NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe mecha would provide more tactical advantages than a regular Main battle tank. A mecha could have higher elevation than a tank and could be destroy a target from a higher view than a groud based tank could be. Well, it would just be totally awsome just to see a mecha on the feild just like from an anime like gundam or Neon Genesis Evangelion. If the military had mecha like that, i would totally join just to pilot one.

No.


There's a reason tanks are low to the ground, less of a target.

Also, legs are a major liability, one shot, bye bye mecha.

Bipeds also focus all their weight on two very small points. A mech would sink.

Not with current technology anyways.

There is a reason they make tanks fairly low to the ground. They don't stick up from behind dirt berms and stuff so there is less tank visible for the enemy to hit. A big vertical robot would give you a huge target.

http://i11.tinypic.com/2yv3nzp.png

By the time mecha are advanced enough to beat todays tanks the modern tanks of that time would hand them their asses.

Nope. Mostly for the reason's already stated. Also, isn't there some law of physics that makes it very difficult to move very tall stuff that doesn't have a wider base?

yes i do see your point, but not all mech ar bi-ped. A four legged mech could be able to walk stabilily and could support heavy armor to be able to take heavy blows. also a mech could be put on catapilier treads to give it more stability like a tank.

yes i do see your point, but not all mech ar bi-ped. A four legged mech could be able to walk stabilily and could support heavy armor to be able to take heavy blows. also a mech could be put on catapilier treads to give it more stability like a tank.

Wait... so if you put a mecha on tank treads, you would have what, a tank shaped like a torso?

Nope. Mostly for the reason's already stated. Also, isn't there some law of physics that makes it very difficult to move very tall stuff that doesn't have a wider base?

Indeed, we have a subconscious mechanism that lets us "fall" onto our forwar leg when we're walking, we don't have to guide it down. A mecha would have to actually lower it's leg in a controlled manner.

yes i do see your point, but not all mech ar bi-ped. A four legged mech could be able to walk stabilily and could support heavy armor to be able to take heavy blows. also a mech could be put on catapilier treads to give it more stability like a tank.

Well, you give it a wide base, heavy armor, and treads, and you've just reinvented the tank. Congratulations.

yes i do see your point, but not all mech ar bi-ped. A four legged mech could be able to walk stabilily and could support heavy armor to be able to take heavy blows. also a mech could be put on catapilier treads to give it more stability like a tank.

Destroy or disable one leg and it's not even a walking target. Take on tread off a tank and the crew can hop out, defend themselves and, assuming they survive, replace the tread and keep going.

yes i do see your point, but not all mech ar bi-ped. A four legged mech could be able to walk stabilily and could support heavy armor to be able to take heavy blows. also a mech could be put on catapilier treads to give it more stability like a tank.


Nothing can really take heavy blows from advanced munitions these days. Hellfires, Javelins and 120mm APFSDS rounds will defeat even the heaviest armor. I've heard stories of the Abrams taking APFSDS rounds and surviving, but it also weighs around 68 tons IIRC.

well if you still keep the characteristics of a mech on the tank treads, techinaly it would still be a mech if it has arms and other mecha characteristics

Mech's over heat ,tank's don't

Well, even if they aren't better, you can't fault the intimidation factor. :D

yea, current technology couldn't support mecha in warfare, but i can highly see mecha being apart of future warfare

Maybe a four legged one would be useful for mountain warfare if it was good at climbing. It could get up all sorts of terrain that normal tanks and artillery couldn't. But for anything else I couldn't really see any benefits.

Mecha would have to be slow, lumbering things. Look at animals and how they move. A cheetah, for example. It's whole body flexes. It leaps through the air, lands and pushes off again. How do you scale that up to a sixty ton plus machine moving at comparable speed without having it break into pieces with a couple of strides?

yea, current technology couldn't support mecha in warfare, but i can highly see mecha being apart of future warfare

Future warfare where tanks have stronger, lighter armour, stronger weapons, are faster and more maneuverable than tanks today. Yeah, mecha will really kick ass then. :rolleyes:

Mech's over heat ,tank's don't

Actually tanks do overheat. A good way to take out older tanks was a flamethrower at their under side where the air intakes are. It'd shut it down in no time.

I believe mecha would provide more tactical advantages than a regular Main battle tank. A mecha could have higher elevation than a tank and could be destroy a target from a higher view than a groud based tank could be. Well, it would just be totally awsome just to see a mecha on the feild just like from an anime like gundam or Neon Genesis Evangelion. If the military had mecha like that, i would totally join just to pilot one.true, except the lower profile of the tank would make it harder to hit.

also not counting maintenace and training costs...

yea, current technology couldn't support mecha in warfare, but i can highly see mecha being apart of future warfare

It would take tremendous advances in numerous fields including materials, biomechanics and computers before they can even design a serious prototype.

Indeed, we have a subconscious mechanism that lets us "fall" onto our forwar leg when we're walking, we don't have to guide it down. A mecha would have to actually lower it's leg in a controlled manner.

Not quite what I meant. I was reading the Physics of Superheroes the other day, and it was explaining the problem with picking up office buildings. (physical problems, not legal ones) The problem was one of torque, I believe was the term. I'm not a physicist myself, so I don't really know how to explain it.

Therefore, probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Actually tanks do overheat. A good way to take out older tanks was a flamethrower at their under side where the air intakes are. It'd shut it down in no time.

not by firing the main weapon to much

mecha could be a posibility because if technology advances to where biomechanical engeering and create a platform that can support a stable lightweight leg system that can allow a mecha to move fast enough.also a thruster system could be introduced it could give it more speed to be able to avoid shells from tanks.

Wing Zero had a laser sword and a beam cannon. Did you ever see it's ass get kicked by a tank? No. I rest my case.

Wing Zero had a laser sword and a beam cannon. Did you ever see it's ass get kicked by a tank? No. I rest my case.

and they were Nuclear powered. you wanna sit on top of a mini nuke and go into combat?

mecha could be a posibility because if technology advances to where biomechanical engeering and create a platform that can support a stable lightweight leg system that can allow a mecha to move fast enough.also a thruster system could be introduced it could give it more speed to be able to avoid shells from tanks.
And why wouldn't then just put the thrusters on tanks?
Wing Zero had a laser sword and a beam cannon. Did you ever see it's ass get kicked by a tank? No. I rest my case.

It'd get whupped by a tank with a laser sword and a beam cannon.

Wing Zero had a laser sword and a beam cannon. Did you ever see it's ass get kicked by a tank? No. I rest my case.

you are awsome i am a huge gundam fan myself. But i think beam weaponery is a little too futureistic. I can see a mecha using a railgun

and they were Nuclear powered. you wanna sit on top of a mini nuke and go into combat?

F no

mecha could be a posibility because if technology advances to where biomechanical engeering and create a platform that can support a stable lightweight leg system that can allow a mecha to move fast enough.also a thruster system could be introduced it could give it more speed to be able to avoid shells from tanks.
best game system that will illustrate the differences between a tank and a Mech is the old Battletech system.

and they were Nuclear powered. you wanna sit on top of a mini nuke and go into combat?

Navy does it all the time. Though it'd be a bigger concern on land, could have advantages. You're riding a nuclear reactor, who's gonna shoot at you?

With current technology, anime-style mechas are out of the question. The best we can hope for are something much more akin to Skynet Hunter-Killers.

you are awsome i am a huge gundam fan myself. But i think beam weaponery is a little too futureistic. I can see a mecha using a railgun

Rail guns are pretty futuristic themselves, any modern ones are mounted on battleships and aren't all that efficient, IMS.

F no

did you watch Gundam 08th MS team?

the general was sending Gundam units into a booby trapped base... his comment?

"well, if a reaction occures due to damage taken by the traps, the resulting explosion won't be helped, nor would it be our fault."

also a mech might be good for long range fire. "A mech is on a high slope overlooking a base. A support truck is following the mecha and can equip it with a long range sniper rifle.the mecha uses supports on the back which can support the mech while fireing from the ground. it takes aim and fires. after alerting the enemy forces the mecha can be picked up by a support chopper to take it back to base

It'd get whupped by a tank with a laser sword and a beam cannon.

How the hell would a tank use a sword? Giving it arms would turn it into a mecha, technically speaking.

a big problem with mechs is armour. a mech has far more surface area to cover with armour than a tank, and things like joints can't be armoured. Tanks are smaller and have less surface area, so they require less armour. So if you have a tank and a mech at the same levels of protection, the mech will always be heavier, more vulnerable and less mobile, while the tank will be better armed and far lighter, easier to maintain, and more effective in front line combat.

hardsuits are win, though. nothing more intimidating than infantry that's hard as hell to take down.

Navy does it all the time. Though it'd be a bigger concern on land, could have advantages. You're riding a nuclear reactor, who's gonna shoot at you?

who shoots at navy ships now? the enemy!

also only the big ships have nuclear power and their reactors have safeguards... there won't be room for the same safeguards.

also a mech might be good for long range fire. "A mech is on a high slope overlooking a base. A support truck is following the mecha and can equip it with a long range sniper rifle.the mecha uses supports on the back which can support the mech while fireing from the ground. it takes aim and fires. after alerting the enemy forces the mecha can be picked up by a support chopper to take it back to base

that's why they invented artillary. With things like smart rounds, indirect fire becomes more deadly.

a big problem with mechs is armour. a mech has far more surface area to cover with armour than a tank, and things like joints can't be armoured. Tanks are smaller and have less surface area, so they require less armour. So if you have a tank and a mech at the same levels of protection, the mech will always be heavier, more vulnerable and less mobile, while the tank will be better armed and far lighter, easier to maintain, and more effective in front line combat.

hardsuits are win, though. nothing more intimidating than infantry that's hard as hell to take down.

hard suits or armed suit, as i call them, would be good since they are smaller and are well armored. they can fight on the same level as infantry and could prove valuble

also a mech might be good for long range fire. "A mech is on a high slope overlooking a base. A support truck is following the mecha and can equip it with a long range sniper rifle.the mecha uses supports on the back which can support the mech while fireing from the ground. it takes aim and fires. after alerting the enemy forces the mecha can be picked up by a support chopper to take it back to base

how big of a mech are you talking? if it's large enough to need a support truck to equipt it with a sniper rifle, it's big enough to be spotted by patrol planes, and much to large to be moved by chopper.

did you watch Gundam 08th MS team?

the general was sending Gundam units into a booby trapped base... his comment?

"well, if a reaction occures due to damage taken by the traps, the resulting explosion won't be helped, nor would it be our fault."

no use to watch Battletech and have played both mechassaults on xbox

also a mech might be good for long range fire. "A mech is on a high slope overlooking a base. A support truck is following the mecha and can equip it with a long range sniper rifle.the mecha uses supports on the back which can support the mech while fireing from the ground. it takes aim and fires. after alerting the enemy forces the mecha can be picked up by a support chopper to take it back to base
A mech on a high slope overlooking a base would be painfully obvious. It would be a target before it ever reached the top of the slope, unless the people in the base are blind and retarded.
How the hell would a tank use a sword? Giving it arms would turn it into a mecha, technically speaking.

This is true. Feck the sword then, a tank with comprable technology would still win.

a big problem with mechs is armour. a mech has far more surface area to cover with armour than a tank, and things like joints can't be armoured. Tanks are smaller and have less surface area, so they require less armour. So if you have a tank and a mech at the same levels of protection, the mech will always be heavier, more vulnerable and less mobile, while the tank will be better armed and far lighter, easier to maintain, and more effective in front line combat.

hardsuits are win, though. nothing more intimidating than infantry that's hard as hell to take down.

I agree with this guy. Personally, the only practical purpose I can see a mech ever being used for is as an IFV type platform. And since we already have such vehicles that do that and more quite efficiently, a mech would almost be a downgrade. And lastly, what you see in anime and giant robot shows/games etc. does NOT necessarily follow the laws of physics.

And also, powered infantry armor would be a much better idea than a mech. Since infantry are essentially multi-purpose, you can go ahead and armor one for more or less the same result as a mech, but much smaller, cheaper, and you don't have to worry about complex computer sub-routines to simply walk around. I mean, sure you'd have to have feedback systems, since I don't know if a person would be able to lift their leg naturally in a powered suit, but that can't be as difficult to make as programming the routines for simply walking and balancing a huge 30+foot mech.

a powered suit is classified as under 15 feet and a mecha is above 20 to 50 feet. i would think aroud 20-25ft would be suitable for a mecha

a powered suit is classified as under 15 feet and a mecha is above 20 to 50 feet. i would think aroud 20-25ft would be suitable for a mecha

For all the difference it would make you might as well fit a giant neon sign saying "Shoot Here" to the top of it.

I'd think you'd have problems with anything needing complete computer control over limbs. Powered suits shouldn't be much larger than the user in them, using the natural limb movenments of the operator to tell the limbs when to start and stop moving, and how much additional force to provide.

For all the difference it would make you might as well fit a giant neon sign saying "Shoot Here" to the top of it.

And something 20+feet tall on the battlefield would be absolutely ridiculous anyway, since it's a painfully easy target. And as for a powered suit, 15 feet seems somewhat big... I mean, ok, if it's armored against most small arms fire then sure, but if its a thin skinned tin can, then why make it that tall? I think most powered armor would be just fine standing at 7-8 feet. Sure it can't go inside normal buildings, but then again, that's not it's primary mission is it? That's why there would be regular infantry supporting a powered armor, and not having it be the primary composition of a squad.

I don't think that mecha could compete directly with tanks in any forseable future. They do have important mobility advantages, so we might see small, nimble mecha/battle armor for use in rough terrains that tanks cannot get through effectively.

I don't think that mecha could compete directly with tanks in any forseable future. They do have important mobility advantages, so we might see small, nimble mecha/battle armor for use in rough terrains that tanks cannot get through effectively.

They might have their uses in jungle terrain that for some reason you couldn't just napalm.

[QUOTE=Ifreann;12146205]A mech on a high slope overlooking a base would be painfully obvious. It would be a target before it ever reached the top of the slope, unless the people in the base are blind and retarded.


the mecha would be a small about 25feet mech. The enemy force could be that of a geurrilia force that is not weel equiped. a mecha would also prove good in a city based conflict, not open feild, it would be a sitting target i guess, but could be used depending on the force and strength of the enemy force

I'd think you'd have problems with anything needing complete computer control over limbs. Powered suits shouldn't be much larger than the user in them, using the natural limb movenments of the operator to tell the limbs when to start and stop moving, and how much additional force to provide.

a power armors limbs could be arm/slave. a controller could use a system that can connect his arm to the mechs

Ideally, the hardsuit op would be the heavy weapons op of a squad - manning light AT & AA equipment. Or they could be used for hazardous enviroments requiring infantry operation, like a city that was hit with a bio or radiological attack or something.

[QUOTE=Ifreann;12146205]A mech on a high slope overlooking a base would be painfully obvious. It would be a target before it ever reached the top of the slope, unless the people in the base are blind and retarded.


the mecha would be a small about 25feet mech. The enemy force could be that of a geurrilia force that is not weel equiped. a mecha would also prove good in a city based conflict, not open feild, it would be a sitting target i guess, but could be used depending on the force and strength of the enemy force

In a city it would be nearly the size of a 3 story building. Still making it a painfully obvious target. And even a poorly equipped geurilla force would probably notice something 25 feet high on a hill top. And unless the sun is a bit off center from its back, they would probably notice the un-terrain like shape of a head and weapon.

Destroy or disable one leg and it's not even a walking target. Take on tread off a tank and the crew can hop out, defend themselves and, assuming they survive, replace the tread and keep going.

I doubt a tank crew could fight off an enemy tank, especially seeing as how they're armed with pistols or at the most sub-machine guns, I also don't think they could repair a broken tread, they would need to call an engineer unit for help. However it is a lot easier to protect treads, some steel plating, or preferably just not show the enemy tank your side. Mech's legs would be an easy target not to mention 2 legged mechs would be horribly unstable.

Ideally, the hardsuit op would be the heavy weapons op of a squad - manning light AT & AA equipment. Or they could be used for hazardous enviroments requiring infantry operation, like a city that was hit with a bio or radiological attack or something.

Sorry for double post, but this right here is what I meant by house-to-house fighting not being their primary mission.

Indeed, we have a subconscious mechanism that lets us "fall" onto our forwar leg when we're walking, we don't have to guide it down. A mecha would have to actually lower it's leg in a controlled manner.

There's been robots developed that can do that.

There's been robots developed that can do that.

The most you could protect limbs allowing fluid movements like walking would be against small arms fire - thus, beyond the size of infantry, it becomes impractical to have larger & larger semiautomated units.

the mecha would be a small about 25feet mech. The enemy force could be that of a geurrilia force that is not weel equiped. a mecha would also prove good in a city based conflict, not open feild, it would be a sitting target i guess, but could be used depending on the force and strength of the enemy force
25ft is not small. An average person standing on top of a slope or hill would be obvious, and they're around 5'8''-6'2''
a power armors limbs could be arm/slave. a controller could use a system that can connect his arm to the mechs
Requiring complicated technology, and back ups, and a computer system to interpret arm movements.

in the Mech Warrior game a tank can take out a Mech

I doubt a tank crew could fight off an enemy tank, especially seeing as how they're armed with pistols or at the most sub-machine guns, I also don't think they could repair a broken tread, they would need to call an engineer unit for help. However it is a lot easier to protect treads, some steel plating, or preferably just not show the enemy tank your side. Mech's legs would be an easy target not to mention 2 legged mechs would be horribly unstable.
True, the assumption that the tank crew doesn't get killed is a pretty big one. The point still stands, a tank with a broken tread is considerably more salvagable and useful than a mech with a broken leg.
There's been robots developed that can do that.

Most bipedal robots are just that and nothing much more, a far cry from bipedal arms platforms.

Ok, I know earlier I said that the things you see in anime and shows/games/movies with giant robots don't necessarily follow any laws of physics, has anyone here played Act of War? Remember the S.H.I.E.L.D. units? If you haven't it's essentially a powered armor standing at about 8-9 feet (not sure, I haven't seen any real numbers but standing next to the infantry it looks that way, and I can't remember if they said so or not in the book), probably weighs a ton or two, and carries to seperate weapons systems, a 5.56mm chaingun, and a Javelin missile launcher. Now, ammunition use aside in game, this is probably the closest thing to a realizable armored suit that we can get. Sure it's an obvious target, but unless you're shooting at it with an anti-armor weapon, it's pretty freakin hard to kill. And no it isn't technically a mech, due to the fact that it's under 15 feet, and is pretty much form-fitted to the person, using feedback technology to control movement. If you read the book too, you'll get a better idea of what I mean.

Ideally, the hardsuit op would be the heavy weapons op of a squad - manning light AT & AA equipment. Or they could be used for hazardous enviroments requiring infantry operation, like a city that was hit with a bio or radiological attack or something.

Point 1.

If you're going to use an Anti-Tank weapon, it might as well be the LAW, easily carried by a regular Soldier. An Anti-Aircraft weapon might as well be vehicle mounted, as it could carry much more ammunition for the Anti-Aircraft gun.

Point 2. This is something that bothers me. If an Enemy is going to deploy Biological or Chemical warfare, it's highly doubtful that they will deploy their own forces, or at least, any forces not protected in a vehicle of some sort or other. And in any case, that's what MOPP suits are for.

Point 3. If it's a Radiological area, it won't matter. Alpha and Beta Radiation is relatively easy to deflect. It's Gamma that you have to worry about...and a Powered Armor suit may decrease exposure to Radiation, but not as much as a Tank.

1. yeah, I wouldn't either. Personally I'd mount a 25mm air burst gun on it ala OICW - awkward problems solved. With the additional strength of an aided suit, you could mount a lot more weaponary on a soldier without hindering his performance.

2. Doesn't have to be the enemy deploying chemical weaponary. Nothing like gassing an area and sending in invulnerable troops to sweep out the hardened targets.

3. See 2.

a bit far fetched, but I'm just sayin'.

True, the assumption that the tank crew doesn't get killed is a pretty big one. The point still stands, a tank with a broken tread is considerably more salvagable and useful than a mech with a broken leg.


Indeed, and mech legs would be much easier to destroy/disable than a tank's treads. Nice, easily severed hydraulic lines, easily-punctured pistons, hell a sniper with one of those .50 caliber Armor-piercing rifles could render a mech immobile, then call in an air/artillery strike.

Destroy or disable one leg and it's not even a walking target. Take on tread off a tank and the crew can hop out, defend themselves and, assuming they survive, replace the tread and keep going. Or if it's just the chains of the treads they hobble along on the wheeled parts. Shooting sparks dramaticly everywhere.

Shoot the leg of a mech and it falls on the ground, likely incapable of transversing it's hips and thus targeting and using it's weapons. In essence, it's mission killed, and just waiting for something worse.

Shoot the treads of a tank off, and it's still a viable weapons platform, capable of targeting and engaging enemies; albeit still a sitting duck.

Shoot the treads of a tank off, and it's still a viable weapons platform, capable of targeting and engaging enemies; albeit still a sitting duck.
Though in an honest battle, a stationary tank is usually a dead tank. That's one reason why you have armoured infantry protecting tank forces.

As for the idea...yeah, not too flash. You wanna keep this sort of stuff simple. A tank is two transmissions (is it?) and two treads. Some sort of robot with legs is about a billion little motors.

More complexity just means more stuff to break. Just ask the crews of this thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_tank).

[QUOTE=The Candrian Empire;12146435]1. yeah, I wouldn't either. Personally I'd mount a 25mm air burst gun on it ala OICW - awkward problems solved. With the additional strength of an aided suit, you could mount a lot more weaponary on a soldier without hindering his performance.

2. Doesn't have to be the enemy deploying chemical weaponary. Nothing like gassing an area and sending in invulnerable troops to sweep out the hardened targets.

3. See 2.

QUOTE]

I get you, I just like to debate, haha.

However, adding more weaponry to the powered armor in itself would hinder the Soldier. It would decrease an Individual Soldier's ability to move easily in a closed enviornment. No matter how much assistance the suit provides the Soldier. If you put one in a building, it would be sorely out of its element, where lighter, regular soldiers could easily counter it.

If you don't put the suited-soldier in the building, that's deffinately hindering the Soldier's Mission Capabilities. More weapons equal more head aches for the soldier, for then he must be trained in the operation of each weapon, as well as PMCS of the suit itself. The load on logistics would be worsened, IFVs and Personnel Carriers would be much less efective as far as carrying the soldiers. If they waited to get into combat to field their suits, their combat readiness would be lacking.

It would have to be extremely articulate, making it vulnerable at the joints, much the same as a full-sized Mech.

And, as far as deploying Chemical/Biological agents into a battlefield, and using the suits to take out hardened areas...that seems like a quick, effecient thing, doesn't it?

But it's not. It would only impede your efforts. Might as well use cruise missiles, JDAMS, etc, to take out hardened defenses.

Biological warfare is a stand-off approach. As you'd have to be particularly careful not to get your own soldiers infected. Even if they were immunized, they could still carry the agent back to your Nation, infecting your Civilian population.

Chemical warfare, you still wouldn't want to send your Suited Soldiers into such an environ. Because of the fact that the enemy will alraedy be demoralized. If you use a non-persistant agent, you could move in relatively quickly, within a matter of hours or days of deployment.

Persistant? Not so much. And I think that's what you're talking about. Soemthing like VX, or Mustard gas...in which case, they will have to invest time in a Decontamination site.

Ever see one of those?

They're vulnerable as all hell. It's a car wash. Vehicles in one line, Soldiers a hundred or so meters away, all being decontaiminated in a very delicate procedure. There's only one Soldier inside each vehicle (the driver), so their combat effectiveness is zero. Everyone will be in MOPP 4. Very inhibiting.

So, instead of risking your soldiers, and having to do the EXACT same thing they're doing (Setting up a Decon. Line for your Soldiers and Suits), attack them while they're in their Decon. Line. Nothing like artillary.

As far as Radiological environs...anyone whom is outside the blast area, and in the immediate or subsequent fall out area, is going to be trying to get the hell out of there. EMP would also play a roll, however, EMP burst accounts for only %1 of the total energy output of a Nuclear Blast.

So, even in an NBC environment, powered suits would offer no clear advantage. Not even in a defensive situation. No one's going to send their soldiers into an area contimated by an agent that requires more than a simple Protective Mask.

you are awsome i am a huge gundam fan myself. But i think beam weaponery is a little too futureistic. I can see a mecha using a railgun

How about a Boom Gun? :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glitterboy.JPG

true, except the lower profile of the tank would make it harder to hit.

also not counting maintenace and training costs...

Don't forget that the issue of visibility is eliminated by allowing tank crews to receive live video feeds from overhead airborne reconnaisance elements.

Don't forget that the issue of visibility is eliminated by allowing tank crews to receive live video feeds from overhead airborne reconnaisance elements.

what visibility issue?

a 25 ft tall humanoid figure is rather hard not to miss. ;)

I mean, how are they going to camo it... have branches sticking out of it and make it look like a tree?

Here are a bunch of pictures I have from the Ghost in the Shell universe, would any of these work?

Armed Suits
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4094/3nv1.png
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5140/4vk4.png

Two different kinds of tank

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/5338/tanksscaleao9.png
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/627/tankshillql4.png
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6036/tankslowrd1.png

and the Tachikoma mini-tank

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/5651/tachikomasizeqk9.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikoma)

They might have their uses in jungle terrain that for some reason you couldn't just napalm.

Problems:
Most jungle terrain has soft ground that won't adequately support the high pressure of a mecha foot.
Jungle terrain is very close, providing lots of obsticals to, and slowing down, a mecha, as well as providing lots of good cover for infantry to ambush it.

a mecha would also prove good in a city based conflict, not open feild, it would be a sitting target i guess, but could be used depending on the force and strength of the enemy force

Basically, urban terrain has the same problems as jungle. In addition, there's lots of underground infrastructure like sewers, subways, etc., that serve as nifty little pitfalls for mecha.

Mech's legs would be an easy target not to mention 2 legged mechs would be horribly unstable.

That stability factor's a big one. Even if a kinetic AP projectile doesn't penitrate, it's like as not to knock a bipedal mecha ass over teakettle with a hit above the center of gravity (center torso - conveniently that's usually the largest surface area on most mecha, and thus easiest to hit). HESH warheads might even be more effective than a simple KE round...

As for the idea...yeah, not too flash. You wanna keep this sort of stuff simple. A tank is two transmissions (is it?) and two treads. Some sort of robot with legs is about a billion little motors.

More complexity just means more stuff to break. Just ask the crews of this thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_tank).

Bingo. And those joints and motors should be lovely vulnerable to various non-traditional weapons - embrittling agents, superfine abrasive dusts, superacids, and superadhesives, for example. Also, all that machinery requires lots of computing and electrical power. HERF or EMP weapons come to mind.

and the Tachikoma mini-tank
I'd want one, but not for fighting. I love the little guys!

something like Metal Gear Ray would be sweet. A walking, almost living tank that can shoot nukes from anywhere in the world.

something like Metal Gear Ray would be sweet. A walking, almost living tank that can shoot nukes from anywhere in the world.

One man(well, Raiden) with a stinger missle launcher can rape dozens of Rays. What a waste of money they'd be.

Wouldnt even need a direct hit to knock it out, a powerful explosion in the vicinity would be enough to knock it over.

Trip wires, bolos, &c would also be effective.

One man(well, Raiden) with a stinger missle launcher can rape dozens of Rays. What a waste of money they'd be.

was that not Metal gear solid

Trip wires, bolos, &c would also be effective.
True. The Ewok threat can't be underestimated! :D

was that not Metal gear solid

Yes, yes it was.

Yes, yes it was.

the second game was weird how it end

something like Metal Gear Ray would be sweet. A walking, almost living tank that can shoot nukes from anywhere in the world.

bah, give me a Persocom.

you know, i think Ring of Red is probably the place to look for potentially viable mechs... well, walkers, anyway.

most of them were based on ww2-1960s tanks, but with legs instead of tracks. the legs themselves were as simple as possible, and balance seemed to rely mostly on the pilot having an awareness of his own position relative to the ground, rather than any sensors. in all cases, the feet were large. the lightest one had what appeared to be an HMG and the pilot had to fight the thing every time it fired to avoid tipping over. it also had the [Necessary, for this kind of thing! though much harder to Armour] reverse knee joints. when it 'crouched' it's leg armor actually covered most of the body as well.

the leg armoring principals used where essentially the same as those used when armoring a human with plate-mail, as the joints were vulnerable in the same ways.

the larger two legged ones "medium" weight AFWs [armored fighting walkers] and to essentially kneel to fire their guns. staying standing up right would have tipped the whole thing over.

the four legged 'heavy' models, which really should have had six legs, put less emphasis on armoring joints, and more on front/top armor and an ability to carry heavier weapons. again, they had to stop and unfold counter weights and things before firing.

there were also "anti" AFWs, who's primary focuses were on armor and mobility, and that mostly had their ranged weapons cut back in exchange for massive hydrolic rams or heavy flails. specifically designed ti crush knee joints or pilot positions, actually.


essentially, one has to evolve doctrine for using such things before they become viable.

in this case, every single AFW has three infantry squads in support, and while in open warfare they lose to tanks, in bad terrain, due to their having legs and having wide enough feet to support their weight, they were superior.

actually, the fact that tanks still win when they're even usable is mentioned several times, as is the hight issue. the "heavy" AFWs are low slung, at most a meter higher than an equivalent tank, the 'light' not much taller...

the medium and anti models, however, are often ridiculously tall. in the case of the Anti-Afw it makes sense. a hight advantage allows it to more easily hit exposed joints and the like.

the the medium ones.. i just don't know.

ultimately, I'd see the light and heavy models described as viable in an infantry support role. the light being essentially a scout unit [when it crouches and folds up it appears to be almost as small, if not smaller than, a modern main battle tank] and the heavy being self propelled artillery. neither would truly replace tanks except in terrain which was unsuitable for them.

the general tendency in the game is to advance down valleys and roads, and usually to operate in areas where actual AFVs were not going to be an issue.

technically, i guess, AFWs are tanks, though odd ones, not mechs.

as far as mechs go... they are very much designed to be "king of the battle field ultimate warrior" type machines, not machines of war. leaving aside their impracticality, the idea is that you use them as shock troops. mechs Don't sneak, they can't.

in fact, now that i think about it...

walkers, honestly, need to be used as part of infantry units, not armored units.

i had a point when i started. i forget what it was. i have a different one now:

mechs = bad.
walkers = good with appropriate doctrine and design.

did anyone ever consider the possibility of non-powered, modern materials, plate-and-chain equivalent armor for infantry?

it has some interesting possibilities, though visibility becomes an issue if you attempt to properly protect the neck.

I think a four legged mecha would have many advantages. Not the least of which would be near unlimited maneuverability over nearly all types of terrain.

Here are a bunch of pictures I have from the Ghost in the Shell universe, would any of these work?

Armed Suits
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4094/3nv1.png
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5140/4vk4.png


I could see something like that, maybe. Those are a lot better then the stuff from gundam, a walking 50 foot tower is not exactly conspicuous you know. All we would have to do is hit the things in the face with a tomahawk missile and blow the pilot to kibble, Gundams would be so horribly expensive and complicated to make, and could be destroyed so easily by things much cheaper than they are.

Getting back to the suits in Ghost in the Shell, I could see those things be used by special forces or Counter-terrorist groups. I think the US is already screwing around with a mechanical exoskeleton that allows humans to carry massive loads....I'll try and find a link.

Update: BLEEX: http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solidworks/select/120904_%20exoskeleton.htm

I think a four legged mecha would have many advantages. Not the least of which would be near unlimited maneuverability over nearly all types of terrain.

You can get that with a helicopter.

the only (and I mean only) way you're going to see walking machines on a battlefield is a low-lying, four or six legged (six legs allows one or two to get scrapped without disabling the whole machine) tanklike machine with legs that telescope (to allow it to climb over obstacles that tanks can't)

You can get that with a helicopter.

SAMs take care of that

SAMs take care of that

But SAM systems are heavy, expensive, and, unless it's one of the newer American or Israeli systems, easily countered.

Tanks can move faster, present less of a target, can carry heavier weapons, are simpler and easier to maintain, etc...

The only advantage of the walker is the ability to cover rougher terrain but a helicopter or some kind of hover jet could just carry a tank over any terrain too rough for it.

Mecha suits are like the powered armor of HL and could prove very useful for infantry but not for anything else. Maybe space marines would use powered armor.

On a somewhat related note, when did mechs become mecha? When I was growing up the term I knew was mech from Battletech. I don't think I'd ever seen mecha before seeing this thread.

The human race is one of the most agile creatures on this Earth. The reason being is because of its two legs. It can quickly maneouvre and change direction to avoid any danger. Therfore, the lighter people are, the more agile they are (usually) because of the smaller amount of weight they have to redirect. These principles cannot be applied to a mecha.

By putting legs on a tank, you are not making it more durable. You are making it more vulnerable. Legs, in theory, should make it more agile, much like humans, but when it weighs over 60 tons, agility is negligible.

Tanks are much like rhinos, they are heavily armoured and are low to the ground, but they arent very agile, and they may be fast but changing direction quickly is impossible due to their bulk. Now imagine a rhino with two legs, making it twice or three times as tall.

Hilarity ensures.

changing direction quickly is impossible due to their bulk

That's not at all true. I used to be a driver on an M3A2 Bradley and it could turn almost on a dime, although it would really tear the ground up. And if you put it into pivot steer you could just spin in place, which was rather fun. In pivot steer one track goes forward and the other back, depending on which way you want to spin. Of course the Bradley isn't a tank, it's an IFV, but I know the M1 can do pretty much the same thing.

Hmm the Gasaraki mechs and the battle armour suits they use in red eyes manga look to me to be the closest to a realistic solution and I could almost see them as workable. I especially like the battle armour suits in red eyes.

link for a pic of suit in red eyes (http://www.stanza101.com/oldstanza/images/redeyes1.jpg)

Hmm the Gasaraki mechs and the battle armour suits they use in red eyes manga look to me to be the closest to a realistic solution and I could almost see them as workable. I especially like the battle armour suits in red eyes.

link for a pic of suit in red eyes (http://www.stanza101.com/oldstanza/images/redeyes1.jpg)

This is the most realistic thing I can think of, and even then I highly doubt its usefulness. Something like this would be used much like an M1025/6 HMMWV in a scout platoon, conducting reconaissance. It'd have a bit of firepower to defend itself, but wouldn't really be suitable for a stand up fight. Still, I really don't think it'd have any advantage over a HMMWV or similar vehicle in this role, but it's the only role I can think of where a walker of any sort might be useful.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/newimage.asp?Size=A&Img=210724

Hehe Imperial Guard walker they could be a bitch if you were short on heavy weapons, unless you got lucky enough to kill the pilot. Not as scary as a Leman Russ tank though, I almost have nightmares about trying to burst through the armour on one of those.

Hehe Imperial Guard walker they could be a bitch if you were short on heavy weapons, unless you got lucky enough to kill the pilot. Not as scary as a Leman Russ tank though, I almost have nightmares about trying to burst through the armour on one of those.

Nah, you don't need heavy weapons to tear up a Sentinel. Bolters work just fine. I always feel bad for my Sentinel pilots when I play against Tau because their pulse rifles tear Sentinels up. But then I remember that they're just Guardsmen, and there's plenty more where they came from.

As I said, it'd probably have many of the same capabilities as a HMMWV. Scout HMMWVs (M1025/6) are just about as heavily armored as my Miata.

Hehe Imperial Guard walker they could be a bitch if you were short on heavy weapons, unless you got lucky enough to kill the pilot. Not as scary as a Leman Russ tank though, I almost have nightmares about trying to burst through the armour on one of those.

no try a Baneblade tank

I like tanks better because they have better motion animation in Total Annihilation. K-bots look more like they're sorta flying weirdly.

most of the things that make walkers worse than tanks... apply more so to helicopters..

lack of armor? check
highly vulnerable critical points? check
not exactly easy to hide? check

and so on. then there's the whole SAM thing. so... a walker would have many of the same vulnerabilities as tanks and choppers, though to a lesser extent in both cases [balanced by the fact that it has more different ones]

it also has many of the strengths of both... but again to a lesser extent. [and again balanced by the greater number of different ones]

note that the above refers to walkers designed as combat vehicles, not mechs. mechs, [or mecha for that matter. probibly especially mecha], as a rule, just ain't gonna cut it on a battle field.

*ponders* while mechs are questionable, multi-legged tank-comparable walkers could well have a place in the mid-point between tanks and choppers.

they're really a mid weight unit on that scale, and as i think i said before, should really be treated as large, heavy infantry, or as more 'agile' self propel ed artillery

so... in situations where a suitable AFV is not capable of getting there, but a chopper is too vulnerable/obvious [or other such dilemmas] send in the AFW.

this is my thinking, anyway.

on the warhammer 40k note: bainblades and basilisks are awesome :)

mount the gun from the basilisk tank on a 4 legged chassis and you've basically got a "heavy" afw as found in Ring of Red.

my brother was going on about how great space marines are.. so we got out dawn of war and...

he got mowed by basilisks. though his inability to kill the bainblade or leiman russ tanks were what stopped him ripping through, dismantling the artillery, and wiping me out. still :)

I'm probibly starting to repeat myself now... but walkers are probably best suited to scouting and heavy artillery roles, not as replacements for tanks.

most of the things that make walkers worse than tanks... apply more so to helicopters..

lack of armor? check
highly vulnerable critical points? check
not exactly easy to hide? check

Silly. Helicopters are incredibly mobile. More so than walking robots. What do the walking robots have that, like helicopter's mobility, balances it out? Anthropomorphism!?

I'm going with armor to compensate for lack of mobility..

and heavier weapons

and the ability to carry more ammunition...

and not crashing spectacularly when their propulsions systems are disabled [yes, they'll fall over. no, they won't spin randomly and plow into the ground at speed]

lack of vulnerability to SAM missiles is also a plus.

and so on.

a walker could not take the role of a helicopter or tank as well as a helicopter or tank would...

i could have said it the other way "every way a walker is worse than a helicopter, a tank is also worse than a helicopter in the same way"

it'd still be true, i think.

bizarrely, I'm arguing For a "mid weight" unit here....

normally i have the ultra heavy stuff and the super light stuff and nothing in between *laughs*

personally, I've Never liked helicopters, and am somewhat apathetic about tanks in most situations. infantry, towed [or possibly self propelled in some cases] artillery, maybe half-tracks/modern APCs... defiantly more my style.

i suppose that combination is part of why a viable walker would appeal to me.

I'm going with armor to compensate for lack of mobility..


So, it has the advantage of a tank, only not as much.


and heavier weapons

and the ability to carry more ammunition...


Why would this be so?


and not crashing spectacularly when their propulsions systems are disabled [yes, they'll fall over. no, they won't spin randomly and plow into the ground at speed]

Out of commission is out of commission.


lack of vulnerability to SAM missiles is also a plus.


Instead, vulnerability to ATGM missiles. And more so, than a tank. With less durability than a tank. Doesn't sound very good.


bizarrely, I'm arguing For a "mid weight" unit here....

normally i have the ultra heavy stuff and the super light stuff and nothing in between *laughs*

personally, I've Never liked helicopters, and am somewhat apathetic about tanks in most situations. infantry, towed [or possibly self propelled in some cases] artillery, maybe half-tracks/modern APCs... defiantly more my style.

i suppose that combination is part of why a viable walker would appeal to me.

So it sounds like an aesthetic choice for you, since of course there are mid-weight tanks and armored vehicles that don't have silly legs and feet. Same with helicopters too.

Hm... ok, so what I've seen from here, the ideal mech would be for a place where there's ton's of AA, and crappy terrain for a tank. That would make it in between. But in that case, something like a guy in a buggy would work almost equally as well. So pretty much what we've established is a mech is something that takes all the bad qualities of everything and lessens them. Or, what one mech could do, several different units could do equally well if not better. Just my opinion. I don't have any real military experience or any of that stuff so I can't quote any numbers or give any proof in any case, but that's what makes sense to me.

actually, i don't like choppers because they're insanely vulnerable on so many levels, not to mention expensive...

and i don't like tanks because for their expense, their actually use is highly limited.

there in probably lies the Actual advantage to an AFW: multi-purpose vehicle.

i get the feeling you didn't actually read through, or at least think about, a lot of my points.

i SAID it had the advantages and disadvantages of both helicopter and tank, only less so in both cases. it's more armory than a helicopter, and can handle worse terrain than a tank, for example.

interestingly, to be worth using, an AFW would need at least 4 legs, making the chassis slower to turn on the spot than a tank. it's advantage in that regard is the ability to step over things and handles steeper slopes, etc.

actually, i don't like choppers because they're insanely vulnerable on so many levels, not to mention expensive...

and i don't like tanks because for their expense, their actually use is highly limited.

there in probably lies the Actual advantage to an AFW: multi-purpose vehicle.


Not at all. Walking vehicles would be far more complex and hence expensive than either tanks or helicopters. And I still don't see where they could have a use that would offset this. They would be vulnerable to tanks and anti-tank weaponry, except moreso; they would be vulnerable to helicopters, except moreso.

i get the feeling you didn't actually read through, or at least think about, a lot of my points.

i SAID it had the advantages and disadvantages of both helicopter and tank, only less so in both cases. it's more armory than a helicopter, and can handle worse terrain than a tank, for example.

I know that's what you said. I just disagree. It would have the disadvantages of both and I question the advantages.

Hm... ok, so what I've seen from here, the ideal mech would be for a place where there's ton's of AA, and crappy terrain for a tank. That would make it in between. But in that case, something like a guy in a buggy would work almost equally as well. So pretty much what we've established is a mech is something that takes all the bad qualities of everything and lessens them. Or, what one mech could do, several different units could do equally well if not better. Just my opinion. I don't have any real military experience or any of that stuff so I can't quote any numbers or give any proof in any case, but that's what makes sense to me.

and, essentially, you're right. like i said: treat them as part of an infantry unit and they're actually useful. otherwise, nope *shrugs*

What size of mecha are we talking about here? Starship Troopers size, Armored Core size, or Gundam size?

What size of mecha are we talking about here? Starship Troopers size, Armored Core size, or Gundam size?

Armored core and gundam size (pretty much anything taller than 20 feet). Starship troopers were more powered armor, so they aren't really included in this here...

so far as i can tell, everything from powered infantry armor through to mecha too tall to really deploy on a planet seems to have come up at least once.

Ah. I would imagine that they would be quite useless. Slow+huge=Death on the battlefield.

so far as i can tell, everything from powered infantry armor through to mecha too tall to really deploy on a planet seems to have come up at least once.

Powered armor is something else entirely. I know that discussion already took place, but in general I think it would be more practical to use than a mech like we're talking here.

But SAM systems are heavy, expensive, and, unless it's one of the newer American or Israeli systems, easily countered.

I thought SAM was just an abbreviation for Surface to Air Missile.

wouldn't a handheld rocket launcher fall into that category?

against a helicopter, i would think so.

against a jet? then you're probably getting towards the big expensive models.

for choppers though, i think the weapons used to take them out are about as complicated, expensive, and sophisticated as those used to take out tanks.

that is, not very. at least if i remember rightly.

there in lies my argument against the use of either. heh.

edit: and because i forgot to mention it: SAM is an abbreviation of surface to air missile. a SAM System on the other hand, includes the missile, any relevant tracking and transport equipment, etc etc. that could run to quite a lot for larger models, i suspect.

against a helicopter, i would think so.

against a jet? then you're probably getting towards the big expensive models.

for choppers though, i think the weapons used to take them out are about as complicated, expensive, and sophisticated as those used to take out tanks.

that is, not very. at least if i remember rightly.

there in lies my argument against the use of either. heh.

edit: and because i forgot to mention it: SAM is an abbreviation of surface to air missile. a SAM System on the other hand, includes the missile, any relevant tracking and transport equipment, etc etc. that could run to quite a lot for larger models, i suspect.

You're right about the prices. The newer anti-armor and anti-air missiles (the man-portable ones at least) are quite cheap and efficient for what they do. Generally it's the launcher units that are expensive when it comes to the kinds like the Javelin and Stinger, but the missiles themselves arent all that expensive, and if you look at the value of what you just killed with it, it's easily worth it. And yes, your definition of SAM is correct. I think the main misconception with SAM's is that in many games they are simply refered to as a SAM Site, with no real input beyond that simple title.

I doubt a tank crew could fight off an enemy tank, especially seeing as how they're armed with pistols or at the most sub-machine guns, I also don't think they could repair a broken tread, they would need to call an engineer unit for help. However it is a lot easier to protect treads, some steel plating, or preferably just not show the enemy tank your side. Mech's legs would be an easy target not to mention 2 legged mechs would be horribly unstable.

Actually, in most modern tanks, the turret is completely independant, motion-wise, from the hull. Sure they can fight off an enemy tank, just shoot it. Also, replacing busted tread-links or "cracking track" is part of the tanker's daily routine.

Not to mention that a modern "Silver bullet" kinetic round from the much-loved Rheinmetall 120 is just going to stop a tank dead. "Knock it out", leaving the surviving crew to flee and an ARV to rescue it, hopefully. Same for the better class of infantry anti-tankn equipment. Grenades and machine guns are the kind of thing taht you'll have to aim when targetting a tank, and with hand-operable MGs of its own, an immobilised tank should be able to drive them back. Indeed, this is a key reason to provide them with MGs.

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/lt-at-at-g.jpg
End of story.

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/lt-at-at-g.jpg
End of story.

It's strange, in stills you really notice the matte painting.

I know, I noticed that too. I like it.

The place for mecha and powered armor is in space. A trooper in space or in a hostile alien environment already has to wear a space suit. It is one step up to put an armored shell on it, maneuver thrusters, and a military comm system.

If it's bigger than about 12ft high, then it's going to fail horribly in battlefield circumstances if it has to trundle about.

It could have massive guns, but people would still just fire artillery at it, and ruin its legs. If you armoured up the legs to sort this out, then it become slow and a complete liability on the battlefield.

Not a good idea.

The entire thread is a moot point because the OP is an overly-idealistic anime/manga fan, and doesn't think in real terms.

To him, any color in the world is a natural hair color. And when men become aroused they get nosebleeds.

I believe mecha would provide more tactical advantages than a regular Main battle tank. A mecha could have higher elevation than a tank and could be destroy a target from a higher view than a groud based tank could be. Well, it would just be totally awsome just to see a mecha on the feild just like from an anime like gundam or Neon Genesis Evangelion. If the military had mecha like that, i would totally join just to pilot one.


I think this died an ugly death before...However...

The entire thread is a moot point because the OP is an overly-idealistic anime/manga fan, and doesn't think in real terms.

To him, any color in the world is a natural hair color. And when men become aroused they get nosebleeds.

I contain several thousand litres of blood, under extremely high pressure.

The entire thread is a moot point because the OP is an overly-idealistic anime/manga fan, and doesn't think in real terms.

To him, any color in the world is a natural hair color. And when men become aroused they get nosebleeds.

And can swing about the place by prehensile penis, when their demon nature manifests. Which would be more useful than a "mecha", though its hard to tell how the women would view it.....

And can swing about the place by prehensile penis, when their demon nature manifests. Which would be more useful than a "mecha", though its hard to tell how the women would view it.....

Indeed, the military functions are legion. Of course, if my interpretation of "demon nature" is correct, you'd need to flash porn across the helmet visor at regular intervals to keep it active.

Indeed, the military functions are legion. Of course, if my interpretation of "demon nature" is correct, you'd need to flash porn across the helmet visor at regular intervals to keep it active.

Wouldn't that be detrimental to its combat effectiveness?

Indeed, the military functions are legion. Of course, if my interpretation of "demon nature" is correct, you'd need to flash porn across the helmet visor at regular intervals to keep it active.

Well, they looked like normal people (anime normal) and then turned into "demons". It was "Legend of the overfiend" I think. (I'm not gone on anime/manga).

also a mech might be good for long range fire. "A mech is on a high slope overlooking a base. A support truck is following the mecha and can equip it with a long range sniper rifle.the mecha uses supports on the back which can support the mech while fireing from the ground. it takes aim and fires. after alerting the enemy forces the mecha can be picked up by a support chopper to take it back to base

Call me crazy, but wouldn't sending one dude on foot with a sniper rifle be more efficient?

Call me crazy, but wouldn't sending one dude on foot with a sniper rifle be more efficient?

Next thing it'll be "why didnt they bring a gun when they went to see what the boise was...". One more comment like that and you're barred.

Next thing it'll be "why didnt they bring a gun when they went to see what the boise was...". One more comment like that and you're barred.

Okay, I'll just wander off to check the cellar. Alone. Without telling anyone.

Okay, I'll just wander off to check the cellar. Alone. Without telling anyone.

O you can tell them-then they'll then let you go on...alone and unarmed. On the brightside as you arent japanese you are unlikely feel the loving nudge of a tentacle up the sphincter, but rather just face hacking/stabbing or being torn limb from limb.

you know, i think Ring of Red is probably the place to look for potentially viable mechs... well, walkers, anyway.

most of them were based on ww2-1960s tanks, but with legs instead of tracks. the legs themselves were as simple as possible, and balance seemed to rely mostly on the pilot having an awareness of his own position relative to the ground, rather than any sensors. in all cases, the feet were large. the lightest one had what appeared to be an HMG and the pilot had to fight the thing every time it fired to avoid tipping over. it also had the [Necessary, for this kind of thing! though much harder to Armour] reverse knee joints. when it 'crouched' it's leg armor actually covered most of the body as well.

the leg armoring principals used where essentially the same as those used when armoring a human with plate-mail, as the joints were vulnerable in the same ways.

Sounds like a desparate attempt to keep a "cool idea" viable. Might make good anime, but not good reality.

the larger two legged ones "medium" weight AFWs [armored fighting walkers] and to essentially kneel to fire their guns. staying standing up right would have tipped the whole thing over.

the four legged 'heavy' models, which really should have had six legs, put less emphasis on armoring joints, and more on front/top armor and an ability to carry heavier weapons. again, they had to stop and unfold counter weights and things before firing.[/QUOTE]

Whereas modern tracked/wheeled AFVs fire on the move.

there were also "anti" AFWs, who's primary focuses were on armor and mobility, and that mostly had their ranged weapons cut back in exchange for massive hydrolic rams or heavy flails. specifically designed ti crush knee joints or pilot positions, actually.

Utterly useless.

essentially, one has to evolve doctrine for using such things before they become viable.

The problem there is you've got the evolution of technology backwards. Tech always advances ahead of doctrine.

in this case, every single AFW has three infantry squads in support, and while in open warfare they lose to tanks, in bad terrain, due to their having legs and having wide enough feet to support their weight, they were superior.

Sorry, I didn't follow that one. Did they also have tanks that were lost in terrain that allowed legged vehicles to pass? Or did you mean that legged vehicles lost to terrain? I can belive the latter, but not the former. Treads distrubute weight very effectively. Legs do not. Soft terrain favors treads.

actually, the fact that tanks still win when they're even usable is mentioned several times,

When they're even usable? Say what?

as is the hight issue. the "heavy" AFWs are low slung, at most a meter higher than an equivalent tank, the 'light' not much taller...

the medium and anti models, however, are often ridiculously tall. in the case of the Anti-Afw it makes sense. a hight advantage allows it to more easily hit exposed joints and the like.

The idea of an armored vehicle that has to approach within touching distance to be effective, is, as I said above, rediculous. That it is significantly easier to spot makes it even worse.

ultimately, I'd see the light and heavy models described as viable in an infantry support role. the light being essentially a scout unit [when it crouches and folds up it appears to be almost as small, if not smaller than, a modern main battle tank] and the heavy being self propelled artillery. neither would truly replace tanks except in terrain which was unsuitable for them.

The sorts of terrain unsuitable to tanks (forests, urban, mountainous) are equally unsuitable for mecha.


in fact, now that i think about it...

walkers, honestly, need to be used as part of infantry units, not armored units.

It's a start...

did anyone ever consider the possibility of non-powered, modern materials, plate-and-chain equivalent armor for infantry?

it has some interesting possibilities, though visibility becomes an issue if you attempt to properly protect the neck.

I think a four legged mecha would have many advantages. Not the least of which would be near unlimited maneuverability over nearly all types of terrain.

Nope, for two reasons. First, a four legger's still going to be vulnerable to a mobility kill if even one leg is damaged. Secondly, due to ground pressure issues, no legged vehicle will be more adept at soft ground. And due to size and visability issues, all vehicles will still have difficulty in close terrain.

On a somewhat related note, when did mechs become mecha? When I was growing up the term I knew was mech from Battletech. I don't think I'd ever seen mecha before seeing this thread.

Actually, mecha was the original term. I remember that going back to the 80's.

Hmm the Gasaraki mechs and the battle armour suits they use in red eyes manga look to me to be the closest to a realistic solution and I could almost see them as workable. I especially like the battle armour suits in red eyes.

link for a pic of suit in red eyes (http://www.stanza101.com/oldstanza/images/redeyes1.jpg)

Depends on the size. If that's anything over 3 meters, I'd have to say no go.

This is the most realistic thing I can think of, and even then I highly doubt its usefulness. Something like this would be used much like an M1025/6 HMMWV in a scout platoon, conducting reconaissance. It'd have a bit of firepower to defend itself, but wouldn't really be suitable for a stand up fight. Still, I really don't think it'd have any advantage over a HMMWV or similar vehicle in this role, but it's the only role I can think of where a walker of any sort might be useful.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/newimage.asp?Size=A&Img=210724

"No Service"?

most of the things that make walkers worse than tanks... apply more so to helicopters..

lack of armor? check
highly vulnerable critical points? check
not exactly easy to hide? check

and so on.

Helos hide - that's why NOE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nap-of-the-earth) flight is so important.

then there's the whole SAM thing. so... a walker would have many of the same vulnerabilities as tanks and choppers, though to a lesser extent in both cases [balanced by the fact that it has more different ones]


[QUOTE=Those weird people]Hm... ok, so what I've seen from here, the ideal mech would be for a place where there's ton's of AA, and crappy terrain for a tank.

Bad terrain for tanks = bad terrain for a mecha. Good terrain for tanks = bad terrain for mecha. I honestly cannot think of any terrain where mecha would have an advantage.

That would make it in between. But in that case, something like a guy in a buggy would work almost equally as well. So pretty much what we've established is a mech is something that takes all the bad qualities of everything and lessens them.

Heheh. And here I thought it had been established that mecha were the worst of all. Perceptions, eh?

actually, i don't like choppers because they're insanely vulnerable on so many levels, not to mention expensive...

and i don't like tanks because for their expense, their actually use is highly limited.

You don't like helos or tanks due to their expense, but are wiling to go for a much more expensive and more vulnerable platform? Why? (BTW, you overestimate the vulnerability of helos, I think. Yes, they are vulnerable, but not nearly as much as you seem to think.)

there in probably lies the Actual advantage to an AFW: multi-purpose vehicle.

multi-role combat vehicles generally fail at all roles.

it's more armory than a helicopter,

Sorry, that make no sense. What were you trying to say?

and can handle worse terrain than a tank, for example.

What terrain can a legged vehicle handle that a tank couldn't?

so far as i can tell, everything from powered infantry armor through to mecha too tall to really deploy on a planet seems to have come up at least once.

The OP was mecha, but as always, when that gets shot down, the anime fans try hard to save their fantasy by brininmg in non-mecha.

against a helicopter, i would think so.

against a jet? then you're probably getting towards the big expensive models.

ManPADS work alright against jets.

for choppers though, i think the weapons used to take them out are about as complicated, expensive, and sophisticated as those used to take out tanks.

that is, not very. at least if i remember rightly.

there in lies my argument against the use of either. heh.

And what makes mecha magically immune to ATGMs? Especially when they are less able to hide?

edit: and because i forgot to mention it: SAM is an abbreviation of surface to air missile. a SAM System on the other hand, includes the missile, any relevant tracking and transport equipment, etc etc. that could run to quite a lot for larger models, i suspect.

About $35,000 for the current Stinger, IIRC.

Wow. This thread just won't die. Mecha can never beat tanks. I cannot even imagine a mecha of 2030 taking on a WWII Sherman tank. The smaller, more agile tanks that can handle far more terrains will outmanuver the mechas, fire on it, ruin all that expensive and vulnerable equipment, and the damn thing will fall tumble over like a child's stack of blocks.

Wow. This thread just won't die. Mecha can never beat tanks. I cannot even imagine a mecha of 2030 taking on a WWII Sherman tank. The smaller, more agile tanks that can handle far more terrains will outmanuver the mechas, fire on it, ruin all that expensive and vulnerable equipment, and the damn thing will fall tumble over like a child's stack of blocks.

Well, the simple AP rounds of the Sherman probably wouldn#t be able to do much through more modern armour, but I get the gist of your point. Personally, I'd say crappy Soviet models could take on a 2030 mech, but not WW2 vintage.

I just realized another big problem with mechs, they have tons of hydraulic fluid surging through every part of their body. Combine that with tons of high explosives, and fuel(depends on their power plant, it isn't nuclear is it?) and you have an easily spotted, and easily toppled tinderbox. I imagine a well placed molotov cocktail to the back of the knew or ankle could ignite the hydraulic lines, which would at least disable it, if not turn it into a fireball.

I just realized another big problem with mechs, they have tons of hydraulic fluid surging through every part of their body. Combine that with tons of high explosives, and fuel(depends on their power plant, it isn't nuclear is it?) and you have an easily spotted, and easily toppled tinderbox. I imagine a well placed molotov cocktail to the back of the knew or ankle could ignite the hydraulic lines, which would at least disable it, if not turn it into a fireball.

If you could get a man that close all he'd need would be a pair of bolt cutters to cut the hydraulic line on one leg and the thing is totally fucked. All it can do is stand there and get destroyed or fall over and get destroyed.

Has anyone mentioned mecha shiva (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9AvEWz-GLGg) yet?

Has anyone mentioned mecha shiva (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9AvEWz-GLGg) yet?

Mecha Shiva=win!

Just you wait, the Japanese have seen the future! What? Did you think all that mecha shit was just for the KIDDIES? They are training the future warriors!:gundge:

Just you wait, the Japanese have seen the future! What? Did you think all that mecha shit was just for the KIDDIES? They are training the future warriors!:gundge:

I lol'd

Well, the simple AP rounds of the Sherman probably wouldn#t be able to do much through more modern armour, but I get the gist of your point. Personally, I'd say crappy Soviet models could take on a 2030 mech, but not WW2 vintage.

To heck with punching through the armor, you don't need to. Just knock the suckers down with a torso shot. A mecha knocked down dies, no matter what the anime may lead you to believe.

I just realized another big problem with mechs, they have tons of hydraulic fluid surging through every part of their body. Combine that with tons of high explosives, and fuel(depends on their power plant, it isn't nuclear is it?) and you have an easily spotted, and easily toppled tinderbox. I imagine a well placed molotov cocktail to the back of the knew or ankle could ignite the hydraulic lines, which would at least disable it, if not turn it into a fireball.
If you could get a man that close all he'd need would be a pair of bolt cutters to cut the hydraulic line on one leg and the thing is totally fucked. All it can do is stand there and get destroyed or fall over and get destroyed.

You don't have to be that close for a Molotov cocktail - trowing range is a bit further outt than bolt-cutter range after all. ;) But, yeah, both would be nice simple field expedient methods of mecha killing.

To heck with punching through the armor, you don't need to. Just knock the suckers down with a torso shot. A mecha knocked down dies, no matter what the anime may lead you to believe.
Indeed, in the real world gravity affects mecha, regardless of how cool you think it is.


You don't have to be that close for a Molotov cocktail - trowing range is a bit further outt than bolt-cutter range after all. ;) But, yeah, both would be nice simple field expedient methods of mecha killing.

What spend time and effort collecting the various household good required for an IED when you can just loot some bolt cutters from your local hardware store.

Darn, can't find it now, but a while back there was a picture of a marine looking at a gigantic robot walking around the streets of iraq.

Wow. This thread just won't die. Mecha can never beat tanks. I cannot even imagine a mecha of 2030 taking on a WWII Sherman tank. The smaller, more agile tanks that can handle far more terrains will outmanuver the mechas, fire on it, ruin all that expensive and vulnerable equipment, and the damn thing will fall tumble over like a child's stack of blocks.

Considering the overwhelming possibility that the next major armed conflict where we'd actually have tank on tank (or mecha on mecha combat, if you're optimistic) will likely devolve into nuclear war, I don't think its relevant to ask if mecha can challenge tanks. If you're bringing tanks or mecha to a nuke war, you're gonna lose.

Considering the overwhelming possibility that the next major armed conflict where we'd actually have tank on tank (or mecha on mecha combat, if you're optimistic) will likely devolve into nuclear war, I don't think its relevant to ask if mecha can challenge tanks. If you're bringing tanks or mecha to a nuke war, you're gonna lose.

In any manner of nuke war, you're going to lose. The cockroaches would be the only winners of a nuclear war.

In any manner of nuke war, you're going to lose. The cockroaches would be the only winners of a nuclear war.

Cockroaches and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. ;)

But seriously, I think a more important debate is how we can best remove nuclear weapons from the picture.

"No Service"?

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/warhammer40k/imperialguard/us/catalog/images/ig_sentinel.gif

As I said, I don't really think anything like this is feasible, it's just probably the least unrealistic role for a walker.

Cockroaches and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. ;)

But seriously, I think a more important debate is how we can best remove nuclear weapons from the picture.

Yeah, but that's a serious discussion, this isn't.

Indeed, in the real world gravity affects mecha, regardless of how cool you think it is.

Yep.

What spend time and effort collecting the various household good required for an IED when you can just loot some bolt cutters from your local hardware store.

Doesn't take that much longer to make a simle Molotov cocktail, and it can be used from under cover.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/warhammer40k/imperialguard/us/catalog/images/ig_sentinel.gif

As I said, I don't really think anything like this is feasible, it's just probably the least unrealistic role for a walker.

Ah, thank you kindly good sir. That's even worse than I expected.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/warhammer40k/imperialguard/us/catalog/images/ig_sentinel.gif

As I said, I don't really think anything like this is feasible, it's just probably the least unrealistic role for a walker.

For god's sake, the pilot is totally exposed, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, Hydraulic lines, pistons, also totally exposed. Any number of easy to make, easy to use IEDs could take that thing out. I'd rather be in a Sherman.

For god's sake, the pilot is totally exposed, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, Hydraulic lines, pistons, also totally exposed. Any number of easy to make, easy to use IEDs could take that thing out. I'd rather be in a Sherman.

How is that any different than a HMMWV?

For god's sake, the pilot is totally exposed, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, Hydraulic lines, pistons, also totally exposed. Any number of easy to make, easy to use IEDs could take that thing out. I'd rather be in a Sherman.

why that elaborate... one sniper... undamaged goods to be sold to buy more tanks.

How is that any different than a HMMWV?

HMMWV's don't cost 2975248572345 dollars...plus Hummers are meant for transport mainly, not battle...

HMMWV's don't cost 2975248572345 dollars...plus Hummers are meant for transport mainly, not battle...

As I said earlier in the thread this thing would fulfill the same sort of role as an M1025/6 HMMWV in a scout platoon. I don't think there's any way that a mech could do the same sort of job that a MBT could do, since an MBT does it much, much better.

And again, as I said earlier I don't think there's any way that a mech could do anything that a wheeled or tracked vehicle couldn't do better. However, I think the light reconaissance role is the least unrealistic for them. It's not at all realistic, just less unrealistic.

As for what a HMMWV scout platoon does, check out the missions in FM 17-98 (http://www.cavalrypilot.com/fm17-98/ch1.htm#s2). Ignore the part about the CFV platoon because there's no way a walker could satisfactorily fulfill that role.

And as for the cost we don't have the technology to build such a thing anyway, so this would be in some hypothetical future, during which any contemporary tank or wheeled vehicle would most assuredly fulfill the role better.

HMMWV's don't cost 2975248572345 dollars...plus Hummers are meant for transport mainly, not battle...


Actually HMMWV's are made for battle just not to slug it out with tanks.... I have seen them come through a great deal of fire and battle myself. They are made for light work such as scouting.
As Wallonochia has pointed out the uses for them already as well as for the BFV and he is right from an earlier post that the Abrams can turn almost as tight as the Bradley it has the same capabilities as the Bradley in pivot turns and such. There is also a new AFV the Stryker which is wheeled and can be used as a platform for many different designs and will fit in a role as the BFV does and even for scout purposes and as an armored ambulance just to name a few.

A mech while it is great for games and for cartoons just has no realistic place on any battlefield now or in the future. Especially if any sci-fi reader has read the likes of Keith Laumer and knows of his concept the Bolo....which is pretty much a future tank....with much better concepts.

Better tactically? Absolutely not.

Better? Absoultely yes.

In any manner of nuke war, you're going to lose. The cockroaches would be the only winners of a nuclear war.

Nah, cockroaches would lose. They depend too much on humans for their survival now.

For god's sake, the pilot is totally exposed, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, Hydraulic lines, pistons, also totally exposed. Any number of easy to make, easy to use IEDs could take that thing out. I'd rather be in a Sherman.

http://www.puolenkuunpelit.com/kauppa/images/gw_wh40_impg_armg_senti.jpg

What now!? :p

Right now I'm thinking of a four legged tank that raises and lowers itself using the legs as pistons. You could also rotate the four treads so the tank could spin 360 degrees with ease.

Of course the damn thing would be huge, but it can settle low to the ground (or behind cover), pop up and shoot then retreat behind cover again.

Right now I'm thinking of a four legged tank that raises and lowers itself using the legs as pistons. You could also rotate the four treads so the tank could spin 360 degrees with ease.

Of course the damn thing would be huge, but it can settle low to the ground (or behind cover), pop up and shoot then retreat behind cover again.

So uh, what happens once once of its legs gets blown off?

So uh, what happens once once of its legs gets blown off?

The legs, or pistons, will be incredibly thick and since the only time it should be hit is when it is raised above its cover momentarily. This isn't something you roll into a city with; it should act more as a forward artillary/support.

Now actual mechs would be small, a little bigger than a regular human, but enough to protect the soldier from ground fire while sending substantial firepower back.

Right now I'm thinking of a four legged tank that raises and lowers itself using the legs as pistons. You could also rotate the four treads so the tank could spin 360 degrees with ease.

Of course the damn thing would be huge, but it can settle low to the ground (or behind cover), pop up and shoot then retreat behind cover again.

Explain to me why this would a better idea than mounting a standard tank gun on a single telescopic arm on a standard tank chasis.

EDIT: okay, you now got something about four or five times the volume of an MBT, but with a much greater surface area, and you intend to apply even thicker armour than on an MBT all around the legs, despite the fact that you are already running a much less efficient propulsion system. Need I even mention the term 'shell trap'?


Your primary argument seems to be that the mech body would allow a pop-up mode of functioning: you do realise that you have just designed what is effectively an attack helicopter in quite possibly the most wasteful, problemmatic and ill-advised way possible?

The legs, or pistons, will be incredibly thick and since the only time it should be hit is when it is raised above its cover momentarily.

And what about top-down attack ATGM's? Have they been uninvented?

http://www.puolenkuunpelit.com/kauppa/images/gw_wh40_impg_armg_senti.jpg

What now!? :p

Exposed Hydraulic lines and pistons, the pilot would have a better chance of survival though, at least until the lines get severed or the pistons gets punctured and his mech falls flat on its face...

There is also a new AFV the Stryker which is wheeled and can be used as a platform for many different designs and will fit in a role as the BFV does and even for scout purposes and as an armored ambulance just to name a few.

The Stryker is designed to be airmobile (read: super light). As a result, she's lightly armored, with ballistic protection of up to 14.5mm, while the Bradley is a dedicated infantry fighting vehicle with protection rated up to 30mm.

Now actual mechs would be small, a little bigger than a regular human, but enough to protect the soldier from ground fire while sending substantial firepower back.

In that case, you've crossed the threshold from walking (sort of) deathtrap to powered exoskeleton, which is a real and workable concept.

assuming you get the same fuel efficency in an Imp Guard sentinel as a hummer and thus won't require extra fuel tanks, where the crap does all the ammunition for that gun go?

The Stryker is designed to be airmobile (read: super light). As a result, she's lightly armored, with ballistic protection of up to 14.5mm, while the Bradley is a dedicated infantry fighting vehicle with protection rated up to 30mm.



In that case, you've crossed the threshold from walking (sort of) deathtrap to powered exoskeleton, which is a real and workable concept.

Powered exoskeletons are the closest we're ever going to come to mecha.Except for those people build in their sparetime or for anime expos.

assuming you get the same fuel efficency in an Imp Guard sentinel as a hummer and thus won't require extra fuel tanks, where the crap does all the ammunition for that gun go?

Somewhere near the pilot, I'd assume. Another great design quirk, if it's hit the cockpit will blow sky high thanks to detonating fuel and ammunition, just like Russian T-80s and T-72s.

Charming

Powered exoskeletons are the closest we're ever going to come to mecha.Except for those people build in their sparetime or for anime expos.

Even then, the technology required to build a reliable and relatively cheap powered exoskeleton for military (or civil) use is in its infancy, and even then an exoskeleton won't be able to replace a heavy weapons platform like a tracked vehicle.

In that case, you've crossed the threshold from walking (sort of) deathtrap to powered exoskeleton, which is a real and workable concept.


...and it it all just a rehash of the old tankette idea?

it seems to me that a great deal of this is a rather desperate excuse to justify mecha in some way.


the problem is the entire thought process.

bad:
"here's a thing I just made. now what can I do with it?"
(eg: "here's a shirt I made. who will it fit best?")

good:
"here is a problem that needs solving. what do I need to create to solve this problem?"
(eg: "here's a man who needs a shirt. what size does it need to be?")


the former will either lead to outright waste or to a solution that is ill-suited to the problem.

the latter will result in a solution that is tailor-made to solving the problem.



that said, the only place I could see a legged vehicle (would have to be 6 legs, to function with one or two missing) beating a tank is in a particularly mountainous region where treads cannot maneuver around large boulders or over chasms.

of course, a helicopter would be better in that area, anyway.

so, upshot of all this: mechs, mecha, walkers, or whatever are Not going to replace tanks any time soon.

in order to be useful they'd have to exist in an environment that for whatever reason made at least choppers or tanks unusable without making the walkers unusable, and would probably require an absence of both to be truly worth using.

armored/powered infantry, on the other hand, would and could be useful.

have we answered the original question? :D

Just give me the powered armor from Starship Troopers and we're set.

Jump Jets, FTW!

all you need to do is look at the AT-STs in Star Wars and you can figure out why mechs suck.

all you need to do is look at the AT-STs in Star Wars and you can figure out why mechs suck.
I already posted that picture. Two pages ago.

Better tactically? Absolutely not.

Better? Absoultely yes.

QFT!!!

heh. on the coolness side: mechs can use blades.

show me a tank that can use a sword properly :P

I think your all taking this the wrong way. You can't have a mech shaped after a gundum or an armslave, that's just insane. But what's more plausible is something like in BF2142. Now those mechs actually look like a real mech should.

http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/images/screenshots/BF2142pcSCRN_EU_Mech_Closeup.jpg
http://h610332.serverkompetenz.net/bfn/forum/galerie/bilder/bild-2963.jpg
http://www.battlefield-2142.org/ingame-screenshots/g_bf2142_mech_attack.jpg
http://www.masstactical.com/screenshots/BF2142Mech_Screenshot.bmp
and also don't forget: http://www.cncguild.net/pages/ts/renders/titan.gif :p

Now those mechs I've shown (minus the Titan) could really do serious damage in a battle. Fitted with anti-tank missiles and 1 or 2 30mm gattling guns they could hold off against a tank assault. However I doubt urban warfare is healthy at all for a mech. Even if you have an extra chain gun for anti-personal use, you run the risk of Hamid-Kaputsembeck running up and planting an ied on the back of you foot.

edit: as for the 1 tank shell would take it out arguments... 1 tank shell takes out any tank anyways..

I think your all taking this the wrong way. You can't have a mech shaped after a gundum or an armslave, that's just insane. But what's more plausible is something like in BF2142. Now those mechs actually look like a real mech should.

http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/images/screenshots/BF2142pcSCRN_EU_Mech_Closeup.jpg
http://h610332.serverkompetenz.net/bfn/forum/galerie/bilder/bild-2963.jpg
http://www.battlefield-2142.org/ingame-screenshots/g_bf2142_mech_attack.jpg
http://www.masstactical.com/screenshots/BF2142Mech_Screenshot.bmp
and also don't forget: http://www.cncguild.net/pages/ts/renders/titan.gif :p

Now those mechs I've shown (minus the Titan) could really do serious damage in a battle. Fitted with anti-tank missiles and 1 or 2 30mm gattling guns they could hold off against a tank assault. However I doubt urban warfare is healthy at all for a mech. Even if you have an extra chain gun for anti-personal use, you run the risk of Hamid-Kaputsembeck running up and planting an ied on the back of you foot.

edit: as for the 1 tank shell would take it out arguments... 1 tank shell takes out any tank anyways..


hey, guess what. American drawn mecha sucks. Anime mecha is awsome

Heh, I'd take an American style mech over a gundum anyday. War isn't a beauty pageant.

No, wheels are better than legs. That's what it comes down to.

please, anime mecha could kick an american mecha's *** anyday. All the american mecha i have seen are like box shape torsos and no arms or heads. A gundam is an awsome mecha. Plus you can't spell gundam right.

I hope your talking about if they were made real. Anime mechs can do litterally anything...at all. The american mechs in the pics are much more sensible and wouldnt be blown to shit as quickly as an anime mech. Who sends a unit into battle painted all red white blue and gold? Thing's like a damn peacock. Not only that but imagine how easy knocking it over will be? As well as it being able to be seen by virtually every enemy in the area. What advantage does the human form give in a situation like that? None at all.

Sorry but the American mech wins. Have fun while I cut your leg in half with 30mm hell. :D

and btw.. it's mech

and btw.. it's mech
Yep. Mecha are remotely controlled and/or partially autonomous robots (e.g. Mechagodzilla). Mechs are controlled by a pilot.

We've mastered the wheel, and we've proven that it's a pretty easy thing to deal with.

Jointed, hydraulic legs, on the other hand, are insanely difficult.

Why fix it if it ain't broken?