|
Mechs with swords
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:Tanks are built for home defense first. It's interesting to see how much stuff, from small arms like the G11 and the P90, to ATGMs like the Javelin, to tanks like the Leopard 2 and the Abrams, to attack aircraft like the Apache and the A10, where designed and built just for a single predicted battle. Everyone was betting on a conventional WW3 to be fought in a make-it-or-break-it battle in the Fulda Gap. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94E8DGLmjw If you throw TUSK II and a Trophy system on one of these you probably have a pretty good tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Usa should upgrade to the challenger 2. It has a kettle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
The idea of MBTs from the 80s popping knee joints and disabling/killing Mech Warrior poo poo kinda owns
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Mechs with swords I hope this plan includes cute petite women pilots
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Tracks are also very vulnerable, and will lead to an immobilized tank, if damaged. On flat terrain, obviously a tank is the superior vehicle: it will be faster and heavier (more weight translates into better protection). With a mech, you make the tradeoff of having a slower, less heavily-armored vehicle, but be able to negotiate any terrain. You could, in theory, deploy mechs to an areas traditionally only accessible by helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Tanks suck in urban warfare the syrian army isn't exactly what one would call efficacious
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXWJrpA8FnE i'm the fresh fruits truck that unfolds into a quadcopter
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:the syrian army isn't exactly what one would call efficacious Most of it is due to incompetence in Syrian army. In all those fun videos the tanks have zero infantry screening or support for urban fighting. In the other videos the tanks get trashed out in the open since modern AT weapons have fairly long ranges so you can just sent them up and snipe tanks from 4-5 miles away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Happy Bear Suit posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXWJrpA8FnE seems like it'd be easier if a launcher with a small tactical nuke loaded into it unfolded out of the truck and just bombed the entire base
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I like it when tanks fight Godzilla.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
It's my birthday today, and I'm 33! That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS!! *every US airplane from every base, hangar, aircraft carrier, museum and boneyard come in with everything for a HUGE party*
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:the syrian army isn't exactly what one would call efficacious Also aren't they like old T-72s or something? At this point those tanks are probably worth less than the missiles
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
How many landcruisers can you buy for a trillion bux
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Isaac posted:How many landcruisers can you buy for a trillion bux All of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
judging by how modern war is fought, us soldiers should apparently be riding technicals and wearing machete proof football pads in other words mad max has a lot to teach us all
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:judging by how modern war is fought, us soldiers should apparently be riding technicals and wearing machete proof football pads basic training camp will be updated include throwing razor sharp boomerangs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:seems like it'd be easier if a launcher with a small tactical nuke loaded into it unfolded out of the truck and just bombed the entire base Of course, that NASTY SURPRISE fruit truck war wank material only works on the conceit that the entire United States air force is located in a front line base and not on a hundred bases throughout the world. I love the rows and rows of F-111s, a plane that hasn't flown in the USAF for 17 years, and the array of F/A-18s, which are pretty much Navy only these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Tanks?? Tanks are boring warmachines they're working on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOkXRXZIFxs
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Of course, that NASTY SURPRISE fruit truck war wank material only works on the conceit that the entire United States air force is located in a front line base and not on a hundred bases throughout the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Of course, that NASTY SURPRISE fruit truck war wank material only works on the conceit that the entire United States air force is located in a front line base and not on a hundred bases throughout the world. Somehow I don't think that the planes are the biggest realism issue there Also is that channel a demo reel for some 3d animator guy or what
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:judging by how modern war is fought, us soldiers should apparently be riding technicals and wearing machete proof football pads Modern war seems mostly the same as ancient war. A bunch of dudes form gangs/militias hoping to kill some other tribal group. Preferably unarmed women and children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Modern war seems mostly the same as ancient war. A bunch of dudes form gangs/militias hoping to kill some other tribal group. Preferably unarmed women and children. they are only superficially similar. in ancient times battles were largely decided by maneuver, and battles, particularly pitched battles, were frequently (though not always) decisive events in wars. industrialisation turned armies into sprawling, inter-connected machines miles wide, without flanks that can be turned, and capable of withstanding degrees of attrition far beyond that which can generally be inflicted within a single battle or even within a few (notable exception being the Battle of Stalingrand, which arguably was not a battle but a series of battles fought over several months). pitched battles are an extreme rarity in the late twentieth and now twenty-first centuries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:they are only superficially similar. in ancient times battles were largely decided by maneuver, and battles, particularly pitched battles, were frequently (though not always) decisive events in wars. industrialisation turned armies into sprawling, inter-connected machines miles wide, without flanks that can be turned, and capable of withstanding degrees of attrition far beyond that which can generally be inflicted within a single battle or even within a few (notable exception being the Battle of Stalingrand, which arguably was not a battle but a series of battles fought over several months). pitched battles are an extreme rarity in the late twentieth and now twenty-first centuries. im implying that modern warfare is mostly fought with irregulars and paramilitaries, and mostly targets unarmed peoples. more like the rwandan genocide or the dirty war. fights between closely matched opponents are a rarity in general
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:im implying that modern warfare is mostly fought with irregulars and paramilitaries, and mostly targets unarmed peoples. more like the rwandan genocide or the dirty war. oh. I would say those situations are more accurately considered unrest than proper military conflicts but I suppose that's mainly an academic distinction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
lDDQD posted:You could, in theory, deploy mechs to an areas traditionally only accessible by helicopter. if there is no way to ship in materials to these places there will be no buildings for the mechs to blow up or troops for them to shoot at. i guess they could perch on top of some really pointy mountains tho headline: JAPANESE MECHS HOLD EVEREST PEAKS FOR THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR, UNCHALLENGED
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
You could use a humanoid mech to climb the mountains in Afghanistan and attempt to root out the insurgents that always hide there. This is a job that has fallen upon helicopter gunships in the past, which has worked fairly well - until the Americans in their infinite wisdom, decided to supply stingers to the insurgents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Sinking Ship posted:So your argument is that being super rich / powerful makes you immune to all the little neuroses that plague the human condition? I mean all it takes is one crazy person with their finger on the big red button and I don't know if you've been outside recently but there are a lot of crazy people. Good thing being rich / powerful cures that apparently. Trump2016 What war has ever happened because people were just fuckin nuts and not actually because some wealthy people thought they could come up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:What war has ever happened because people were just fuckin nuts and not actually because some wealthy people thought they could come up? Wars for big countries are also an option to boost social stability or even just straight weird internal political reasons. See: Israel. Also reality and what rich people believe can pretty easily drift off apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:they are only superficially similar. in ancient times battles were largely decided by maneuver, and battles, particularly pitched battles, were frequently (though not always) decisive events in wars. industrialisation turned armies into sprawling, inter-connected machines miles wide, without flanks that can be turned, and capable of withstanding degrees of attrition far beyond that which can generally be inflicted within a single battle or even within a few (notable exception being the Battle of Stalingrand, which arguably was not a battle but a series of battles fought over several months). pitched battles are an extreme rarity in the late twentieth and now twenty-first centuries. This is an aside, but the Battlefield season 1 episode on the Battle of Stalingrad is epic. I did a quick search for it on Youtube, and it looks like most of the videos are locked out in the US. I did find this one, which has some weird video poo poo going on but still appears to have the whole episode. I remember being taken aback despite being pretty well-versed in World War II before watching it. The whole Battlefield series is great, but I really only watched the first season completely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhC1LmgJ1MU
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
doubting mechs is stupid pre-aircraft carrier type thinking, and whoever builds enough of them is going to wreck the poo poo out of the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
So how do you supply mechs in areas only mechs can access? More mechs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Heres an idea: Double Tanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
T-14 is right, sticking dudes in the turret is stupid also someone please revive the US superheavy projects 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Russia had the right idea, imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
lDDQD posted:Tracks are also very vulnerable, and will lead to an immobilized tank, if damaged. On flat terrain, obviously a tank is the superior vehicle: it will be faster and heavier (more weight translates into better protection). With a mech, you make the tradeoff of having a slower, less heavily-armored vehicle, but be able to negotiate any terrain. You could, in theory, deploy mechs to an areas traditionally only accessible by helicopter. What about hovertanks? Or tanks equipped with some form of VTOL or jump-boost combined with a hovering ability? No worries about furry little humanoids throwing a bunch of logs at your mechanized legs for you to hobble over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
mech can get taken down by ewoks soooooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
They could call it 'frank the tank'
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Isaac posted:They could call it 'frank the tank' more like rank the tank because it stinks
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:33
|
|