Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#33 - mreggsalad (05/10/2013) [-]
Actually, I think this would be pretty impractical for real war. It's cool and all, but it's a giant target, and I can run about as fast as it. (It goes about 6.2 MPH for my fellow Amerifags) In addition, the cockpit is a pretty glaring target. A well-placed or two shot from a tank, and I would imagine the mech would be destroyed. And yes, I understand that this isn't an actual combat robot, and that it shoots BB's.
#132 to #33 - zzzapped (05/10/2013) [-]
well the thing is that if i got a one shot disposable rocket launcher and this thing and a tanks is nearby i will definatly go for this ****** . Meaning that the driver would be ****** . (900C copper is bad for your health)
User avatar #117 to #33 - pooplol (05/10/2013) [-]
You can run about 6.2 mph? Thats pretty slow
#66 to #33 - anon (05/10/2013) [-]
you can only run 6.2 MPH?
User avatar #57 to #33 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
The first tank ever made was functionally worthless. Things progress, but you need a starting point.
User avatar #35 to #33 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
Could be used in urban combat where a tank is unlikely and it wouldn't be hard to swap out the bb chain-guns for real chain-guns. Could easily patrol the streets of a city like new-york or something like that... on the matter it could be a beast for crowd control. imagine a riot breaking out only to have a squad of these roll up with rubber bullets in the chain guns and teargas in the rear mounted launchers. All you got to do is make sure the cockpit is sealed airtight and add an O2 tank or a airfiltration system and it would be unstopabbly in such a situation
#44 to #35 - morkotlap (05/10/2013) [-]
You can mount anything you want on regular APC's.

Just wasted money on percieved coolness factor.
User avatar #45 to #44 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
pretty sure this thing would have better maneuverability on uneven terrain or in tight spaces then i regular apc
#48 to #45 - morkotlap (05/10/2013) [-]
Actually the small wheels it uses would be inferior to treads by far on uneven terrain.

About tight spaces... maybe, but i still think that tankettes like the ones in interwar period would be more cost-efficient by far.
User avatar #50 to #48 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
would the small wheels really make a difference seeing as im fairly certain these things four wheels can all move independently of one each other in three dimensions with a couple foot of leeway in any direction allowing to to spider crawl across terrain that may be otherwise impassable all the while staying more even then a regular apc
#53 to #50 - morkotlap (05/10/2013) [-]
That would provide rather good artillery platform on uneven terrain. Sadly, all kuratas can do is raise and lower drivers cabin.
User avatar #42 to #35 - thepastryistrue (05/10/2013) [-]
The problem is the plating. A plain surface can deflect large quantities of blast energy. If the plating has lots of edges and gaps, it has to be very thick and be continuous to deflect the same amount of energy.

A simple handgranate thrown at the right place will tear this thing apart quite easily.

It's a nice experiment, but it's not really suitable for combat.
User avatar #43 to #42 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
They could always rework the plating to do away with edges to increase the efficency. And in the case of for crowd control for riots and such if the rioters have handgrenades you have bigger issues. Dont think Molotov cocktails would be too effective against it if you put in some thermal lining for the cockpit
#46 to #43 - morkotlap (05/10/2013) [-]
The point is the plating is inefficient due to volume distribution. Classical army vehicles have small surface to volume ratio. Also they have sloped armor to aid in projectile deflection. To ensure proper plating on all the apendages of this monstrosity would be engineering nightmare.
User avatar #47 to #46 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
meh whatever this thing isn't really meant for military use anyways its a marketed as a vehicle for entertainment purposes its a proof of design. It's just model one its cool but ya its not gonna be entirely practical yet it's just showing that that technology is starting to catch up to our imaginations. And i'm sure someone will find a way to improve uponit before long.
#49 to #47 - morkotlap (05/10/2013) [-]
Yea but what's the actual purpouse? Mechas in fiction are story telling device to embody strength of technology in a way human can instinctively feel. And this does not even prove any engineering concept. This was possible with the engineering technologies of the WW2. It's just that nobody saw a reason to make such a thing.
User avatar #51 to #49 - applesaucers (05/10/2013) [-]
while the ww2 version of it may have been possible (which i doubt to some extent) the interface with which it was controlled would not have been anywhere near as intuitive. As for practical purposes i'm not that heavy of a military guy. But i do know countries across the world have been researching exo-skeleton tech similar to this for a myraid of purposes beyond that of just strictly combat. This could just be a step in that direction.
 Friends (0)