah, it looks cool, and it could probably take a lot of bullets, but less than 5 well-aimed tank shells and that thing'll fall over on it's own troops. And what if it trips on a vehicle, or gets its foot stuck in a trench? I have a feeling that giant robots are less mobile and not very agile compared to the average human.[/QUOTE] Something like a mech would probably have more fear-factor applications than combat roles.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36504020]You people need to stop thinking practically and just let Japan be Japan.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying, the bigger they are the harder they fall. If they don't plan to use this thing as their secret weapon in combat and just put it in parades and crap, then I'm not gonna say anything. I love parades. But if they think The Iron Giant is going to win them WW3, they're about to be squashed by their own robot.

Guys. Guys. You're forgetting Metal Gear REX. We were supposed to have the poor thing by 2005.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36503779]So how effective or efficient would something like this [b]actually[/b] be in a combat situation? Where's GunFox when you need him...[/QUOTE] Not terribly. Gundams, even within the gundam universe, are only really special because of the material they are made out of. Bipedal mechs in that universe seem to have been a necessity for militarizing space to a degree. Call me when they make a VF-1 Valkyrie, as Trunk Monkay suggested, THEN you might have something. A fighter capable of atmospheric flight in a variety of atmospheres (swing wing permits increased or decreased lift as needed by atmospheric composition.) as well as engaging in combat in space and light terrestrial combat? Yes please. If memory serves, they required attachments to exit the atmosphere by themselves, but the same attachment points would permit them to load a massive array of oversized weapons once they exited the atmosphere and no longer needed to remain aerodynamic. Probably at [I]least[/I] a hundred years out from one becoming remotely feasible though.

They should make Mechagodzilla instead. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Kiryu.jpg[/IMG] As well as being more badass, the tail reduces the need for advanced gyrostabilizers, which a non-tailed gundam would need to keep it's balance.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;36504040]Aren't people always going on about how it's dumb to have giant robots with legs that can easily be targeted and shot out?[/QUOTE] We should stick them onto a pair of tank treads. [IMG]http://th1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff456/surgeypurgey/BOTS%20Acclaim/th_patch.jpg[/IMG]

Fuck. FUCK. Fuck it, someone call DARPA, we need to begin a countermeasure. [img]http://mgscobraunit.bravehost.com/metalgearrex.jpg[/img] If they're building Gundams, We'll build Metal Gears.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36503779]So how effective or efficient would something like this [B]actually[/B] be in a combat situation? Where's GunFox when you need him...[/QUOTE]I'll list some of the major problems of armoured bipedals compiled over multiple debates i've read: 1: Profile. They are, naturally, far easier to spot than tanks, generally being taller. Tanks can do something called a "hull down" position, where they get into a nice ditch or some other nice and solid terrain feature, leaving only the front turret (generally the most heavily-sloped and armoured part of a tank) to the enemy, meaning a harder to hit and penetrate target. Any sort of bipedal mech of the same weight class as armoured vehicles is going to stand out much more. In an urban environment it could hide behind buildings, but bugger all else. There aren't as many convenient giant holes or ravines as there are ditches or small mounds and the like. By any method mechs are going to be easier to see. 2: Ground pressure. Due to the far smaller surface area of feet to tank treads, they'd exert more force on the ground, meaning they'd be more likely to damage roads (making it more difficult for normal vehicles e.g. trucks to follow), and to sink into even fairly hard ground. 3: Armour. A tank is designed to reduce the weak points as much as is physically possible. It's essentially 2 chunks of solid metal; the turret and body. Modern tanks are efficiently sloped which increases the effective armour thickness (This is what gave the Soviet T-34 such a great advantage in the early years of WW2). Ton per ton, you can stick more armour on a tank and still avoid ground pressure problems. A mech, by comparison, has many weak points, notably leg joints. You can't slope them as effectively, nor armour them as much if you want to avoid the mech being so heavy it sinks. One hit on either joint and the mech'll collapse, generally into a position where it's unable to fire back effectively depending on leg arrangement. Whereas shooting off a tanks' treads will temporarily immobilise it, it's still going to be able to shoot. Shoot an arm or gun-arm and it'll be unable to track with that weapon. Shoot the head and you know you're going to paste the pilot (Whereas in tanks the crew are pretty well-covered all around) 4: Reliability. Treads and wheels are generally going to be simpler than articulated limbs, plus easier to get to than a mech that'd almost always be taller than tanks. 5: Armament. Tanks are naturally a stable platform; low to the ground. You can always stick a larger gun on a tank than a mech without risking imbalance either by the way it's placed on the mech or the act of firing it. I do believe there's a future for man-sized or slightly larger mechs for urban combat, but larger than that just runs into all sorts of problems.

Actually, better idea. They build gundams, we build gekko. [img]http://images.wikia.com/metalgear/images/f/f3/Metal_Gear_Gekkou.JPG[/img]

Maybe we should start small, build something like a Striker Unit first.

Personally I think the direction 2142 went is the best, feasible design - at least for the first generation of mechs [quote][img]http://bf2142.free-gfx.com/bf2142_vehicles/bf2142_EU_vehicles/eu_battlewalker_l5_riesig/battlewalker_l5riesig_02.png[/img][/quote]

[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;36504238]We should stick them onto a pair of tank treads. [IMG]http://th1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff456/surgeypurgey/BOTS%20Acclaim/th_patch.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/gundam/images/8/86/RX-75-4.JPG[/IMG] Okay.

I still think Gekkos would work, maybe if they were a little bit smaller.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36504257]I'll list some of the major problems of armoured bipedals compiled over multiple debates i've read: 1: Profile. They are, naturally, far easier to spot than tanks, generally being taller. Tanks can do something called a "hull down" position, where they get into a nice ditch or some other nice and solid terrain feature, leaving only the front turret (generally the most heavily-sloped and armoured part of a tank) to the enemy, meaning a harder to hit and penetrate target. Any sort of bipedal mech of the same weight class as armoured vehicles is going to stand out much more. In an urban environment it could hide behind buildings, but bugger all else. There aren't as many convenient giant holes or ravines as there are ditches or small mounds and the like. By any method mechs are going to be easier to see. 2: Ground pressure. Due to the far smaller surface area of feet to tank treads, they'd exert more force on the ground, meaning they'd be more likely to damage roads (making it more difficult for normal vehicles e.g. trucks to follow), and to sink into even fairly hard ground. 3: Armour. A tank is designed to reduce the weak points as much as is physically possible. It's essentially 2 chunks of solid metal; the turret and body. Modern tanks are efficiently sloped which increases the effective armour thickness (This is what gave the Soviet T-34 such a great advantage in the early years of WW2). Ton per ton, you can stick more armour on a tank and still avoid ground pressure problems. A mech, by comparison, has many weak points, notably leg joints. You can't slope them as effectively, nor armour them as much if you want to avoid the mech being so heavy it sinks. One hit on either joint and the mech'll collapse, generally into a position where it's unable to fire back effectively depending on leg arrangement. Whereas shooting off a tanks' treads will temporarily immobilise it, it's still going to be able to shoot. Shoot an arm or gun-arm and it'll be unable to track with that weapon. Shoot the head and you know you're going to paste the pilot (Whereas in tanks the crew are pretty well-covered all around) 4: Reliability. Treads and wheels are generally going to be simpler than articulated limbs, plus easier to get to than a mech that'd almost always be taller than tanks. 5: Armament. Tanks are naturally a stable platform; low to the ground. You can always stick a larger gun on a tank than a mech without risking imbalance either by the way it's placed on the mech or the act of firing it. I do believe there's a future for man-sized or slightly larger mechs for urban combat, but larger than that just runs into all sorts of problems.[/QUOTE] The future still has possibility. For all we know, all the disadvantages will be erased at some point in the future, making them feasible and worth it.

Well, if the project succeeds, and Godzilla starts hopping around, it'll have been worth it. Then again, is the humanoid form really the best design for a large battle robot? I'd have imagined something with more legs being a more viable model...

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36504462]The future still has possibility. For all we know, all the disadvantages will be erased at some point in the future, making them feasible and worth it.[/QUOTE]Feel free to describe potential discoveries that could alleviate those problems for mechs while not simultaneously not also giving tanks an extra boost. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I am genuinely having trouble conceiving such things. Lightweight armour, tanks could pack on more of it. Optic camo/invisibility, tanks could have that. Less-recoil guns, tanks could have bigger/more effective ones, or simply more of them for recoilless ones. Hover or some other form of reducing/eliminating ground pressure, tanks could have that. Shields, tanks could carry a more powerful/heavier version etc.

Get a few of these and we should be fine if they attack us. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IvZF8h0dtVg/TQj4KgFsGlI/AAAAAAAAAnw/FWoaM17tF2A/s1600/madcat_03.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36503779]So how effective or efficient would something like this [b]actually[/b] be in a combat situation? Where's GunFox when you need him...[/QUOTE] Highly impractical. There are so many moving parts and pieces, any modern conventional weapon would tear it to shreds.

These work as well. [img]http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/news/1351DXHR_conceptart_box_guard2_632x488.jpg[/img] Starting at precisely 4:30 Central Time, this is now the Facepunch Cool Robot megathread.

Welp, I'll be in my dad's shed making a suit for when they finally release these bad boys on us [IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/dftukn.jpg[/IMG]

Thread music: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PjQnw_E0U[/media]

I always liked the Appleseed landmates most. More exosuit than mecha, but a hell of a lot more feasible.

[img]http://www.eyeonstarwars.com/trilogy/vehicle/images/at_st.jpg[/img] no love for the roots?

Something feasable maybe like an Armored Core would suffice. But if you can make a functioning Gundam that is mapped to brain sequences, neurons and thoughts why not? Bring on the Heavy Arms [IMG]http://members.home.nl/mindstorm/pictures/heavyarms_ew.jpg[/IMG]