>>64905146
Bottom-anon, go back to your containment thread.

>>64905146
When you say Battlemechs, do you mean Mechs from a specific franchise that has special technology or are asking about if Mechs would be suitable with current technology?

>>64905146
Fuck off to >>>/m/

>>64905162
Doesn’t matter, the answer is still no.

>>64905185
cope seethe you lost tankfag

>>64905146
How viable is it to make the same pointless thread forever?

>>64905146
WHERE ARE MY FUSION ENGINES, GENERAL MOTORS? IT'S 2026, YOU ARE 5 YEARS LATE ALREADY

Would a normal standard infantryman qualify as mech because of two legs?

>>64906613
Furrys count as quads

>>64906619
How do you know about my browser history?

File: Ultimate Expression Of Power.jpg (66.7 KB)

66.7 KB JPG

>>64906656
Remember where you are!

File: spider-excavator.jpg (469.6 KB)

469.6 KB JPG

>>64905146
Short answer, no.

Long answer is that any weapon or armor you can put on a mech can also be put on a tank. Since a tank is far more simple in concept a mech will never out-tank a tank.

That being said, Excavators are very mech-like.

>>64905146
Get a life you fucking loser.

>>64905146
Mech is absolutely viable on a extraterrestrial environment. regolith is going to fuck up any moving mechanism, but, unlike wheel or track, you can cover the legs of a mech to protect them from regolith

>>64906996
A mech's arms and hands would definitely be viable in hostile environments. You'd still get the fine manipulation of hands while not being totally screwed if something punctures said hands.

gb2 /btg/ fgt

>>64907104
He's probably been chased out of /btg/.
And yes, I am aware of how grim it sounds.

>>64906996
>>64907076
No.

>>64907104
/btg/ here
We don't want him!

>>64906796
>mech will never out-tank a tank.
Doesn't have to, mechs can fill other roles than that of tanks.

You're argument is akin to saying helicopters are unviable as weapons because any weapon or armor you can put on a helicopter can also be put on a tank and because a tank is far more simple in concept, a helicopter will never out-tank a tank. Of course this argument is , bad because helicopters have a different role than that of a tank. Replace helicopter with IFV or SPG and the reasoning is the same.

>>64908134
This would have more relevancy if you show a mech not trying to be a tank. This is basically my biggest gripe about Battletech.

>>64908160
Almost no light mech is trying to be a tank, and the few that are are almost all quite bad at it and basically only good as budget options. A lot of mechs are also just platforms for indirect missile fire, and a few are true artillery units.

Engineer here. If I had to design a mech I would look at Chromehounds' designs, but that's pushing it already: any other implementation is just pants on head retarded. If engines more energy and power dense than current combustion engines (turbine included) were available I'd just make a regular tank, but smaller, lighter, and with more space for the crew and other systems. The logistic gains in making a SEPv3 at half the weight would win any war just by themselves.

Mechs in battletech was possible only because of tremendous technological advancements of Terran Hegemony made it possible and Ares Conventions made it viable, before that people nuked each other and flattened each other with tanks just fine. After that its just the golden age combined with relative peace and weaponized graft of Star League which allowed all the crazy development and prototyping.
Just look at LAMs.

>>64908134
Here’s the problem.

None of you mechfuckers can come up with a role that a Mech would be able to accomplish that cannot already be done with existing equipment without having to dump trillions of R&D, or otherwise without being such a narrow niche that it’s not worth spending said trillions of dollars on.

>>64908561
>None of you mechfuckers can come up with a role that a Mech would be able to accomplish that cannot already be done with existing equipment
Here's one, heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracks and the airspace too contested for helicopters or planes. inb4 drones, how many drones do you think a infantry man can carry vs a vehicle because I'll bet a vehicle (such as a mech) can carry a lot more.

> without having to dump trillions of R&D
New weapons programs are expensive and even then it's rare for them to be trillions of dollars expensive. There's a reason for why the F35 is infamous for having a 2 trillion dollar program cost and its not because R&D costs for new weapons regularly cost trillions of dollars.

>or otherwise without being such a narrow niche that it’s not worth spending said trillions of dollars on.
What do you consider too narrow a niche, or is this just a fall back argument just in case someone can answer the first part of your question?

>>64909432
> heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracks and the airspace too contested for helicopters or plane
Artillery. But also things like the Wiesel or Ontos.

>>64905146
>Viable
It's kind of two questions
>If you have Battletech/mechwarrior mechs already and they function as they do in setting, you can maintain them etc, would they be effective at winning battles and achieving objectives against either conventional forces or other battlemechs
To which the answer is "Yes if they're as fast as they are in the games rather than the numbers on the stat sheets in the tabletop".
Even relatively small mechs can withstand a substantial number of direct hits from modern tank guns and artillery. Depending on the writer, modern 120mm guns are L rifles, M rifles, or H rifles, and even H Rifles are just not relevant weapons to mech combat.

the other question is
>is it plausible to build Battletech mechs, and are they an ideal use of the technology used to build them
to which the answer is probably no.

>>64907400
yes
mech is unironically the future of extraterrestrial warfare

>>64909497
This anon knows. Rule of cool counts more in warfare than you guys know. Once we get out of the current paradigm we're going to see some truly wild stuff on the battlefield.

>>64905146
Battlemechs exist in a setting that, in some ways, is more primitive than what we have today in terms of technology.

File: WQHenT7xZg5plK8QRvXn_--1AfVaCrc9W7TPwix79Ks.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>64906796
Front Mission's idea was that they basically didn't replace tanks or weren't even preferable outside of specific niches like terrain tanks had issue is. Not sure it's worth the cost for those niches though.

File: 1767249390798816.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

The existence of TOW missiles IRL basically completely invalidates mechs in Battletech desu.

>>64905146
Mechs are just worse helicopters.

>>64909493
Battletech has relatively stagnant or grounded technology everywhere except stuff like neurohelms and myomer, the exact things you need to make a battlemech viable. It works decently within its own setting but no universe not developed specifically to make mechs viable is going to develop 'makes mechs work' tech before falling to a dark age.

Arguably mechs are one of the best uses of myomer and neurohelms it's just that any society that can develop those should be able to develop different, more effective technologies.

>>64909432
>heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracks
Helicopters

>and the airspace too contested for helicopters
So the helicopter hovers low to the ground.

>>64905146
Are we talking frontline fighters or for logistics and the engineer corps?

As frontline they may have some utility in regions that tanks are bad in.

But as an engineering vehicle with the versatility that hands provide at scale, and any equipped weapons are more for holdout situations, you got something useful. Have some sorta arm movement trackers that translate pilot movement to the mech arms, and you'll have something pretty intuitive to the human mind.

A lot of people point to ground pressure and that making them unviable in mud, but less of a concern than you think. It's an issue for wheeled and tracked vehicles because if they sink far enough, the belly is sitting on the mud and taking traction away from the wheels and tracks, as well as the issues of spinning out. Mechs would be more in a human walking issue, which has more to do with depth and viscosity of the mud. That ain't nothing but can easily mean that mud that can stop one doesn't neccessarily stop the other and vice versa.

>>64912760
Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything about battletech

>>64913020
No I know all about Battletech. Their main excuse for why the mechs don't just get taken out by long-range missiles is because of ECM, which can only be countered by TAG or by shorter range LRM missiles, but TAG gives away your location when using it and LRM isn't that long-ranged by comparison.

However, TOW missiles bypass all of that since it keeps a direct connection to the controller of the missile that can't be intercepted by ECM.

>>64913102
Mech armor is ablative. Damage is about how much mass you can put into the target, not whether you can penetrate. So you can fire a TOW, hell, fire a dozen. You've chipped off a piece of torso armor and now have a line and an energy signature leading back to your firing position.

>>64913169
You can make TOW missiles bigger. There's a reason Arrow IV missiles exist in the setting. Big missile do big damage.

>>64913197
Technically, Arrow IV isn’t really a TOW equivalent. It’s more of a guided rocket artillery systems.

The TOW equivalent (minus guidance) would be a Thunderbolt missile.

>>64913229
TOW just describes a method of guiding the missile after launching it. It can be any size, and mounted on any vehicle.

>>64905146
Having something that can move material like construction equipment while also being heavily armed isn't that bad of an idea, imo. As we move towards infantry and small platoons again something that can be in weird places and manipulate things with big strong arms might have a place. But I don't know if it'll be worth it or not.

>>64905146
Battlemechs are the special operations of the armor world. Dropped behind enemy lines to cause chaos. Used in hit and run attacks. Etc
They're larger pieces of an army that has tanks, planes, missiles, and space ships with big lasers.

If you look at them from that perspective, then they'd be pretty useful. At any time a drop ship could plop down in your rear and then dispense a bunch of super mobile tanks that go around obliterating your supply lines.

>>64913420
That's just a stealth plane

File: Avatar mech.jpg (780.9 KB)

780.9 KB JPG

>>64905146

A small Avatar type mech might be useful.

File: Avatar mech.jpg (421.5 KB)

421.5 KB JPG

>>64914879

File: Avatar mech.jpg (338.1 KB)

338.1 KB JPG

>>64914882

>>64905146
>cgl Maurader
FUCKING DISGUSTING

>>64913169
Except that TOW's are Tandam Charged (roll critical hits) and are absolutely fuckhuge compared even SRM's?
>muh exploding metal
All they did with it was make missiles SMALLER. Not better, but SMALLER. A TOW would shit all over BT missiles because they wanted to cram in as many as possible because their targeting systems are legitimately bad, like 1960's but somehow worse bad.

>>64905146
>this fucking thread AGAIN
Kill yourself, retard.

>>64914928
I don't see you complaining in the slav civil war threads. Which is literally the same shit 4 years now.

>>64915964
>slav civil war
Way to out yourself immediately, zigger. I hope your supervisor notices this and you get fired.
Also: kill yourself, retard.

>>64915977
There you have it, folks.
Dude is pissed off that his shill thread #58623 got bumped off the catalog by a thread about mechs.

>>64914927
Yeah like, an Arrow IV will absolutely fuck up a mech, hell it one-shots light and medium mechs typically IIRC

>>64916698
load it with a davy crockett and it'll one tap assaults too

>>64916724
And even if you need more than one, Arrow IV’s are super cheap, for the cost of one light mech you can get like a dozen Arrow IV’s and that’s for a missile that will usually one-shot them.

>>64915977
>people having fun on a kiribati shirt folding enthusiast imageboard? not on my watch!

File: Rifleman_Mad_Minute.jpg (403.7 KB)

403.7 KB JPG

>>64914928
Bumping thread

>>64919316
>quad AC2 Rifleman
Ballistic weapons in Battletech are so fucked over it's not funny. Fun fact, I did a experiment with Rifles, and when you remove the retarded -3 malus on their damage they actually become useful. Then I extended that logic to the rest of the ballistic weapons tree, and suddenly everything just made sense.
>AC2
Becomes a AC5, and now becomes a sensible weapon in general. Mechs and vehicles using them become actually dangerous, a Blackjack or Mauler becomes really fucking good at their tonnage brackets.
>AC5
With damage equaling a large laser and nearing a PPC the AC8 being so widespread and being near the caliber of a Heavy Rifle while carrying more ammo and running cooler justifies it's existence and it's use in lore. A Marauder's 120mm GM Whirlwind autocannon doing 8 damage, so alternating 2-1-2 PPC's while firing the autocannon is actually viable.
>AC10
Doing 13 damage is fucking huge, as it becomes the first introtech weapon to be able to headcap (kill a mech on a headshot) and automatically triggering a critical roll on normal hits due to BAR10 armor. The weight, ammo, and range bracket mesh beautifully with this damage.

>>64905155
It's probably not him. There aren't enough random words in all-caps.

>>64919372
>and when you remove the retarded -3 malus on their damage they actually become useful.
Yeah that's why the damage penalty is there, retard. They're not supposed to be useful. If they're useful that defeats the entire point of their in setting existence.

>>64919435
>completely ignores how autocannons are still better
How are you this fucking stupid? The fact you ignored the range, ammunition superiority and ammunition type advantage combined with the heat generation shows that you've never played a fucking game in your life.
A Heavy Rifle is a 9 damage weapon with a ammunition count at 9 per ton. Meanwhile the AC5 has 20 per ton, generates 1 heat per shot while the Heavy Rifle generates 4. The Autocannon 5 has a damage potential of 100 points of damage per ton while the Heavy Rifle has 81 per ton, completely ignoring heat and the ability of specialty ammunition. Go sit the fuck down and learn basic math and reading comprehension you fucking child.

>>64919516
>>64919435
>>64919372
The damage nerf isn't the bad thing about Rifles. The bad thing about Rifles is that their stats are fucked from the get-go. Another thing to note is that they should be carrying a lot more ammo. The Light Rifle should be packing at least 44 rounds per ton, not less than 20.

>>64905146
If the rules allowed LAVs (Land-Air Vehicles), there'd probably be little need for 'mechs.

File: Mak SAFS.jpg (310.2 KB)

310.2 KB JPG

Mechs are worse tanks than tanks. What about mini mechs that are big infantry/power armour? Bigger end being votoms/heavy gear, smaller end being ma.k. type armored fighting suits. How far can you scale up infantry before it stops working/stops being infantry?

>more dakka
>more armor
>protected against shrapnel/concussion from airburst munitions/grenades/mortar rounds
>sensor package
>climate control
>CRBN protection

>>64919781
As long as it can fit through a door or go up stairs it’s still useful. You want your infantry to be able to do infantry things so once it’s too big to fit inside of a building it’s just too big in general.

>>64919316
I'd tell you to go die to Savannah Master spam, but it's a sad day when a mechspam thread is still better than the /pol/turdie spam threads.

>>64919781
I'd put the max weight at about 500 lbs. Plus or minus 100. It's a decent amount of weight to play with but still not drastically more than a couple normal dudes. If the stairs can take a dozen dudes at a time then it should be able to take one power armor.

Also, you'll probably want to add an ECM package. There's a lot of drones and man-portable radar these days and you'll want a countermeasure even if it's just a soft counter. Maybe point the jammers at a 45° downwards? It'll bounce the jamming off the ground so a seeker can't just follow the signal.

>>64905146
They are not, Still Bbattlemech makes good argument since it includes cultural ones and power tripping humans being idiots.

IRL you need magic tech to make them viable. Once you have that magic tech you probably will go into other directions than mechs.


>>64908561
I mean Afghanistan would be a good use case for light mechs. Roads are full of IED-s, so you need something that doesn't rely on roads. Sometimes you encounter terrain choke points like bridges that can have IED-s. Bypass them with jump jets. Lasers give you ability to stay in fight for a long time and they are still effective against infantry. You are fast and have AMS to deal with RPG-s.

You need several magic-techs to do it but i will argue that fusion tech alone is worth more than trillions in R&D.

>>64921318
I mean desu your use-case is basically just solved by helicopters.

>>64921477
4chan filter strikes again!

>>64921477
Yeah as i said once you have magic tech tech you will probably go into other directions. Flying unit is probably the answer. Not a helicopter since rotor is vulnerable. Some armored maneuverable VTOL probably since fusion engines can feel even power hungry propulsion.

As current tech with this mission capabilities. No Heli does not occupy that niche. It can bypass IED-s but It's somewhat vulnerable to RPG's. Your operating time does not allow you to continuously support infantry, your munitions are also limited.

The tech in BT is mainly based on a poor understanding of 80s tech. It also fell i to the trap of the time period when they thought tech cant possibly get much better!

>>64921652
>magic tech tech you will probably go into other directions
Once you have magic tech you start operating under rule of cool, and battlemech combat is totally sweet. It counts for more than you know.

>>64925012
Completely inferior to Armored Core combat. It's just not cool enough.

File: 49a7a33d758189172907e7428ce2361f.jpg (134.2 KB)

134.2 KB JPG

>>64915977
Bump

>>64925244
Everybody has their preferences, but all mecha combat is super cool.

>>64920944
Nobody outside of a very small group of people actually knows how jamming works.

>>64905146
The answer is always no.

>>64919516
>completely ignores how autocannons are still better
you fucking retard, it's not enough that autocannons are "better" Rifles must struggle to damage mechs or else the setting makes no sense.
Rifles are literally IN SETTING to illustrate the insufficiency of slow firing modern artillery against mech armor. It is not enough that they are "not cost effective" they must struggle to penetrate and deal damage at all, that's literally why they're in the game.

BOTH TANKS AND MECHS WOULD BE OBSOLETE IN A WORLD IN WHICH POWER ARMOR EXISTS!