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 impractical 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
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.
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.
@@cuteButKindaDeadlyBreloom they're not mechs - they're exoskeletons. And those are already on sale for military purposes. The difference between the two is one of scale. You can definitely be inside something which carries more armour & weaponry than you could. But really it's like the difference between what RandomSuperheroX can do in a movie & what his toy action figure can do - they're miles apart.
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.
In Battletech they have arificial metal "muscles" instead of conventional joints. And while they don't use full "mind control", the pilots wear a helmet that connects their brain to a so called gyroscope in order to make use of the humans innate sense of balance.
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.
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
8:44 in AC6 there’s something called “core theory” that dictates that piloted AC are better than unpiloted/AI AC because when you have a dude stuck in the front lines, their survival instincts will keep the pilot alive and with better performance that remote control.
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.
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
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!
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.
The jeagers in pacific rim wouldn't fall apart because they have wires almost like muscles inside them. And they are powered by 2 people putting there minds together to make one mind and basically become the brain for the jeager.
I don't think mechs would be happening in situations where tanks are used, but more as a super heavy infantry unit. The other thing mechs have is a humanoid layout which is intuitively easier to navigate around in. So maybe platoons with one or two mechs for heavy fire support that can adjust to the footsoldiers conditions and objectives.
@@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.
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.
the reason you put a guy inside instead of using a remote control is remotes can be jammed, you can't jam a dude who is inside, or worse have your enemy hack you mech and turn it around on you.
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 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...
5:50 _This is why I prefer mecha. For Armored Cores, for the most part, it's more of an armored jet fighter with legs. It's not meant to take hits. It's meant to move fast, hit hard, and leave._ _Now, I hear you ask, what's the practicality of having a jet fighter be so close to the ground?_ _As far as I'm aware, jets may choose to fly close to the ground to avoid radar and anti-air missiles. And modern anti-air weapons tech is getting really, really good. Plus, flying close to the ground means they can get solid cover._ _One interesting trend for modern anti-air missiles is being modular. As in, you can load a box of them on a cargo plane or a truck and launch them from there._ _In fact, there are designs for basically military-grade trucks that will function as shoot and scoot platforms capable of engaging land, sea, and air targets with long range missiles._ _One possible role for a mech is to become a highly mobile, all-terrain shoot and scoot vehicle with beyond-visual-range/stand-off capabilities. A sniper with high damage and high speed._ _Imagine a ground vehicle that can zip across the battlefield at mach 3 and fire long range missiles then disappear before the enemy responds._ _A mech's legs might be able to help it conserve fuel since the legs serve as suspension so the jet thrusters don't need to keep it in flight all the time._ _And, it would get the added advantage of being able to jump over obstacles. Unlike those 'Russian' tanks that failed to do river crossings._ _Also, maneuverability matters. From the 'Sandboxx' YT channel, 'Alex Hollings' explained that long-range missiles are mainly effective against slower aircraft._ _A missile with 300km range wouldn't matter much if its target jukes it at the last minute._
Fun fact, Gundams were designed intentionally to be used in orbital colonies. Anyway, one pet peeve of mine is the "semi-Iron Man" style suits, barely bigger than a human, that still have a vaguely human shape to them. You just can't do that. The only way to make a suit that is only slightly bigger than a human would be for it to look very tall and spindly, a bit like an EVA, because it would by necessity have very narrow shoulders and hips relative to its height, because those bits aren't moving. The thighs and biceps would likewise be about human sized, so only the boots and gloves could be larger, and then maybe some armor bits off to the side, like samurai shoulder pads. If you wanted to make something "Hulk like," then the pilot would have to be able to fully curl up inside the torso, and/or have arms and legs sticking outside the torso but not inside the "arms and legs" of the mech itself. Like in Anthem their "heavy" suit was meant to have a human "inside" it, but when cosplayers tried it they had to cheat a lot to make it look even close, because the fact is that the shoulder joints were like twice as wide as any human's, there is no way for a human pilot to put his arms inside those arms without snapping them off first.
Let's say, we finally built a working battle mecha, with some sophisticated techs, capable of advanced movements like jumping, running, or even sommersaulting in the air. We put some cool armor on it and it carries a riffle with 30mm bullets and a big gun with 150 mm rounds. Maybe while also wielding giant ass sword. A tank engine is just don't generate enough power so we just swap it with a compact high tech nuclear reactor. It's 8 meters tall, weights 25 tons and costs 1 billion fucking dollars. We put it in the battlefield, where the mecha moves as cool as it can be, it rolls on the ground, back jumps, and doing some dope shit with its riffle, gun and giant sword. Cool as fuck, we finally had it. And then some dude chrashed his 100 dollar drone stuffed with RPG munition to the back of the mechas ankle, and as the mecha falls they chrashed another fucking 100 dollars drones to the head, another joints, and the engine vents. Our 1 billion mecha is done for, just with some cheap drones, and now we have another Chernobyl.
I believe that the guntanks from Gundam would be the best option for starting out, though the problem with the guntanks isnthat they arenlarge amd slow not to mention the power requirements needed for one would be an issue. You could if the tech exists power said mech with a small nuclear engine or a massive diesel engine, the problem with the nuclear reactor inside a mech is the possible mini nuke when the mech is destroyed or hit in a critical spot on said mech. But for now i think the best option would be a powered exosuit but then the same issue persists as far as what to use for the power source, maybe cold fusion cold work but it's hard to say.
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
My theory is that someone, somewhere did a mechanical experiment on a very small scale then worked its way up. We are creatures of observation and curious intent. The fact that “mech” exists is because of our indomitable spirit. Plus it’s fucking cool.
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.
Would also like to say that the best use case for mech is open space. Thanks to all the moveable limbs it is far easier to reposition thruster and weapons in an orientation that a situation requires. Unlike fighters which would have a slower turning rate.
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.
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.
The most realistic depictions of Mechs are Battletech's Battlemechs. There were some shortcomings with people in the 80s trying to imagine them (Like radio ranges being INCREDIBLY short). But overall the tech needed to build them exists in some shape or form, even if a prototype to build battlemechs today. HOWEVER, mechs are not an on-earth weapon. They're meant to be space faring units because the terrain in space (or space itself) is incredibly hostile to standard tanks, infantry, etc. We have to advance a bit further and get a few pieces the tech out of prototype phase, but ultimately they should be used by space faring societies. A lot of people falsely equate Mechs with Tanks, some even going so far as to ask "How does the pilot aim, reload, fire the main cannon alongside driving the mech, or firing the coaxial machine gun?". They're jets jets with legs. The mech has a cockpit, controllers are called pilots, those pilots have callsigns, you need extensive training just to pilot one, they're incredibly expensive, and usually are the deciding factor in battles, unless another one appears and a great duel happens. There's a few people who will try to point out flaws like "weak legs", "too heavy", or "ground pressure". But ablative armored legs, myomer muscles, or basic understanding of physics can solve each of those common problems respectively. People are just too quick to assume that this are totally science fantasy, but as mentioned all of the technology for a battletech battlemech exists in some shape form or fashion today. www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_BattleMech_Technology
working is they'd fill a very specific niche like they might be supportive vehicles that might move rubble out of the way and yes, they might be good in combat because punching a tank
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.
I think a spider mech like from 86 equipped with a mlrs , mortar systems and machine guns that can be used in mountainous terrain which is hard for normal wheeled and tracked vehicles to move around in might be feasable
We could definitely build mechs. Check out Method-2, a Korean attempt at a mech. I think it was a good start, using armatures in the cockpit to control the arms as if they were the pilot’s arms. I think if they did the same thing for controlling the legs, and had the system give feedback to the pilot so they can keep balance without fighting a program. (Robot Jox used something similar)
Funny enough, armored core 6 is based on another planet other than earth, which is smaller than Earth, which solves the weight problem and ezplains why they move so fast.
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.
the most believable mecha i ever seen or played was in Gungriffon the eurasian conflict on Sega Saturn, one of my favorite childhood games which still is awesome.
The other reason why large scale (basically about two stories or thereabouts) would work in a military setting is if you needed something that could enter a tree line, provide sniper/artillery fire on a massive scale, and then leave before it's firing position gets traced and blown to hell. Granted stuff like this would need to be intensly skinny in order to fit/hide in a tree line or behind another form of cover, but so long as it is expected to be so far outside of combat lines as a giant sniper you can shave off a fuck ton of armor. At that point all you need is a sensor platform to receive fire support calls and see where you are going, a pilot cockpit, the equivalent of a giant rifle/grenade launcher depending on if you want a sniper role or an artillery role, ammo/fuel reserves, a secondary deployable support system (probably more legs) in order to deal with recoil and a pair of say 2-3 ton weight capable legs. (most of which is the gun itself, followed by cock pit, followed by fuel then ammo) It wouldn't look or feel like how most mechs are portrayed, anything above small infantry fire would probably wreck it, it wouldn't be doing mid air dashes or getting into melee duels. But it would provide effectively the firepower equivalent of a ship cannon anywhere on land no matter how far the battlefield is from the ocean. It's biggest issue is drones ironically enough, just like with Russian tanks currently, they are light enough and small enough to not give a decent return on shooting them down with the artillery cannon, and dangerous enough that if one can drop a grenade onto the fuel/ammo supply the mech is probably fucked.
To correct your questions, yes, mech do actually work in real life. In fact theres a few examples of mech in real life (yes with moveing legs) that actually walks under its own weight called "method-1" and another, sadly but still cool big mech with wheels called kuratus mech suit, which theres quite a few built already. And the 18-meter or 60 foot tall rx78 gundam was even made too. Well technically thats a glorified puppet that is programmed to walk, and it's hung on its back, but still a giant robot 60 feet tall still able to move its fingers and legs is a huge accomplishment!
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
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.
Don't know if they're still doing it, but winery's had exosuits for moving the big barrels around with. scoop like forklift tines on a smaller version of what Ripley used vs a zenomorph queen. They fit well with the space and handling characteristics of the winery's, some rather old. They were quicker and easier to use than forklifts in that scenario and enabled one person to move a barrel safely without undue risk to the wine or barrel or operator.
mechs do have a lot more application outside military use. since lets face it having bigger humans hands with the same dexterity as ours would be extremely useful
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
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
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.
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.
the main practical difference between mechs and tanks is crew numbers, mechs require 1 to 2 pilots tops, meanwhile tanks require 3 to 4 crew members to operate, also tanks have no ejection system for crew while mechs especially Knigtmare units from the code geass universe have full ejectable cockpits. from a personnel replacement and training cost point of view mechs are more cost efficient than tanks
I think non-humanoid design is a way to go than humanoid. Military vehicles nowadays tend to be low and compact as possible while also perfectly armed and armored. Humanoid designed machine would only making things complex (even bringing in one in urban combat would just get blowned up by a kid with a rocket launcher). Non-humanoid design (like spider tanks) is a perfect choice, because it can hunker down and lowering it's profile, while also can carry larger equipment and weapons. Something like COD AW spider tank or 86 Feldreß.
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.
He may have underestimated the strength of certain alloys on earth but not the insane cost and amount of headaches for the many engineers that would have to be specifically trained to matnense these massive machines.
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
The problem with mechs we could make them with enough funding/budget but the main issue is powering them for more than a few seconds or minutes we are limited by power currently
Mountain mechs could be intersting as well. being able to have heavy weapons on a mountain that can maneuver around the terrain better than things with wheels and treads. And they could go higher up on mountains than helicopters which have flight ceilings. And i dont know if anyone has tryed but im kinda sure you cant land a large plane on the side of a mountain. so it could work for cargo transportation at high altitudes aswell and combat in spots that planes themselves couldn't go.
The thing about mechs is that the good ones all have "special" power generators and/or "special" materials in their make. Take a Gundam. In that universe Gundams are build with "gundamium" Which is probably some kind of special titanium alloy. In Macross/Robotech Meh were developed from alien tech in both the power and materials department. In Armored Core. The original ACs were smaller, slower and clunkier(PS1 era) than the PS3/4 ACs. The modern ACs require special energy materials to run so massive and fast.
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.
Honestly, I think hovercraft like landspeeders are more likely to be used than mechs. Being omni-directional on the fly is more useful than anything a mech can provide.
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).
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.
Counterpoint; look towards Patlabor. That series has mechs used for industrial purposes - and thusly, they can be used to create a lot of damage when fitted with weaponry, much like how a tank was originally created from what was farming equipment. Before people will realise it, commercially available technology will help define how warfare plays out. Think of how drones were originally a toy for hobbyists with a lot of money and time to waste - nowadays, they've proven to be a legitimate threat in the Ukraine war. It may not be in our current lifetimes, but eventually, there will be bipedal machines that will at first be used for industry, then become combat mechs.
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.
The only real issue here is material science and not the use case. It's either you have less gravity or stronger materials that can be lighter yet sturdy(which present resistance to some firepower as well.
In a military context, I think it'd have to be 5 meters tall at most, be lighter than a tank, and have wheeled feet to be sufficiently agile. It's hard to imagine anyone developing such a platform for this purpose. What's easier to imagine is that something like it would be developed as an offshoot of current human robotics research for industrial applications that might be repurposed for military. Though, it's hard to imagine it having a cockpit even then.
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.
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
@@Sandal-z5bthey're just for show anyway
@@WDGaster-sh3mdor in the case of mobile armors, they aren't even mechs at that point, just straight up their own class of Spaceships
I feel like if you're walking around inside a giant space colony then it's not really "space combat" anymore...
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 impractical 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
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 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.
@@cuteButKindaDeadlyBreloom they're not mechs - they're exoskeletons.
And those are already on sale for military purposes.
The difference between the two is one of scale. You can definitely be inside something which carries more armour & weaponry than you could.
But really it's like the difference between what RandomSuperheroX can do in a movie & what his toy action figure can do - they're miles apart.
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
Building the legs is easy, getting it to walk without falling over is hard.
@@bocahdongo7769 It's called "airplane"
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.
In Battletech they have arificial metal "muscles" instead of conventional joints.
And while they don't use full "mind control", the pilots wear a helmet that connects their brain to a so called gyroscope in order to make use of the humans innate sense of balance.
my idea is a genetically modified gorilla without a forebrain
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 the Juggernouts/Reginleifs from 86 could work,like its an Spider tank
By the time humanity can build Mecha they would be advanced enough to make them obsolete
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
8:44 in AC6 there’s something called “core theory” that dictates that piloted AC are better than unpiloted/AI AC because when you have a dude stuck in the front lines, their survival instincts will keep the pilot alive and with better performance that remote control.
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.
7:33 Man just described the plot of 90% of Gundam. As usual Tomino stays winning
Moeagare. Moeagare. Moeaagre GANDAMU! 😂😂😂😂
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
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!
same, i got into rc wars. i even watch battlebots.
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.
There's a series called Patlabor which goes over this. Mechs are everyday machines used in construction, emergency services, and the military.
“Why do I need this you ask?…”
Because drill. The drill that’ll pierce the heavens.
This MAN'S optimism! Tempered, reasonable. But down right FUNNY.
The jeagers in pacific rim wouldn't fall apart because they have wires almost like muscles inside them. And they are powered by 2 people putting there minds together to make one mind and basically become the brain for the jeager.
I don't think mechs would be happening in situations where tanks are used, but more as a super heavy infantry unit. The other thing mechs have is a humanoid layout which is intuitively easier to navigate around in. So maybe platoons with one or two mechs for heavy fire support that can adjust to the footsoldiers conditions and objectives.
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.
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.
4:28 never thought I'd see the day where I heard Thornhill being played over AC6 cinematic footage
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.
the reason you put a guy inside instead of using a remote control is remotes can be jammed, you can't jam a dude who is inside, or worse have your enemy hack you mech and turn it around on you.
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 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...
5:50 _This is why I prefer mecha. For Armored Cores, for the most part, it's more of an armored jet fighter with legs. It's not meant to take hits. It's meant to move fast, hit hard, and leave._
_Now, I hear you ask, what's the practicality of having a jet fighter be so close to the ground?_
_As far as I'm aware, jets may choose to fly close to the ground to avoid radar and anti-air missiles. And modern anti-air weapons tech is getting really, really good. Plus, flying close to the ground means they can get solid cover._
_One interesting trend for modern anti-air missiles is being modular. As in, you can load a box of them on a cargo plane or a truck and launch them from there._
_In fact, there are designs for basically military-grade trucks that will function as shoot and scoot platforms capable of engaging land, sea, and air targets with long range missiles._
_One possible role for a mech is to become a highly mobile, all-terrain shoot and scoot vehicle with beyond-visual-range/stand-off capabilities. A sniper with high damage and high speed._
_Imagine a ground vehicle that can zip across the battlefield at mach 3 and fire long range missiles then disappear before the enemy responds._
_A mech's legs might be able to help it conserve fuel since the legs serve as suspension so the jet thrusters don't need to keep it in flight all the time._
_And, it would get the added advantage of being able to jump over obstacles. Unlike those 'Russian' tanks that failed to do river crossings._
_Also, maneuverability matters. From the 'Sandboxx' YT channel, 'Alex Hollings' explained that long-range missiles are mainly effective against slower aircraft._
_A missile with 300km range wouldn't matter much if its target jukes it at the last minute._
Fun fact, Gundams were designed intentionally to be used in orbital colonies.
Anyway, one pet peeve of mine is the "semi-Iron Man" style suits, barely bigger than a human, that still have a vaguely human shape to them. You just can't do that. The only way to make a suit that is only slightly bigger than a human would be for it to look very tall and spindly, a bit like an EVA, because it would by necessity have very narrow shoulders and hips relative to its height, because those bits aren't moving. The thighs and biceps would likewise be about human sized, so only the boots and gloves could be larger, and then maybe some armor bits off to the side, like samurai shoulder pads. If you wanted to make something "Hulk like," then the pilot would have to be able to fully curl up inside the torso, and/or have arms and legs sticking outside the torso but not inside the "arms and legs" of the mech itself. Like in Anthem their "heavy" suit was meant to have a human "inside" it, but when cosplayers tried it they had to cheat a lot to make it look even close, because the fact is that the shoulder joints were like twice as wide as any human's, there is no way for a human pilot to put his arms inside those arms without snapping them off first.
Let's say, we finally built a working battle mecha, with some sophisticated techs, capable of advanced movements like jumping, running, or even sommersaulting in the air. We put some cool armor on it and it carries a riffle with 30mm bullets and a big gun with 150 mm rounds. Maybe while also wielding giant ass sword. A tank engine is just don't generate enough power so we just swap it with a compact high tech nuclear reactor. It's 8 meters tall, weights 25 tons and costs 1 billion fucking dollars. We put it in the battlefield, where the mecha moves as cool as it can be, it rolls on the ground, back jumps, and doing some dope shit with its riffle, gun and giant sword. Cool as fuck, we finally had it.
And then some dude chrashed his 100 dollar drone stuffed with RPG munition to the back of the mechas ankle, and as the mecha falls they chrashed another fucking 100 dollars drones to the head, another joints, and the engine vents.
Our 1 billion mecha is done for, just with some cheap drones, and now we have another Chernobyl.
I believe that the guntanks from Gundam would be the best option for starting out, though the problem with the guntanks isnthat they arenlarge amd slow not to mention the power requirements needed for one would be an issue. You could if the tech exists power said mech with a small nuclear engine or a massive diesel engine, the problem with the nuclear reactor inside a mech is the possible mini nuke when the mech is destroyed or hit in a critical spot on said mech. But for now i think the best option would be a powered exosuit but then the same issue persists as far as what to use for the power source, maybe cold fusion cold work but it's hard to say.
Props to you for including Thornhill in the video!
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
_More legs for better weight distribution and lighter ground pressure. Good point._
Use case for industrial mechs. Construction of space colonies where the terrain would be uneven.
Well... Mechs only need 1 guy while tanks need like 3-5 guys and Mechs are theoretically better in dense forest or urban combat
My theory is that someone, somewhere did a mechanical experiment on a very small scale then worked its way up. We are creatures of observation and curious intent. The fact that “mech” exists is because of our indomitable spirit. Plus it’s fucking cool.
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.
Would also like to say that the best use case for mech is open space. Thanks to all the moveable limbs it is far easier to reposition thruster and weapons in an orientation that a situation requires. Unlike fighters which would have a slower turning rate.
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.
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.
I believe they the most realistic mech is the ones from 86 since they are basically just tanks on spider legs
I’m actually an engineer working on a mech project. They are possible, the issue is that people are approaching them the wrong way
After The Burial loop was too distracting, kept waiting for the drop lol
Lmao sorry didn't mean to edge you like that 🗿 Working on having some unique background music at some point.
thank GOD im not the only one who noticed
The most realistic depictions of Mechs are Battletech's Battlemechs. There were some shortcomings with people in the 80s trying to imagine them (Like radio ranges being INCREDIBLY short). But overall the tech needed to build them exists in some shape or form, even if a prototype to build battlemechs today.
HOWEVER, mechs are not an on-earth weapon. They're meant to be space faring units because the terrain in space (or space itself) is incredibly hostile to standard tanks, infantry, etc. We have to advance a bit further and get a few pieces the tech out of prototype phase, but ultimately they should be used by space faring societies. A lot of people falsely equate Mechs with Tanks, some even going so far as to ask "How does the pilot aim, reload, fire the main cannon alongside driving the mech, or firing the coaxial machine gun?". They're jets jets with legs. The mech has a cockpit, controllers are called pilots, those pilots have callsigns, you need extensive training just to pilot one, they're incredibly expensive, and usually are the deciding factor in battles, unless another one appears and a great duel happens.
There's a few people who will try to point out flaws like "weak legs", "too heavy", or "ground pressure". But ablative armored legs, myomer muscles, or basic understanding of physics can solve each of those common problems respectively. People are just too quick to assume that this are totally science fantasy, but as mentioned all of the technology for a battletech battlemech exists in some shape form or fashion today.
www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_BattleMech_Technology
I've been told that HAMMER TECH is 20 years away from developing this. I'm content with that.
working is they'd fill a very specific niche like they might be supportive vehicles that might move rubble out of the way and yes, they might be good in combat because punching a tank
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.
I think a spider mech like from 86 equipped with a mlrs , mortar systems and machine guns that can be used in mountainous terrain which is hard for normal wheeled and tracked vehicles to move around in might be feasable
_Good point. I am reminded of how donkeys are being used to navigate terrain that is too harsh for any vehicle._
@oompalumpus699 Thats what I was thinking about, I'm also reminded of that robot donkey the army tested
We could definitely build mechs. Check out Method-2, a Korean attempt at a mech.
I think it was a good start, using armatures in the cockpit to control the arms as if they were the pilot’s arms. I think if they did the same thing for controlling the legs, and had the system give feedback to the pilot so they can keep balance without fighting a program. (Robot Jox used something similar)
Funny enough, armored core 6 is based on another planet other than earth, which is smaller than Earth, which solves the weight problem and ezplains why they move so fast.
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.
the most believable mecha i ever seen or played was in Gungriffon the eurasian conflict on Sega Saturn, one of my favorite childhood games which still is awesome.
only 2 k subscribers ? man this video is not only interesting, but also fucking hilarious, please keep up the good work
I think enormous combat robots is a bad idea
but there could be psychological warfare aspects
such as scaring the enemies
The other reason why large scale (basically about two stories or thereabouts) would work in a military setting is if you needed something that could enter a tree line, provide sniper/artillery fire on a massive scale, and then leave before it's firing position gets traced and blown to hell. Granted stuff like this would need to be intensly skinny in order to fit/hide in a tree line or behind another form of cover, but so long as it is expected to be so far outside of combat lines as a giant sniper you can shave off a fuck ton of armor. At that point all you need is a sensor platform to receive fire support calls and see where you are going, a pilot cockpit, the equivalent of a giant rifle/grenade launcher depending on if you want a sniper role or an artillery role, ammo/fuel reserves, a secondary deployable support system (probably more legs) in order to deal with recoil and a pair of say 2-3 ton weight capable legs. (most of which is the gun itself, followed by cock pit, followed by fuel then ammo)
It wouldn't look or feel like how most mechs are portrayed, anything above small infantry fire would probably wreck it, it wouldn't be doing mid air dashes or getting into melee duels. But it would provide effectively the firepower equivalent of a ship cannon anywhere on land no matter how far the battlefield is from the ocean. It's biggest issue is drones ironically enough, just like with Russian tanks currently, they are light enough and small enough to not give a decent return on shooting them down with the artillery cannon, and dangerous enough that if one can drop a grenade onto the fuel/ammo supply the mech is probably fucked.
There are walking excavators that are used on hillsides and cliffsides, the Soviet union also had a giant walking excavator too
To correct your questions, yes, mech do actually work in real life. In fact theres a few examples of mech in real life (yes with moveing legs) that actually walks under its own weight called "method-1" and another, sadly but still cool big mech with wheels called kuratus mech suit, which theres quite a few built already. And the 18-meter or 60 foot tall rx78 gundam was even made too. Well technically thats a glorified puppet that is programmed to walk, and it's hung on its back, but still a giant robot 60 feet tall still able to move its fingers and legs is a huge accomplishment!
That neo soul guitar line tho🔥🔥🔥 love after the burial nice touch man 🙌
Your solution is basically every gundam series in a nutshell
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
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.
Don't know if they're still doing it, but winery's had exosuits for moving the big barrels around with. scoop like forklift tines on a smaller version of what Ripley used vs a zenomorph queen. They fit well with the space and handling characteristics of the winery's, some rather old. They were quicker and easier to use than forklifts in that scenario and enabled one person to move a barrel safely without undue risk to the wine or barrel or operator.
there is a reason we still have fighter pilots in addition to unmanned aircraft, im not sure what it is but there is one, the same may apply to mechs
mechs do have a lot more application outside military use. since lets face it having bigger humans hands with the same dexterity as ours would be extremely useful
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
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
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.
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.
the main practical difference between mechs and tanks is crew numbers, mechs require 1 to 2 pilots tops, meanwhile tanks require 3 to 4 crew members to operate, also tanks have no ejection system for crew while mechs especially Knigtmare units from the code geass universe have full ejectable cockpits. from a personnel replacement and training cost point of view mechs are more cost efficient than tanks
I think non-humanoid design is a way to go than humanoid.
Military vehicles nowadays tend to be low and compact as possible while also perfectly armed and armored. Humanoid designed machine would only making things complex (even bringing in one in urban combat would just get blowned up by a kid with a rocket launcher). Non-humanoid design (like spider tanks) is a perfect choice, because it can hunker down and lowering it's profile, while also can carry larger equipment and weapons. Something like COD AW spider tank or 86 Feldreß.
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.
He may have underestimated the strength of certain alloys on earth but not the insane cost and amount of headaches for the many engineers that would have to be specifically trained to matnense these massive machines.
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
The thing about the Tank is that it requires, at minimum, 2 people to work optimally. Not much of a plus to the mech but still.
Quick answer yes but only if they're like Ac v sized
Or get the primal armour tech nexts have
The problem with mechs we could make them with enough funding/budget but the main issue is powering them for more than a few seconds or minutes we are limited by power currently
Mountain mechs could be intersting as well. being able to have heavy weapons on a mountain that can maneuver around the terrain better than things with wheels and treads. And they could go higher up on mountains than helicopters which have flight ceilings. And i dont know if anyone has tryed but im kinda sure you cant land a large plane on the side of a mountain. so it could work for cargo transportation at high altitudes aswell and combat in spots that planes themselves couldn't go.
Muv luv fan where are you
Check on what is TSF in project alternative, pretty close for high agility and tank and aircraft loadout
The thing about mechs is that the good ones all have "special" power generators and/or "special" materials in their make.
Take a Gundam. In that universe Gundams are build with "gundamium" Which is probably some kind of special titanium alloy.
In Macross/Robotech Meh were developed from alien tech in both the power and materials department.
In Armored Core. The original ACs were smaller, slower and clunkier(PS1 era) than the PS3/4 ACs. The modern ACs require special energy materials to run so massive and fast.
The metal gear Rex is (in my opinion) the (kinda) most realist thing we will get to a mech
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.
Honestly, I think hovercraft like landspeeders are more likely to be used than mechs. Being omni-directional on the fly is more useful than anything a mech can provide.
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).
4:01 what a comparison
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.
Counterpoint; look towards Patlabor. That series has mechs used for industrial purposes - and thusly, they can be used to create a lot of damage when fitted with weaponry, much like how a tank was originally created from what was farming equipment.
Before people will realise it, commercially available technology will help define how warfare plays out. Think of how drones were originally a toy for hobbyists with a lot of money and time to waste - nowadays, they've proven to be a legitimate threat in the Ukraine war.
It may not be in our current lifetimes, but eventually, there will be bipedal machines that will at first be used for industry, then become combat mechs.
The square cube law might also play a huge role in preventing us from being able to build giant mech in the first place.
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.
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.
The only real issue here is material science and not the use case. It's either you have less gravity or stronger materials that can be lighter yet sturdy(which present resistance to some firepower as well.
In a military context, I think it'd have to be 5 meters tall at most, be lighter than a tank, and have wheeled feet to be sufficiently agile. It's hard to imagine anyone developing such a platform for this purpose.
What's easier to imagine is that something like it would be developed as an offshoot of current human robotics research for industrial applications that might be repurposed for military. Though, it's hard to imagine it having a cockpit even then.
Damper on the situation lol love the sense of humor
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.
Love Neo Seoul playing in the background - someone is aAfter the Burial enjoyer