NeroThorongil Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 i just wanna get my 2 cents in here, i believe AC's can be real in the sense of something like AC5 where the mech is much smaller or stray away from it being an AC unit but instead a mech suit but after reading everything i do not see it becoming a combat type mech maybe a rescue mech when a building collapses or something along those lines but the biggest issues for it ever be possiable which has been pointed out, the energy supply, as far as i'm aware we haven't come up with anything like we seen in AC where the generator keeps supplying power to an near infinite amount and also the balance which is why i said something like AC5 or a mech suit the smaller mass would make it easier to keep its balance and do much less damage should it ever fall over thanks for reading my 2 cents and have a good day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necron Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Pictures/web/j/f/x/TE_Walkertank.jpgIt'd be a shame if someone shot an RPG at that completely unarmored leg, causing it to fall over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draxus Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 It'd be a shame if someone shot an RPG at that completely unarmored leg, causing it to fall over. Nothing is perfect. You can shoot at a tanks treads today and make them come off, immobilizing the tank. But we still use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 It'd be a shame if someone shot an RPG at that completely unarmored leg, causing it to fall over.Even if it isn't all that great at first, I would still want them to make it. I mean, tanks are flat. At least that would be a bit more interesting.Also if you're going to spout on about military practicality, save it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KORTOKtheSTRONG Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 no military practicality is paramount that stupid walker shit would just fall over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Well, then it needs really powerful back thrusters to counteract said falling over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KORTOKtheSTRONG Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 those would just make it fall over in the other direction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necron Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Nothing is perfect. You can shoot at a tanks treads today and make them come off, immobilizing the tank. But we still use them.Tanks don't fall over when the tread is damaged, and while it takes a significant amount of time, treads can be repaired in the field. Now how is an extremely heavy bipedal machine lying face down in the field going to be repaired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 those would just make it fall over in the other direction360 THRUSTERS!!http://i.imgflip.com/1bh9.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 http://i.imgur.com/qDBf76O.jpg Explain to me how it's going to be armored when it needs engines on all sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Meh, it'd have to be a miracle of future engineering.Also if they did make anything like that, it wouldn't have all of those engines. Perhaps someday they'll find a way to keep balance in mechs the same as we do. If it falls over, wouldn't be a big deal, just as we fall over. We get back up. Again this would be far into the distant future if we have a shot @ all. Militaristically speaking, we would never want to use these I wager. Edited February 9, 2013 by Talos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KORTOKtheSTRONG Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 that's nineball in android form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Two words.. COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aokiryu89 Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Wouldn't quite count that as a fall...oddly graceful though That's the idea leather nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Mb ogawa, just figured u were just posting yet another fall over gif without purpose. Clearly I've misjudged you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Well, it may not be dynamite in combat, but mechs do have a solid use in the millitary. Infact, they are already developing these to use these.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQIts a quad-leg robot that can carry 400lb payloads and no, it does not fall over. Even when someone kicks it, it stumbles a bit and regains its footing (this while carrying 400lbs). This is only the beginning for em, they are implenting light weps and armors to them. Edited February 11, 2013 by Talos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Explain to me how it's going to be armored when it needs engines on all sides. Being armored won't be any kind of problem with primal armor. DUH. Magical energy fields are the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Still no defense against Danger Rangers armed with Stealth Lunar Spears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Still no defense against Danger Rangers armed with Stealth Lunar Spears. Of course not. Danger Rangers will teabag the shit out of ACs. I'm fairly certain all SLSs come with the kojima-immune coating anyways. All the shitty primal armor in the world won't save them from getting spear'd into oblivion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th Knight Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Man, this thing derailed a while ago...especially because everyone seems to think and believe that the mech will fall over. Problems happen, and of course you could never solve all the issues, but the best thing would be to make it have a lower center of gravity, and like how an AC from ACV has it, give the feet stabilizing mechanisms. A lot of the ACs in 5 have wider soles, and have the additional plates that fold outward and back to give it stability when firing or performing quick boosts. This is by no means to say that whatever mech would be in the future would have the boosters. Just not feasible. However, by all means, let's NOT use the Abrams as an example, because that thing is 70 tons, and uses depleted uranium armor which makes it so heavy. Take the Challenger, or take the Leopard 2 tank. In fact, let's use the Leopard 1 tank as the prime example. This tank was made for mobility and evasiveness in mind, because it only has armor suited to stopping small arms rounds and rounds up to 20mm in diameter. Not a tank gun. This was effective enough for the tank at the time when shaped charges were a new quantity and no one had any idea how to defend against them. Instead of SO many layers of rolled homogeneous armor, or ERA plating, how about we try to develop another form of Chobham? Chobham being the Brits and the counterpart to depleted uranium that the Abrams has. It's lighter, and supposedly has the same capability. What it's made of no one knows, the Brits keep this a damn good secret. Also, instead of having two legs, or tank treads, why not make the legs wheeled? Give it four, mount the powerplant right behind the cockpit or crew area, like on a tank or other armored vehicle, and then have two wheels per each leg. Spread them out like a spider, make them thick enough to support the unit if it wanted to walk, but its primary mode would be riding the wheels much like a Stryker. This is all theoretical and I'm pretty sure Enganacious is going to come here and kill this all because I know how he thinks from the rest of the thread. This is only if we were capable. i do not believe we have the capabilities to make a mech. It would have to be less than 20 feet tall, and I think the primary purpose would, theoretically in theater in urban, jungle, or really close-in fighting where a tank is useless and infantry don't have enough LOS to call a good, precision airstrike, be of a heavy support unit with mounted guns similar to IFVs, or be precision-strike artillery with something like a sniper cannon. Of course this might be totally useless. Instead, having it as a mobile laborer might be better, able to mount cranes, stabilize itself, and move into areas other vehicles like that can't and get better angles for maneuvering even heavier equipment into place. It would be fun to have ACs, but there is no way in hell unless it freezes over that we could have ACs as they were in even AC5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 let's NOT use the Abrams as an example, because that thing is 70 tons, and uses depleted uranium armor which makes it so heavy Please excuse me while I laugh at you. http://i.imgur.com/Fze9uS5.jpg The M1 Abrams uses Chobham armor, the same as the Challanger and most NATO main battle tanks. Dupleted Uranium is used for anti-tank munitions for the GAU-8 Avenger on the A-10 Warthog, and a couple other weapons platforms, not tank armor. M1 Abrams (Chobham armor) @ 67.6 short tonsChallenger 2 (Chobham armor) @ 68.9 short tonsLeopard 2 (2A6 composite armor) @ 68.7 short tons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 depleted uranium armor?? Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 It would have to be less than 20 feet tall, and I think the primary purpose would, theoretically in theater in urban, jungle, or really close-in fighting where a tank is useless and infantry don't have enough LOS to call a good, precision airstrike AN/AAQ-37 brings the F-35 close to all seeing. It would be much more effective than an AC in that situation. It would also be able to defend itself from aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirtless Crackhead Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 M1 Abrams is already 8 feet tall anyhow. And height/LOS concerns are going away with drone supported fires controls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aokiryu89 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Actually there is some depleted uranium used in Chobham armor, so it's not completely out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.