Tbh the issue is energy and means of production. It’s been over 100 years any back water nation could go on google see the blueprints for a Sherman and make it. Plus a mech would stick out like a sore thumb unless it was extremely fast but at that point you’d have a near unkillable nuke on legs that would massacre armies like whale eating sardines. So I’d say make them viable for mass production and fast enough to avoid damage most of the time and boom you’re the 21st centuries Oppenheimer congrats on starting a new cold war. Edit- well shit he just devalued most of what I just said.
My theory is that mechs would be constructed as way of making use of cybernetic neural connections. A human controlling a vehicle with their hands and feet is slower and less efficient than a human controlling a vehicle directly with their mind. But in order to do that, you need the vehicle to be loosely based on human anatomy for the brain to correctly "map" its neural pathways to the vehicle's "limbs".
So similarly to the psyco zaku from gundam thunderbolt, or the armored cores (I think), very neat however it poses severe ethical questions of how one would get that many quadruple amputees
@ you say that but there was a mine clearing robot shaped like a giant stick bug with lots of legs and when it did its job and stepped on a shit ton of mines, the commander in charge of the test said it was inhumane and ordered it stopped. But then again, gun.
Fun fact, Gundam is created for space combat, that’s why they have legs and melee weapons, so they can land on colony ships and stability. Melee weapons are used for close quarter fights inside colony ships too.
The point of mechs is demonstrating your obvious technological superiority by making an impractical platform functional and practical. It's psychological warfare that says FU physics and practicality.
Mechs aren't as practical as you'd think, and they're not as far off as you'd think. Infact, the technology to produce incredible mechs for warfare will probably develop within our life times.
@@Planetes910 technically exists already, in Japan too. All that it would need is redevelopment for military use. The problem is just the use would not make up for the cost.
@@z-ZONDER-z_E15 Well the Japanese ones aren't exactly the best.. Currently the best functional mech is South Korean, but again, not quite military spec. However mechs as a military weapon would be very effective. Mechs aren't just for show you know? They could be faster than tanks, more terrain friendly than tanks, stronger than tanks, and could manuever slim and wide areas without issue, they could peak around corners or serve as rescue machines. They would be able to adapt to the mission effectively, and wouldn't be as hard to maintain as you might think. Althought they require tech that is currently undeveloped, however when that day comes, mechs will likely be a part of the battlefield. They're not an impractical idea, not at all! (Unless you're making them over 2-3 stories tall)
@@Planetes910 That a big turn around from saying that they wouldn't be that practical. I never doubted that they wouldn't be useful though. A one story tall wrecking machine would be very useful, I just feel like the development cost would be a money sink. But honestly I doubt they would be stronger than tanks for how much they weighed. Faster yes, but stronger no. That's just how armor works.
fun fact: the dry weight of the RX-78-2 Gundam is actually lighter than the dry weight of the M1 Abrams also another believable use of a mech is actually explored in Gundam as well, in the form of AMBAC basically it's a system that allows the pilot to use limbs to maneuver and orient themselves in space without the use of massive fuel guzzling thruster arrays pointing in every needed direction at every given time, ie. you have limbs, and can swing them to turn and stuff plus you don't need gimballed thrusters since they're attached to moving limbs
@@635574The entire reason AMBAC works is _because_ the limbs have mass. Admittedly you could probably achieve the same effect in a much more compact format by using reaction gyroscopes, but that doesn't looks as cool and you lose the utility of a limb that's both heavy enough to affect actual movement and strong enough to grab, shove, and generally manipulate heavy objects.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 You don't need a limb if the entire reason of your existence is to destroy anything from long range. Like, the comment right above me exactly tells the very existent of funnels in gundam shows the those AMBAC limb whatever that is nothing compare to just use drone with Armored Core-level of maneuver
For me the difference between an exoskeleton/powered armor and a mech is if the joints of the operator overlaps with the joints of the robot, if it does, it's the first, if not, it's the latter.
First we have to put somethings in place so we can properly compare the classic Mechs vs Tanks: "Legs are weak point": Thats a moot point. Tank treads or wheels are also weak points, if its destroyed chances are the entire vehicle will have to be abandoned, and the later be dragged into a garage for repairs, tank or mech doesn't matter. "sensitive parts": This one is a bit of an assumption, why is it that mechs are considered sensitive when they don't exist? Its easier for our current production methods to make "simple" parts that make up a tank, but theoretically after our production evolves (3d printing anyone?) there is no guarantee a mech would be significantly more complex than a tank, when usually parts are to be replaced anyway and not "fixed". (The entire arm would be replaced, much like an entire tank turret can be.) "Why place a human inside?": Why place a human inside a tank? Simple, we don't have to do it if the technology doesn't require, it will be the same for both. "Giant obvious target on the battlefield": We are in the drone era, everything and everyone is an obvious target for overwatch drones, listeners and infrared and so cameras. Same thing for being "easy to hit", anti-tank weapons currently often aim and steer themselves, no such thing as a tank surviving a proper hit from a modern Javelin, for example, a weapon that often comes from above, where the tank is flat and less armored. Soo now that we got those out of the way, lets dive into the pros and cons of a tank vs a mech! Gun: A tank is likely more capable of utilizing a larger caliber gun, and keep it stable and on target even while moving than a mech could be. Similarly there would be size and weight limitations for a mech, unless it was somehow for some reason carted around. The mech has the advantage of being able to quickly switch equipment however, unlike a tank. Assuming such mech would have dexterous arms and hands, and its not one of those arm cannon designs. Would be limited to firing lower caliber guns on the move, but could potentially fire larger caliber while still and even prone. Mobility: Tank mobility is only good when compared to cars that have to drive in roads, if you consider the mobility of a human doing an obstacle course, the mobility is many times superior: running, jumping, vaulting and so on. A mech would need this kind of mobility to make sense over the pure speed a tank can muster in flat terrain by being a tread/wheeled vehicle. Armor: Pure armor thickness? tank wins easily. However we are in the glass cannon meta, weapons that are designed to kill tanks will do so. Even if its just a "mobility kill" or "sensor kill". So the real question is, what kind of fire is it supposed to take and "not care"? Small arms fire? .50 call fire? something bigger? It should be possible to make a mech armored enough to withstand limited fire, could be by disposable armor or strategic placement and the ability to hunker down, a tank is a static thing currently, what if the mech can make its profile smaller by going prone? it could then be flatter than a tank while like that. Cost: This is one of the biggest factors, tanks have a lot of details that aren't usually disclosed like strategic layered armor with different materials or exclusive production lines. What about a mech? depends how 3d printing, again example, ends up evolving. With sufficient advancement it could end up costing the same a tank would with the same technology. One clear advantage a mech could have is... the logistics part. If the mech is sufficiently dexterous, it could not only change weapons like a human does, but could move cargo, debris, reach out inside buildings or create cover, even dig using a shovel. "But we have excavators for that!" Yes, and a specialized vehicle would be much superior, but you can't just bring an excavator every where along with the tank. So the mech could do somethings that would normally be done by infantry or specialized vehicles... without committing its role. Adaptability = better value. Tanks might have their days numbered by drones anyway, the question is if a suitable mech could be made, because it could certainly be used!
...so basically the Bradley Fighting Vehicle It's lighter and faster than an mbt because it has less armour, in the event it reaches something it can't climb over it can deploy inf to go clear it and pick them up later. It has a light autocannon it can use on the move and an anti-tank missile launcher it can deploy and reload while stationary. And you can attach a dozer blade to the front of it or have engineering variants made to do sapper stuff. All while retailing the low to the ground profile while moving at speed, and still being less complicated because i fail to see how several knee, hip, and ankle joints with corresponding hydraulics/muscles and the motor(s) to power them could ever be less work to make AND MAINTAIN than an engine, a driveshaft, some wheels and a track link Also, a tank doesn't fall over, eat shit and possibly break more of it if the track is taken out at an inopportune time. There are many instances where tanks have acted effectively as bunkers after being immobilized and doing quite a lot of damage as such.
@@Kyuschi I lost the nearly done text I was making for a response :(... well, here we go again: An IFV like the Bradley is an excellent example to bring up because they wouldn't compete, they would well work together! The mech could be considered "super-heavy infantry", doing many of the same jobs but better. And even if the mech could move relatively fast on its own, it would likely be better to transport it with another vehicle, maybe towing, something an IFV could do! Despite its height while standing, a 5-meter (15-foot) mech wouldn’t have a larger profile than a Bradley (3 meters or 10 feet) if it crouched or went prone on standby. Falling over is a risk, but drive-by-wire systems and it being less armored and lighter than the Bradley’s 27 tons would reduce the issue, self-recovery if toppled is a definite must, and if we assume being piloted by 1 person, it would be overall less massive. Power supply is the main limiting factor. A mech wouldn’t need to operate unplugged indefinitely, 15 minutes of high-intensity combat could be sufficient before retreating for pickup or resupply. Regarding maintenance, the Bradley is already less demanding than heavier vehicles like the Abrams. A modular mech could simplify some repairs: broken limbs could be swapped out in the field by taking some extra parts, anything more could be handled back at a garage. If damaged in combat, the mech could be ditched temporarily, much like immobilized tanks often are to be towed back later. While load-bearing joints are indeed a challenge, they have the advantage of built-in suspension. Each joint is an independent shock absorber, unlike tracked or wheeled vehicles, with traditional suspension system, constrained by the rigid nature of tracks or tires, often transferring the force of terrain impacts to the vehicle's frame. In contrast, each leg can dissipate energy more efficiently by dynamically adjusting to terrain. This could reduce wear on other components and enhance overall durability. For weapons, some variation of 20mm autocannon would likely be a good spot for main gun, it could carry extra ammo externally, maybe attached to the thighs for example and could use man-portable missile systems, like the Javelin or NLAW or cheaper versions, assuming the arms and manipulators have the necessary dexterity.
@@foxsecretHonest question: how many drones get shot down by tanks? Where you would need a tank designed with SAMs (which would limit it in other areas) as well as other vehicles/troops to protect it, a mech could have a SAM weapon it could easily swap to- either through hardpoints and weapon bays, or a second vehicle doing a drive by drop off.
I think another good point in favor of mechs would be their propaganda and morale value. Seeing a giant on *your* side, standing tall and fighting against your enemies alongside you would probably be a powerful sight. For propaganda, mechs are more human than tanks or ships, like tall armored knights. There are stories of a single tanks holding the line against vastly more numerous foes, and while the sight of a battered tank still standing proud is potent enough, the damaged knight determined to hold the line against the enemy would be something else.
I think that the most promising applications of walking machines in military applications is in logistics and combat engineering, literally being used to transport cargo and position fortifications as an all-in-one heavy machine that can cross very rough and steep terrain with dense vegetation and swamps. Modern militaries still use pack animals to this day in this type of terrain btw.
1) Short to medium range jet fighters are terribly obsolete compared to drones and ICBMs but we keep using them. 2) The Toyota Wars existed. 3) Industrial mechs are inevitable, as the versatility of "big man" can invariably become more effective than having six specialty vehicles. Conclusion: Inevitably a labor mech will beat the shit out of exactly one (1) APC and the revolutionaries, militiamen, or beleaguered troopers who see it happen will not allow their higher ups to not make a combat model.
That's actually the origin of Gears in Heavy Gear, some shmucks decided to up gun and armor an industrial mech to help fight of an attacking force from another nation and it worked out better then expected, so much so to lead to the creation of the BOT project which lead to the creation of the first combat Gear known as the Hunter.
1. You're comparing mass destruction to precise operations. Jets and ICBMs are built for two entirely different operations. 2. Ok 3. Having six specialized machines is better than having 1 jack of all trades. Just try fighting a swarm of bees. You may kill a few, but in the end they'll fuck you up. Conclusion: You know nothing of warfare. Life isn't a movie. Modern wars are fought the way they are because it is effective.
in the words of the scientist from MGS 3 Snake Eater, it's not about the degree of weaponry but the development but its deployment. Once we figure out the legs of a mech, were golden.
3 kinds of biological legs as it is. So I assume there’s 3 overall types of mechanical legs possible to build that’d work. Maybe more who know, like including wheels. And thrusters etc.
A good way to approach a mech's framework would be to have it be somewhat organically inspired (take the evas from Evangelion). The legs and other necessary parts could have structural support similar to that of bones, basically a stiff mesh that allows itself to compress inwards onto itself. This should decrease the number of fragile parts, and allow the parts that would face the most gravitational force additional strength. My only proof of concept is how dinosaurs managed to be so large while theoretically remaining agile. Put some plating around the "skeleton" and now you have a well-armored (not core) mech! My only idea on how problems such as falling over and being horribly destroyed as well as other pressures that would easily fuck it up, would be to take advantage of how synthetic materials are not directly analogous to organic materials (better strengths in tensile, compression, etc. forces). Even if everything does fix durability, repair costs will always be an issue.
I love mechs, combat robots, power armor, battle walkers, whateveryouwanttocallthem, i love them. Big, small, fast, cumbersome, light, heavy, sneaky, floaty, all of them. Can we do them IRL? Well, not really, at leasst not with our current day tech. HOWEVER... technology progresses. I mean, heck, the Heavy Gears in the same-titled franchise use V-engines as their powerplant!
I had an epiphany about mechs recently: 1. EVA Space suits are Mechs. They DO exist and are practical 2. People in the future will make mechs because they are cool and pop cultural even if they're not the most practical vehicle for every use case.
I think they should be like bigger power armor, that are use for harsh interplanetary exploration from deep ocean exploration, high corrosive atmosphere that would break down normal spacesuit, repairing and building space ships and station in outerspace. They could be helpful in civilian use then military, unless its an harsh environment combat where All terrain is needed.
@@cliffdavidson5096I agree with this statement. I love mechs to death, but by no means should they replace every vehicle on the field. Combined Arms works because of the different skill sets and roles meshing together to form a cohesive whole. A mech should fill in some roles while allowing flexibility and wiggle room for others.
@@Headbringer heck I battletech there are tanks that can one shot mechs like the demolisher and even infantry gets lucky sometimes with a lucky missile.
@@cliffdavidson5096 Yeah, sometimes all it takes is one person getting lucky or poor positioning. That’s why combined arms is the name of the game. You have everyone support each other so that way every is safer. The smallest unit for any operation should be at least two people, so they can on each other to watch their back. That’s why we have battle buddies and wingmen.
@@malcolm_in_the_middle In battletech earlier parts of the setting factor in warships as critical strategic deployment platforms for their ability to deploy various strategic weapons with invasion hinging on them. Until they were lost in various apocalyptic wars till there were only a handful left.
Considering how creative we humans are when it comes to technology we might probably see something close to a mech in a few decades or so. However it would probably not be a Gundam size mech but instead something like the small construction mech suit from Patlabor. Cuz that's probably the closest thing we can achieve due to limitations.
At least it maybe used in places where the terrain is rough, such as mountainous terrain or urban warfare. In that sense, I hope ACV will become the future. Wouldn't it be cool to have a urban warfare with a mecha about 5m in size? Of course, it's not the world. It's mecha. I don't want to live in a world where everything is dying lol
Since I found out that General Electric made a working mech in the 60's it still boggles me how it was more ingenius and practical than anything we have in that size range today, and it made me think that we could definitely pick up from were they stopped and make it work in the field with the technology we have today, and that it could definitively be useful in some applications. (I recommend the video from the channel "Found and Explained", it does at great job of explaining the specifics).
I feel like the most realistic type of mechs are the Titans from Titanfall. The Armored Cores and Gundams would be dope as hell, but they aren’t entirely realistic
ACs in armored core V and VD are pretty realistic. They can't fly (only hover), are only 5 meters tall, have to scale buildings by climbing them and use wall jumping to get around. They're also pretty chonky so it would be hard to knock them off balance.
If you wanted human piloted mechs, Id agree, at least with out current understanding of whats possible. With minor changes you would get something much like the heavier Titans such as Scorch or Legion
Funny, because I've watched a video debunking that. While Titans are believable in that they're built for urban warfare and anti-infantry purposes, they aren't as realistic in a functional sense as you'd think for this one simple thing they shared with Gundam: The proportions are still too human. Our humanoid form doesn't work for bigger things than us, we don't have metals that can withstand that kind of stress. Armored cores do not share this weakness most of the time, however. As while still keeping the general humanoid looks ( bipedal with one torso, 2 arms, 2 legs), many ACs are inhuman, even monstrous in it's proportions. Realisticly while making a giant humanoid, you do not want it to look like a giant man in a metal suit , basic physics don't allow that and I think Amored core understand that...
I remember there was one time I was debating the practicality of mechs with ChatGPT and we ended up at using mechs for sniping missions due to their manuverability
Sniping in general can be done with any weapon, it's the practice of taking out a target with one shot "The killing blow" - but hell yeah sniping mechs
I think an quadipidal mechs that from Eighty Sixers anime where they are like spiders with big guns. Very maneuverable in dense urban area, thick vegetations forest, and steep mountain ranges would be the best place to fully utilise them where heavy armoured vechiles can't operated. Plus, humanoid mechs should be for combat engineers, where they can operated multiple construction tools and probably could use their hands for removing debris and build entrench emplacements.
In my opinion, i think a mech like the ones from Avatar would be most practical. Need heavy firepower inside? Mech with a big gun. Need someone to move something heavy out of the way where a tank can't fit? Mech. Need a cool robot with a gun? Mech.
In Titanfall mechs were originally made for work, like construction and farmwork. But when war struck the civilians didnt have tanks or other weapons, so they converted the titans into weapons of war. And eventually the military followed suit. The other benefit is that mechs imo, wouldn't be primarily war weapons first. They'd be primarily weapon transportation things. Humans can't lift a tank very easily, but what if in he middle of battle a mech could help replace a tanks tread? While also being able to provide cover fire for the tank. A mech would be a swift army knife, and the other thing about Mechs is they only require one pilot while tanks have at minimum 3
I have been a Battletech nerd since the 90's. I think General Aleksandr Kerensky explained the "why" on mechs when he gave his desired specs for the new Atlas BattleMech: "a 'Mech as powerful as possible, as impenetrable as possible, and as ugly and foreboding as conceivable, so that fear itself will be our ally." Mechs will always excel in shock and awe attacks and Blitzkriegs. Also, if you look up Megabots Inc (USA) and Suidobashi Heavy Industries (Japan) have both made mechs to fight each other. It was all showboating, but it was a proof of concept
Seriously I think you’d like battletech it’s not just mechs but the lore also contains the military industrial complex with context with how some mechs were made from genuinely good platforms to graft machines. Mech are also not the be all end all, tanks, air vehicles, and even infantry still matter. Though infantry is mostly for garrisoning.
We havent considering other leg configurations for mech. While less human shaped, a mech like tetrapod from AC could potentially solve some balance and weight distribution issues, especially if you want it to be a multipurpose role mech for lifting heavy equipment
If I was in charge of a massive rotating habitat, part of the defense plan would involve developing weapons that can operate flawlessly in zero G. Fly around, be fast/nimble, etc. Then I'd have a procedure in place to cease the rotation of the habitat forcing the invaders to suddenly have to fight in zero G which they might not be well equipped for, meanwhile my defensive forces have trained extensively and have weapons designed for zero G warfare
Issue with that are the energy requirements for stopping and re-initializing rotation of a structure with so much mass. It would probably take hours, if not days, to substantially affect the inertia of the colony to cause a shift in gravity, at which point the surprise factor is long lost and gives a huge head start to the invading forces. That said you'd still want occupation forces and equipment to deal with zero-G environments, as you would also need to be able to perform a variety of tasks from maintenance to security on the outer shell of the colony as well.
AMAZINGNES!!! Another superb video! When I think of what our first "big" achivable mechs would be like I think of the vertical tanks from steel battalion.
People in the comments need to chill. Mechs will never be a thing. Giant, impractical, expensive, overly complicated machines will always lose against the cheaper, mass produced, rugged machines. You send a mech out to attack your enemy and all the enemy has to do is wait until it eventually breaks down. Then just wait for you to surrender because you ran out of money to maintain your mech.
Yeah sadly true. The only strategical excuse for it to be a thing is to be able fight against hordes of enemies which huge bomb such ICBM could do. In fiction, the mech have wunderbar weapons that defy logic, such reusable compact emp and other that obviously consume ridiculous amounts of energy. Or extreme combat capabilities that realistically would exhausted the pilot and even the mech. The only viable excuse for it to exist would be someone ridiculously rich whimsically want it for the heck of fun of it
As much as you're talking about the massive building-size bois, we could have something like Avatar's A.M.P. suits real soon. Within our lifetime, soon. Depending on tech breakthroughs. A series I've gotten invested in, and one that has explicitly been stated by its founders to be desired as a multi-media endeavor, is called LAND&SEA. In it, the mechs, called ASHUR rigs, are kinda small (9-13 feet), but they carry the firepower of a tank. They are used like IFVs, they walk with and support an infantry squad/platoon when deployed and engage targets as necessary. While they're small enough that the pilots arms and legs fit inside the rig's, the bigger ones are tall enough that they only do so partially. That's the GEN II rigs, the GEN III rigs are stated to be taller, and the GEN I rigs are more akin to power armor. The tech within LAND&SEA is expressly stated as being "possible 25 years in the future," a statement made in 2014. "Possible" as a tech breakthrough or two is handed out on several occasions. All of it, however, is not only feasible, but much that isn't on the drawing board is already being tested.
My idea of the practical aspect of a mech is basically the negation of any time between reaction, body movement, and mechanical button pressing and lever pulling that could be entirely removed by, say, a direct neural link between a human and a robot body. The idea behind a humanoid mech would be to let control from the human brain be as intuitive as possible since it’d be piloting a body shaped like a human, so a lot of human instinct carries over to help control the mech. Obviously this idea is probably a thousand times more complicated and costly than a mech piloted by buttons and levers, but that’s the argument I’m presenting. Does anybody have any better ideas
We're already on the way there, funnily enough. Seen some attempts at making mechs, and.. Whilst they're not as functional as proper mechs depicted in media, it's a start, and it's already proof that we can build shit like that. We're just waiting on the technology to make it more feasible of a concept. But who knows what might happen in twenty years time? For military purposes however, whilst some would liken it to basically being a glorified tank, the impotant thing I think should be considered is that it's a tank that only needs one man to utilise to it's fullest extent. Tanks usually need multiple people to make effective, whilst a mech would only really need one guy. That's the important bit, I think. Tanks will probably not become obselete entirely, they're just cheaper and simpler to build by comparison, but militaries will definitely consider the possibility of having essentially fancier tanks that only need one dude to make it functional and effective, or at least I'd think they'd be fools to disregard that point in particular. The only catch is the monetary and resource cost of building a mech, in addition to how difficult it is to pilot it, but until we start seeing something closer to what we want mechs to ultimately become, it's hard to make estimates for. I'm personally hoping I get to see mechs in my lifetime, at the very least. For better or for worse, it'll be a feat of human engineering when we get there.
Something that comes up in all of these kinds of videos is the power supply. Making all the moving joints, weapons, and limbs are easy enough. But the only big problem is powering the damn thing. My best thought to solve that problem would be a nuclear fusion reactor. Unlike nuclear fission, it doesn’t create tons of waste. And from what I’ve heard, you can get a lot of nuclear energy easy enough if you know what you’re doing.
Yeah another real question, I think some of comments forgot about energy matters. Mech probably requires whole city worth of energy to be functional as desired. Not yet counting additional stuff which needs more power supply and even might requires different power sources systems
Short answer: yes. most likely wouldn't have arms, but pods that could be attached carrying various equipment loadouts ranging from anti-armor and infantry support to utility purposes. Better suited to urban warfare or dense, strudy terrain, with two legs better for urban and four for the rest. Sand would be unsteady, but mud would be its death nail unless the center of gravity is kept low. A detachable frame with layered components over a fixed chassis would be ideal, allowing the mech to receive quick maintenance and refits. Keep in mind, a mech doesn't have to be limited to one operator.
As a mecha fan ignoring the practical applications of science, but like the ACTUAL tactical uses of Mechs vs Tanks for me, Id have to say as "Strike Troops". Mechs don't need roads and the ability to use legs means that in non-urban area's a mech could be literally hidded anywhere. This means the ability for them to strike out of nowhere is surprisingly high assuming we're talking about Mechs about the size of Titans or Wanzers and the like. Not giant robots, but about the size of a building. People forget that even during the recent invasion of Ukraine, Tanks are still mostly married to roads and going off terrain is now really good when all your support vehicles and personal can't do the same thing you can. I genuinely think there could be a future in warfare for mechs of modest size.
In Gundam, Mobile Suits were created specifically for space battles. In teh series, Space battles are the majority of the time fought by giant ships, and mobile suits would have an advantage for being smaller targets, there's also the point of the Minovisky particles that make guided weapons and short radio useless, so the only way to hit a mobile suit is by directly targeting it. Everythiung changed post Operation British and when the Federation started to produce their own mobile suits, forcing ground mecha battles to happen
Finally someone else thought of mechs on a low gravity planet! Another point for them is that wheeled/tracked vehicles will have more trouble moving at a fast speed on them, they will be lighter and will pull accidental wheelies easily, even if they're heavy tanks. I learned this the hard way playing Kerbal Space Program. Building a walker might actually be easier for agile acceleration.
Here is a scenario in a City or place where it is difficult to take a good spot to set up a tank so having something that could move like a monkeys could help
I've always held that mechs make good sense in space. Extending the use and dexterity of the human body to a larger, and more durable, form factor has lots of benfits for both resesrch, construction and combat.
hear me out, what if we carried them in spaceships and space stations. they can carry equipment and supplies round, do ship maintenance, hang outside the ship with a gun and act as a turret, do ship maintenance outside in space, I mean we already use robotic arms, why not build the whole package. it also explains why they have multi directional thrusters.
Considering current warfare and new technology, it mostly goes for long-range kills and small, deadly but effective ways to unalive someone, like UAVs. You can see that the most effective strikes are done by UAVs, followed by infantry and some support vehicles. Even tank's are pushed back by UAVs like you need only 3 good UAVs strikes to immobilize tank cost=effectives goes thru roof with this one.
I think MTs from Armored core are also a very likely possibility of mech origination; Since they were built for construction and demolition first and then were adopted by the military for combat use.
I think Titanfall has the most reasonable explanation for mechs since they are already used as industrial equipment so factions like the frontier militia already has people experienced with titan operation and maintenance, while the richer IMC already makes a lot of them and has ships capable of dropping them in high amounts.
to be honest the only reason things like Armored cores work in the armored core universe is potentially because the planet in armored core is 6-7 times less dense and smaller making things like mechs work due to the MASSIVELY reduced gravity, this also increases speed as your not fighting gravity to just walk
My personal rule for "mech" vs "powered armor/exoskeleton" is "where are your limbs located?" If your limbs are inside the limbs of the machine, especially if your hands and/or feet are inside the machine's hands or feet, it's powered armor. If your limbs/hands/feet are mostly or fully inside the torso or head, wherever the cockpit is located, it's a mech. So Titans are mechs, Javelins are powered armor. Avatar mechs are indeed mechs while the industrial power lifter from Alien is a powered exoskeleton.
The only way I can see mechs working is in jungle environments. Like that one scene in avatar, having mobility of a soldier, but the firepower of a tank, being able to slide through trees with ease instead of a tank running them over or even being stuck.
I'd say the urban enviroment it self is worth a case study. Infantry protect ifv in close quater combat. Better reflex, better ability to move in cover and use vertical spaces like roof and balconies. Now scale it up. And imagine everything infantry does well BUT BIGGER
A maneuver asset is a surprisingly good role for a mech, kind of like how an attack helicopter is used in modern combat. A ten-meter-tall mech can hide itself behind terrain or buildings, if it uses rocket or jet propulsion, it'll be faster than a tank, and carrying an autocannon and guided missiles is also quite easy. It can loiter indefinitely since it can stand or sit in a position without propulsion. So less of a walking tank, more of an attack helicopter with legs... and no rotors.
Battletech has the Urbanmech which is designed for public relations rather then as a effective fighter. It is used to garrison cities because civilians are less likely to panic over a slow trashcan that lacks machineguns or any other kind of anti-crowd weapon
Maybe not humanoid mech forms, however I could see a purpose for crab/spider type vehicles in terrain types that are too difficult for tanks. A pilot could be justified if the production cost of the vehicle gets really low but the components for the AI electronics and optics remain high. Or if it is for oversight in case of rampant electronic warfare.
I would consider the legs to be among the least important parts of a Mecha design. Far more valuable to their potential function, I think, would be their human-like grasping arms. One thing that Armored Fighting Vehicles cannot do is pioneer: most armies rely on a separate engineering unit to achieve those ends. Also, they would be able to reload their own equipment without need of Support personnel and vehicles, such as cargo trucks and cranes. If worst came to worst, a mech could even scavenge enemy weapons like the autocannons of an enemy IFV or some light tank guns. And, of course, you get all that in a platform sealed against environmental threats (CBRN). In essence, should a nation in the future crack the problem of production cost and power storage, mechas would be fairly capable in environments beyond the support of Armored, Engineering, Logistics and CBRN while also being able to procure equipment on the fly: basically, special operations forces tasked with operating outside the standard chain of command, deep behind enemy lines. They would destroy enemy HVTs and support assets, casting them into disarray in preparation for allied assaults and maneuvers. Additionally, if they were smaller than a tank (only accommodating a single occupant) and lighter, their legs could act as shock absorbers during an orbital launch (alongside other things) helping to disperse the force of impact thanks to their higher movement range.
In military context, today, I think it's gonna be used as loaders like that one Ripley used in aliens, but a bit bigger. Transporting all kinds of stuff to another place, big stuff especially, if trucks and forklifts won't cut it due to size & weight alone or they're unavailable for some reason. Same goes to civil use like construction and demolition, or loading cargo to & from trucks, planes and ships. So the most obvious department mechs are gonna be used in is logistics BUT, if they're gonna be used as combat vehicles, they have to be small enough to reduce the issue of weight, maintenance and fuel, while at the same time compatible with every weapon system and equipment the military has in their inventory. In my opinion, combat mechs should be no more than a story tall, used for reconnaissance, scouts and as fire support for infantry and vehicles. And in emergency, they'll be drawing fire away from the group they're in so that said group could return fire to the enemy
Heres the thing. Mechs are, mostly potrayed as, large humans. Bi-pedal machines that can move around as a human and can grab things as a human. While being a large target is terrible in a hot combat zone, the amount of construction efforts thatd normally take days would instead take hours. You need trees cut? An axe would.do. But a large human with a comically larger axe could be better. Need to move something heavy somewhere else? A crane would help, but a large mech would pick it up like lego and place it elsewhere. The construction of FOBs and fortitications would be fast af.
On the question of pilots there are practical, real world reasons why you would still want military vehicles to be manned in the future. Remote controlled vehicles can be disrupted with electronic warfare, while there are moral and practical reasons why you don’t want to give AI weapons. Would you trust ChatGPT with guns and multi ton equipment? Of course there are many occasions where drone and robots are highly useful, but humans will always have a role in combat.
Not only that, how would you control it? Atleast with the AMP Suit in avatar your body movement is what controls it and has big enough room for you to do basic human movement and actions but even that will take alot of computing power. Mechs with thrusters and jump jets would have even more complex control systems.
I mean.... it's doable, but probably not going to be the mechs as depicted in armored core If we try making the mechs in armored core in real life, either the pilots turn to red splat in cockpit, or the metal components comprising the joints (especially leg joints) will be prone to shattering due to the speed and impact "Walking" mechs has balance and tripping over issues, so that needs some time in oven, same with actually dextrous arm controls A guntank from gundam is possible though, but at that point, probably more practical to strap missile launchers and more machineguns on a tank
Two thing that was a massive emphasize for the advantages of Mobile Suits in Gundam was the fact that they were incredibly mobile, moreso than a tank as mentioned and that with the existence of Minovski Particles, it made it almost impossible to use standard targeting systems and would requires manual (and visual) targeting to deal with them. Thing is, there is no such thing as Minovski particles in the real world, so the first point would have to be extremely useful in the militaries eye to even consider using them in a military capacity.
There are two types of mech, spider mechs and humanoid mechs; and two advantages mechs have over everything else, arms and legs. Yes, legs have higher ground pressure than anything else; meaning they will sink sooner and deeper than other machines. They are the slowest in both acceleration and top speed while also being the least efficient. However, the leg’s advantage is the ability to operate in the worst terrain. Legs can wade through water because they stand above it. Legs will sink into mud same as wheels and tracks, but long legs will hit the firm ground beneath and be able to slowly wade through the muck to keep moving. Legs can use their dexterity to push obstacles like trees, rocks, and rubble around; out of the way, into defensive piles, or just grasping it for more traction. Legs can clamber over large objects that wheels and tracks couldn't get a grip on; or they could lodge themselves into the terrain to temporarily anchor themselves, good for stable weapons platforms or rock climbing by making foot holds for themselves on the move. Legs can adjust to change the body's orientation and position. Mechs can stand up, shift side-to-side, or lean to bring the weapon/body into and out of cover. Being able to tilt the body also widens the firing arcs of its weapon systems. And of course, legs can let the mech move in any direction; if slowly. Spider mechs capitalize on the advantages of legs. These are multi-legged designs; with four to eight legs. More legs lower ground pressure and allow the mech greater redundancy; improving the ability to limp away after being damaged. They have lower ground pressure than humanoid designs allowing them to carry heavier armament and armor for a given mobility. Lacking arms sacrifices the quick-swap capacity of hands for greater ability tackling rough terrain through more legs. Spider mechs are weapon platforms for mobile artillery if lightly armored or take the role of light armored fighting vehicles in direct fire support when more heavily armored. Rivers, beaches, and muddy wetlands are easy to cross by standing on their legs like stilts to gain enough heigh to let the legs sink down to firm ground followed by wading along. Forests and mountains are handled by having the legs clear obstacles aside, grab them for traction, or dig in to anchor that leg in place to shove the mech around the leg. Spider Mechs would excel at climbing and fixing themselves in place; supplying artillery/sniping support in otherwise unreachable locations like mountain cliffs. In terms of role, the comparison between mechs and tanks is really comparing armored fighting vehicles with tracks and wheels against these spider mechs.
Humanoid mechs are specifically bipedal and have arms. Being bipedal is a pain to control but improves energy efficiency. Their arms are good for grabbing equipment, grasping objects, and manipulating the environment. Arms have all the same abilities as legs when manipulating the environment. Arms’ difference from legs is the ability to hold tools and weapons not physically attached to the mech. This ability lets humanoid mechs change roles with quick-swap parts or picking up different things. These mechs can grab a shovel to dig or a hammer to smash. They can swap between weapon and tool types as long as they can grab it. Holding weapons is even better because the weapon becomes a self-contained unit that is switched in whole; and arms can reach far wider and weirder angles. A tank cannon held in a mech’s arms can be pointed straight up and straight down; even held out to the side with the mech safely behind cover. These mechs can also operate BIG weapons as though they were over-sized crew-served weapons. Imagine a mech handloading a naval cannon the way infantry operate anti-tank cannons. Or laying prone with an autocannon as a sniper. That said, humanoid mechs will have crazy high ground-pressure, be lightly armored, and slow. Their best trait is being, in effect, the biggest possible guy. This type of mech is, really, just infantry taken to the max. Able to slowly move through bad terrain and manipulate the environment by construction/destruction of obstacles and equipment. They can change roles as the situation demands if suitable or workable equipment is available. The best use of these mechs is in logistics and maintenance where mechanical strength paired with the versatility of hands means these can replace loads of specialized equipment/vehicles. They would be best used off the battlefield but could always be pressed into service doing field repair and recovery, building fortifications, operating weapons platforms, or becoming said platform. In urban environments, they could operate as super-police/riot guards on their own or become heavy infantry in support of heavy armor like tanks. When comparing roles, humanoid mechs should be compared to soldiers not tanks.
i think mechs coud be used as construction machines like forklifts, that you can give a gun to, in case your military installation gets attacked or what have you. Basically a technical of the future.
The moment you brought up off colony for mechs to be practical was the moment I remember the whole of the Gundam series actually stated that Mobile suits were developed for use in soace before being roped into combat on places with gravity. Additionally the mobility of a MS was unparalleled, with the thick armoring making most conventional vehicles useless or needing extreme retrofit. Also another way to look at this is us solving the weight issue with a shifting system like they did where the total mechanical strength of s mech would be far better then whats perceived. Its like the ultimate black box. Oh and a decent enough power system.
My idea for military mechs are like an ambush/cavalry thing that would be very lightly armored and speedy, 25mm armored at most(although probably less), remote controlled using special beads to detect electrical impulses from the nerves(think some really advanced prosthetic limb controls from today), a recoiless rifle and a 20mm autocannon. Now even this idea would only appear 50-100+ years from now, mainly to get a type a moving part like a motor to move fast while not sacrificing strength, which is why it would probably use a type of synthetic muscle or something similar.
Another use case: certain bodies far out in the solar system, in the kuiper belt and beyond (Pluto seems to have them), may have gigantic penitentes; giant "forests" of methane or nitrogen ice pillars (they exist on Earth in certain icy mountain environments but are only a meter or so tall at best). If someone situated a base/bunker within one of these fields, intrusion would require either levelling the field which would alert them, or sneaking through. You might have some relatively spindly mechs as support for troopers in space suits in such a scenario. Perhaps less a military assault and more a scenario where hostage takers have to be raided.
Dude, that's a dope scenario. I'mma look onto the penitentes more - could be worth a video. I've already done a video on the general terrain on Mars but it would be awesome to do more of that for other celestial bodies.
Cranes, bulldozers, tanks, etc, are still operated by humans nowadays, while combat drones are flown by an AI, not remote control pilots. Main reasons are for industrial machines, worker will still get more control and awareness by sitting in the cockpit, while that is also much, much cheaper than multiple cameras, control room, and software to run it all. For tanks and drones, on field (especially on the ground) during combat, you won't always get clear communication, and you need that to properly remote control anything, and have as good reaction time and awareness as possible. Humans would still be viable in mechs, unless completely controlled by an AI, or we invent some kind of quantum communication tech.
I think the pilot inside bit is for latency, same way we dont really use remote controlled tanks. if youre building something that expensive you want the best possible reaction time to keep it in once piece while it's fielded.
he just described gundam and the original point of mobile suits to be used in space
Oh shit no way 😂 I haven't actually watched much Gundam so that was genuinely unintentional
You literally described the first episode of Gundam nearly word for word LOL
So the only real reason for a giant mech is due to a forced change of combat and to fight in space wich could be theoreticaly possibly
@hallowsoul2722 AMBAC system
@@hallowsoul2722 Yeah like quick disembarkment under fire onto enemy lines and provide cover for infantry and combat vehicles.
Give me 10 years.
I'll give you 15, time's ticking
Tbh the issue is energy and means of production. It’s been over 100 years any back water nation could go on google see the blueprints for a Sherman and make it. Plus a mech would stick out like a sore thumb unless it was extremely fast but at that point you’d have a near unkillable nuke on legs that would massacre armies like whale eating sardines. So I’d say make them viable for mass production and fast enough to avoid damage most of the time and boom you’re the 21st centuries Oppenheimer congrats on starting a new cold war.
Edit- well shit he just devalued most of what I just said.
Give this man 10 years
Save one for me :D
Give this man 10 years
My theory is that mechs would be constructed as way of making use of cybernetic neural connections. A human controlling a vehicle with their hands and feet is slower and less efficient than a human controlling a vehicle directly with their mind. But in order to do that, you need the vehicle to be loosely based on human anatomy for the brain to correctly "map" its neural pathways to the vehicle's "limbs".
So similarly to the psyco zaku from gundam thunderbolt, or the armored cores (I think), very neat however it poses severe ethical questions of how one would get that many quadruple amputees
I think the end product would probably look like atlas and ogre chassis titans from titanfall with maybe a bit more combat power like an armored core.
You could actually use a mirror AI that mirrors your thoughts and remaps them for a non-humanoid chassis
@Actvontact Its the militarny industrial complex - there is no ethics, there is only gun
@ you say that but there was a mine clearing robot shaped like a giant stick bug with lots of legs and when it did its job and stepped on a shit ton of mines, the commander in charge of the test said it was inhumane and ordered it stopped. But then again, gun.
Fun fact, Gundam is created for space combat, that’s why they have legs and melee weapons, so they can land on colony ships and stability. Melee weapons are used for close quarter fights inside colony ships too.
But sometimes they don't have legs
@ that’s when they Arent built for space battles, or not finished
@@abeeocta2599they're just for show anyway
The point of mechs is demonstrating your obvious technological superiority by making an impractical platform functional and practical.
It's psychological warfare that says FU physics and practicality.
Didn’t battletech show this with the mackie on its first deployment and then everyone else wanted one.
Mechs aren't as practical as you'd think, and they're not as far off as you'd think.
Infact, the technology to produce incredible mechs for warfare will probably develop within our life times.
@@Planetes910 technically exists already, in Japan too. All that it would need is redevelopment for military use. The problem is just the use would not make up for the cost.
@@z-ZONDER-z_E15 Well the Japanese ones aren't exactly the best.. Currently the best functional mech is South Korean, but again, not quite military spec.
However mechs as a military weapon would be very effective.
Mechs aren't just for show you know?
They could be faster than tanks, more terrain friendly than tanks, stronger than tanks, and could manuever slim and wide areas without issue, they could peak around corners or serve as rescue machines.
They would be able to adapt to the mission effectively, and wouldn't be as hard to maintain as you might think.
Althought they require tech that is currently undeveloped, however when that day comes, mechs will likely be a part of the battlefield.
They're not an impractical idea, not at all! (Unless you're making them over 2-3 stories tall)
@@Planetes910 That a big turn around from saying that they wouldn't be that practical. I never doubted that they wouldn't be useful though. A one story tall wrecking machine would be very useful, I just feel like the development cost would be a money sink. But honestly I doubt they would be stronger than tanks for how much they weighed. Faster yes, but stronger no. That's just how armor works.
fun fact: the dry weight of the RX-78-2 Gundam is actually lighter than the dry weight of the M1 Abrams
also another believable use of a mech is actually explored in Gundam as well, in the form of AMBAC
basically it's a system that allows the pilot to use limbs to maneuver and orient themselves in space without the use of massive fuel guzzling thruster arrays pointing in every needed direction at every given time, ie. you have limbs, and can swing them to turn and stuff
plus you don't need gimballed thrusters since they're attached to moving limbs
If we were optimizing for weight then slim deployable arms or doc ock tentacles would work better than humanoid armored ones.
@@635574or better
We already use 3D manuver technology with just a vacuum gyro since 60. No need to add extra limb
@@635574The entire reason AMBAC works is _because_ the limbs have mass. Admittedly you could probably achieve the same effect in a much more compact format by using reaction gyroscopes, but that doesn't looks as cool and you lose the utility of a limb that's both heavy enough to affect actual movement and strong enough to grab, shove, and generally manipulate heavy objects.
And then there's newtypes with their funnel BS....
@@griffinfaulkner3514 You don't need a limb if the entire reason of your existence is to destroy anything from long range.
Like, the comment right above me exactly tells the very existent of funnels in gundam shows the those AMBAC limb whatever that is nothing compare to just use drone with Armored Core-level of maneuver
For me the difference between an exoskeleton/powered armor and a mech is if the joints of the operator overlaps with the joints of the robot, if it does, it's the first, if not, it's the latter.
First we have to put somethings in place so we can properly compare the classic Mechs vs Tanks:
"Legs are weak point": Thats a moot point. Tank treads or wheels are also weak points, if its destroyed chances are the entire vehicle will have to be abandoned, and the later be dragged into a garage for repairs, tank or mech doesn't matter.
"sensitive parts": This one is a bit of an assumption, why is it that mechs are considered sensitive when they don't exist? Its easier for our current production methods to make "simple" parts that make up a tank, but theoretically after our production evolves (3d printing anyone?) there is no guarantee a mech would be significantly more complex than a tank, when usually parts are to be replaced anyway and not "fixed". (The entire arm would be replaced, much like an entire tank turret can be.)
"Why place a human inside?": Why place a human inside a tank? Simple, we don't have to do it if the technology doesn't require, it will be the same for both.
"Giant obvious target on the battlefield": We are in the drone era, everything and everyone is an obvious target for overwatch drones, listeners and infrared and so cameras. Same thing for being "easy to hit", anti-tank weapons currently often aim and steer themselves, no such thing as a tank surviving a proper hit from a modern Javelin, for example, a weapon that often comes from above, where the tank is flat and less armored.
Soo now that we got those out of the way, lets dive into the pros and cons of a tank vs a mech!
Gun:
A tank is likely more capable of utilizing a larger caliber gun, and keep it stable and on target even while moving than a mech could be. Similarly there would be size and weight limitations for a mech, unless it was somehow for some reason carted around.
The mech has the advantage of being able to quickly switch equipment however, unlike a tank. Assuming such mech would have dexterous arms and hands, and its not one of those arm cannon designs. Would be limited to firing lower caliber guns on the move, but could potentially fire larger caliber while still and even prone.
Mobility:
Tank mobility is only good when compared to cars that have to drive in roads, if you consider the mobility of a human doing an obstacle course, the mobility is many times superior: running, jumping, vaulting and so on. A mech would need this kind of mobility to make sense over the pure speed a tank can muster in flat terrain by being a tread/wheeled vehicle.
Armor:
Pure armor thickness? tank wins easily. However we are in the glass cannon meta, weapons that are designed to kill tanks will do so. Even if its just a "mobility kill" or "sensor kill". So the real question is, what kind of fire is it supposed to take and "not care"? Small arms fire? .50 call fire? something bigger?
It should be possible to make a mech armored enough to withstand limited fire, could be by disposable armor or strategic placement and the ability to hunker down, a tank is a static thing currently, what if the mech can make its profile smaller by going prone? it could then be flatter than a tank while like that.
Cost:
This is one of the biggest factors, tanks have a lot of details that aren't usually disclosed like strategic layered armor with different materials or exclusive production lines.
What about a mech? depends how 3d printing, again example, ends up evolving. With sufficient advancement it could end up costing the same a tank would with the same technology.
One clear advantage a mech could have is... the logistics part. If the mech is sufficiently dexterous, it could not only change weapons like a human does, but could move cargo, debris, reach out inside buildings or create cover, even dig using a shovel. "But we have excavators for that!" Yes, and a specialized vehicle would be much superior, but you can't just bring an excavator every where along with the tank. So the mech could do somethings that would normally be done by infantry or specialized vehicles... without committing its role. Adaptability = better value.
Tanks might have their days numbered by drones anyway, the question is if a suitable mech could be made, because it could certainly be used!
...so basically the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
It's lighter and faster than an mbt because it has less armour, in the event it reaches something it can't climb over it can deploy inf to go clear it and pick them up later.
It has a light autocannon it can use on the move and an anti-tank missile launcher it can deploy and reload while stationary.
And you can attach a dozer blade to the front of it or have engineering variants made to do sapper stuff.
All while retailing the low to the ground profile while moving at speed, and still being less complicated because i fail to see how several knee, hip, and ankle joints with corresponding hydraulics/muscles and the motor(s) to power them could ever be less work to make AND MAINTAIN than an engine, a driveshaft, some wheels and a track link
Also, a tank doesn't fall over, eat shit and possibly break more of it if the track is taken out at an inopportune time. There are many instances where tanks have acted effectively as bunkers after being immobilized and doing quite a lot of damage as such.
how would a mech be more useful against drones than a tank?
@@Kyuschi I lost the nearly done text I was making for a response :(... well, here we go again:
An IFV like the Bradley is an excellent example to bring up because they wouldn't compete, they would well work together! The mech could be considered "super-heavy infantry", doing many of the same jobs but better. And even if the mech could move relatively fast on its own, it would likely be better to transport it with another vehicle, maybe towing, something an IFV could do!
Despite its height while standing, a 5-meter (15-foot) mech wouldn’t have a larger profile than a Bradley (3 meters or 10 feet) if it crouched or went prone on standby.
Falling over is a risk, but drive-by-wire systems and it being less armored and lighter than the Bradley’s 27 tons would reduce the issue, self-recovery if toppled is a definite must, and if we assume being piloted by 1 person, it would be overall less massive.
Power supply is the main limiting factor. A mech wouldn’t need to operate unplugged indefinitely, 15 minutes of high-intensity combat could be sufficient before retreating for pickup or resupply.
Regarding maintenance, the Bradley is already less demanding than heavier vehicles like the Abrams. A modular mech could simplify some repairs: broken limbs could be swapped out in the field by taking some extra parts, anything more could be handled back at a garage. If damaged in combat, the mech could be ditched temporarily, much like immobilized tanks often are to be towed back later.
While load-bearing joints are indeed a challenge, they have the advantage of built-in suspension. Each joint is an independent shock absorber, unlike tracked or wheeled vehicles, with traditional suspension system, constrained by the rigid nature of tracks or tires, often transferring the force of terrain impacts to the vehicle's frame.
In contrast, each leg can dissipate energy more efficiently by dynamically adjusting to terrain. This could reduce wear on other components and enhance overall durability.
For weapons, some variation of 20mm autocannon would likely be a good spot for main gun, it could carry extra ammo externally, maybe attached to the thighs for example and could use man-portable missile systems, like the Javelin or NLAW or cheaper versions, assuming the arms and manipulators have the necessary dexterity.
@@foxsecretHonest question: how many drones get shot down by tanks?
Where you would need a tank designed with SAMs (which would limit it in other areas) as well as other vehicles/troops to protect it, a mech could have a SAM weapon it could easily swap to- either through hardpoints and weapon bays, or a second vehicle doing a drive by drop off.
I think another good point in favor of mechs would be their propaganda and morale value. Seeing a giant on *your* side, standing tall and fighting against your enemies alongside you would probably be a powerful sight. For propaganda, mechs are more human than tanks or ships, like tall armored knights. There are stories of a single tanks holding the line against vastly more numerous foes, and while the sight of a battered tank still standing proud is potent enough, the damaged knight determined to hold the line against the enemy would be something else.
I think that the most promising applications of walking machines in military applications is in logistics and combat engineering, literally being used to transport cargo and position fortifications as an all-in-one heavy machine that can cross very rough and steep terrain with dense vegetation and swamps.
Modern militaries still use pack animals to this day in this type of terrain btw.
1) Short to medium range jet fighters are terribly obsolete compared to drones and ICBMs but we keep using them.
2) The Toyota Wars existed.
3) Industrial mechs are inevitable, as the versatility of "big man" can invariably become more effective than having six specialty vehicles.
Conclusion: Inevitably a labor mech will beat the shit out of exactly one (1) APC and the revolutionaries, militiamen, or beleaguered troopers who see it happen will not allow their higher ups to not make a combat model.
I'm now going to have to try very hard not to change the name of this video to "The VERSATILITY of BIG MAN"
"The VERSATILITY of BIG MAN" Hmmmmm THat good
That's actually the origin of Gears in Heavy Gear, some shmucks decided to up gun and armor an industrial mech to help fight of an attacking force from another nation and it worked out better then expected, so much so to lead to the creation of the BOT project which lead to the creation of the first combat Gear known as the Hunter.
That sounds like good intro to a mech game.
1. You're comparing mass destruction to precise operations. Jets and ICBMs are built for two entirely different operations.
2. Ok
3. Having six specialized machines is better than having 1 jack of all trades. Just try fighting a swarm of bees. You may kill a few, but in the end they'll fuck you up.
Conclusion: You know nothing of warfare. Life isn't a movie. Modern wars are fought the way they are because it is effective.
i think the Juggernouts/Reginleifs from 86 could work,like its an Spider tank
in the words of the scientist from MGS 3 Snake Eater, it's not about the degree of weaponry but the development but its deployment. Once we figure out the legs of a mech, were golden.
"Look at these!"
"Nice shoes..."
"No! Legs!"
3 kinds of biological legs as it is. So I assume there’s 3 overall types of mechanical legs possible to build that’d work. Maybe more who know, like including wheels. And thrusters etc.
@@beckstiles6595 once we figure out the legs of a mech, we can make tank go supersonic and has 3D maneuver instead
A good way to approach a mech's framework would be to have it be somewhat organically inspired (take the evas from Evangelion). The legs and other necessary parts could have structural support similar to that of bones, basically a stiff mesh that allows itself to compress inwards onto itself. This should decrease the number of fragile parts, and allow the parts that would face the most gravitational force additional strength. My only proof of concept is how dinosaurs managed to be so large while theoretically remaining agile. Put some plating around the "skeleton" and now you have a well-armored (not core) mech!
My only idea on how problems such as falling over and being horribly destroyed as well as other pressures that would easily fuck it up, would be to take advantage of how synthetic materials are not directly analogous to organic materials (better strengths in tensile, compression, etc. forces). Even if everything does fix durability, repair costs will always be an issue.
I love mechs, combat robots, power armor, battle walkers, whateveryouwanttocallthem, i love them.
Big, small, fast, cumbersome, light, heavy, sneaky, floaty, all of them.
Can we do them IRL? Well, not really, at leasst not with our current day tech. HOWEVER... technology progresses.
I mean, heck, the Heavy Gears in the same-titled franchise use V-engines as their powerplant!
I had an epiphany about mechs recently:
1. EVA Space suits are Mechs. They DO exist and are practical
2. People in the future will make mechs because they are cool and pop cultural even if they're not the most practical vehicle for every use case.
I think they should be like bigger power armor, that are use for harsh interplanetary exploration from deep ocean exploration, high corrosive atmosphere that would break down normal spacesuit, repairing and building space ships and station in outerspace. They could be helpful in civilian use then military, unless its an harsh environment combat where All terrain is needed.
You should read The Mech Touch. The author grapples with the question of why would you use mechs instead of some other vehicle.
What about mechs alongside other vehicles as seen in series like battletech? Combined arms instead of mechs being the end all be all.
@@cliffdavidson5096I agree with this statement. I love mechs to death, but by no means should they replace every vehicle on the field. Combined Arms works because of the different skill sets and roles meshing together to form a cohesive whole. A mech should fill in some roles while allowing flexibility and wiggle room for others.
@@Headbringer heck I battletech there are tanks that can one shot mechs like the demolisher and even infantry gets lucky sometimes with a lucky missile.
@@cliffdavidson5096 Yeah, sometimes all it takes is one person getting lucky or poor positioning. That’s why combined arms is the name of the game. You have everyone support each other so that way every is safer. The smallest unit for any operation should be at least two people, so they can on each other to watch their back. That’s why we have battle buddies and wingmen.
@@malcolm_in_the_middle In battletech earlier parts of the setting factor in warships as critical strategic deployment platforms for their ability to deploy various strategic weapons with invasion hinging on them. Until they were lost in various apocalyptic wars till there were only a handful left.
Considering how creative we humans are when it comes to technology we might probably see something close to a mech in a few decades or so. However it would probably not be a Gundam size mech but instead something like the small construction mech suit from Patlabor. Cuz that's probably the closest thing we can achieve due to limitations.
At least it maybe used in places where the terrain is rough, such as mountainous terrain or urban warfare.
In that sense, I hope ACV will become the future. Wouldn't it be cool to have a urban warfare with a mecha about 5m in size?
Of course, it's not the world. It's mecha. I don't want to live in a world where everything is dying lol
By the time humanity can build Mecha they would be advanced enough to make them obsolete
Since I found out that General Electric made a working mech in the 60's it still boggles me how it was more ingenius and practical than anything we have in that size range today, and it made me think that we could definitely pick up from were they stopped and make it work in the field with the technology we have today, and that it could definitively be useful in some applications.
(I recommend the video from the channel "Found and Explained", it does at great job of explaining the specifics).
“Why do I need this you ask?…”
Because drill. The drill that’ll pierce the heavens.
4:28 never thought I'd see the day where I heard Thornhill being played over AC6 cinematic footage
Your solution is basically every gundam series in a nutshell
I feel like the most realistic type of mechs are the Titans from Titanfall. The Armored Cores and Gundams would be dope as hell, but they aren’t entirely realistic
ACs in armored core V and VD are pretty realistic. They can't fly (only hover), are only 5 meters tall, have to scale buildings by climbing them and use wall jumping to get around. They're also pretty chonky so it would be hard to knock them off balance.
If you wanted human piloted mechs, Id agree, at least with out current understanding of whats possible. With minor changes you would get something much like the heavier Titans such as Scorch or Legion
@@pot3to444 They must be at least 7 meter tall, 5 meter is waaay too small to fit any machinary inside let alone a cockpit.
Funny, because I've watched a video debunking that. While Titans are believable in that they're built for urban warfare and anti-infantry purposes, they aren't as realistic in a functional sense as you'd think for this one simple thing they shared with Gundam: The proportions are still too human. Our humanoid form doesn't work for bigger things than us, we don't have metals that can withstand that kind of stress.
Armored cores do not share this weakness most of the time, however. As while still keeping the general humanoid looks ( bipedal with one torso, 2 arms, 2 legs), many ACs are inhuman, even monstrous in it's proportions.
Realisticly while making a giant humanoid, you do not want it to look like a giant man in a metal suit , basic physics don't allow that and I think Amored core understand that...
I remember there was one time I was debating the practicality of mechs with ChatGPT and we ended up at using mechs for sniping missions due to their manuverability
Sniping in general can be done with any weapon, it's the practice of taking out a target with one shot "The killing blow" - but hell yeah sniping mechs
@ sniping but instead of a small sniper rifle it’s a rifle with the barrel the size of a fucking warship cannon
@@labbit35 which shoots slugs the size of a semi, and with the speed of a hypercar?
@ nah more like the size of a large table, filled with explosive, while flying at Mach 5
I think an quadipidal mechs that from Eighty Sixers anime where they are like spiders with big guns. Very maneuverable in dense urban area, thick vegetations forest, and steep mountain ranges would be the best place to fully utilise them where heavy armoured vechiles can't operated. Plus, humanoid mechs should be for combat engineers, where they can operated multiple construction tools and probably could use their hands for removing debris and build entrench emplacements.
In my opinion, i think a mech like the ones from Avatar would be most practical. Need heavy firepower inside? Mech with a big gun. Need someone to move something heavy out of the way where a tank can't fit? Mech. Need a cool robot with a gun? Mech.
Yeah those were proably closest to a viable big exoakeleton turned vehicle.
In Titanfall mechs were originally made for work, like construction and farmwork. But when war struck the civilians didnt have tanks or other weapons, so they converted the titans into weapons of war. And eventually the military followed suit. The other benefit is that mechs imo, wouldn't be primarily war weapons first. They'd be primarily weapon transportation things. Humans can't lift a tank very easily, but what if in he middle of battle a mech could help replace a tanks tread? While also being able to provide cover fire for the tank. A mech would be a swift army knife, and the other thing about Mechs is they only require one pilot while tanks have at minimum 3
I have been a Battletech nerd since the 90's. I think General Aleksandr Kerensky explained the "why" on mechs when he gave his desired specs for the new Atlas BattleMech: "a 'Mech as powerful as possible, as impenetrable as possible, and as ugly and foreboding as conceivable, so that fear itself will be our ally."
Mechs will always excel in shock and awe attacks and Blitzkriegs.
Also, if you look up Megabots Inc (USA) and Suidobashi Heavy Industries (Japan) have both made mechs to fight each other. It was all showboating, but it was a proof of concept
Seriously I think you’d like battletech it’s not just mechs but the lore also contains the military industrial complex with context with how some mechs were made from genuinely good platforms to graft machines. Mech are also not the be all end all, tanks, air vehicles, and even infantry still matter. Though infantry is mostly for garrisoning.
We havent considering other leg configurations for mech. While less human shaped, a mech like tetrapod from AC could potentially solve some balance and weight distribution issues, especially if you want it to be a multipurpose role mech for lifting heavy equipment
If I was in charge of a massive rotating habitat, part of the defense plan would involve developing weapons that can operate flawlessly in zero G. Fly around, be fast/nimble, etc. Then I'd have a procedure in place to cease the rotation of the habitat forcing the invaders to suddenly have to fight in zero G which they might not be well equipped for, meanwhile my defensive forces have trained extensively and have weapons designed for zero G warfare
Issue with that are the energy requirements for stopping and re-initializing rotation of a structure with so much mass. It would probably take hours, if not days, to substantially affect the inertia of the colony to cause a shift in gravity, at which point the surprise factor is long lost and gives a huge head start to the invading forces.
That said you'd still want occupation forces and equipment to deal with zero-G environments, as you would also need to be able to perform a variety of tasks from maintenance to security on the outer shell of the colony as well.
1:40 Heavy Gear itself was based off Armored Troopers VOTOMS, especially the ability to 'skate' around.
AMAZINGNES!!! Another superb video!
When I think of what our first "big" achivable mechs would be like I think of the vertical tanks from steel battalion.
Steel Battalion mentioned, like added.
@Headbringer Oh yeah!
People in the comments need to chill. Mechs will never be a thing. Giant, impractical, expensive, overly complicated machines will always lose against the cheaper, mass produced, rugged machines.
You send a mech out to attack your enemy and all the enemy has to do is wait until it eventually breaks down. Then just wait for you to surrender because you ran out of money to maintain your mech.
Yeah sadly true. The only strategical excuse for it to be a thing is to be able fight against hordes of enemies which huge bomb such ICBM could do. In fiction, the mech have wunderbar weapons that defy logic, such reusable compact emp and other that obviously consume ridiculous amounts of energy. Or extreme combat capabilities that realistically would exhausted the pilot and even the mech. The only viable excuse for it to exist would be someone ridiculously rich whimsically want it for the heck of fun of it
As much as you're talking about the massive building-size bois, we could have something like Avatar's A.M.P. suits real soon. Within our lifetime, soon. Depending on tech breakthroughs.
A series I've gotten invested in, and one that has explicitly been stated by its founders to be desired as a multi-media endeavor, is called LAND&SEA. In it, the mechs, called ASHUR rigs, are kinda small (9-13 feet), but they carry the firepower of a tank. They are used like IFVs, they walk with and support an infantry squad/platoon when deployed and engage targets as necessary. While they're small enough that the pilots arms and legs fit inside the rig's, the bigger ones are tall enough that they only do so partially. That's the GEN II rigs, the GEN III rigs are stated to be taller, and the GEN I rigs are more akin to power armor. The tech within LAND&SEA is expressly stated as being "possible 25 years in the future," a statement made in 2014. "Possible" as a tech breakthrough or two is handed out on several occasions. All of it, however, is not only feasible, but much that isn't on the drawing board is already being tested.
7:33 Man just described the plot of 90% of Gundam. As usual Tomino stays winning
My idea of the practical aspect of a mech is basically the negation of any time between reaction, body movement, and mechanical button pressing and lever pulling that could be entirely removed by, say, a direct neural link between a human and a robot body. The idea behind a humanoid mech would be to let control from the human brain be as intuitive as possible since it’d be piloting a body shaped like a human, so a lot of human instinct carries over to help control the mech. Obviously this idea is probably a thousand times more complicated and costly than a mech piloted by buttons and levers, but that’s the argument I’m presenting. Does anybody have any better ideas
Mechs can be used for multiple purposes and would be versatile depending on the size of the mech
Dude how do you even come up with these funny ass similes?
I think the key is being absolutely out of my fucking mind
@Xandros_Official I had to sub after the 'about as fun to solve as Broken Rubik's cube in a septic tank' in one of your older videos
Muv luv fan where are you
Check on what is TSF in project alternative, pretty close for high agility and tank and aircraft loadout
We're already on the way there, funnily enough. Seen some attempts at making mechs, and.. Whilst they're not as functional as proper mechs depicted in media, it's a start, and it's already proof that we can build shit like that. We're just waiting on the technology to make it more feasible of a concept. But who knows what might happen in twenty years time?
For military purposes however, whilst some would liken it to basically being a glorified tank, the impotant thing I think should be considered is that it's a tank that only needs one man to utilise to it's fullest extent. Tanks usually need multiple people to make effective, whilst a mech would only really need one guy. That's the important bit, I think. Tanks will probably not become obselete entirely, they're just cheaper and simpler to build by comparison, but militaries will definitely consider the possibility of having essentially fancier tanks that only need one dude to make it functional and effective, or at least I'd think they'd be fools to disregard that point in particular.
The only catch is the monetary and resource cost of building a mech, in addition to how difficult it is to pilot it, but until we start seeing something closer to what we want mechs to ultimately become, it's hard to make estimates for.
I'm personally hoping I get to see mechs in my lifetime, at the very least. For better or for worse, it'll be a feat of human engineering when we get there.
Something that comes up in all of these kinds of videos is the power supply. Making all the moving joints, weapons, and limbs are easy enough. But the only big problem is powering the damn thing. My best thought to solve that problem would be a nuclear fusion reactor. Unlike nuclear fission, it doesn’t create tons of waste. And from what I’ve heard, you can get a lot of nuclear energy easy enough if you know what you’re doing.
Yeah another real question, I think some of comments forgot about energy matters. Mech probably requires whole city worth of energy to be functional as desired. Not yet counting additional stuff which needs more power supply and even might requires different power sources systems
It makes me happy you used thornhill there for a few seconds
Think of it like the warhammer titans, the intimidation factor can win you the battle.
Hey go have a look at the mechs in Forever Winter, it'll be worth your time.
Bro the mechs in Forever Winter look metal as fuck, right?
@Xandros_Official it's called the "living artbook" for a reason, and I'm all for it.
Space Type: Use the Gundam UC timeline of Mobile Suits.
Ground Type: Use Code Geass's Knightmare Frame.
Short answer: yes.
most likely wouldn't have arms, but pods that could be attached carrying various equipment loadouts ranging from anti-armor and infantry support to utility purposes.
Better suited to urban warfare or dense, strudy terrain, with two legs better for urban and four for the rest. Sand would be unsteady, but mud would be its death nail unless the center of gravity is kept low.
A detachable frame with layered components over a fixed chassis would be ideal, allowing the mech to receive quick maintenance and refits.
Keep in mind, a mech doesn't have to be limited to one operator.
It’s videos like this that let me know the algorithm being improved I love mechs
Why isn’t this guy given his own documentary’s on the history channel ?
The metal gear Rex is (in my opinion) the (kinda) most realist thing we will get to a mech
As a mecha fan ignoring the practical applications of science, but like the ACTUAL tactical uses of Mechs vs Tanks for me, Id have to say as "Strike Troops". Mechs don't need roads and the ability to use legs means that in non-urban area's a mech could be literally hidded anywhere. This means the ability for them to strike out of nowhere is surprisingly high assuming we're talking about Mechs about the size of Titans or Wanzers and the like. Not giant robots, but about the size of a building. People forget that even during the recent invasion of Ukraine, Tanks are still mostly married to roads and going off terrain is now really good when all your support vehicles and personal can't do the same thing you can. I genuinely think there could be a future in warfare for mechs of modest size.
If my Sci Fi story, mechs show up with anti grav tech
In Gundam, Mobile Suits were created specifically for space battles. In teh series, Space battles are the majority of the time fought by giant ships, and mobile suits would have an advantage for being smaller targets, there's also the point of the Minovisky particles that make guided weapons and short radio useless, so the only way to hit a mobile suit is by directly targeting it. Everythiung changed post Operation British and when the Federation started to produce their own mobile suits, forcing ground mecha battles to happen
Finally someone else thought of mechs on a low gravity planet! Another point for them is that wheeled/tracked vehicles will have more trouble moving at a fast speed on them, they will be lighter and will pull accidental wheelies easily, even if they're heavy tanks. I learned this the hard way playing Kerbal Space Program. Building a walker might actually be easier for agile acceleration.
this guys' whole point: lets recreate Gundam
I'm completely on board :)
Here is a scenario in a City or place where it is difficult to take a good spot to set up a tank so having something that could move like a monkeys could help
The mech suit from Avatar is the most plausible for a irl application
We're already doing it, lol, granted in the earliest of stages, but yes, we can.
1: a exo skeleton isn't a mech,
2. a mech is a giant mechanical robot, sometimes piloted but not always at it's root word is mechanical robot.
I've always held that mechs make good sense in space. Extending the use and dexterity of the human body to a larger, and more durable, form factor has lots of benfits for both resesrch, construction and combat.
hear me out, what if we carried them in spaceships and space stations. they can carry equipment and supplies round, do ship maintenance, hang outside the ship with a gun and act as a turret, do ship maintenance outside in space, I mean we already use robotic arms, why not build the whole package. it also explains why they have multi directional thrusters.
He was going through the movments and then i realized the man was just describing gundam.
Considering current warfare and new technology, it mostly goes for long-range kills and small, deadly but effective ways to unalive someone, like UAVs. You can see that the most effective strikes are done by UAVs, followed by infantry and some support vehicles. Even tank's are pushed back by UAVs like you need only 3 good UAVs strikes to immobilize tank cost=effectives goes thru roof with this one.
I think MTs from Armored core are also a very likely possibility of mech origination; Since they were built for construction and demolition first and then were adopted by the military for combat use.
I think Titanfall has the most reasonable explanation for mechs since they are already used as industrial equipment so factions like the frontier militia already has people experienced with titan operation and maintenance, while the richer IMC already makes a lot of them and has ships capable of dropping them in high amounts.
Another amazing video
4:21 THORNHILL MENTIONED LETS FUCKING GOO
to be honest the only reason things like Armored cores work in the armored core universe is potentially because the planet in armored core is 6-7 times less dense and smaller making things like mechs work due to the MASSIVELY reduced gravity, this also increases speed as your not fighting gravity to just walk
I like your idea it's gotta be like low grav urban maneuver situations
My personal rule for "mech" vs "powered armor/exoskeleton" is "where are your limbs located?" If your limbs are inside the limbs of the machine, especially if your hands and/or feet are inside the machine's hands or feet, it's powered armor. If your limbs/hands/feet are mostly or fully inside the torso or head, wherever the cockpit is located, it's a mech. So Titans are mechs, Javelins are powered armor. Avatar mechs are indeed mechs while the industrial power lifter from Alien is a powered exoskeleton.
4:01 what a comparison
The only way I can see mechs working is in jungle environments. Like that one scene in avatar, having mobility of a soldier, but the firepower of a tank, being able to slide through trees with ease instead of a tank running them over or even being stuck.
I'd say the urban enviroment it self is worth a case study. Infantry protect ifv in close quater combat. Better reflex, better ability to move in cover and use vertical spaces like roof and balconies.
Now scale it up. And imagine everything infantry does well BUT BIGGER
In the immortal words of the best mecha char " I wont miss"
WAIT what if the mechs, to fix the weight issues, had thrusters in their back that basically push them up?
A maneuver asset is a surprisingly good role for a mech, kind of like how an attack helicopter is used in modern combat. A ten-meter-tall mech can hide itself behind terrain or buildings, if it uses rocket or jet propulsion, it'll be faster than a tank, and carrying an autocannon and guided missiles is also quite easy. It can loiter indefinitely since it can stand or sit in a position without propulsion. So less of a walking tank, more of an attack helicopter with legs... and no rotors.
Battletech has the Urbanmech which is designed for public relations rather then as a effective fighter. It is used to garrison cities because civilians are less likely to panic over a slow trashcan that lacks machineguns or any other kind of anti-crowd weapon
Hey that's what the Anti-birdpoop flashlight.....errr Small Laser is there for.
Maybe not humanoid mech forms, however I could see a purpose for crab/spider type vehicles in terrain types that are too difficult for tanks.
A pilot could be justified if the production cost of the vehicle gets really low but the components for the AI electronics and optics remain high.
Or if it is for oversight in case of rampant electronic warfare.
Man, watching 86 anime would make the concept realistic and grimdark knowing that its possible.
The closest thing we may have to look and feel in a game is probably steel battalion
I would consider the legs to be among the least important parts of a Mecha design. Far more valuable to their potential function, I think, would be their human-like grasping arms. One thing that Armored Fighting Vehicles cannot do is pioneer: most armies rely on a separate engineering unit to achieve those ends. Also, they would be able to reload their own equipment without need of Support personnel and vehicles, such as cargo trucks and cranes. If worst came to worst, a mech could even scavenge enemy weapons like the autocannons of an enemy IFV or some light tank guns. And, of course, you get all that in a platform sealed against environmental threats (CBRN).
In essence, should a nation in the future crack the problem of production cost and power storage, mechas would be fairly capable in environments beyond the support of Armored, Engineering, Logistics and CBRN while also being able to procure equipment on the fly: basically, special operations forces tasked with operating outside the standard chain of command, deep behind enemy lines. They would destroy enemy HVTs and support assets, casting them into disarray in preparation for allied assaults and maneuvers. Additionally, if they were smaller than a tank (only accommodating a single occupant) and lighter, their legs could act as shock absorbers during an orbital launch (alongside other things) helping to disperse the force of impact thanks to their higher movement range.
Honestly exoskeletons are probably more realistic if they can figure out portable power and improve material science.
In military context, today, I think it's gonna be used as loaders like that one Ripley used in aliens, but a bit bigger. Transporting all kinds of stuff to another place, big stuff especially, if trucks and forklifts won't cut it due to size & weight alone or they're unavailable for some reason. Same goes to civil use like construction and demolition, or loading cargo to & from trucks, planes and ships. So the most obvious department mechs are gonna be used in is logistics
BUT, if they're gonna be used as combat vehicles, they have to be small enough to reduce the issue of weight, maintenance and fuel, while at the same time compatible with every weapon system and equipment the military has in their inventory. In my opinion, combat mechs should be no more than a story tall, used for reconnaissance, scouts and as fire support for infantry and vehicles. And in emergency, they'll be drawing fire away from the group they're in so that said group could return fire to the enemy
Oh hell yeah Thornhill mentioned
Heres the thing. Mechs are, mostly potrayed as, large humans. Bi-pedal machines that can move around as a human and can grab things as a human. While being a large target is terrible in a hot combat zone, the amount of construction efforts thatd normally take days would instead take hours. You need trees cut? An axe would.do. But a large human with a comically larger axe could be better. Need to move something heavy somewhere else? A crane would help, but a large mech would pick it up like lego and place it elsewhere. The construction of FOBs and fortitications would be fast af.
On the question of pilots there are practical, real world reasons why you would still want military vehicles to be manned in the future. Remote controlled vehicles can be disrupted with electronic warfare, while there are moral and practical reasons why you don’t want to give AI weapons. Would you trust ChatGPT with guns and multi ton equipment? Of course there are many occasions where drone and robots are highly useful, but humans will always have a role in combat.
The only way they would be viable is if they were faster and more agile than a tank.
yeah...nanother issue? Energy. How would you power it?
Not only that, how would you control it? Atleast with the AMP Suit in avatar your body movement is what controls it and has big enough room for you to do basic human movement and actions but even that will take alot of computing power. Mechs with thrusters and jump jets would have even more complex control systems.
I mean.... it's doable, but probably not going to be the mechs as depicted in armored core
If we try making the mechs in armored core in real life, either the pilots turn to red splat in cockpit, or the metal components comprising the joints (especially leg joints) will be prone to shattering due to the speed and impact
"Walking" mechs has balance and tripping over issues, so that needs some time in oven, same with actually dextrous arm controls
A guntank from gundam is possible though, but at that point, probably more practical to strap missile launchers and more machineguns on a tank
Two thing that was a massive emphasize for the advantages of Mobile Suits in Gundam was the fact that they were incredibly mobile, moreso than a tank as mentioned and that with the existence of Minovski Particles, it made it almost impossible to use standard targeting systems and would requires manual (and visual) targeting to deal with them. Thing is, there is no such thing as Minovski particles in the real world, so the first point would have to be extremely useful in the militaries eye to even consider using them in a military capacity.
There are two types of mech, spider mechs and humanoid mechs; and two advantages mechs have over everything else, arms and legs.
Yes, legs have higher ground pressure than anything else; meaning they will sink sooner and deeper than other machines. They are the slowest in both acceleration and top speed while also being the least efficient. However, the leg’s advantage is the ability to operate in the worst terrain.
Legs can wade through water because they stand above it. Legs will sink into mud same as wheels and tracks, but long legs will hit the firm ground beneath and be able to slowly wade through the muck to keep moving. Legs can use their dexterity to push obstacles like trees, rocks, and rubble around; out of the way, into defensive piles, or just grasping it for more traction.
Legs can clamber over large objects that wheels and tracks couldn't get a grip on; or they could lodge themselves into the terrain to temporarily anchor themselves, good for stable weapons platforms or rock climbing by making foot holds for themselves on the move.
Legs can adjust to change the body's orientation and position. Mechs can stand up, shift side-to-side, or lean to bring the weapon/body into and out of cover. Being able to tilt the body also widens the firing arcs of its weapon systems. And of course, legs can let the mech move in any direction; if slowly.
Spider mechs capitalize on the advantages of legs. These are multi-legged designs; with four to eight legs. More legs lower ground pressure and allow the mech greater redundancy; improving the ability to limp away after being damaged. They have lower ground pressure than humanoid designs allowing them to carry heavier armament and armor for a given mobility. Lacking arms sacrifices the quick-swap capacity of hands for greater ability tackling rough terrain through more legs. Spider mechs are weapon platforms for mobile artillery if lightly armored or take the role of light armored fighting vehicles in direct fire support when more heavily armored.
Rivers, beaches, and muddy wetlands are easy to cross by standing on their legs like stilts to gain enough heigh to let the legs sink down to firm ground followed by wading along. Forests and mountains are handled by having the legs clear obstacles aside, grab them for traction, or dig in to anchor that leg in place to shove the mech around the leg. Spider Mechs would excel at climbing and fixing themselves in place; supplying artillery/sniping support in otherwise unreachable locations like mountain cliffs. In terms of role, the comparison between mechs and tanks is really comparing armored fighting vehicles with tracks and wheels against these spider mechs.
Humanoid mechs are specifically bipedal and have arms. Being bipedal is a pain to control but improves energy efficiency. Their arms are good for grabbing equipment, grasping objects, and manipulating the environment. Arms have all the same abilities as legs when manipulating the environment. Arms’ difference from legs is the ability to hold tools and weapons not physically attached to the mech. This ability lets humanoid mechs change roles with quick-swap parts or picking up different things. These mechs can grab a shovel to dig or a hammer to smash. They can swap between weapon and tool types as long as they can grab it. Holding weapons is even better because the weapon becomes a self-contained unit that is switched in whole; and arms can reach far wider and weirder angles. A tank cannon held in a mech’s arms can be pointed straight up and straight down; even held out to the side with the mech safely behind cover. These mechs can also operate BIG weapons as though they were over-sized crew-served weapons. Imagine a mech handloading a naval cannon the way infantry operate anti-tank cannons. Or laying prone with an autocannon as a sniper.
That said, humanoid mechs will have crazy high ground-pressure, be lightly armored, and slow. Their best trait is being, in effect, the biggest possible guy. This type of mech is, really, just infantry taken to the max. Able to slowly move through bad terrain and manipulate the environment by construction/destruction of obstacles and equipment. They can change roles as the situation demands if suitable or workable equipment is available. The best use of these mechs is in logistics and maintenance where mechanical strength paired with the versatility of hands means these can replace loads of specialized equipment/vehicles. They would be best used off the battlefield but could always be pressed into service doing field repair and recovery, building fortifications, operating weapons platforms, or becoming said platform. In urban environments, they could operate as super-police/riot guards on their own or become heavy infantry in support of heavy armor like tanks. When comparing roles, humanoid mechs should be compared to soldiers not tanks.
i think mechs coud be used as construction machines like forklifts, that you can give a gun to, in case your military installation gets attacked or what have you. Basically a technical of the future.
The titans were made for physical labor too 😭
The moment you brought up off colony for mechs to be practical was the moment I remember the whole of the Gundam series actually stated that Mobile suits were developed for use in soace before being roped into combat on places with gravity. Additionally the mobility of a MS was unparalleled, with the thick armoring making most conventional vehicles useless or needing extreme retrofit.
Also another way to look at this is us solving the weight issue with a shifting system like they did where the total mechanical strength of s mech would be far better then whats perceived. Its like the ultimate black box. Oh and a decent enough power system.
My idea for military mechs are like an ambush/cavalry thing that would be very lightly armored and speedy, 25mm armored at most(although probably less), remote controlled using special beads to detect electrical impulses from the nerves(think some really advanced prosthetic limb controls from today), a recoiless rifle and a 20mm autocannon. Now even this idea would only appear 50-100+ years from now, mainly to get a type a moving part like a motor to move fast while not sacrificing strength, which is why it would probably use a type of synthetic muscle or something similar.
4:15 just this statement is true but holy shit once again its more than "robots"
Another use case: certain bodies far out in the solar system, in the kuiper belt and beyond (Pluto seems to have them), may have gigantic penitentes; giant "forests" of methane or nitrogen ice pillars (they exist on Earth in certain icy mountain environments but are only a meter or so tall at best). If someone situated a base/bunker within one of these fields, intrusion would require either levelling the field which would alert them, or sneaking through. You might have some relatively spindly mechs as support for troopers in space suits in such a scenario. Perhaps less a military assault and more a scenario where hostage takers have to be raided.
Dude, that's a dope scenario. I'mma look onto the penitentes more - could be worth a video. I've already done a video on the general terrain on Mars but it would be awesome to do more of that for other celestial bodies.
Cranes, bulldozers, tanks, etc, are still operated by humans nowadays, while combat drones are flown by an AI, not remote control pilots. Main reasons are for industrial machines, worker will still get more control and awareness by sitting in the cockpit, while that is also much, much cheaper than multiple cameras, control room, and software to run it all. For tanks and drones, on field (especially on the ground) during combat, you won't always get clear communication, and you need that to properly remote control anything, and have as good reaction time and awareness as possible.
Humans would still be viable in mechs, unless completely controlled by an AI, or we invent some kind of quantum communication tech.
Well the idea of 'realistic' mechs is basically the original starship troopers. This is what Gundam for example was inspired by.
“A brexit-level completely predictable catastrophe” 😭
I think the pilot inside bit is for latency, same way we dont really use remote controlled tanks. if youre building something that expensive you want the best possible reaction time to keep it in once piece while it's fielded.