Will Mechs REPLACE Tanks?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ย. 2017
- At Nerd Punch I hit you with the hard questions and don't shy away from the details. In this video we comprehensively discuss the reasons why our military doesn't build MechWarriors, Titans, Jaegers, Transformers, or whatever the f*ck you want to call them. Why are we using tanks when we could be stomping our enemies to death with giant steel humanoid killing machines?
In this video we discuss: Game Science: Will Mechs REPLACE Tanks? Mechs are cool, this is literally a fact. They work well in movies and video games, so why don't our militaries have them? Well.. a lot of reasons actually, but MechWarriors do have some big... benefits.
I'm glad you are still reading this far down into the description, because this video is long format and fairly comprehensive. When I answer these questions I go all out, and.. the video length shows it (I was actually being brief with this first video).
So if you think MechWarriors, Titans, Jaegers, AMP Suits, Transformers, Armored Core, Gundam, and all the other types of mechs are awesome and wondering why our militaries build tanks instead, then grab some Doritos and press play.
I'll catch you in the next video, where we ask Halo's Master Chief if he can swim.. or if he needs some toddler floaties, and if so, how big would these floaties need to be?
If you have any nerd questions about anything, comment in this video and we'll talk about it! - เกม
WOW. 😀 This video really blew up (for me), thanks for the views and comments! What topic would you guys like me to cover next??
maybe cover how mechs could 'possibly' be a good idea? or maybe cover aerospace? Or Protmechs, Battle armor?
I agree yet disagree haha. I had a thought while watching this video. When you said they would just take what's there and just upgrade it ( not word for word I know) why not use some of those tanks base and attach the upper half of a mech or use modified artillery attached to a mech with four legs. Stable and who knows, maybe the legs end up collapsible one day haha. I do like where your thought goes with infantry armor though. I'd bet on that before mechs.
What about power armor?
Your take on Mechs and how simple economics plays into them was well thought out. I would very much like to see a video on handheld infantry weapons (of the future) and your thought processes. Keep up the good work!
@@sheilaolfieway1885 You mean Protomechs. :) I would cover power suits or Battle armour.
*>Has tank*
*>Invents mech*
*>Throw away tank*
*>Enemy makes mech*
*>Makes tank for mech*
>Enemy makes mech for mech
>makes mech for mech for the mech
>Enemy builds anti-mech mech
>Build anti anti-mech mech tank
>Enemy builds anti anti anti-mech mech tank tank
>Eventually have to stop bc it's so impossible to make more
>World Peace
>enemy builds anti anti mech tank helicopter
@Gabriel Gatlin THAT IS HOW A DRILL WORKS, WE KEEP PUSHING FORWARDS ONE ROTATION AT A TIME!
True mech fans know about all these weaknesses.
*True mech fans do not care* .
What are you talking about, what kind of mech you thinking of
Pen Lavits ?
@@aster4405 Yes what's up
Pen Lavits I mean what is the question trying to imply?
@@aster4405 a well design mech would be op on the battlefield. Engineers would have made it so.The problems described in the video should have came up when they were designing and testing. Now the weapons used with the mech would be something that would be capable of ripping apart tanks and other man made weapons.The mech would be in a class of its own.Everything would have bow to it power. After perfecting armor in tanks they would design it in such a way that one tank wouldn't be enough to stop a mech. On the battlefield at least 10 to 15 tank delivering non stop fire would only be able to take it out provided they can hit it. Even if they managed to kill the pilot it should have a self destruct system which would eradicate all enemies with its destruction radius.
mechs probably have the most potential in construction because of their versatility
Tank is the most practical. And cheap
I dont thing he understands the joke lol.
Add arms to tank. There fine Soviet tank with sickle and hammer.
@@PandorasFolly Soviet tanks never have been fine, they were steel coffins.
@@libertyprime1614 That's a myth, Soviet tanks were fine for their purpose. They weren't barbarians. Nobody builds a tank to explode. They were comparable for their era.
Probably a good Idea to Leave out Gundams.
I would Add Armored Cores.
This. All day long this.
gigant mechs would it be a big problem and gigant nightmare for everyone since the pilot to designer haking than a stupid idea a stupendus bad idea is say 20 or more than 20 meters
mediums mechs are a plausible solution in determinated conitions because maintain a army who whants a invacion or masive agresvie attacks even is a problem but not more in meters 15 or 10 like the ac next
small mech are a solution or besto solution because not ocuped much space in battlefield
can carry little problems but not much as gigant mechs thats eat much more problems than a efficient gigant mech
in meters are 5 or less like a wanzer or a armored core in frist generations and the last generacion (v-veredict day )
Hell yeah armored core all day, tho i should point out fighting another next could get pretty intense could be debated by pilots skill however but would crush tanks in seconds
Hell yeah. People who know the real taste.
Gundam is cardboard box
@@hellatze if you like armored core check out heavy gear.
Your use of the word Mechwarrior instead of battlemech made my fusion reactor overheat and shut down.
I nearly Stackpoled in frustration.
Same here...made my inner Clanner want to challenge him to a Trial of Grievance. :D
Jagdpanda Holy Blake smiles on you.
His ignorance of the topic sounds more like he is producing a Lyran propaganda film rather than a detailed analysis of the viability of Battle Mechs.
@@mattlewandowski73 you mean a Kuritan propaganda film, don't you? Or maybe Davion? Because we all know that Liao doesn't have the intelligence to figure out what end of the camera to use.
The big answer "No".
Smaller mechs will have a use as heavy support units for conventional infantry. They will be slightly larger than a man, with the firepower of an APC
I was thinking the same thing: Rather than mechs replacing tanks, they might have more potential as an infantry support platform (such as IFVs, APCs, and the likes). Combine that with recoilless guns and you can have the best of both worlds, high mobility and exceptional firepower without ludicrously heavy weaponry.
@@genetichell Tanks fill roles, the arms race of tanks design is simple, bigger guns mean more armor, more armor and bigger guns require more powerful engines and larger chassis. Militaries do try to envision ways of working out of this spiral, none have been completely successful. If we reach a point where an engine can't be made to move the armor and guns, tank development may stagnate. Mechs may well become that future breakthrough that allows the march to continue. Maybe it will be the future of Hammer's Slammers instead with fusion powered hover tanks and hyper-ballistic main guns. Maybe nano-technology will render it all moot. The possibilities are all laid out before us. I wouldn't be so fast to put my money behind my crystal ball just yet.
@@piperp9535: I totally agree with you, however I was thinking of a more immediate future, where miniaturized fusion reactors and nanobots are still a ways off.
Of course tank and weapons development will advance in some yet to imagine directions in a more distant future, though current trends and technological advancements (AR, drones, exoskeletons, what boston dynamics are doing, etc.) lead me to believe that the hypothesis from my earlier comment is not entirely unrealistic.
@@genetichell Agreed, I'm a tank proponent myself. This isn't the first time that some General has called for dropping the tank. But just when they think that tank development has reached it's Apex, someone builds a better one.
@Magni56 you should really read all my comments and try to understand what I am saying
Mechs should be small sized, like the ones from Avatar, they will be extremely useful in construction of fortifications
The mechs in avatar should not have been included here. It was scaled in a way that is more closely related to power armor or exo-frames. These are both viable for use in the modern era provided we can over come power plant limitations, though I can not picture exo-frames being used in combat save as a first gen powerarmor development. The exo-frame is more likely to be a development for industrial use, and could see use by combat engineers.
A better example is a VOTOMS battle suit.
They will be extremely usefull for wasting money
The Avatar mechs aren't mechs but more like exo-suits like the one in Aliens. Or a hybrid between battlemech and exo-suit.
Prefer Knightmare Frames
Had to trim out a few seconds of the video at 1:46 due to copyright infringement from using a Pacific Rim clip. Sorry bout that!
Ok
"Bipedalism, a distinctive human trait" you should meet my mate Diogenes
Any birds.
Lols
Throws plucked chicken over wall "BEHOLD PLATO'S MAN!"
There are two things that made humans the dominant species on the planet 1) opposable thumbs to use tools and 2) a brain size that is insanely large compared to our body size. The ability to think and use tools is a huge advantage over instinct-driven animals and is the distinctive human trait. Even then, humans succeeding was not a slam dunk for a long time.
Oh great, one of those 'brain size equals greater power's dolts.
The true enemy of the mech is cube law.
bs what about density?
Square cube can also be an ally though, it's a double edged sword. For example, if I want to make something 2 times as big, but keep let's say 50cm of armour, the surface area only quadruples, so only 4x the armour weight, but possibly 8x the engine power and fuel capacity. The overall protection is similar too.
Often our weaknesses can also be strengths if you know how to apply them.
@@kauske Add in advanced materials and in the battletech universe Myomer (Artifical muscles) with a high strength to weight ratio and finnally a fusion reactor for an engine you have a good mech, right now the problem with mechs is the technology
Technology is actually irrelevant to the square cube law, because no matter what hypothetical technology would be good for a robot, it would also be good for more conventional vehicles too. And it doesn't change the difficulties of ground pressure and how mass goes up with size.
The penalizing side of square cube will always exist, which is why you have to find the optimum size. This would be as true for some sort of power armour or robot as it is for tanks. Remember, multi-hundred tonne mega tanks are also garbage too.
Even at 100 tonne, the Maus was a joke, too heavy and slow to be useful. Your best bet for robots would be unmanned ones only slightly bigger than infantry, armed with AT weapons. Basically tiny shoot and scoot artillery or fire support that have equal or better mobility to infantry, but firepower and durability far exceeding them.
You'd also want your war robot to be able to drop to 4 or more legs for stability and mobility, which most do not do in fiction. A workable design is going to be something like an autonomous robot gorilla with wheels built into its limbs and ATGMs and an LMG on it. Not exactly your video game mech, but terrifying in its own right as it zips around tagging tanks and infantry.
Sheila olfieWay Well if you had that tech, why would you use it for something as complex as a mech? Why not use it on something that already works way more effectively?
The term "MechWarrior" from BattleTech refers to the pilots. The machines are called BattleMechs.
A MechWarrior is a pilot (a human).
I think one of the most important issues a Mech faces, wasn't named … The Powerplant that makes it move !
It would have to sit right where they put the pilot.
Well, in the Center torso and it would have to be quite compact and Efficient.
Right, but the issue then becomes, why not just put it in a tank, and equip it with a massive railgun ?
@@Grumpy_old_Boot Correct, and a Tank doesn't need large vulnerable Legs to move.
@@lukashuening
Yes! Joints are so weak!
Also, big targets attract big fire, when on a battlefield ... you want to be small, like a Maus ! 😂
@@Grumpy_old_Boot ikr, thats the thing that those mech lover usually cant answer. Why would we put that huge power core to a mech, when we can use it more wfficiently on a tank
As an armor crewman in the army, tank commander and master gunner for most of it, I really enjoyed this video. Thanks.
Pilot overload, add that to the evergrowing list of why big complex battlemechs are not going to become commonplace soon.
Mech sucks, treads for life.
@@theploot8230 rommel's asparagus : hold my beer.
Watching your video just made me realize something very important I missed so far.
First, what is a tank ? A mobile gun. Or self-propelled gun, if you wish. That's all it will ever be. It has it's uses for sure, you may need a specific type of gun to do a specific job.
A mech is essentially a soldier clad in armor and carrying big guns. There is no way you can replace tanks with mechs because they do different jobs.
Hence, THE MECH IS THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP FOR THE COMMON SOLDIER, and not the tank.
Powered armor?
@@flaminghailstorm9149 exoskeletons that expand already existing mobility capabilities will come first. Not much to look at now
shadowdancerRFW that’s actually a really smart point, the mech is mobile and fast but almost impossible to armor it well enough, it’s easily defeated by just shooting it’s legs with a rocket, no tank characteristics of tanks at all.
@@theman4925 As such if we see mechs even 12 meter tall ones it will be an augmentation of infantry. Perhaps as infantry support.
Right now I'm thinking of Urban warfare where speed isn't much of a thing. It is recognized that Urban warfare is not the natural habitat of a tank.
But a small mech...well there are untapped possibilities for sure. We might see small niches that small mech might fulfill.
A self-propelled gun falls under artillery like the Paladin. A tank is more for direct fire roles. I think Nicholas Moran from World of Tanks did a video on what is a tank.
NerdPunch: Talking about how powerful Titanfall mechs are.
Me: Laughing in imperial gothic.
Also me: May the Emperor spare your soul heretic.
I mean technically the most powefull deliverers of the emperors wrath are also tanks, in the form of the ordinatus vehicles
The emperor protects
Go anoint yourself
*Laughs in War sphinx*
@@nobleman9393 while I'm sure war sphinxes are effective fighting vehicles and being air- and spacecraft at the same time is certainly a big plus, they are not even the best version the forerunners had so why not use a builder seeker?
Either way, while they are much more advanced than imperial tech, halo showed us that forefunner tech is still not immune to low tech weapons such as the UNSC's own guns.
Given that the imperium is no doubt more advsnced than the UNSC and given the size difference between a war sphinx and an imperator titan I have to agree with kanyeon here:
*Laughs in high gothic*
@@donnerrob6615Not really, War Sphinxes are like most Forerunner vessels, nearly indestructible, things like Promethians and sentinels( aka the only things the UNSC is capable of destroying, by conventional means , are more like cannon fodder units, like Ork, Tyranids or Imperial guardsmen, plus UNSC weapons arent "low tech" at all, Specially by the time of Halo 4 and 5.
As a note: In the Battletech universe, Mechs are actually incredibly expensive and only fielded in certain conditions, usually full scale invasions.
Tanks and Infantry are, canonically, still the majority bulwark of any invading army/fleet in Battletech and many tanks can carry the same weapons as a Battletech. The Rommel for instance, carries an AC/20 which is specifically made to hunt Mechs.
5 to 7 Rommels could, through planning or utilizing their smaller profile, take down anything as big as an Atlas. Battletech never makes the statement that Mechs replace tanks period but rather Mechs become the MBTs of most armies instead.
Mate, in real world, tanks are far more durable than your computer games. For instance, a Rommel could easily weigh 50 tons and carries a pair of AC10s (90mm cannons by 2), while still heavily armored, so in battletech games, like mechwarrior 4, those poor Rommels have terrible handicaps given to players who pilot battlemechs. But in reality, you need the same amount of fire power and time to take down a tank like Rommel as a Bushwacker, the game is rigged for fun, not reality simulation. Unfortunately for something similar as battlemechs, like a Hunchback, it just cannot take all those equipment in one package which only weighs 50 tons, unless it uses light weight metals like titanium, but that will dramatically increase the cost of manufacturing and maintenance and repairing job. The money need for one Hunchback could build at least 3 Rommels all in the same amount of time. So, the idea of using mechs for battle is totally stupid, those fancy battlemechs could only exist in computer games after all.
@@hujiaming6151 in table top you are correct. It's hard to judge video games because plot armor. However in the BT tabletop it's often advised to take armor over mechs in certain senarios.
Unless you have LAMs those are rather well rounded for all engagements.
@@hujiaming6151 You do realize that tanks aren't all that durable in the real world, don't you? Medium tanks became MBTs while heavy tanks have become completely obsolete. Not a single nation still uses them because anti tank weaponry is so easy to come by.
Figuratively speaking, tanks in our present day are equivalent to knights when firearms became prevalent and capable of penetrating plate mail. However, unlike knights in medieval times, tanks still have a tactical role which is why they're still being used despite our firepower being far superior to our armour.
It's also worth noting that these days in a tank vs tank battle, whoever spots the enemy first usually wins.
Of course, all of the above would apply just the same way to Mechs. They only exist because of rule of cool and damn, are they cool.
Its the oposite mechs not tanks are the bul;wark of any army in the bt universe.Tanks are used to support mechs.or on secondary bworlds.As to infantry they are the most useless in bt.
17:42
The robot can gently handle babies...
ROBOT PROCEEDS TO THROW A BRICK
Lime Nation --yeetus the fetus--
Don't know about you, but a robotic dog that hurls cinder blocks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that's scary as F*ck !
and it managed to look angry while it did it, despite the lack of a face!
Don't you discriminate against my brick baby. It's a Nokia ok...
Haha I don't know what he's talking about either.
The start of a legend
The thing to keep in mind is that, even in the universe of Battletech, mechs didn't replace tanks. They're simply another weapons platform that's utilized when the situation calls for it..
The word is Battlemech, the pilots are Mechwarriors
Battletech
The mechs are called Battlemechs, the pilots are Mechwarriors, and they exist in the Battletech universe (for anyone who got confused and thought the first reply was a misspelling).
Also, just to cover my bases, there have been games from the Battletech universe called Battletech, Mechwarrior, and MechAssault (just to makes things more complicated). 😎
@@Ghostwolf82 You forgot Mechcommader. :p
Gay
No it titan and pilot
Here it is, my first video with more to come hopefully once a week. My goal with this channel is to get some fun and detailed discussions going on random nerdy topics. This is stuff I talk about with friends, and I want to bring those discussion to you guys too. This was a lot of fun to research and create, and I got to spend some time inside an Abrams tank talking with the crew to help with the video. I want to get better with each video too, so let me know what you want out of these videos. I'm definitely working on/getting comfortable with creating scripts and recording myself, so sorry if this first one's a bit off at points. Hope you enjoy it! If you have any nerd questions about anything leave'em in the comments and I'll make a video on it. Obligatory first video rant over!
one thing that would make the mech function could be a human mech interface by that meaning to controll the mech with the mind by connecting directly the mind of the soldier to the mech preaty much the only problem would be the movement of the joints. plus the only thing you have to consider is yes frontal armor of a tank is better but most tanks are not armored on the top of the tank with the heigh advantage a mech could easyly shoot on top of tank passing the frontal armor without a problem. that's why a10 with a 30mm cannon can kill tanks with his cannon cause there is like almost no protection on the top of tanks (yes i know also missile but anyway) also why make a mech of 1 size you could scale them to use like big mechs for long range attack that have artigliery lv weapons or hell missiles. or smaller mechs with anti tank sniper riffles that are made to be steathy. just my opinion and possible counters to some things. still thinking on other problems but still that's the problems solved that came to my mind
Yes why not mechs will be there in future
Mech warriors are the people who pilot mechs.
Didn't notice or think it your first until reading this comment, great topic to make introductions.
If you have ever watched gundam or any mech anime you'd see that they do have tanks and they're garbage. They get destroyed all the time, so easily. I know that mechs aren't real so making theories an calculations on that subject is mute. But then again we are all entitled to our own opinion. So I'd have to say mechs would be way better if we could just figure out the technology that went into making them.
No mention of 40k Titans? The Inquisition would like to have a word with you.
Warhammer is shit
I am not afraid of your stupid emperor' inquisition
Nah man warhammer is great statecraft is shit.
Shrenik Mehta no
good luck getting to me when your walking church is thigh deep in dirt
As a mech fan, i can't argue with any of those points. The only real advantage a mech could have is when space weapons are used. Presenting a smaller target from above compared to a wide long footprint of a tank. Though even that would be relatively limited with modern/futuristic targeting systems. The only reason left for mech is that they are cool! lol
I can see mechs being a specialized tank. Mostly just a mech with tank treads on its back used for fast movement while the legs are used to traverse landscapes (climbing, jumping over, very uneven or steep slope traversal). As soon as you hit a road you can go tread mode, the arms and legs will have weapons on them that it can use in tank mode. The main issue would be the arms and legs are always going to be vulnerable as points of failure (at least in terms of actually being mobile with them), the arms and legs would essentially act as armor while in tank mode.
Many of the flaws of both mechs and tanks can be largely solved with one solution:
Upper body: Mech
Lower body: Tank
Boom. Job done, problem (mostly) solved. =^x^=
@@tsamoka6496 But that would look silly instead of badass like either a tank or a mech, so I pass that out.
@@mekingtiger9095 Fair enough. It's your call if you like it or not, but I'd personally go for the combo. As a person who remembers playing Mechwarrior 2, battlemechs always looked a little clunky and unbalanced to me. Especially ones like the Mad Dog and the Timberwolf. So switching out the awkward and inadequate legs on 'mechs for a tank chassis always made more sense to me. That or using quadra- or hexaped designs.
Besides, if aesthetics are what you're most concerned about, then just design it to look cool. Truth is, the outer looks of a vehicle are almost entirely independent of its internal functionality. 'Function over Form' is always the key to an effective combat vehicle. =^x^=
@@tsamoka6496 Nah, I was just joking a little bit in parts: I honestly think battlemechs _also_ look silly as hell (well, not as silly as a mech-tank, but still silly). Only the tanks are actually badass for me in this debate. But if you want something close to a mech that is still aswesome (in fact, far more so than the mech or even the tank in my opinion), then why not look at infantry sized power armor? I always loved them far more than the concept of mechs because they feel much more "personal" and they are actually more realistic by comparison. Imagine that thing in urban combat, bro.
Getting something that big to walk isn't super energy efficient. Wheelin is so much easier.
Purpleboye_ this is why before this is a reality, we need a breakthrough in energy storage/ source
Yup, thats right.
Thats why I somehow like battletech/mecharrior universe, there are few reasons why mechs are "dominant" in the battlefield, one is called "Myomer", its basically some kind of artificial and biological muscle, it uses a lot of energy, but it also has a very high "strength to weight ratio", which basically allows the mech to carry tons of weapons, ammo and armor without much problem.
But of course, the other reason that mechs are "the best" is because, you know... its a universe about mechs, so, they do everything to "nerf" any other kind of vehicles.
@@Killertron00 Tanks can actually be quite terrifying in the source material and the tabletop game. They're more cost effective, and often carry more armor than mechs of equal tonnage, though they usually lack in firepower comparatively due to using combustion engines instead of fusion engines. Battletech is a combined arms game, but the other combat units tend to get nerfed unfairly in the video games.
@@Robloxman01 nah heavy tanks can be scary beasts in battletech with some easily carrying multiple AC20s. But tanks weakness in battletech isnt that they are nerfed its terrain mobility and mass distribution that allows mechs to crush them when stepped on.
@@noticedruid4985 Actually, a Mech is only a few meters taller than a tank. This is something the video games get wrong constantly, and it annoys me to no end. Your average Battlemech stands between 7-8 meters tall (With a few outliers like the 14 meter tall Banshee), while your average tank is between 3-4 meters tall. A mech can most certainly give a tank a strong kick to the side, but they are physically incapable of simply squashing them like bugs. As for terrain mobility, a tracked ground combat vehicle can go just about anywhere a mech can. Wheeled vehicles and hovercraft are more limited, but anything with tracks can cover most terrain without any issue. Water deeper than level 1 (Roughly six meters), or areas with toxic or no atmosphere, require them to be equipped with environmental sealing gear, but other than that they're just about on par, if, again, a bit slower because of the tendency to use heavier but cheaper combustion engines to keep costs down, rather than the lighter but more costly fusion engines that mechs do.
No idea if you've ever played CBT, but if you have, have you ever had the misfortune of running into a Manticore heavy tank? If you haven't, it is an encounter that will make even an Orion pilot vacate his bowels. Combine a 64kph top speed with enough armor to make an Atlas blush and a weapon array that can drop most non-Assault weight mechs in a 1 on 1 and put up a decent fight against anything heavier than 75 tons. All in a 60 ton package that's almost a third the cost of that Orion.
A new weapon platform will almost never render an older one obsolete. Horses didn't render foot-soldiers obsolete, neither did the tank, and aircraft didn't render ground forces obsolete. A military walking vehicle has strengths and weaknesses that could potentially make it a good compliment to other military vehicles. Though I wouldn't expect giant doom mechs any time. More something slightly bigger than a human, that bridges the gap between infantry and armour by being a fast attack platform with lots of AT weapons.
I'd imagine quadrupeds or even more legs, something that can skitter around in tight areas like cities and hunt tanks and infantry. That and walkers made to lug around heavy shit following soldiers like robot pack mules into places wheeled vehicles cannot traverse.
The few times in history something replaced something else are generally the exception in war. Most of the time new technologies end up as bedfellows on the battlefield. Also, remember that horses, machine-guns, tanks, crossbows, rifles and aircraft were all once seen as silly and too complex to work in war.
Every new weapon of war is a stupid idea, until one day, it isn't anymore. It's hard to tell what the next revolution will be, so dismissing anything is not a great idea.
*Edit:* The crybabies responding to this comment are real. The reading comprehension isn't. You people are sad, really sad, get a fucking life.
There are still tanks in Battletech mechs are a more expensive vehicle but generally carry more weapons ,but they have not made Tanks obsolete, but this could also be due to cost...
agreed, bipedal mechs may seem stupid now, but just like tanks refining that idea could potentially lead to a viable option. there are quadrapedal mechs and even hexapods in battletech though for some reason they are less numerous than bipedal mechs
The non-mech vehicles in battletech are more or less a joke though. Battletech is super-unrealistic in just how powerful they make the mechs next to everything else. Realistically, 70 tonnes of tank would have much more dedicated to armour, weapons and drive-train than 70 tonnes of bipedal robot.
The fact some little 20 tonne walker can actually stomp a 100 tonne tank, and the wonkey scale of vehicles to mechs is just silly. As much as I love various battletech games, I would call it very unrealistic and silly. Especially given in battltech they've shown building more cheaper things still wins wars, IE when the inner sphere trounced the clans due to economic imbalance.
Realistically, if one faction just built a ton of MBTs they'd curb-stomp idiots that choose to use mechs mostly. There's also the fact that the mechs in battletech are ground only, and can only walk, and cannot perform human-like movements. No side-stepping, no combat rolls, no going prone and no externalized hand-weapons. They really are just worse tanks, that are only better because the plot demands it be so.
I prefer FMP's way of doing mechs, I mean, they basically have Clarktech, but still are more realistic than battletech. But battltech is old and was mostly designed as a tabletop ages ago, so it suffers a lot of the tropes of its age. Also the fact that most mechs in battletech have big glass canopies... I guess battletech doesn't have infantry carried AT rifles.
It would be funny to see the chaos of a faction using small hard to locate infantry teams to cockpit-kill anyone stopid enough to go out in a battle-vehicle with what amounts to a solarium for a cockpit. Mad-Cat comes to mind as one of the worst offenders. the MW4 Thor/Summoner was one of the better designs, where they changed the cockpit to something actually armoured like a tank.
@@kauske Like Star wars canopies are likely not glass in battletech and mechs can crouch and probably can sidestep you've obviously never seen the Battletech cartoon where mechs even lean to the side to avoid fire or duck down to do so.... Heavily featured is the Axeman a heavy (I think) Battlemech that uses a giant axe as it's main melee weapon. Going down into smaller scale some Protomechs have giant rifle styled 'main guns' Had the internet we have today been around during WW1 we'd be having a similar conversation on how Tanks were unfeasible options... don't dis everything just because it appears impractical now.
Sorry to break it to you, but even the strongest of transparent materials like transparent aluminium (sapphire) and diamond are not good at topping bullets. And they are very, very expensive and cannot be well fixed to metal. Don't use the 'but starwars does it' excuse for giant transparent canopies, they can't work without made-up bullshit materials.
Battletech cartoon is also not canon. Battlemechs cannot step sideways, they have to rotate the legs and rely on torso twist to keep pointing somewhere when they walk forwards or backwards. We're literally talking about material science, something we understand very, very well. I suggest you go read my original comment over again, and cut out the whataboutism.
"What if instead of normal boots, we made all our soldiers wear articulated stilts?"
Well, seeing through human history, especially XIX and XX century i would say "Not yet" not "Not ever". There are few things that for us are common and managable but if you would explain them to a average human 150 or 200 years ago he would laugh at you.
Combustion engine: So you are telling me you deliberately seat near, or on, a device which entire purpose is to create multiple explosions? Hah, right
Plane: And you put those, on a wooden and canvas kite-like constructions to fly? Insane.
Nuclear powerplant: Soooo you divided a thing that you tell me does exist but cannot be seen, which caused an explosion that wiped 2 whole cities, and can render a patch of land uninhabitable.... an then you decided that it can also work as a powerplant.... and you put it on a boat that supposedly runs underwater... with no air..... for months.... and can shoot targets on the other side of the planet? You nuts?
Space travel: sooo you shoot people in giant rockets out of the earth so they can basically check how it is up there... and then there was a guy who put a "car" on it and shot it towards other planet, just because he could.... ok.... OH and the rocket landed? Yeaaah someone get the white suits here, this man lost his mind.
And on and on and on. Granted, in our current state of technology its impractical (but no longer impossible, just extremely expensive) but that doesnt mean that itll be impractical forever. We just need one person/company/goverment creating one "because we can and we can afford it", check if it works and if it does, i guarantee others will do it aswell.
There were far more "useless" inventions that worked.
Idk but the rocket one sounded way to accurate
Essentially the only way for mechs to be practical is, like in every big peace of media ever, for a big advance in technology that would be most usefull in a bi pedal walker with manipulators. Or a mech.
The thing is it isn't just expensive, the inherent design of a mech doesn't provide any advantages that would allow it to replace tanks. Smaller guns, worse armour, more logistics issues (Biggest one, wars are won by logistics not who has the biggest gun) etc
@@solthegamer3769 Sail ships were vastly more versatile, safer and better than steam engine ones around the latters beggining. Even Napoleon said that "No sane man would light a big furnace aboard a ship". Then the metal-hull ships at their beginnings, which were immobile, prone to failures and couldnt even reach the full ocean, not to say safely sail trough it.
Yet you dont see wooden sail ships as a main tool of sea travel or naval combat ;).
@@gronthgronth2628 None of those were inherent issues in the steam ships' design. They were mainly kinks that came as a side effect of the design, and were ironed out later. By design, a Mech has (compared to a tank) a much larger profile, worse armour, smaller gun, and is much, much more complex and expensive
Power armor might be the way forward if tech advances far enough
drones...
its all going to be ai driven drones.
@@catnium Untill someone pops a EMP and your drones start raining down :P
Or in terms of AI control someone uploads a virus to them. Nope human control is most reliable ;)
@Jacob St.Clair r/woooosh
More of a fan of exoskeleton and power armor kind... a very... thick power armored kind. Love those excessive protection, makes you feel like you are in control even in the most dire of situation. Edge of tomorrow got the right idea, could use some more thick armoring though.
there is two important rule of military equipment it's need to be Easy to repair and a build bc you are in a war you don't have the time to start a 2-5 day repairing need to be simple as possible can so the harsh environment and use don't dammage the wepon. If we just speaking of tanks and other land velinces its need to be low as possible can and hide all the weak spots. Now if you use a mech in a war the mech has way to many compments just to move and this is just a lower body if you hit a mech extremities with a HEAT warhead the mech has been knock outh of the entire battle bc you can't replace a leg in jut 1-2 ours and also it has very high profile so its hard to hide compare to the lack of fire power and too many weakspots.
It boils down to Who would win?
A multimillion dollar, skyscraper tall death machine
Or
One brave boi with a $2000 RPG and tandem warhead or one flying boi dropping a JDAM.
One skinny boi shooting an rpg to the mechs knee.
1 rear area maintenance boi who used the wrong type of "high-tech" grease on one of the mech's bearing surfaces.
Jamsheed the RPG god
The truth is that any technology that would make a giant mech possible, could be applied to tanks instead for a better result. The only use I can think of for a giant humanoid robot would be search and rescue, something that can grapple down a cliff side and pull up a car or something.
In which way upgraded tank
@@whiteeye3453 A humanoid mech thing would need a massive energy supply and super durable and light armor. If you applied those upgraded technologies to current tank designs instead you would have a vastly better design than the mech you made with the same tech.
@@Khyrid but still tank wouldn't go anywhere and this only aplays to when you favor tanks
@@whiteeye3453 Why wouldn't the tank go anywhere? Why would it matter what you favor? The specs are the specs, the human form has more surface area which means thinner armor compared to a tank made the with the same type of and quantity of materials. The tank can also move faster with treads.
I guess if you favor getting blown away in one shot easily than the mech might be preferable. The humanoid form is terrible for combat. To get into a tactical low profile like a tank it has to go prone, it's speed would be awful. Otherwise it's an easy target.
The only feasible humanoid mech in combat would be some kind of multitask search and rescue that would be scaled way down in size and facilitate moving heavy objects, climbing to reach stranded objectives, manipulating the environment, building defenses etc. These would not go up against tanks.
@@Khyrid who are you tank expert ?
tank cannot go to mountins ,jungles or rough terrain .
why are you devalu mech when tank is not perfect but cheap so it dosen't matter what is better but one thing is for centrain mech has more use than infrastructure
Nice little documentary explanation you did there. Really enjoyed it. Mechs would be very vulnerable on the battlefield in all spectrum of warfare. Though I still want my Marauder! One thing I would like to say, hopefully it hasn't been mentioned a dozen times, grousers for tank tracks are actually like tire chains. They stick out a little more then the pads and press into the icy ground for traction. You only place a grouser alternatively every so many shoe.
I think the greatest thing to do with mechs, is to mix them in a combined arms group. A table top known as Heavy Gear utilizes mechs and Tanks. Height is a problem, and shouldn't ever get more than 30 feet at most. I can't see them in the same kind of battles as tanks, but working side by side with air, infantry, APCs/IFVs, and tanks, a mech could add another bit of versatility to the whole side. Still, as much of an advocate as I am for them, I know that they have flaws as well but this has been said from the very beginning as weapons and tools change over time.
mechs in titanfall started off as exo suits for terra forming planets and mainly used as wide spread farm equipment. when the war broke out, they just tossed guns on the mass produced farm equipment then went to war
Too add to this comment, titanfall exists in a universe where we're already a MULTI planet species meaning theres a lot more resources, and a lot more places to hide and build manufacturing. Additionally they had large ships and drop ships that could handle the transport/recovery situation of mechs. This resource rich, high tech travel capability, is one of the many key things needed for sonething like mech warfare to become possible.
Solution? Have a giant mech grab a tank and use it as a gun
I’d love to see an analysis of a hybrid mech-tank like the one in Advanced Warfare. Treads for smooth terrain, “legs” for rough.
Got the same idea, but im still confused if its actually convenient to design one.
idk about that one, it just feels like you're getting the worst of both worlds. It's like the mech problem except even worse since the effort is split between two different forms of mobility
You make the argument that the humanoid, bipedal form is superior. I would disagree on the basis that this is a very closed way of thinking. A mech should not be characterized by biological creatures as the mech has near limitless possibilities. Tracks, quadropeds with multiple arms, bipeds, a mech is only limited by your imagination and the practicality of the designs. A quadroped is more stable that a biped and a mech can utilize the advantages of 4 legs and have additional appendages available for utilizing different weaponry and enhancing the pilots own ability to be resourceful. Good video overall, sparks some interesting conversations and leads to some amazing ideas. Keep it up.
Bipedal form is more natural for pilot to control. Especially if used with neuro interface, that allows pilot to control mech like their own body, achieving reaction time, that would be nearly impossible for any other vehicle.
a quadroped would be better than a biped the but its still 4 small points were a tracked vehicle has two long points of contact to the ground. they will always easier to stabilize than legged vehicles. the big problem i have with mechs is the complexity, it kind of hard to explain but if you ever play a game called space engineers you will quickly learn that yea... you can make a bad ass mech. but making something with four wheels and a gun is always faster and easier to make and most importantly its way easier to repair. replacing a foot or hand on a mech would be way harder than replacing a tred.
@@ceu160193 Bipeds suck because the larger a center of gravity is, the easier it is to knock them down. Knocked down mechs don't get up instantly and the legs are generally lighter armored if you want mechs to run. Against mechs, I am only bothering to target one leg in battle.
@Alexander Bendyna III
We're still implying that it needs appendages to utilize weaponry instead of using turrets and hardpoints like all actual vehicles. The problem with a quad-ped is it's 4 times as complicated, plus you're making it pretty big. The question then is why? Sure now you can mount a 120mm gun on it but unless you're operating in some sort of truly unusual environment you're better of putting it on a tank.
And no, quadrupeds are not more stable. Have you seen quadies run? They're allover the place.
@ceu160193
Who's going to volunteer to have a hole bored out of their skull so someone can run wires straight into their brain to control a machine that's going to get shot at? I mean, it's a cool idea but I certainly wouldn't do it. I'd rather use pedals and stick controls.
@steven redwine
Why'd you make mechs in SE? That game has literally none of the components necessary without weird and whacky shit just to make things fit. As for easy? I mean, I don't know, hydraulics aren't *that* complicated and you'd be surprised at just how difficult it could be to replace the actual parts that run the tracks. Replacing tracks is easy, replacing the bits that run those tracks is a lot more complicated.
@@dansmith1661 They don't, if pilots control mech same way they control their own body: it would be like becoming a giant soldier with all related capabilities of human. But for conventional controls, yes, they aren't best.
As someone that works on hydraulics and heavy duty equipment for a living. Hydraulics are soooo not ready to work legs in a combat zone. One bullet , you blow a line and your down even if its armored, we have many ways of putting small holes in armor, a high pressure systems worst nightmare... electric motors may be a possibility, but I dont think we're there yet . It's fun to think about tho 😄
Even with armored legs, it'd be impossible to armor them as well as the front of a tank for the same weight, due to the high surface area of legs. Hell, even modern human body armor has very limited leg protection if any, despite the presence of the femoral artery. Even if mechs saw battlefield use, they would have no business going toe-to-toe with tanks.
Most definitely !
@@Morrigi192 not to mention how extremely tall they are... making them easy to spot for miles around
final note, BIG mechs are too heavy to walk, they would almost immediately sink into the ground upon standing. and small mechs offer so little protection that you may as well just use a tank or body armor.
Random thought here, when you were explaining the cube law of mass, I was thinking that may explain why T-Rex has such small arms
Nah t rex arms are thougt to be small cuz evolutoin rooted them out why arms when you have the strongest jaws of any land animal ever and arms arent realy practical when you lean that far forwards just bite and if it whas tanks to the cube law then why were there way bigger dinos line the dipolodcus but the alosourus did have biger arms but he ik just a random guy that stores to many usles facts
Is it weird that this video makes me want to watch 'Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team'?
uh the greatest anime ever? Yes.
Nope it weird that this doesn't mention gundam
HitManSam001 good taste.
Beachhead13 Nope! That’ll be Neon Genesis Evangelion. Even Japanese animation professionals and Japanese scholars acknowledge it.
Neon genesis is dope but Gundam. Is. awesome.
'Mechs are powered by compact fusion reactors in Battletech and balanced by a multi-ton gyroscope with inputs from the pilots neurohelmet using his/her own sense of balance, all things we dont really have now but...theyre still awesome and I want one.
Now imagine a tank with that kind of tech, and even worse a super autonomus tank with super fast reflex and targeting, with a rail canon, it would calculate the shell trayectory and get a perfect hit on any Mech before the Mech can even give the first step to a battlefield.
Every time he said Mechwarriors, i died a little inside, they are battlemechs not mechwarriors ffs, mechwarriors are the pilots. Mechwarriors come from the Battletech universe.
me to!mechwarrior is a pilot lol
Only in your game. He is discussing a SiFi concept and questioning how it might relate to real life. As a none Battlemech, or Mechwarrior , or whatever, fan , I totally got the title and had no issues with his choice of words. Were such machines to be developed at a later date, they would most likely have a military name , acronym or abbreviation that you wouldn't recognize.
Or, to put it another way,neither Mechwarriors nor Battlemechs actually exist.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 hardcore nerds defending their sci fantasy.
@@Lucivius27 FFS ! :-)
Impressed with the number of problems that you discussed. I didn’t come up with that many. I already had thought about problems such as:
- current materials aren’t strong enough to support a mech’s weight and the torque stresses they would be exposed to.
- currently available power sources have too low of a power to weight/volume ratio.
- their silhouette is too high making them an easy target for every gun and missile on a battlefield.
- weapons shaped, supplied, and operated like human weapons are needlessly inefficient.
- a mech’s overall complexity makes them expensive produce and maintain.
- if a country can make weapons, armor, sensors, and power sources advanced enough to make mechs an effective option, they can put the same tech into new amazingly powerful tanks and produce far more of them, and have a higher force readiness.
Yet, the first two problems in this list just on their own are complete show stoppers.
100% agree. as a person in the army I say a small armored exo suit would be the best thing sense it would help in urban and any other environments, and could be useful in any situation this is what is needed.
The biggest plus to a functioning exosuit would be that it would enable soldiers to carry more. Replacing the old biological mule with a mecha equivalent would also be great as we've still not found a suitable replacement for it (and it's still in service in the German and Austrian Armies).
Of course the thing everyone forgets is how do you maintain soldiers exosuits?
@@dernwine at least the exosuits are human sized. worse case scenario, the soldier pulls the emergency release, unlaches from the exosuit, and unfolds a PDW, and later, if you secure the area, 2-10 guys can drag the mangled exo to a depot to repairs. Try dragging a 40 ton mech instead of a even a 400 kg armorsuit tho? woof.
so instead of mechs...we should have ZOIDS!
zoids are awesome they would be perfect and solve many of the problems that mechs have.🙂
Zoid is mech mate.
@@kirra9152 yep but not in humanoid shape
@@whitewolf3359 humanoid weakness can shoot by easy attacking cannon ship or machine gun
Technically Zoids are mechs and I find that their animal inspired designs to be much more efficient and effective than humanoid designs. More stable, excellent space to place weapons systems, natural weapons, less of a target, the cockpit is comparatively small and hard to aim at, and so forth.
I think mech won't replace tank... but works well as a Heavy Assault infantry and support (example: Carry heavy loads or clearing obstacle)
1:07 one of the coolest mech ever,btw it's from the film District 9
Lols, do what Armored Core did, put a robot torso on a tank tread for legs...with a bunch of rocket boosters.
I agree on your assessment on tanks; they're undoubtedly less complex, & have higher survivability than potential humanoid mechs would have, but imo it isn't like mechs wouldn't have their advantages.
For one mechs would probably have the ability to cross broken terrain(if they didn't have this feature there'd be no point in trying to build one) at the very least they will probably be tall enough to cross rivers without external help, something that tanks cant do.
You'll also have a higher vertical clearance that tanks would, you can possibly hop through obstacles that can stop tanks in their tracks.
I agree that mechs will have a much higher target profile making it easier to hit them, but their height means a higher vantage point & they'll be shooting down.
Just think of it this way, the soldier lying prone on the ground will be a bigger target compared to soldier shooting while standing, but the one standing will have an easier time hitting the one lying on the ground compared to say another soldier lying down.
I prefered the chicken legs.. in armored core and a few battletech mechs have those too as oppose to more human looking legs.
@@bjrabang3111 Mechs in battletech are not only seald from vaccume but are also able to walk the sea floor and there are even torpedo launchers that replace the Missile launchers for underwater work, and then there's jumpjets the thruster that allows 100 tons or less of a mech to jump into the air to jump over say canyons or other things, i imagine the mech can also jump by itself by using it's own legs.
But tanks will always need a longer runup to do so... mechs can do so from even just from a stopped position. Plus, assuming that technology will advance so that a mech's movement will become more & more human-like to the point that there's basically no difference between a human & mech, I believe that has value in a military setting.
I wont argue about cover & whatnot, my knowledge of it is painfully limited to game world physics, & wont know how it will pan out when the real world is concerned.
I'll also concede that more hands will be more beneficial than a single pilot if we're talking about current technological standards but in the future who knows?
A.I. might be advanced enough to forgo the need of more than a single pilot.
Also I have the feeling that you're faintly assuming that it's a 1 vs. 1 or that it'll mostly be a 1 vs. the situation. Infantry sortie in groups, tanks do, choppers do, planes do, heck, even ships do, so why should mechs be any different?
As far as coordinated assaults go or in combined arms warfare I dont think mechs will perform any less than tanks would simply because tanks have more bodies in them. I dont think any military will approve of such a thing.
As for the original title, I don't think that mechs will ever replace tanks but I do think they will work beside them.
Tanks have their advantages & it's also undeniable that they're pretty damn good at doing what they're built to do, so much so that even in the fiction where mechs are supposedly dominant tanks are still there, but to say flat out that mechs are never going to be a possibility because they have nothing but disadvantages? That's the thing I don't buy.
@@bjrabang3111 In battletech mechs deploy in groups of 4 , a lance or in groups of 5 a Star (Clan) or there's the word of blake "level' or something that's 6 (they tried to one-up the clans)
A "mechwarrior" is the pilot of a battlemech or omnimech in the BattleTech/MechWarrior franchise.
Also, yes, flat-facing armor is effectively thinner when struck from the front. But if you fire on sloped armor from a high angle, the same is true.
A Mech can also fire into the thin top armor, or utilise specialised shells that explode a HEAT charge downwards, without the need for complex hop-up systems like in a Javelin. It can also, should it come close enough, stomp on the top armor, potentially wrecking the cannon and/or jamming the turret ring.
EDIT: Also, sloped armor mechs exist. Crab, Marauder, Catapult, Mad Cat, Raven, the new Jenner look, etc etc. In fact, even the new Hunchback has sloped armor on the front!
@@draconianwarkingYeah, no, try 3-4 KMs for tanks, urban environments aside. As for getting close, it isn't easy, but that ONLY applies to melee. A mech still has a good shot to hit the thin top armor from a good distance, especially if it mounts missiles (which it would, because there's no point putting a tank-like BFG on it). Melee ranges in urban environments though? Easily. A mech can also ford marshes better than tanks (because submerging even most of the leg only slows it down, doesn't stop it - much like a case with humans or animals) and flank them or get up close and personal that way.
@@draconianwarking I have, actually. And the marsh isn't gonna be as sticky, while the actuators are more powerful than human muscles. Arming a mech with ATGMs is bloody logical because they don't weigh much, nor does it have to be its only weapon system (most AFVs nowadays carry them in some from or another, in case you forgot). Tanks don't carry ATGMs? What year do you live in, 1950? Through-bore missiles are a thing since at least T-90A. Weight distribution is a thing, but unlike a tank, you have several meters of clearance and everyone using the argument seems to forget that a mech submerging its foot up to an ankle into the mud is not gonna be NEARLY the same problem as the tank submerging up to that same level, unless your mech is tiny (in which case you might as well repurpose it into power armor and distribute it among the infantry). In fact, if the mech is as tall as a Leo 2 is long, (7.7 meters), the foot may well be almost a meter tall. The mech submerged a meter in mud can still keep walking easily enough, a tank submerged half that in mud might well not be going anywhere for a while and is probably sinking into that mud. The fact we can't make them with our tech doesn't make them unviable as combat vehicles, much like how a fighter jet wouldn't've been unviable in early WWII, and the story with the jet engine was actually a lot similar - why have a jet engine when you have a piston engine? They're so unreliable and work for so little, unlike ICEs! Surely that means they will never be widely used!
@@draconianwarking What happens to your foot when you step on things? Do you sink? Do cats sink? Do horses? You have a far greater ground pressure per cm² than a tank. Also (though that's on video) mechs would never render tanks obsolete for one simple reason, same as helis didn't make planes obsolete: a tank does the job of a tank like no other AFV can. A mech's niche would be different.
@@draconianwarking No, it's like advocating to not immediately dismiss an idea like rotary winged aircraft (people did, just like what you do now). ALL AFVs are less armed and armored than a tank, so why isn't tank the only AFV? Well because it's bloody stupid to try and plug tanks everywhere. Any tech advancement in a mech would apply to *tanks* too, and they've reliably been the most expensive (darn it autocorrect) AFVs built throughout their history. An AFV with all-terrain capabilities that laugh at thick mud, marshes, prep time for fording 5-meter rivers and inclines any other AFV would be sliding off of precisely because they can't dig into them, what use could it have?
Well, what use does a more complex than plane, slower than a plane, and with a lower ceiling than a plane aircraft has? If it's 1950, the answer is none. If it's 2019, we have transport helis, air-IFV helis, attack helis, recon helis. Out of all those niches the helicopter at its dawn was envisioned only as a transport, so of course anyone nowadays would have trouble coming up with niches for a mech - there's a good historical precedent for that very problem that was faced with every new type of locomotion.
Tanks are by all means superior in concept, and was formed of necessity, mechs are a work of fiction. They are not great weapon platforms, but might be used for construction and various logistical purposes.
I doubt it , honestly they are just way to expensive , one well placed rifle shot can cost you millions.
And thats on the small 10m or smaller mechs.
Honetsly paying 100 soldiers for their life and even their amilies after you die would be cheaper than a single platoon of mechs
"Smooth ride" is not a correct statement for a tank^^ its actually more like a speedy boatride over medium waves...
Actually a think mechs would be smoother most of the time. It would be more apparent in uneven and bumpy terrain. Also, if you could mimic the ankle movements and spring-like motion of the legs and feet, it could be especially smooth.
Well most tanks have gyro stabilizers to keep the turret accurate
twangy peppers I mean for insanely uneven ground. Yes the stabilizer is useful, but a mech would have that too. It would come to limitation on the angle the turrets/guns could aim. Also, I am describing the ride lol. I’m saying a mech can be a smooth ride too
I've rode on an M60A3 Patton into one of the muddiest god damn fields I've ever seen and while going over dead trees and doing it at about 20-30 MPH. I don't know what land vehicle would've been a smoother ride. MAYBE a hovercraft? So, yes. Smooth ride. Especially when you consider how old the Patton is and tank suspensions are only improving.
@@twangypeppers4531 yeah, but they don't stabilize the crew :P riding anything tracked is bumpy as fuck. It can be fun though
GUYS I DID TONS OF RESEARCH ON THIS! LET ME TELL YOU WHY WE DON'T BUILD MECHWARRIORS. Like seriously dude, you can't even get the basic name right?
What if he actually meant to say "mech warriors"... like warriors that happen to be mechs.
sciencetist and engineer community learning seriously
I totaly see mechs taking over the construction, and firefighting in the future.
In one story I'm writing, there’s three types of mech designs that different factions use. One is just an all-out blitz mech. Just guns and thick armor. And unfortunately it's a slow gas guzzler. The second is a versatile mech with four crewmembers crammed inside, meant to be light with removable parts and an internal LFTR cell to generate immense power. It requires a lot of maintenance but it's nimble. And the third is just the kugelpanzer but with arms. It's more of an armored vehicle than a tank but it's fast, easy to repair and it's so simple a child can drive it, and in some factions they do.
I want to say , that all these are good points... IF the mechs acted ALONE. In combat you are never alone, in fact a sensible strategy is in a combined arms approach where each unit (tanks, infantry, planes, ... Mech ) complement and protects each other weakness in combat. Mechs could be used as scouts or support infantry/tanks as a good mobile gun. (Think light tanks in ww2) though they wouldn't be able to get many AT hits.
Lord Zephyros without forgeting that today warfare isnt between nations but between nations and militias so most "disadvantages" are negated
Why build a scout mech when a small drone with a camera would work just as well and cost less too. They're already using drones today for street fighting. Like for example dropping small bombs on enemy soldiers hiding in alleys and behind street corners.
@@onlypeaceindeath he is saying it could be used as a scout because sometimes you don't have access to drones
the video title asks will mech's REPLACE tanks not work with them, but you are right
@L u no i mean that in wars where a mech would be deployed there are going to have a lot of other things with them such as tanks and other elements and if the drones are armed they will be tasked with other missions such as destruction of enemy heavy weapons, it is part of the reason the military still uses armored scout units, also small light drones don't always have the range needed for scouting reliably the closest ones that do are used in special forces and don't have a lot of broadcast range
most of these mechs are powered by nuclear reactors which kinda does and doesn't solve the fuel problem because that becomes more of production vulnerability, additional costs and complexity as well as a political nightmare to stir it all up.
I think a great thing to look into for mech progression is Armored core, where they gradually evolved from basically walking gun platforms, to thruster-powered hover-mechs into mechs with 3D-capable movement possibly even achieving true flight, being vastly more agile than anything conceived of today.
I do feel most of the issues are technology related, however the roll a mech would play on a battle field seems like it would be more supportive as wheeled weapons platforms would be much cheaper, but it's ability to construct defensive positions in almost any terrain would be a huge advantage. I mean a dozer sized mech would be able to deploy tank traps and such faster than people and even dig out trenches for tanks to lower their profile and even create paths for wheeled combat units through rough terrain.
I guess what I'm saying is, as cool as it is to have that kind of tech on the battlefield, you could have more smaller flying craft for the same price, more guns on the field, smaller targets and just as, if not more, agile. The only advantage a mech has is hands, which now that I think about it, you could strap to just about anything.
Also like Gundam mechs that combine with tanks mod or mech mod
Battletech used fusion reactors so yes nuclear but Fusion is a lot cleaner than fission, but a lot harder to achieve.
@@sheilaolfieway1885 but not a problem in future right?
@@chongchun8979 According to battletech, no, they're expensive though, cheaper Industrialmechs (commercial) commonly use huge diesel [refered to as ICE {Internal Combustion Engines} engines that used along with hydrogen fuel cells. But fusion engines are even used on tanks and aircraft. so clearly their deemed safe enough and tend to run for a long time without refueling, special notes even have mechwarriors going to the bahtroom to refuel the engine...
With all due respect, he doesn’t know his battle tech lore. This is all explained in the lore.
Not really, no. What's especially never explained is why armour in BT is ablative, when it is not, IRL, why AFVs need extra shielding for their fusion plants when 'Mechs do not, or why one person can have situational awareness equal or superior to that of a three-person AFV crew.
I've played BT for over three decades now, but it's a *game*. One that *started* with the premise "let's have giant robots fighting wars".
@@jochentram9301 could the extra shielding be required due to problems with the miniaturization of the power plant? The smallest mech I've seen is still something like 2 stories tall, much larger than even the German Maus.
@@jochentram9301 as for situational awareness, do they have augmented reality and AI? Could make it so that one guy can see 360 degrees around the mech while the AI alerts them to potential threats or targets of interest.
@@overboss9599 Mechs are taller than tanks, sure, but usually in the same weight class as AFVs; the latter range from about 20 tons to some 70 tons nowadays. Note that one big reason heavier vehicles are jot built is that it's already a pain to plan operational movement for a 73-ton Abrams, because most bridges can't handle that much weight (and the ones that do can handle one or two vehicles of that calibre). Incidentally, Maus was nearly twice as heavy as the heaviest BattleTech Mech, and that weight was one of the reasons the project was cancelled.
As for reactor shielding, that requires dense materials, like lead, gold, platinum or iridium. Lead isn't ideal (there are denser materials), but it's cheap, so that's what we use. A spacefaring civilisation may well opt for gold or iridium. At least the latter is fairly plentiful in the asteroid belt. The difference in distance should be largely irrelevant; x-ray, beta and gamma aren't much impressed by a few metres of air, though alpha is.
BattleTech doesn't have AI, the recent video game notwithstanding. They do have the technology to provide a vehicle crew with 360-degree vision in all spectra from UV to IR, with some image enhancement. Canonically, though, that tech can be built into a tank just as easily as a Mech; there are at least three canonical tank designs that have that capability.
@@jochentram9301, there also protomechs what are even lighter than battlemechs and also don't have problems with reactor.
I'm surprised how thorough and detailed this analysis is!!! Reference real world facts to study different aspects of the subject.
A smaller version of a "zoid" is most probable imo. Quadruped, stable, agile. IDK. A battle tiger makes more sense to me than a battle person.
Personally I doubt they'll replace tanks, but they can still be useful.
As a utility construction unit or for space exploration, maybe.
Hmmm... good, but I was thinking more like a new infantry unit or a advance recon vehicle with a lot of fire power.
MBT are already on the way out, too may man portable systems can make a tank combat ineffective. Also are too heavy to cross many bridges.
Yes, when a piece of technology that cost 9 million$ can be taken out by one or two 300k $ personal equipmen, it means that the 9million$ is getting outdated.
@@SimpleNobody2420 why would a mech be good at advance recon?
Advance recon favours small, unobtrusive, things that are hard to see. This is why the CVRT was such an excellent reconnaissance vehicle. It was small and easy to hide. This is why close target reconnaissance is done on foot. A upright walking thing that has a big silhouette is probably the last thing you'd want.
Unless I'm mistaken, the one subject you did NOT cover, is how easily mech's would be targeted by aircraft and their missiles, guns and smart, (gps guided), bombs. ....Both jets and helicopters. So... Realistically, no. Mech's will not replace tanks. But I do agree that we might see individual troops equipped with power armor. Also, you can't apply mechanical physics to organic physics in regards to how much weight an organic giant would weigh. Look at dinosaurs and their bone and muscle structures. All of that being said, I do feel that this was, (for the most part), a well thought out video.
Jason Lang this more like a fantasy
@@juanjorge751 nope time traveler mech from far far away of future
Agreed. Large mechs are very impractical. But once smaller power sources become available, something like Tony Stark's ironman suit is a very good idea. Although, flying is probably not going to be very realistic for a long time. But giving our squishy bodies some protection and enhancing our limited strength with a powered suit is a very good idea. Although smaller and lighter is likely better. So maybe more like Black Panther than Ironman. But all of this requires tech that isn't ready for primetime yet. With existing technology, tanks and other armored vehicles make more sense.
Explain how I built a Zaku II just last week, checkmate.
Won't even tell you the MPG my Dom Tropen gets,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,errrghhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,it's not good, not at all ! However,,,,,,,,,,,,, thruster feet MF'ers :-p
gunpla
see they're not taking mobile suits into account- the video seemed to focus on the GIANT mechs of Pacific Rim when its a negative point, and focus on Titans for all the good points- but see thats where a Mobile Suit would come into play, its the marriage of the two, the perfect fit.
Flips board
*no game no life intensifies*
@@paulo0389 Yes they even tell why a mech can function and win against a tank cause its not just the mech, but also jamming and stealth making targetting it with automated systems a hell of a job.
the mechwarrior is the pilot not the mech itself!. this misuse bothers me a lot more than it should
Don't worry your not alone on that
Glad I am not the only one.
Haha I knew I wasn't alone
@Suffer No Fools oh, so the cars need to be called drivers beacuse thay are used by drivers??? intresting logic mate. XD
@Suffer No Fools That explains a lot.
I think if battlemechs become adopted into a modern military, they would play an infantry support role just like tanks, but won't replace them. They would have more menuverability and dexterity, but less fire power, durabilty, and reliability than a tank.
Really good video, but I think one should not give up on mechs yet - not until there's at least 30 years of use & evolution ( like the tanks had from their creation up to WW2, where they were utilized to the fullest ).
Some problems, like the unconfortable ride could be solved by either some sort of softening gyro-cabin for the pilot or the mech having two modes of transportation; one with its bipedal ( or qudrupedal ) legs for slow ( like... up to 20km/h max speed ) and tracks/wheels for higher velocities. The transportation issue could be solved partially by those wheels/tracks as well, but it would also have to include some sort of compact position ( like i.e. on it's knees/hurled down on tracks or something like that ).
What I'm talking about are mechs up to 5m max, which would be that heavy, although there would have to be an excessive testing stage for reliable, stable and practical designs.
Overall I think it is flawed to compare mechs to tanks ( mechs being the next 'evolution' of a tank ). On an actually battelfield there would be use of both of them, but I think the area and type of operation mechs & tanks would differ as they would have different roles. I can imagine mechs would be capable in guarding outposts and areas or in/on the hills/mountain regions.
As for them being vunerable to bigger calibre shots, like a shell fired from a tank => I don't think that any military would send these expensive things on the battlefield without any form of active/passive defense...
Gasaraki probably has the best mix that would actually fit in real-world situation
I’d argue that the mech is not necessarily all that practical, but I would argue “exosuits” are quite viable, a human inside a relatively small(as in smaller than a tank) you could have a single unit about twice the size of a normal person with the firepower of a whole squad! Rocket pods, miniguns, autocannons, grenade launchers, the possibilities are quite tempting. And the problems of the larger scale mech are minimized by the fact that it’s just a suit enhancing already existing mechanisms, our bodies. I think Madox is a good example of what I’m talking about.
Astoflo The sucker Counting the fact you could just blast the person with anti material weapons is problematic
I like Ants when she last time you needed weapons like that too take out infantry?
Astoflo The sucker True but is it really worth it to make a few infantry units need different weapons to eliminate? If that did happen then the enemy would just make more anti material weapons. True that it would be an effective option for stalling the enemy early on. Forcing the enemy to slow down and pull back infantry to combat the new threat. The problem is then what? They are too specialized, The whole point of infantry is to be versatile and to do something motorized infantry can't. Having an exosuit is just turning your infantry into slow clunky motorized infantry. So why not just take a armored tank?
Astoflo The sucker By the way when I say motorized infantry. I meant to say mechanized infantry.
I like Ants because as you said infantry are more versatile, imagine a 3 man squad in a building having the firepower too kill tanks, kill 30 men in mere seconds without as many sacrifices too speed, and even serve in a limited anti aircraft role depending on the weapons mounted for the job, the appeal is not in protection for the infantry, but making them jacks of all trades, which I think could have a use in modern war.
Great video. Some of my buddies and I have had this very conversation. An exo suit or power armor maxing at 8-12 feet would be about it. This would still allow movement in cities and bad terrain as well.
I'm not gonna lie... I spent the first part of the video screaming, "PHYSICS! ECONOMICS! COMMON SENSE!" at the screen. Thanks for making the second part of the video a well-researched explanation of why mechs are a stupid idea. Cool, yes... but stupid.
U forgot that government spend billions for warfare tech like F35 and F22s
A battlemech cannot replace tanks, but small mechs or robots with only small arms or light ordenance, mybe a bit bigger than humans. could be a complementary vehicle to tanks and infantry.
Each tool has its purpose not every machine can do everything
SHANNON ROBERTS japan is working on a 1/1 gundam for the animes 40th
@@tuckerodonnell9269 the expense of making mechs to fight tanks needs to beat a specific ratio to be considered cost effective against soldiers.
Bryan A.P.OS.G of course and in that instance wed be looking at mechs slightly bigger than humans that can carry light but powerful weaponry into areas where you dont wanna be noticed right away
@@tuckerodonnell9269 exosuit very strong on human bone can breaking opener need
Although the idea of small exoskeleton armor suits is way better, you're basically a walking tank with much less fire power of course. So i guess thats the solution, exoskeleton suit with alot of armor but not alot that it would be slow. Speed is key in warfare and a humanoid mech not large but small is going to be quick on its feet
Just gotta use those anime super mobility limitless fuel rockets
if you look in the battletech universe, there are such suits thay call "battle armor" whitch is baisicly that: as exo-suit that gives you great strength, mobility, and firepower. and i prsonally think tahy can be effective in modern combat.
some more info if you are intrested: www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Armor
Nerd: "Can't really cover all those joints in armor without limiting mobility."
WH40k: "Bet."
Most tanks also use gyro stabilizers to make sure the weapon stays on target
Bipedal Platforms are indeed a logistics nightmare if used in the context of Conventional Operations. However, one may wonder if the same is still a problem in a Special Operations scenario. To illustrate, Modern Armored Warfare utilizes mass maneuvers in a specific area of operations and this maneuver's mobility and momentum are imperatively supported by a logistics train that deliver in volume and promptness. However, Mechs, let say in units of four (Lance for Brevity & Mechwarrior terminology), which is a standard fire team in infantry may be tasked deep penetration Hit and Run Missions of Industrial Size Objectives. A Lance, composed of Medium or Light Mechs, may be inserted behind enemy lines to create Havoc and disrupt enemy supply lines provided these Mechs don't rely on fossil fuel to run. An Army or Defense force would not need to manufacture or maintain a large Mech force. A Twenty Lance Mech Regiment supported with on hand spare parts to replace limbs may be used in Support Roles or Special Operations role; for now.
mechs would probably end up looking like something from the armored core game
mechs shouldn't be super huge maybe like 15 ft.- 20ft. they would be best in urban environments with close air support
the mechs whould have medium size is say 5 meters or 10 meters or less because for the urban combat and have movility tecnology is say again propellers ,wheels etc and have support to the infantry and anti aircraft for missiles having his pros and cons and i said is would have a mech in real life
@Suffer No Fools thats what a mech is!
@Suffer No Fools and at one point in our history people laughed at the creator's of flying machines said to them that itll never happen but look we can at supersonic speeds. Yes ur right....right now but give it 10 maybe 20 yrs yes there will be. But people like me an you will never be pilots we are to old
Small mechs as infantry fighting vehicles would probably work maybe around two story tall or less. Like something out of that game nobody knows called front mission. Give them large caliber guns with AA and AT. Give em tracks at the bottom of the legs for faster and smoother movement when needed and even remove the arms to save on budget. I can see this somehow work. This would seem absolete but tanks for example don't have as much as an impact as in WW1, they are most effectively used when fighting other tanks or to destroy enemy cover. Infantry fighting vehicles are better suited as long as they're not fighting other armored vehicles so I can see mechs in the military being used. If some country uses a mech in a war with great effectiveness others will definitely catch on just like when the tanks were first introduced.
mechs will likely always be best as human augmentation, like an Iron Man/War Machine suit, not as a massive titan.
Great video, thank you.
Any chance of doing on one smaller mechs; something like Planetside2's MAXs or MechWarrior's Elementals?
MAXes are kinda slow
So I crunched some numbers on this, and I think that the advantage mechs (and robotic legged vehicles) have over tanks is that they might require much less power to move each ton of its own weight. This means that if fuel supply is held constant (if you built a 17 meter tall mech that weighed roughly the same as an M1A1 abrams tank, and carried the same volume of fuel), the mech would be able to carry a much higher payload (bigger guns/more weapons systems). Alternatively, the mech would be able to move faster if they were carrying the same armaments.
what numbers did you crunch? a mech that big would require ludicrous engineering as its dimensions are way bigger than an abrams (they are 8m long) plus the weight dispersion means that even if you did manage to make a mech that converts fuel to energy at a more efficient rate then a tracked vehicle, it would likely trip or get stuck.
I don't even have to watch the video to know the author knows nothing about proper tank warfare.
You really should since he's decently informed I guess?
Proper tank warfare has nothing to do with this question.
@@BradleyGibbs
Yes, yes it does. And the fact that you think it doesn't shows you're not really qualified to offer an opinion on it. If you don't know how tanks fight and what their strengths are and how to use them, you don't know what will be better than them. What you're saying is the equivalent of me saying "proper knowledge of aerodynamics has nothing to do with flying." If you aren't aware and don't know about how the current system and methods work, you SURE AS HELL aren't qualified to talk about its replacement.
@@BradleyGibbs I will second what matchesburn said, proper utilization of the subject for its designated purpose is rather crucial in addressing a possible replacement- its practicality and what it would hypothetically entail upon entering service.
matchesburn The original question is like asking is beef better than chicken? You don’t need exact facts or know how the different foods effect your body to have an opinion. The original question has an obvious answer that the creator points out. You don’t need to know How tank/ modern warfare works in order to know the correct answer. Now stop bragging that you know about tank warfare ya geek
I have to agree with you on the combat side of the Applications of the Mech, But how about the applications of small Construction mechs, I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.
In Battletech it was the indtroduction of viable indstrialmechs (construction,farming and other commercial applications) that lead to the battlemech.... somehow Battletech mechs had the technology to make them possible.
Actually, it took in-universe a long time until actual mechs could be build, most of the essential systems were originally developed for other purposes and went trough many advancements and breaktroughs before someone even thought about building a vehicle with legs instead of wheels with it.
@@heiniknallkopp9688 The Mackie was the culmination of many things.
Great job, awesome video. Thanks for the run down.
I think the most optimal form of control for a mech would be a direct brain interface. Mech pilots would basically have sensors implanted throughout their brain, and then would connect directly to the mech with some port in their head. The result is the normal commands for movement of the body would be intercepted from the brain. Rather than moving their own body like they normally would, they'd be moving the mech as if it was their body. Also with connections directly to the brain, it could be possible to feed visual information to the brain directly, so the mechs optics would basically serve as the pilot's eyes.
The good example of the mech and pilot is the Titanfall Universe.
Mech can be a problem, but the bigger problem is up to the pilot.
You can clearly see that Titan are much more mobile and agile than many other mech, even top the TSF mech from Muv-Luv universe. The 2 only mech that can top the mobility than Titan are Mobile suit (fucking Gundam ofcourse) and Variables Fighter from Macross series.
The Pilot of the Titanfall universe act as a perfect example of "How all Mech's Pilot should be." There sheer strength, reflex and movement has to be trained like hell. These kind of heavy training to obtain the "Combat Certificate" for Titan's pilot further enhanced there ability to piloting there own Titan.
In the lore, only 2% of the pilot candidate has graduated to be a pilot.
One of their test were to have the candidate do a 20 km run and continue shooting the R97 SMG in full auto and have to control the bullet spread of 25 cm at 25 range. That's how all pilot should be. Not in like many other series that once you're not in cockpit, you're pretty much useless.
Yeah and with a tank, the crew requires way less training.
A problem with mechs that you didn't touch on is the energy problem, firstly, it's not the simplest thing in engineering to translate an engine into human-like arm and leg movements, might be doable with a battery but now you have to figure out how and where your batteries and ammo are mounted, and how you still fit the crew, sensors, field maintenance tools, etc. in; especially keeping in mind that the arms and legs are mostly going to be joints and actuators so you won't be storing much in there, meaning that to match the operational time and fire capacity of a tank you'll need a heavier mech- which means a higher energy quota, which means more weight until you finally find some window of efficiency which gives you a mech that can match the operational usefulness of a tank, expect it weighs much more, is a much larger target, and breaks down much easier- not to mention how much more expensive it is to produce and maintain.
So I have discovered your channel. I liked it A LOT, really. That's why I'm going to start from the first video and watch themm all. Like them and comment them!
Thanks for this video! One tidbit I learned recently (forgot where I read it from) was that, as long as each mech's foot has a surface area of something like two square meters (3x6'), it can be up to or (quite) a bit over 200 tons and still be fine. (And apparently this was for slightly softer-than-average Earth ground.) I didn't personally verify the math, but it sounds reasonable, and as long as I can somehow logic my 150-plus-ton behemoths onto the battlefield, I'm happy. :)
One topic I'd love to see is a further exploration of this video's topic: what's the ideal size of the machine, given a potential engine/power supply's weight vs. power output? Like you mentioned at the end of this video, does the math/physics is human-sized power armor indeed the optimal size, or something smaller, or something a bit bigger (like Hulkbuster suit-sized)? And maybe for extra credit, considering not just what's optimal, but even what's possible? (Might be cool to consider both real-life power sources/engines, as well as consider theoretical sci fi ones.)
given that even tanks get stuck if theyre too heavy, i dont think those numbers are accurate.
The Panzer VIII maus was easily over 200 tons with 1940's metals built in a dying country, we could build heavier, faster, and stronger tanks that are that heavy.
Giant mechs like titan fall mechs would be bad. Standing up so high can make them easy targets.
By the tech of titan fall, the people of this alternate fiction clearly mastered the ability to make the titan work. It’s a matter of time and technology and innovation. I believe that we could make something like a titan from titan fall. We right now are not able to do so, but I believe that we could in the future. I mean people in the 18th century did not think that we would have tanks in ww1 but it happened. It was such a revolutionary advancement. Same thing can happen in 50-100 years form now. It’s only a matter of time before we have something like a atlas class titan. Warfare always changes and we adapt to those changes.
6 meters is still high and an easy target for "anti mech" weapons in a irl scenario. Think about tanks, all modern militaries design their tanks to have as low of a shiloute as possible, no matter how good their armor is.
Battletech HAS tanks and powered armored supersoldiers aka Elementals already! So using it with such a title is already a huge WTF moment.
TheArklyte but tanks are nerfed to hell
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 in accordance to their weight class?
TheArklyte ?
The best mechs I’ve seen in a realistic military sense is the First generation Knightmares from Code Geass. Easy to produce, enough firepower, and good enough versatility
But they aren't realistic at all
haha no, any bipedal mech design is a stupidly overengineered, expensive and ineffective design in a practicality sense
Definitely make a vid on power armor. I think it may have some of the same draw backs as a mech suit but more advantages.. ultimately it boils done to getting bang for your buck, so power armor presents the same problem of cost vs. firepower.
What about "Armour Core" series, "Chrome Hound". The mech dont have to have human legs.
I'm going to be watching Gundam Wing after this.
Great content! And i agree with your points for the most part. Some very rough cuts though.
“Why doesn’t the military have mechs?” Me: because there fucking hard as shit to build lol
If you could build a tank-sized mech that is somewhat practical, you could also build a tank that's much better (faster, more armour, smaller target, beefier gun).
Battlemechs have many technical and tactical flaws to be considered the ultimate weapon. Even in the battletech universe tanks and armored vehicles are widely used by that reason.
LAMs: muffled by Harmony Gold lawsuit.
....uhh, no! Mechs would actually be worse than tanks in most circumstances.
Pretty much all of them, I should think. They work in BattleTech, because of in-game physics that bear no relation to the real world. E. g., BT tanks require extra shielding for fusion power plants, while Mechs don't, the far lower profile of AFVs does not affect hit probabilities, and armour is ablative and artificially limited for AFVs.
Mechs are impractical. Powered exo suits is where we need to look
@@eftheusempire Except there is currently no power source capable of supplying such suits for long enough to be practical in a military context. Frankly, I'm dubious the physics even allow any such thing outside of very tightly defined scenarios.
>thinking that tech remains stagnant and you can dictate what will and cannot happen @@jochentram9301
Also BT is the most realistic depiction of mechs in current fiction. Also, if you knew the lore of BT, you could answer your own question.
Tanks and most other vehicles in BT run on diesel. Because in the future we learn to artificially-synthesize it. Shielding takes up too much energy for the engine to both operate the vehicle and power this monster of a energy-guzzling shield. So instead of putting 10+ more diesel engines in a tank and carrying god knows how many litres of petrol to keep it going; add a small compact nuclear engine (which in BT exists) for shield power.
Mechs don't have diesel engines. They use compact Fission engines. Which supply ample energy for both a shield and the mech, and even then, you still need a strong enough engine to power the shield, even the Tabletop game reflects this.
@@GriffinKneesock BT Tech Readout 3025 expressly states, in the entry on the Rommel/Patton tanks, that the reason most vehicles use IC engines is that not enough Fusion cores are available for tank production. BT Tech Readout 2750 - the Star League one - features a plethora of Fusion-powered vehicles.
None of which addresses any of the problems of Giant Walking Robots - ground pressure, the huge target profile, or the finicky mechanics of the motive systems. BT handwaves all of that, and adds armour that abrades when hit - which isn't how armour works. Let's not even talk about putting the pilot in the least-armoured part of the system.
Are BattleMechs cool? Sure. I've been playing tabletop BT since the late 80s, because of that, and the cool worldbuilding that went into BT.
Realistic? No.
Why replace? Combined arms, make use of the strengths of each, where appropriate. Tanks are faster on flat ground, simpler to produce and use, and easier to maintain. Mechs can use ground that would founder a tank, have a higher angle of view, and I would assume a wider variety of weapons options. Don't deny yourself a potential weapon, by automatically calling one better than the other and disregarding the advantages both offer.
Nerd explains really change gotta love this guy videos