/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>3871
When I say chinlet homebrew mecha might not be effective I suppose that's hinging on pilots and commanders making retarded decisions because its a new category of hardware that would need to find its niche dovetailing with "Wow, Cool Robot" syndrome. Also prospective homebrew designers not having the same resources as some the larger companies mentioned earlier. Inevitably counter-mecha techniques would be developed. We will live to see Armor Hunter Mellowlink being required viewing for those under arms.

>>3872
Well yes, tactical stupidity and the eventual development of counter-weapons and tactics would come about, going with the analogy Terminator has that happen too.
>Armor Hunter Mellowlink
That is a damn obscure reference, I've never heard of it before, even though I know Votoms.

>>3874
Not the anon you were talking to, but the first 6 episodes were really good.

Engine of Penance vibes aside, I think a potential real mecha that would actually have the ability to replicate human reflexes and speed on a larger scale would be a cyborg-like exo-suit system requiring direct interface.

An example of this in fiction would be the Berserker units from the Aliens comics and games, pic rel.
>Control of the Berserker was effected through a neurotransmission feed drilled into the operator's brain,[8] and the manipulation of physical controls within the suit's arms and legs. The operator was assisted by an advanced computer program that largely automated many of the Berserker's actions, such as aiming the various weapons and tracking targets.
https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Berserker_(combat_unit)

>>1305
>Slow
>Easy to hit
>Still destroyed by aything that is not made specifically for the infantry
>Cost a fortune
>Logistical nightmare
Listen, we are questioning the future of MBT, so mechs aren't going to happen. Robots with guns, yes, but small ones.

>>4436
>slow
No, this has been addressed ITT
>easy to hit
No, this has been addressed ITT
>Still destroyed by aything that is not made specifically for the infantry
Like any vehicle short of a heavy IFV/tank? Even an HMG can penetrate APCs and IFVs, hell a heavy machine gun was used to bust up an Abrams years back.
>cost a fortune
New technology always does
>logistical nightmare
Not necessarily, depends on how good logistics are to begin with and how fast it is introduced into the armed forces - rushed production =/= poorer logistics because of not enough time to train cadres.

>we are questioning the future of MBT
The only ones questioning the future of the MBT are armchair idiots that think tanks were EVER impenetrable, all-going monsters, see >>>/AKM/4179
Are exoskeletons for soldiers more likely to come around first? Yes. Does this mean mecha won't have a niche? No. The main problem isn't any of what you mentioned, the main problem is power-source.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/08/russia-us-are-military-exoskeleton-race/150939/

>>3714
>the Obsolete anime
To clarify https://obsolete.fandom.com/wiki/Exoframe

>>4439
>My 200t suit would have the agility of a sparrow and the speed of a jaguar
Yes, yes. And it will be missileproof. And it won't require two days of maintenance for every time you use it like the F35.

Listen, they only thing you will gain is a short moment where the eemy would have mostly weapons against the infantry while you have mech, but give it 4 weeks and that will be over. It will be similar to how tanks were supposed to end WWI because the krauts had nothing to fight them. They got destroyed by direct canon fire, by artillery, by flamethrowers, rifle bullets broke their gas extraction system killing the entire crew, they got their canons broke by machine guns and their tracks destroyed by grenades. And half of them broke before reaching the German trench.
It haven't won the war.

>>4439
Anon it is just stupid. The bipedal mode of walking is the most inefficent and any robot legs are always going to be inefficent. Also with humans, when you are fighting, you always want to go prone to reduce your targetable area. The idea is to be as low to the ground as himanly possible. A tank is like a mecha that is always prone. The only value a walker could possibly have is on yetrain a tank couldn't traverse, but that sort of yerrain would also be likely to trip a walker and then your mech is critically damaged.

>>4442
Also being bipedal would greatly teduce the size and calibre of gun that could be mounted on it since it is so much more inherently unstable than a tank. This is not even taking into account how inefficent oldimg a seperate gun with atms would be. It would still come into play even if you had gun arms or shoulder or whatever.

Also tanks have fucking driving and shooting seperated for two different people for a fucking reason. One person can focus on ehere they are moving one can focus on what they are shooting. Two brains are better than one.

>>4444 >>4442 >>4443 >>4441
uygha you really just wanted to farm that GET and posted 4 times? Bitch move.
>It's just stupid cause it is!
No argument
>The bipedal mode of walking is the most inefficent
Ah yes, which is why humans evolved to walk on 2 legs, why ostriches and other birds use 2 legs, except bi-pedal walking is not inefficient, or it would haven't have evolved and STAYED. Inb4 tracks, this has been addressed, see >>3738 >>3736 >>3714 >>3713

>with humans, when you are fighting, you always want to go prone to reduce your targetable area
Again, this has been addressed in the linked posts, a mech can go prone too.
>being bipedal would greatly teduce the size and calibre of gun that could be mounted on it since it is so much more inherently unstable than a tank
It's not supposed to BE a tank and again, missiles, rockets, recoil-less rifles, Gauss rifles, positioning etc. all would allow for immense firepower, you do not need a 125mm cannon mounted on a mech, when there are alternatives to do the same job.
>tanks have fucking driving and shooting seperated for two different people
No shit, which is why you could have multiple pilots, or increased automation, which has been done, with tanks and BMPs such as the Russian Prometheus robotization program* Moreover, again, it's not supposed to be a tank. Drone piloting is similar, you're flying the aircraft and also targeting and firing on enemies, sometimes while being under fire, this isn't that different. The Ka-50 attack helicopter did the same thing.
*https://www.eurasiantimes.com/russia-claims-developing-prometheus-a-system-capable/

>200t would have the agility of a sparrow and the speed of a jaguar
Strawman
>And it will be missileproof
Strawman
>it won't require two days of maintenance for every time you use it like the F35
No proofs and false equivalency
>Tanks in WW-1 weren't a miracle because they weren't indestructible!
>It haven't won the war.
Wow, yet another retarded fallacy. Where did I state mechs would be war-winning game changers? They would bring new options to the table and new capabilities. Your argument is retarded. Also cannon fire and artillery is the same thing, moron.
Tanks got thicker, better armor, got better engines, were built on more efficient factory lines, were given heavier armament, given CBRN protection, better visual capabilities, better tracks, mine-rollers and more to negate things, this is called an arms race.
Jet aircraft made most anti-air artillery useless, so what, air defense should have stopped existing? No, you make new methods, new advances, new technologies. Carrier groups are massive threats far outside the range of artillery fire? Anti-ship missiles must be made bigger, faster and smarter to take them out from afar. etc.

Anyway, lemme know when you're done using fallacies faggot, I'll be back then.

>>4445
Anon you are just retarded. No point debating you because you don't know anything about anything. Have your mecha fantasies. No one will ever build one for all the reasons you refuse to understand.

>>4446
>N-no ur retarded not me
Projection.
>I won't debate you
<translation: I have no argument, so I'll just pretend to be smart
Concession accepted.
>No one will ever build one
<Saying this when there are literally IRL mecha posted in this thread And I found more attempted mecha from the past and current mecha being produced, so LOL no.
>for all the reasons you refuse to understand.
Ah yes, the reasons you didn't list?

I explained how mecha would be able to move quickly and provided real technologies to demonstrate this, explained what their purpose and roles could be in both military and civilian use, explained the advantages and disadvantages of such a mechanism. You resorted to the same nonsense about "muh tanks" when that is not relevant, and then ignored how technological progress and competition occurs.

>>4447
Anon you have been btfo by multiple people this whole thread. Just give it a rest. Your fantasies are dumb.

>>4448
>Samefagging
>You've been BTFO becuz I sed so!
Cope, Seethe, etc.
Not a single argument of mine has been countered. Fallacies, false-equivalencies and outright denial is all I've gotten. And more than one person has argued similarly to myself.

>>4449
You are just too stupid to understand the reason there is no such thing as mecha and never will be. Your decorative animatronics not withstanding.

>Woah they made gundam real!

>>4450
>ur stupid
Ad hominum
>decorative animatronics
Ignorant false equivalency and strawman

Stop projecting, your butthurt is showing.

>>4451
Bro show me one serious source that agrees with you about mecha.

Bro you are seriously talking about
>Ducking under missiles
>Side stepping missiles
>Putting jetpacks on mechs
Kek. Besides the fact you can't into basic physics, why can't we just put jetpacks on tanks to give them the same jumping abilities?

This is what happens when you take anime seriously.

>>4452
Argument by authority fallacy and burden of proof fallacy. Provide an argument to examples and points I set or get out. And by the way there aren't any actual authoritative, serious sources arguing against it either.

The militaries of the world have been trying to create giant mobile exo-skeletons for decades and even today, such as the GE Beetle and HARDIMAN
Currently the Sarcos line of large Exo-skeletons has Raytheon investing in them and they are scaling up. If it wasn't something with perspective, then multi-million dollar companies such as Suidobashi Heavy Industry wouldn't be constructing and developing them. Get fucked.

>>4454
An exoskeleton is as far apart from s mech as a tank pr jeep is.

>>4453
>Not replying to a specific post
>Strawmanning again ignoring the context
>false equivalency about tanks Number 1543
Boring samefaggotry.
>Muh basic physics
I literally posted examples of actual, physical technologies capable of what I am describing, just crying "muh physics" is a fucking cop-out. I suppose its magic then.
>muh animu!!!
Not an argument, I specifically used real examples and actual real life applications. You're deflecting.

Tanks are flat, low terrestrial vehicles, and in fact there have been attempts to make them hover and even fly, to cover minefields without detonating them. Read a fucking book. Also Assisted Jet/Rocket Boosters have been used in various applications such as STOVL aircraft. Jet packs already exist, their prime problem is scaling them down while keeping thrusting power high, and the fuel consumption, this is a problem of scaling down such engines for a human size.

Also about dodging missiles, ATGMs today can miss huge targets like tanks and trucks, especially when jamming and soft-kill systems are used to counter act their sensors, and movement can still be used to evade them, even lateral movement, sudden zig-zags that a bipedal vehicle would be capable of would be far harder to lock onto, why do you think Snipers have to train hard to be able to hit moving targets reliably where they want to hit?.

Furthermore, as I stated, a tank cannot climb a cliff, a tank cannot roll over or ram through 5 foot, meter thick walls that cannot be fired at, at close range, a tank cannot operate in tight urban environments or jungles without heavy fire-support by infantry and tank support vehicles.

>>4455
False equivalency, again. A Jeep is a wheeled vehicle using entirely different methods of propulsion, suspension, steering etc.
A mecha is essentially a giant exo-skeleton, they are linked concepts, moron.

>>4456
>Zig zag the atgm bro
That's all that needs to be pointed out about your understanding of physics.

>>4457
>N-no evasive maneuvers aren't a thing!
<F-fisics!
You've deliberately ignored the context to pretend to make a point. Your understanding of combat technology is laughable. There's literally a video where Ukrainian soldiers are firing multiple ATGMs at a Russian tank from a few hundred meters and missing every time because its maneuvering and firing back. A tank is not fast or highly maneuverable, compared to your retarded example of a Jeep, a jeep is even harder to hit with a rocket or ATGM.
Concession accepted.

>>4458
Just because something doesn't hurt to try doesn't make effective.

>>4459
>These measures need to be updated as they do not reflect advancements in ATGM technology that formations will face in combat. Senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and officers may recall “Sagger” (AKA Russian AT-3 Malyutka) drills that were frequently conducted during Platoon Situation Training Exercises (STX) from 1992 (pre-Desert Storm) to 2001 (pre-9/11). The steps listed in 07-SEC-D9401 are specific to Sagger or Sagger-like ATGMs, based on the guidance to “keep the vehicle frontal armor pointed toward the enemy” and evasive actions. Although there are no Sagger drill references in Army doctrine, veterans may remember the “zigzag” maneuvers that were part of the sequence. These measures were only feasible due to the speed of the Sagger. With current ATGM capabilities, evasive actions are limited. These TE&Os do not provide a section or crew with adequate guidance to train on ATGM countermeasures.

>The last U.S. Army doctrine that provided detailed react-to-ATGM guidance was FM 7-7, Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad, published in 1985. The manual provides the following instruction (see Figure 10 below): the pic is the stupid pic you posted

>Much like the TE&Os, FM 7-7 provides guidance for a react-to-ATGM focused on Sagger and Sagger-like capabilities. There is no doctrinal react-to-ATGM guidance for platoons and no instruction on how to close with and destroy the enemy. The U.S. Army must update its doctrine and tactical procedures to address modern ATGM threats.



And we are talking about a future where we have technology to make a mech. How much do you think atgm capabilities will have evolved by then? Besides a mech will be easily destroyed by small arms fire.

>>4459
>It's not effective becuz its not!
Not an argument. Evasive maneuvers exist because they make a target harder to hit, it has never been a matter of being completely untouchable, that's never been the issue. I've stated this already but to summarize for an idiot like yourself.
1 - Mecha aren't replacements for tanks nor are they supposed to be use in open fields in some suicide charge, their niche would be areas where tanks and traditional vehicles with tracks/wheels would be hard or impossible to operate while remaining protected and heavily armed, acting as Super-Heavy Infantry in mountainous terrain, thick jungle and forest, tight urban spaces, etc. Anyone deploying them directly at an entrenched force in a charge or some dumb shit like that would be a retard misusing resources, and it would be no different than sending in tanks or troops into a meat-grinder.
2 - A target being maneuverable means it will be harder to hit, an ATGM must either be manually guided and so the operator needs to be able to maintain a lock on the target with a laser designator or SACLOS system or something similar, OR use a Fire/Forget missile which is susceptible to counter-measures and have a specific pre-programmed targeting area, if the target leaves the designated area the missile may not hit, especially when the target moves erratically enough to fuck with steering. Unlike an AAM, ATGMs have low maneuverability, they cannot make sudden close turns to make last-second corrections and they cannot rely on shrapnel to damage the target, again unlike AAMs.
3 - Targeting something that's firing back is hard, its why a tank doesn't necessarily need to directly hit an anti-tank unit to incapacitate them for long enough to get out of a kill-zone, a human is more vulnerable to explosions and shrapnel than a tank, and can't exactly target and guide a missile if they're shredded apart by a nearby shell landing, or machine-gun fire raking their general vicinity.
Thus a mechs maneuverability and mutli-capability would be its niche, and its relative high point maneuverability would make it a harder target to hit reliably. There is no such a thing as an invincible weapon, nor does that make something obsolete. The IDF successfully used the Sagger manuevers in old, slow Centurions and M-60s after encountering Syrian ATGM crews for the first time and successfully reduced casualties significantly. However this is not easy for a wide, low vehicle with limited gun elevation in a city or a jungle, which is why Hamas is inflicting severe casualties on Merkavas right now.

This isn't basic physics, this is advanced physics taking into account how targeting computers function, how guidance systems locate and lock onto targets and how said targets can break lock through movement and soft-kill or hard-kill counter-measures.

>just dodge the atgm bro
least mentally ill chatgpt user

>>4462
ATGMs have never had to face this move before

>>4462
>Chat-GPT
Just because you're a /pol/fag that hates reading, doesn't mean I have to conform to your illiteracy

>>4463
Kek

>>4460
God, work on your formatting. And again this only speaks of it being an old method, doesn't mean its obsolete. Anti-Air Artillery is as old as military aircraft itself, and still isn't obsolete and neither are many military tactics and weapon systems. An AK-47 is still as effective as it was when it was built, a mine-field will still stop tanks, Concertina Wire still fucks up tracks and slices apart infantry that may run into it, and maneuvers still increase survivability, which is why speed and maneuverability is still a priority in tanks, and why Heavy Tanks were phased out, since the MBT (Main Battle Tank) focused on the 3 important aspects of ANY armored warfare, maneuverability, armor and firepower. The same applies to human troops and is why the limit for automatic fire-arms will probably be 12.7mm since anything larger has far too much recoil and not enough magazine capacity to make it worth use as a small-arm, the same with body armor, there is a limit to protection you can give without weighing the soldier down to the point where they'd do better being lighter and able to move aside. As we see in Ukraine drones are getting dodged by troops, because they're not weighed down enough to be incapable of moving, which is why exoskeletons, including mecha (a.k.a giant exoskeletons) are also being explored for the purpose of up-armoring troops on a 1:1 basis.

>we are talking about a future where we have technology to make a mech
We ALREADY have the technology you fucktard, real mechs are being made and technologies to make them more maneuverable and capable already exist and I've posted BOTH.
>How much do you think atgm capabilities will have evolved by then
Technological development progress and speed is not linear, technological progress slows down over time, which is why 2nd generation ATGMs are still being successfully used, even with modern counter-measures such as smoke-grenades, IR blinders, electronic jamming etc.
>Besides a mech will be easily destroyed by small arms fire.
Baseless claim. Body armor already is capable of stopping rifle bullets including armor piercing rounds. That's why most modern sniper rifles use 12.7mm rounds, and even that can be stopped by sufficient armor. Armor is also progressing constantly, as I stated before and a mech would be able to mount enough armor comparable to an APC at minimum going by square-cube law, which would mean anything short of heavy auto-cannon fire (40-57mm AP) would be incapable of destroying it. And again, if the gun-fire you speak of would be capable of destroying a mech than it would even more easily be capable of shredding apart a human soldier.

If you call those things real mecha that just makes me laugh harder.

Anyways, you mech fags are arguing from a place pf wouldn't making anime real be cool. Yes I agree it would be cool.

Is yhe solution to the mecha problem, sail powered mecha?

>>4466
>If you call those things real mecha that just makes me laugh harder.
The saying about idiots and laughter holds true
>you mech fags are arguing from a place pf wouldn't making anime real be cool
No that's a separate argument. I'm talking about real life applications, which I made a specific case for and all I get as a "counter" is repetitive bullshit about either "muh missiles" which are not infallible and never will be because arms races are specifically about counter-measures and counter-counter-measures and advances meant to over-come the enemy capabilities. Or about "gunfire" which again is a moot point, the gunfire a mecha would need to take it down would tear apart a BMP or human soldier just as easily.

If I was talking about real mecha being cool I'd go the full 100 and go straight for Pacific Rim and other titanic mecha that are straight up impossible resource-wise.

>>4467
Nah, just use literal horse power.

*teleports behind the atgm operator*

>>4468
A mecha would need to be less armored per weight and size than a bmp by design.

Also explain the advantage of a mech over an exoskeleton. Even exoskeletons may never be fielded because they kind of defeat the point of infantry being that infantry can operate with nothing but food and water. The only exoskeletons that will provably get fielded ever are the passive ones that don't use power.

>>4469
NANI!?

>>4470
Like obviously, one of picrel can offer better wall thickness and coverage while still be moveable than if you were to have the same wall thickness for a full suit of armor.

Alao you are going to need like

>>4472
I don't even know why it has to be explained. It's why man imvented the wheel. To move more weight with the same strength. Basic physics again.

>>4470
>>4472
>A mecha would need to be less armored per weight and size than a bmp by design.
I disagree somewhat, you're severely over-estimating the armor of IFVs. Western ones are over-weight because their designs are huge and so have more area to cover length, height and width-wise compared to Soviet ones, and a mecha is only taller, not longer or wider (speaking of which, if tanks and IFVs can be up to 3+ meters in height - such as the Merkava IV and MRAPs - and be considered viable weapons, then I don't see how a medium sized mecha would be different).
The armor thickness of the BMP for example is like 1-3cm of armor, and it's weight is huge because its' a huge tracked box. The BMP-2 used a different armor alloy that was much lighter and yet much stronger, and let it have equivalent armor protection to the BMP-1, while having physically thinner armor. Throw in laminated armor and make sandwiched armor layers and you have a viable mech armor that would likely be lighter if you use the right materials such as carbon-nanofibers and aluminum alloys.
>pic rel better wall thickness and coverage while still be moveable than if you were to have the same wall thickness for a full suit of armor.
Do you know why the police never really used that armor? Because its fucking heavy and they lacked technology capable of mechanizing it to make it viable. We have this technology today and designing it is not impossible. It's literally just upsizing an exoskeletal suit and putting armor on it. Yes, this is still a work in progress, but examples exist and are being refined.

>>4473
>B-basic physics
By that rule we'd never make submarines because of the complexity of managing buoyancy under-water, why bother when a ship floats better!? Why bother making helicopters when planes are faster and simpler!
By your fucking luddite logic technological progress should have ended with the wheel.

The wheel is not the simplest means of locomotion, or nature would have used it.
>o move more weight with the same strength
Yes and if you actually understood the physics of leverage, you'd know what the DISadvantages of wheels are and WHY things like tracks or LEGGED vehicles were considered to begin with. Wheels require specific mechanics to turn, to roll, to be capable of having the traction to pull and carry what is mounted on them uphill, they need a continuous path to move. A legged vehicle can step over isolated paths and move on. Notice how tanks can go up inclines that wheeled vehicles cannot? And notice that there are inclines that even tracked vehicles cannot climb reliably, and even if they can, they would be in poor position to fight, a tank firing off a 60 degree slope is probably going to flip or slide down, trying to hit something, and would be extremely exposed. You're doing it again, ignoring the points and specifics I brought up to yammer on about your flawed view of physics. You even ignore the fact that legs and wheels are not necessarily exclusionary, pic rel.

>>4474
>I disagree somewhat, you're severely over-estimating the armor of IFVs. Western ones are over-weight because their designs are huge and so have more area to cover length, height and width-wise compared to Soviet ones,
I don't know enough about tanks to contradict but I doubt there is much wasted space on the inside of the armor. Even if there was that's not an atgument for mecha, just better designed tanks.
>and a mecha is only taller, not longer or wider
To balance it on two legs and have armored limbs would by neccesity make the armor thinner. Also like I pointed out, the same HP it takes to move a wheel barrow is much less than the HP it takes to physically carry it.
>(speaking of which, if tanks and IFVs can be up to 3+ meters in height - such as the Merkava IV and MRAPs - and be considered viable weapons, then I don't see how a medium sized mecha would be different).
I was the one who said that is the only design I could possibly see working is less than that height.

>. The BMP-2 used a different armor alloy that was much lighter and yet much stronger, and let it have equivalent armor protection to the BMP-1, while having physically thinner armor. Throw in laminated armor and make sandwiched armor layers and you have a viable mech armor that would likely be lighter if you use the right materials such as carbon-nanofibers and aluminum alloys.
Ok but the material of the armor is irrelevant because we are assuming the tank and the mech would be made out of the same.

>>4475
Wheeled vehicles can climb steeper inclines than tracked vehicles what the fuck are you talking about?

And you have yet to show legs would offer any advantage on an incline. You would very likely to tumble instead of just rolling backwards.

>Pic
So now we are calling the Mars Rover mecha? Fine if you just mean wheels/treads with more actuation that's a whole different discussion

is this some kind of prolonged pasta or is this retard actually typing all this noise?

>>4477
>more /pol/ whining about reading too much
Go back.

And back to physics. There is a reason that fucking geckos and spiders and bugs can walk on ceilings, goats can climb nearly verticle and elks and fucking elephants can't. Once again basic physics. You can't just size things up.

like, what's the point of bait if you have to write this much

>>4476
>I doubt there is much wasted space on the inside of the armor.
<tanks are the same as BMPs!
If you're just going to argue bad-faith nonsense like this then you may as well just stop.
>To balance it on two legs and have armored limbs would by neccesity make the armor thinner.
No, that's not how weight distribution works, look at any bipedal robot currently doing fucking backflips and running like a human, while being even more top-heavy. Hell look at HUMANS our upper halves are equivalent-heavier than our legs.
>the same HP it takes to move a wheel barrow is much less than the HP it takes to physically carry it.
Shit analogy that doesn't actually make sense, but lets play ball for a moment. When that Wheelbarrow reaches a wall, are you rolling it over the wall? No. When that wheelbarrow needs to scale a mountain, can it? No. If you need to move on a narrow path with little room to move, are you going to roll the wheelbarrow through it comfortably? No. You're going to be carrying it over the wall, through the narrow area, or up the mountain.
>the material of the armor is irrelevant
No it is not. Armor is not all the same, neither over time nor over different vehicle types.
>Wheeled vehicles can climb steeper inclines than tracked vehicles
HAHAHAHAHAHA No. Tracks possess far greater ground contact area and so traction, than wheels, which is why they can climb inclines better.
>you have yet to show legs would offer any advantage
More burden of proof fallacy, and this coming from a guy posting a light buggy climbing sideways up a slope while almost falling. I don't have to demonstrate what is obvious fact, but to prove it anyway I will proceed to use "basic" Kinesiology with the concept of Center of Gravity. Walking motion requires moving the center of gravity up and down, which means on a level, uninterrupted surface wheels would be more advantageous (i.e. a road or flat plain) but if terrain is rough, (large rocks, variable ground softness (sandy/swampy terrain etc.) and/or steep, the upward motion of center of gravity is advantageous.
Additionally on a steep incline people change how they walk. On level surface, most people have their heel or lateral foot border step down before their sole/toes, resulting in contact forces that oppose their motion and hence waste energy as heat. When running people step with their soles which reduces the inefficiency. However on a steep hill people step with the sole or even toes, resulting in contact force that directly propels you up, and mitigates any problems from Center of Gravity or air drag. Moreover when stepping up a hill you can stay on the slope and stand or cling there. A vehicle cannot do so unless it weighs huge amounts of weight, and even then not reliably so.
Have you never tried to ride a bike uphill as a child? Or driven a car up a steep hill? You need much more force to do force the wheels to keep moving up. Demonstrate to me wheeled vehicle digging in and staying on such a slope without using momentum to throw itself up there.

>now we are calling the Mars Rover mecha
No, I was talking about leg mechanisms and how it does not exclude the ability to use wheels, put some rollerblade type landing-gear on mechanical feet and you can on-road high-speed motion and then disengage into bipedal running.

>>4479
>elks and fucking elephants can't
Elephants can't because they're heavy and do not have flexible feet, instead they have inflexible plantigrade soles, unlike humans. Mountain oats have special hooves that are flexible, + an insane sense of balance and positioning of their legs to maintain their balance. Wheels on an axle cannot reposition for stability. And gyrostabilizers exist and have existed as part of balancing systems for decades, how do you think tank guns can be stabilized in 2 planes while rolling over bumpy ground at high speed?
> You can't just size things up.
You're using false equivalencies, comparing a pachyderm to a goat while trying to parallel to humans and human like mechanisms, when a humanoid robot would be balancing like a HUMAN would, not an elephant. Also HANDS are an important factor, humans don't climb mountains with their legs alone, their hands and arms are more important and something that no tank or BMP has.

Again, this is called biomechanical kinesthetics and not just "physics" you basic bitch.

>>4480
See >>4478 and leave faggot.

Honestly since you're just repeating the same shit over and over again I'm just going to ask a few simple questions with a Yes or No answer.
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicle climb a roadless mountain? Y/N
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicle drive over a meter thick, 2 meter-tall wall? Y/N
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicle step/jump over/across a row of mines or barbed wire? Y/N
Can a tank, car or ANY non-amphibious rolling vehicle drive through a deep river without stopping and preparing tubes and other equipment? Y/N
Can a tank, car or ANY large rolling vehicle traverse jungle without having to crush and smash through dozens of trees at high pace? Y/N
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicle turn on a 1-2 meter radius?
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicle manipulate objects with fine control without a manipulator arm?
Can a tank, car or ANY rolling vehicles re-arm and refuel without any crew or logistics crew stepping/being outside the vehicle, in CBRN conditions?

>>4454
>>4452
Kalashnikov Concern demo'd a mecha walker in 2018 called Игорёк. It's for civilian use, with a multi-person cockpit, with manipulators resembling that of a Deep-Sea submersible and leg structure reminiscent of the ED-209 or Star Wars AT-ST.