So Japan built a real life mech...

beniki

New member
May 28, 2009
745
0
0
Corax_1990 said:
Awesome, seems in could be modded to serve as a decent urban pacification tool. Good luck rioting when there is a 4 meter tall robot shooting bb pellets and a water cannon at you. It seems it would be pretty useless in a battle, but then again, this is only the first of what I'm sure will be many mech suits to come out of Japan.
Er... I don't know about that. Seems like a single molotov cocktail could really mess it up. And I don't know if the 'smile' feature would work in smoke.

Certainly pants-wetting to see that thing rolling down the road, but any serious minded, or simply spirited amateur, rioter could deal with it. Much rather have those arms removed in favour of some heavy dozer blades, but I guess the benefit to this would be the easy adaptability of grasping hands and accessories.

Line of those with dozer blades and shoulder mounted Gatling guns would definitely keep the peace. Then if the crowd dispersal is too chaotic, dump the dozer blades for pepper sprayers and bolas launchers for pursuit.

It doesn't look like it can perform the heavy lifting role they need for urban warfare yet, but it looks like it'll be good for search and destroy missions in wooded areas, somewhere where it's typically hard to get heavy weapons to work (basically they can't turn turrets and big guns around easily).

Still get badly beaten out in open fields, but hey, if one weapon worked for everything, the army wouldn't need such a big budget.
 

Prosis

New member
May 5, 2011
214
0
0
I'm not sure who this is for. Or if it's even real.
BB guns are legal, but an autotargeting BB machine gun mounted on a vehicles seems to really be pushing the line for civilian use. And firing when smiling (or any firing mechanic based on visual input) is pure idiocy.
I don't think its for police, as 1.4 mil is not nearly worth what its capable of as far crowd or riot control (and I can't imagine any other police usage for it).
And for military, as already mentioned by multiple people, this thing doesn't compete with a good ol fashioned (and presumably cheaper) tank.

I guess collectors who can think of nothing better to do with their fat bags of money would get one. Can you even get them street legalized?

Also, control via 3G? Is wireless network really that secure? It seems like something that could be hacked.
 

wintercoat

New member
Nov 26, 2011
1,691
0
0
Bad Jim said:
That said, I think mechs would be useful for heavy lifting.
An exoskeleton would be cheaper than a mech, would have a suitable lift limit, and have much better control. And, unlike mechs, exoskeletons are actually being R&D'd by the military as it is, and last I checked were coming along quite nicely. An exoskeleton would also require much less upkeep. Mght even need little enough to be taught as basic training, whereas a mech would require engineers like a tank does.

Mechs are cool in anime and movies, but are rather useless for pretty much anything, as there's other things that get the job done cheaper and easier. Even these are pretty much super expensive toys.
 

TheScientificIssole

New member
Jun 9, 2011
514
0
0
Robocop viral marketing? Pacific Rim viral marketing? I don't buy it. It trivializes a murderbot. Also strangely reminiscent of the Battle Royal intro tape.
 

Duck Sandwich

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
"Also froo da master slave function, it is possible to control da arms directly."

It's only a matter of time before giant robot boxing becomes the most popular sport in Japan.

 

Generalissimo

Your Commander-in-Chief
Legacy
Apr 27, 2021
831
0
21
Country
UK
best comment so far:

"and in 10 years the kuratas will be powered by a pikachu"

this made me lol. seriously though, this does look quite promising. they should keep going ^^
 

Psychedelic Spartan

New member
Sep 15, 2011
458
0
0
Dumori said:
Scrustle said:
The "smile shot"? Seems fishy to me.
It shoots BBs and water ballons it's an insanley expensive LARP/cosplay item.
Say, are you an exact copy of me? I was going to say that.
OT: Only in Japan, huh? I'm actually rather surprised that DARPA hasn't invented a more lethal version of this...
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Actually, while mechs are not really a good idea for real combat, they could make for a good show in "real" combat i.e. staged combat or basically...


 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,783
0
0
TehCookie said:
I love it but I could never ride it. I'd be cheesing so hard when I'd drive it I'd murder everyone. How could you drive a mech and not be grinning the entire time?
I had the same thought. One would have to find a way to do away with that particular feature. I would rather just have a good 'ol fashioned trigger. A voice command would even be more practical.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Mr.K. said:
The Madman said:
I know I'm being the nerdy one by saying this but there's a reason there have been no mech until now (Apparently), and that's because as a fighting machine they're just ridiculously impractical.
You do know that has been said about every major technological development?
Guns were considered impractical, vehicles were considered impractical, electricity, electronic devices, computers,... airplanes were even deemed impossible.
Yet here we are now years later with all that so common it doesn't even impress us anymore.
Strangely, I seem to be wanting to say something that relates to both your points.

... I get the feeling there was a reason that those technological developments were impractical in their day, but are viable now.

Its that for every time we advance in one area of technology, it can be related back to another that was "nonviable", and make it more plausible.

And so with planes, people made many little developments that eventually lead to a "you know what, it seems possible now that we got all these plans." moment.

...

Second, some designs, or imaginings of them, don't always work in the context they were imagined for, but work better elsewhere. Making them more likely to be built when one purpose is brought up than another. Its a "Right tool for the right job" thing.

For example, some people once thought that cars would take up a roll similar to today military vehicles. But today, the closest thing to a true car in the military is used as a utility vehicle and personnel carrier as opposed to the "moving fortress" people thought it would be.

Now mechs may not have had a context they worked in back when they were envisaged, but some time, they may have one. And maybe they do now, I don't know. The "Riot buster" or "police vehicle" Application many of this thread think it would work for sounds plausible. And with a few minor tweaks could work even better than the vehicles already operating.

...

Who am I arguing against again? I think I seem to be supporting both your statements.
 

Martin Yao

New member
Jun 19, 2012
15
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
Strangely, I seem to be wanting to say something that relates to both your points.

... I get the feeling there was a reason that those technological developments were impractical in their day, but are viable now.

Its that for every time we advance in one area of technology, it can be related back to another that was "nonviable", and make it more plausible.

And so with planes, people made many little developments that eventually lead to a "you know what, it seems possible now that we got all these plans." moment.

...

Second, some designs, or imaginings of them, don't always work in the context they were imagined for, but work better elsewhere. Making them more likely to be built when one purpose is brought up than another. Its a "Right tool for the right job" thing.

For example, some people once thought that cars would take up a roll similar to today military vehicles. But today, the closest thing to a true car in the military is used as a utility vehicle and personnel carrier as opposed to the "moving fortress" people thought it would be.

Now mechs may not have had a context they worked in back when they were envisaged, but some time, they may have one. And maybe they do now, I don't know. The "Riot buster" or "police vehicle" Application many of this thread think it would work for sounds plausible. And with a few minor tweaks could work even better than the vehicles already operating.

...

Who am I arguing against again? I think I seem to be supporting both your statements.
True dat, but in terms of being a warmachine, it might make more sense for it to be used in urban combat where heavy machineries like tanks and helicopters can't manuveur well.
Also, now we just need someone to invent the minovsky particles and we will be all set for 'mecha'nised warfare!
 

Innegativeion

Positively Neutral!
Feb 18, 2011
1,636
0
0
philosophicalbastard said:
Anget Colslaw said:
I'm eagerly waiting to hear the news that Japan is recruiting a bunch of emotionless, blue haired girls to pilot these things.
They wouldn't be very effective since the weapons can only be fired by smiling, so that pretty much eliminates the entire cast of Neon Genesis Evangelion as eligible pilots.
Hire the cast of either FLCL or Gurrenn Lagann instead. Problem solved.
 

karcentric

New member
Dec 28, 2011
1,384
0
0
One PG-7V from an RPG 7 and it would be toast, personally think this is a waste of time.
 

kickyourass

New member
Apr 17, 2010
1,429
0
0
For anyone still not sure why Japan is awesome, this, this is why Japan is awesome. Though something tells me that about half these 'features' aren't fully genuaine, just call it a hunch.
But I swear if I ever make it big this is one of the first things I'm buying, I mean it's a mother fucking a mech armed with a water missile launcher and BB gatling guns. Who the hell wouldn't one one?